|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Quick ... does the banner under #6 ring any bells?
Date: 14 Oct 2009 12:10:54
Message: <4ad5f80e$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Quick ... does the banner under #6 ring any bells?
Date: 14 Oct 2009 12:15:15
Message: <4ad5f913$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14-10-2009 18:10, Darren New wrote:
> 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?
My bank and the others are companies, they do things with money even
generate it from thin air but they don't print it. All the banks are
watched by a national bank who does print the money but doesn't have
private customers. You do have that too, I forgot the names of these
things. IANAE however.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14-10-2009 1:59, Darren New wrote:
> 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.
Sure I know of abuse of power at that level. My problem is that I can
not see how this has any effect of health care insurance, regulation of
banks, regulating how election campaigns are funded etc.
>> 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.
I could only assume that it will have some influence. I take your word
for it.
>> 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.
Indeed, cutting down on money for independent news would be a nice thing
to put in some unrelated bill if your (re)election was paid for by a
broadcasting company. At least I think I heard stories of putting
totally unrelated things in a package deal in the US.
>> 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?
Nobody.
>>> 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? :-)
Ever heard of WW2?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14-10-2009 0:48, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 13-10-2009 0:55, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>> Darren New wrote:
>>>> andrel wrote:
>>>>> Children do have bank accounts.
>>>> Huh, OK.
>>> I'm 18 and I don't have one. I only own cash.
>> where do you live?
>
> Argentina.
Interesting to know that it still works like that there. I don't know
much about Argentina. I hoped that when Maxima became our crown-princess
there would be more in the news about south america. Hasn't happened yet.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14-10-2009 18:15, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> 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.
What about some organization that watches over misuse of privacy
sensitive information? I think our government is by law not allowed to
know this information. They can get it in a investigation of a criminal
case, but if they get it in any other situation people might get fired
and ministers send home.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Quick ... does the banner under #6 ring any bells?
Date: 14 Oct 2009 17:31:08
Message: <4ad6431c$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> My bank and the others are companies, they do things with money even
> generate it from thin air but they don't print it.
Right. Same here.
> All the banks are
> watched by a national bank who does print the money but doesn't have
> private customers.
Yes. We have the federal reserve, which creates the money (along with the
individual banks) by basically loaning out money they don't have. The actual
pieces of paper and bills that come out of the ATM are printed by the
Treasury department, which is part of the federal government and not part of
a bank.
So now I understand your distinction. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Neeum Zawan
Subject: Re: Quick ... does the banner under #6 ring any bells?
Date: 14 Oct 2009 17:31:58
Message: <4ad6434e$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/14/09 15:44, andrel wrote:
> On 14-10-2009 18:15, Darren New wrote:
>> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> What about some organization that watches over misuse of privacy
> sensitive information? I think our government is by law not allowed to
> know this information. They can get it in a investigation of a criminal
> case, but if they get it in any other situation people might get fired
> and ministers send home.
Over here, in recent times, if there's an abuse that's discovered, they
often just pass legislation to retroactively allow it in the name of
national security.
That's what happened with the telephone surveillance. I don't know if
what the government did was illegal, but the telephone companies who
agreed to it without the required steps (warrant, etc) *did* break the
law. And last year the Senate voted to retroactively make it legal.
Pre-president Obama flip flopped and voted in favor of immunity. Needed
votes, you know ;-)
There are indications that the CIA, etc were involved in torture and
can be held accountable (it's not really clear). Yet so far this
administration hasn't conducted an investigation - although they keep
suggesting that they _may_.
If they get away with stuff like this, I'm not really hopeful they'll
care that much when it comes to misuse of private information. Perhaps
people don't care that much about the torture (you know, a dirty filthy
Arab terrorist is the victim...), but most don't seem to care about the
surveillance or the library books, which is stuff that involves *them*,
and not someone classified as an enemy.
Once in a while, though, lawsuits are put into motion and the courts
rule against the government. It's a slow process, and doesn't affect
cases like the telephone surveillance where Congress passes legislation
allowing it - unless that legislation turns out to be unconstitutional.
--
"I solved my drinking problem. I joined Alcoholics Anonymous. I still
drink, but I use a different name"
-- Rodney Dangerfield
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Quick ... does the banner under #6 ring any bells?
Date: 14 Oct 2009 17:32:58
Message: <4ad6438a$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> What about some organization that watches over misuse of privacy
> sensitive information?
The problem is that our politicians would have to actually vote to reduce
their own power. That's extrememly rare.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Quick ... does the banner under #6 ring any bells?
Date: 14 Oct 2009 17:33:32
Message: <4ad643ac$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Yes. We have the federal reserve, which creates the money (along with
> the individual banks) by basically loaning out money they don't have.
BTW, that's a private company too, not controlled by the federal government.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|