andrel wrote:
> On 13-10-2009 18:06, Darren New wrote:
>> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>>     Elections don't quite fix that. Just because I elected certain 
>>> "good" people doesn't mean the system will change for the better. The 
>>> president can't just change everything if he wants to.
>>
>> Plus, the USA's legal system isn't like europe. We don't have a 
>> parliment where it makes sense to run a few people on one specific 
>> platform like the Pirate Party. You have to pick someone who has a 
>> whole mix of views (about which they are likely lying), and hope they 
>> agree with you more than they disagree, even if they get elected. 
> 
> I'd rather vote for someone who has though about issues and is willing 
> to try to solve them than for someone who agrees with me.

Sure. We'd all like that. Except for the huuuge number of people who don't 
think real hard and don't appreciate others thinking either.

If you want people to vote for the things you want to see happen, it looks 
like the parliament system works better than ours.

> As an outsider I have my doubts about how 
> ethically they actually were, but that may be just me.

No, it's really not just you. :-)


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> There is a risk associated with cash. I think there is a tendency here 
> to pass regulation that minimizes the cost for the shop owner.

There's a risk to the shop keeper in accepting cash?

>>     Elections don't quite fix that. Just because I elected certain 
>> "good" people doesn't mean the system will change for the better. The 
>> president can't just change everything if he wants to.
>>
>>     I'm guessing that in your country, those kinds of abuses have 
>> probably been a lot rarer - hence more trust for the government.
> 
> I am still in the dark what kind of abuse you are talking about.

Really!?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp

That's one of *many* abuses.

> No, what I think is that for at least the level of senator, but probably 
> even some levels below that, the big companies decide who you can vote for.

They unfortunately also determine how that politician votes, regardless of 
what they promised.

> Why don't you try the BBC model? Oh yes, because someone will pay the 
> senators to prevent that.

We have that. It's called "PBS". The problem is people hear we're in debt 
and taxes are too high, and they cut the funding for stuff like that. Even 
tho it's 0.01% of the funding for something completely unnecessary that the 
politicians want.

> There is no way that any John Doe could figure that out for 
> himself. 

I was amused at some of the stories here where the mortgage brokers and real 
estate agents get loans and later complain they didn't know they were 
adjustable. Come now, if you don't, who would?

> I am convinced our system will cost less on average than yours.

I have no doubt. Indeed, it's almost tautological, since the government is 
the source of money and thus doesn't need a profit.

>>     Well, either way is democratic, if the people supported it. Not 
>> sure what your point is.
> 
> It was an answer to Darren. Why I can not live everywhere that I want to 
> and why I think that is OK.

Yes. I just misunderstood how the rules were set and decided. If there's a 
democratic law about having to fulfill certain conditions, it seems quite 
reasonable. The idea that there's someone deciding on a case-by-case basis 
whether you, yes you, get to live in this particular city... that would be 
something else.

>>     Also, there's history behind this. Such laws over here would be 
>> viewed as intending to keep "people we don't like" out (race, 
>> religion, etc). Although perhaps they find legal ways to do that already.
> 
> What makes you think we don't have such a history?

Dunno. Did you ever have a civil war over whether to get rid of slavery or 
not? :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 13-10-2009 6:05, Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> On 10/12/09 17:01, andrel wrote:
>>> Sure, but for us the whole concept of a bank was handling money
>>> including changing into a different currency.
>>
>>     Yes, but you may have been the first person in a year or longer 
>> asking for that currency in that particular branch/bank. 
> Probably, she wanted US dollars. ;)

But she wanted to *give* them your currency, which the bank then has to 
account for, handle, and exchange.  You just went to a bank that doesn't do 
that sort of thing. It would be like going to a personal-accounts bank to 
get a loan to build an office building or something.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> why are you worried about it?"

Grand Theft Auto: "They're only taking away liberties you weren't using anyway!"

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 10/13/09 17:48, andrel wrote:
> On 13-10-2009 5:26, Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> On 10/12/09 14:07, andrel wrote:
>>>> Well, yes. We still have a mite bit more freedom than that in this
>>>> country. :-) People are still allowed to deal purely in cash if they
>>>> want.
>>>
>>> Is there a reason why you would want that freedom?
>>
>> When the Bush administration was caught monitoring phone conversations
>> en masse (and likely illegally), their defense was along the lines of
>> "If you're not calling terrorists, why are you worried about it?"
>
> Yes, a common reply.
>
> Just for argument sake let me try to rephrase this: why would you want
> de deny a company of being able to handle all salary payments uniformly
> and electronically? Why would you want to force them to have an armoured
> truck delivering huge stacks of cash on pay day?

	Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if some employers require direct 
deposit in banks. Although perhaps they'll make exceptions for 
exceptional employees who can give a good reason not to do that (maybe 
the law requires them to handle them - not sure).

	Before I used direct deposit, checks were the standard way. Cash 
payments were rare. People who didn't have bank accounts could go banks 
and get them cashed - although today that tends to raise eyebrows in itself!

	I think that's what Darren meant - freedom not to have a bank and 
perhaps he was equating checks with cash. It's almost the same, really. 
Instead of getting paid by the company, you'll get your salary from the 
bank.

-- 
AAAAA - American Association Against Acronym Abuse

Post a reply to this message

On 14-10-2009 1:50, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> That is national banks, not regular.
> 
> All our banks create money out of nothingness. None of them actually run 
> printing presses per se.

I was thinking you might use it in that way.

>>> but lots of companies will go belly-up when their customers hear of 
>>> nastiness perpetrated by the owners. Especially now in the days of 
>>> internet.
>>
>> Internet was not involved, apart from making it easy to transfer large 
>> sums out of the bank rapidly.
> 
> Internet as a means of distributing information between people who may 
> be friends of those who (say) run television stations.

As such that was not the case.

>> I had not heard before of a bank, or other company for that matter, 
>> that was liquidated by a group of costumers because the CEO/owner had 
>> caused trouble for customers, was considered to be a hard learner, and 
>> could not be replaced in any other way.
> 
> No, that is rather extreme. But there are plenty of small companies that 
> get in trouble by ticking off customers.
> 
> Stuff like this happens too.
>
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/2009/10/09/2009-10-09_black_nfl_players_crush_prospect_of_playing_for_a_rush_limbaughowned_st_louis_ra.html

> 
> 
>> There is this small problem of even more people gotten into trouble by 
>> this bankruptcy than were there in the first place.
> 
> Well, in the USA, most people have their money insured by the federal 
> government. Ever since 1929 or so, the government has made sure a run on 
> your bank won't leave you broke. There are limits, of course, but 
> they're pretty high for most people.

This was a small bank, only about G€8. Our limit is k€100 and apparently 
4000 pass that limit. And about the same number had high risk product 
that imply that in case of a bankruptcy they are paid last, so they 
effectively also lost their money.

Post a reply to this message

On 14-10-2009 1:51, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 13-10-2009 18:06, Darren New wrote:
>>> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>>>     Elections don't quite fix that. Just because I elected certain 
>>>> "good" people doesn't mean the system will change for the better. 
>>>> The president can't just change everything if he wants to.
>>>
>>> Plus, the USA's legal system isn't like europe. We don't have a 
>>> parliment where it makes sense to run a few people on one specific 
>>> platform like the Pirate Party. You have to pick someone who has a 
>>> whole mix of views (about which they are likely lying), and hope they 
>>> agree with you more than they disagree, even if they get elected. 
>>
>> I'd rather vote for someone who has though about issues and is willing 
>> to try to solve them than for someone who agrees with me.
> 
> Sure. We'd all like that. 

I specifically prefer someone who has a consistent view that I don't 
agree with over someone with some vague ideas that might change their 
opinion every few weeks. I am not sure there a re many people that think 
that way.

> Except for the huuuge number of people who 
> don't think real hard and don't appreciate others thinking either.

Which is a really big 'except'.

> If you want people to vote for the things you want to see happen, it 
> looks like the parliament system works better than ours.

don't trust on that ;)

Post a reply to this message

On 10/14/09 00:47, andrel wrote:
>>> I'd rather vote for someone who has though about issues and is
>>> willing to try to solve them than for someone who agrees with me.
>>
>> Sure. We'd all like that.
>
> I specifically prefer someone who has a consistent view that I don't
> agree with over someone with some vague ideas that might change their
> opinion every few weeks. I am not sure there a re many people that think
> that way.

	Sadly, far too many people I know prefer it otherwise. They feel that a 
consistent person is too idealistic, and someone whose changed a lot in 
the past is being pragmatic.

	Pretty much explains the situation we're in.


-- 
DOS means never having to live hand-to-mouse

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 14-10-2009 1:50, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> That is national banks, not regular.
>>
>> All our banks create money out of nothingness. None of them actually 
>> run printing presses per se.
> 
> I was thinking you might use it in that way.

I don't know the difference between what you mean by "national banks" and
 
"regular banks", given that all our banks are national. Maybe a "credit 
union" would be a regular bank here?

>> Internet as a means of distributing information between people who may
 
>> be friends of those who (say) run television stations.
> 
> As such that was not the case.

OK.

> This was a small bank, only about G€8. Our limit is k€1
00 and apparently 
> 4000 pass that limit. And about the same number had high risk product 
> that imply that in case of a bankruptcy they are paid last, so they 
> effectively also lost their money.

Yes, there is that, but it's not too different from other companies. Hey,
 I 
have a lot of stock in Saturn, so I resent nobody buying Saturn cars. :-)


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
>     Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if some employers require direct 
> deposit in banks. Although perhaps they'll make exceptions for 
> exceptional employees who can give a good reason not to do that (maybe 
> the law requires them to handle them - not sure).

For people who don't have that sort of thing, there are products like ATM 
cards that the employer can "load" after a day of work, for example. People 
like migrant workers tend not to keep bank accounts in any one particular bank.

I suspect the company, if pressed, would pay you once in cash and tell you 
not to come back. Just not worth the hassle.

If you're hiring people to work for you today, Thursday, next Monday, and 
then you're done with them, paying them in cash or check makes a whole lot 
more sense than setting up direct deposit that takes the banks 2 weeks to 
organize anyway.

> People who didn't have bank accounts could go banks 
> and get them cashed - although today that tends to raise eyebrows in 
> itself!

Ehn. Depends where you are, really.

>     I think that's what Darren meant - freedom not to have a bank and 
> perhaps he was equating checks with cash. It's almost the same, really. 
> Instead of getting paid by the company, you'll get your salary from the 
> bank.

Right. The point was getting paid in a way that the government didn't 
necessarily know where you are or where you're spending your money.


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message