h a l f b a k e r yI didn't say you were on to something, I said you were on something.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
The 28th Amendment:
No generation may pass debt generated during their time
on Earth to the next generation. By necessity a line
between generations will need to be drawn arbitrarily, in
this case at the 100 year mark.
At the turn of each century, all debts will be wiped out. All
financial
institutions who were making money off this debt
will also be dissolved.
Let it be noted, that the authors of this amendment didn't
bother to see how many constitutional amendments there
are, we think it's something like this but don't really care
so the number might need to be changed.
Drop the Debt: Jubilee 2000
https://en.wikipedi.../wiki/Drop_the_Debt
A laudable notion, but why does it have to be limited to centennial occasions? The original "jubilee" from Leviticus 25:8-13 suggests a 50 year debt cancellation cycle - which is a good idea, albeit one with a heritage measured in actual thousands of years. [zen_tom, Apr 18 2019]
Jubilee laws
https://thetorah.co...-ideal-legislation/
Debt cancelled and land/slave ownership restored on a 50 year cycle [EnochLives, Apr 19 2019]
LOL, god damn this is good.
https://www.youtube...watch?v=uycsfu4574w
Please note the the laughtrack with the obvious loop. [doctorremulac3, Apr 20 2019]
Sub-prime explaination
https://www.youtube...watch?v=q8hjUei-Nwo
Warning: a lot of swearing, as there should be. [wjt, Apr 21 2019]
Elderly working more than in the past.
https://www.bloombe...rk-now-than-in-1985
Get to work grandpa! [doctorremulac3, Apr 22 2019]
The US National Debt according to Wiki
https://en.wikipedi...f_the_United_States
[theircompetitor, Apr 22 2019]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOTWIKI
in reply to the above link [notexactly, Apr 22 2019]
article on america deficit and bond markets
https://www.bloombe...problem-for-markets
[theircompetitor, Apr 28 2019]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
Good reason to run up a substantial dept on the
31st Dec 2099. |
|
| |
So, would this include things like national debt? For the US,
that was something like 6 trillion dollars at the last turn of
the century. It will be something like 50 trillion dollars at
the
next. The UK currently owes something like 2 trillion
dollars,
and presumably much more by 2099. |
|
| |
If I were owed money by the US (which I'm not, alas), I think
I'd be a
bit peeved if they said "Hey, we've decided to draw a line
under our
debts." If we were talking about England, I'd much prefer it
if we said "We will settle all our debts at the end of each
century, regardless of how much it hurts, rather than
welching on them." |
|
| |
Problem is, knowing that national debt will be wiped will
have
an impact for decades beforehand. The same would be true
of personal debt. |
|
| |
Modern economies run on credit. This would crash them |
|
| |
On a personal level, debt is already forgiven on death, and
corporate, bankruptcy |
|
| |
What you want to accomplish is already accomplished by
credit ratings. In the USs case, the risk is low enough
lending to us continues. Should that change, you won't
have to wait 100 years |
|
| |
//On a personal level, debt is already forgiven on
death, and corporate, bankruptcy// |
|
| |
Let me put it this way. If you're born and 18 years later
you're told that you're essentially a slave, that is, your
labor goes to pay the debts for goods and services bought
by people on credit before you were even born, (but that
the paperwork is all in order) do you have any say on
where the fruits of your labor go or do you just sigh and
work as you're told for your credit holding masters? |
|
| |
I'm asking, that's all. If the paperwork is all in order, and
the sanctity of the creditor / borrow relationship is of
paramount importance, I guess I just resign to work for
my masters for the rest of my life as directed? |
|
| |
I don't think that's right. |
|
| |
Another question: sometimes industries that sell addictive
products that are detrimental to those who use them
encourage addictions to these products. Is there some
correlation between entities that hold debts and a
company who for instance, sells highly addictive opioids
in numbers far in excess of what would be a safe for the
population they're supplying? |
|
| |
Debt is a product is it not? Are we allowed to critically
review the downside of this product? |
|
| |
This is a great idea, but it's kind of 19 years too late. Maybe
we could collectively aim to sort this out in time for 2099,
but I don't think many of us are likely to last that long! |
|
| |
Intergenerational debt leads to slavery and impoverishment
- and indeed many shorter debts do too. At least between
individuals, no debt should last more than 20 years - and
certainly death should be an end of it. Between non-human
entities and companies? I think longer debts could be fair,
as long as those entities are free to allow individuals to
move into and out of their jurisdiction - besides freedom of
movement, there's also currency printing which can be
performed by any country with their own currency policy -
so that's one additional way out on a country level (it can
get nasty, but at least it resets the playing field in relatively
short order) |
|
| |
[dr] the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Usury
is prohibited within many religions. Glad that people and
countries still borrow money, else we'd still be living in
mud huts. |
|
| |
Debt is forgiven all the time. People take pennies on the
dollar. Debt gets converted to stock. Countries default
on their bonds, all this stuff already happens. |
|
| |
Now -- the scenario you paint, which I can only guess
arises out of the current US deficit -- but perhaps I'm
guessing wrong? -- what exactly is it? |
|
| |
Your parents die you don't pick up their debt. So what is
this 100 year interval you speak of, and to what kind of
debt is it applied? |
|
| |
Who would lend a country or corporate entity money if all
it had to do to avoid paying it is wait it out? |
|
| |
I may be missing something here, but I don't think so. |
|
| |
So if the scenario is the current Congress, shame, shame
shame, borrows a lot of money, more in fact that it can
ever pay back, so the "next generation" is screwed -- if
that is the scenario it is COMPLETELY misguided. |
|
| |
First -- who do you think owns this debt? Most people
would say "the Chinese" -- but actually it is Americans
through bonds they bought, and American corporations
and banks through bonds they bought, and, in fact, the
United States Federal Reserve, through bonds they
bought. |
|
| |
So when it is "wiped", under the theory that you have
helped those generations that "owe it", you actually took
real income out of the people that were earning it. |
|
| |
The only other area this can be relevant to is various
colonial debt. There again, the issue is NOT the
forgiveness -- after all, they can default, and it's not like
anyone can really do much about it. |
|
| |
the issue is after defaulting, they'd like to borrow again --
and no one wants to lend to them, precisely because they
default. |
|
| |
We already accomplish this by inflating the currency. The only
problem is that the process creates more new debt than old debt it
erases. |
|
| |
What [their] said. If America owes people money (even if
most of those people are Americans), then it owes them.
You can't just say "I don't think so." |
|
| |
Moreovermore, countries that default on debts very quickly
lose their international credit score and trustworthiness.
They also lose the trust of their own people; how will you
like it, [doc], when your mortgage is called in or your
pension is cut by 90% because your government has decided
not to honour its debts? |
|
| |
It's fair enough that an individual's debts are often wiped
when they die; loans and mortgages have inbuilt
contingencies for that. But to say that an entire nation
(one of the richest in the whole fucking world, at that) can
simply decide for itself unilaterally that it's going to welch
on its national debts is just a disgusting idea. |
|
| |
I understand how these work and I understand that there
are booby traps and tripwire activated explosive devices
attached to these chains that will blow up if you
try to break them. |
|
| |
That being said, they are chains. The disasters that would
occur by breaking them doesn't impart to them any
virtue. Additionally I understand that lending can be an
important part of commerce if used properly, just like
water is useful unless you have your head forcibly held in
a bucket of the stuff for 3 to 5 minutes. |
|
| |
The fact that a tiger will rip your arm off if you try to
shoo him out of a dinner party doesn't mean it's a good
and virtuous thing, just that it's a dangerous thing that
probably shouldn't have been let into the dining room in
the first place. |
|
| |
But OK, this one is here. "Nice tiger. Gooood tiger." |
|
| |
Can we at least use this guy as a lesson to stop letting
tigers into our dinner parties? |
|
| |
I have no idea what you're trying to say there, [doc]. |
|
| |
But this idea stinks. Aside from what it would do your own
country and your own people, it would cause a meltdown
(via
several routes) in the global economy. This time there
would
be wars, civil and international. The world is still
recovering
from the last financial collapse, and this is not a good time
for
an American (I believe) to be saying "Hey, let's do that
again,
only bigger!". It's a bit like a German saying "Ja, Poland
looks
awfully nice." |
|
| |
How about a compromise? Individuals get their debts
erased when they die, and the same rule can go for nations. |
|
| |
A crippling national debt is a bad thing. |
|
| |
Bad things can sometimes be addressed and improved. |
|
| |
Pay what you owe as fast as you can afford to do so. Spend
less until your debt is under control. Live wisely and within
your means. |
|
| |
Or does that sound insane? |
|
| |
I'm not saying the UK is much better than the US in this
regard. But if the US defaulted on its debts, the last US-led
financial collapse would look like loose change. |
|
| |
As far as not making sense, here's my translation of my
trying to do interesting writey stuff. |
|
| |
The tiger at the dinner party represented debt. It's
beautiful yet deadly, like massive debt. Once we have it,
we must be nice to it as I alluded to in the chapter "Nice
tiger... gooood tiger." |
|
| |
The author here used allegory, (at least he thinks he did,
he's not exactly sure what allegory is) in this case a big
stripey cat to represent financial mismanagement and
explody things to represent the downside of writing off
debt without a proper plan. We're drawn to the
conclusion that you shouldn't try to understand the tiger,
just give it what it wants and don't squeeze its naughty
bits. |
|
| |
What do you think of my writing? |
|
| |
[ ] Great job! Super special!
[ ] Sucks ass. |
|
| |
Well, with respect I think you should start with similes and
then edge through analogy and into metaphor before you
try allegory. |
|
| |
It's not that you have to be nice to this tiger you've
accidentally let in. It's more the case that you've adopted a
pet tiger knowing full well that it has teeth and claws and
no manners. And now you've gone off the whole teeth-and-
claws thing. But you're still addicted to tigers because
they're sooooo cute and stripey and are still inviting more of
them in, and just proposing to shoot the ones that bite.
Sooner or later nobody will be prepared to send you any
more tigers. |
|
| |
Now, I hope you can see from that why metaphors are so
seldom useful. |
|
| |
Lol. Stripey. That word needs to be used more. |
|
| |
See? We’ve made progress today. Adjourned. Who
brought pie? |
|
| |
Personal debt has the threat of collateral loss or worse broken legs. What threats do Nations have? Maybe assets need to be seized. How about the new Chinese Statue of Liberty embassy? Maybe lose a leg. Chinese Florida? |
|
| |
I think a better use of the tiger analogy would be that
everybody wants the cute tiger cub when it's a playful fluffy
little feller, then gets all picky when it grows up and eats
grandma. |
|
| |
Especially since grandmas usually control purse strings. |
|
| |
Baked in the Jewish Jubilee laws, see link. |
|
| |
So there's 50 years to beat/intimidate the people that owe loans they could never afford and should have never been given. |
|
| |
I never understood the idea of debt jubilees. At the moment I don't buy a couple of extra bottles of champagne every day on a credit card, simpley because I know that I would struggle to pay back the debt. If I even suspected there might at some point be a jubilee, I would get a couple of crates, and an extra Rolls-Royce custom modified with a refrigerated compartment to bring them home in. |
|
| |
Actually I think national debt is a bit different, because the country spends the debt in currency that it has itself created. And if the debt is issued as bonds which are purchased by private investors, then the debt functions as currency, and so more of it increases the amount of money and wealth and spending power in the economy. So the very idea of paying down the debt doesn't make sense, because that in itself would take money out of the economy and cause a financial crisis. |
|
| |
Summary: Idea is stupid, comments are stupid, populations are stupid, governments are stupid, everyone and everything is stupid. [+] |
|
| |
1. No one is obligated to loan money to anyone else. The
less likely an entity is to pay back debt, the less likely it
is to get loans, and the higher an interest it would have
to pay. Therefore, any rules that force forgiveness of
debt force interest rates up and potentially prevent loans
altogether.
2. You own this debt. Not China. You do. You both owe it
and own it. |
|
| |
This is not a defense of arbitrary size deficits, and the US
is in a relatively unique position given the dollar's world
currency status. But just as a public company is worth a
multiple of revenues, and sometimes worth a whole lot
even without revenues, in the same way a country does
not necessarily have to live on a balanced budget,
especially when it's economy grows reliably. |
|
| |
What you want is economic growth. Then you can sustain
deficits |
|
| |
What [their] said again. Also whatever [their] says next
because he seems to know what he's talking about. |
|
| |
Nobody is arguing that debt in itself is good or bad, just
like drugs aren't good or bad, it depends on how you use
them. |
|
| |
But there should be a distinction drawn. There should be
a hard line between one person's incurred debt and
and another person's obligations to pay that debt. |
|
| |
As far as the war, famine, breakdown of society that
might result from freeing people from a debt they haven't
had a say in, can't you say that about freeing any people
from bondage? Nobody's arguing that slaves don't make
good sense financially, I'm saying that the moral
imperative against it trumps that by orders of magnitude. |
|
| |
And yes, anybody who uses the word "imperative" is an
idiot trying to sound smart, I know, but I could't think of
another word. Suggestions will be accepted. It's not as
bad as "paradigm" or
"proactive" but it's up there. |
|
| |
I'm not criticizing debt. I'm criticizing THIS debt and
the people who incurred it. So let's look critically at the
deal we got from the guys
who ran up this debt to make society better. What did we
get for it? Do we work fewer hours? Do we retire earlier?
Can we have a one income family where one parent stays
home and raises the kids in a family owned home? Not
where I live. We've got iPhones and the internet but that
came from private companies. Medical advances, same
thing. Private industry. |
|
| |
OK, we've civilized the Middle East with decades of war
and to be sure, they really do appreciate us for it so I'll
give them that. |
|
| |
part of your societal obligation as a citizen is this debt,
like it or not. It's no more or less fair than the fact that
higher brackets pay higher taxes though they drive on the
same roads, etc -- it's just part of being a citizen and
abiding by the rule of law. |
|
| |
Obviously attempts to pass a balanced budget
amendment keep happening, and will keep failing -- it is
too restrictive. |
|
| |
In real inflation adjusted terms, this is not the highest
deficit we've ever had. |
|
| |
A much bigger issue are unfunded liabilities. But even
that, who knows -- if people live forever they certainly
won't be collecting social security for (forever-65) years.
So budget and budgetary needs are likely to change
rapidly. |
|
| |
I haven't really looked into this but I'd like to know
why the debt doubled under the last presidency. Is
that his fault? Is it the other party's fault? Is it my
fault? Max, did you do this? |
|
| |
Anybody know what happened here? |
|
| |
//Actually I think national debt is a bit different, because the country spends the debt in currency that it has itself created. And if the debt is issued as bonds which are purchased by private investors, then the debt functions as currency, and so more of it increases the amount of money and wealth and spending power in the economy. So the very idea of paying down the debt doesn't make sense, because that in itself would take money out of the economy and cause a financial crisis. // |
|
| |
This I do not understand.
You're saying that if Canada decided to work to pay off it's national debt that it would collapse financially? |
|
| |
what happened there was the near collapse of the
financial
system in 2008, a stimulus bill good for 1T on its own,
followed by the Federal Reserve lending money to itself,
and
an expansion of the safety net, for example a huge jump
in
people going on earlier retirement and disability (because
there was no work). All of this while GDP grew at 2% as
opposed to 3% or 4% which is what we had in Reagan and
Clinton years. |
|
| |
But it's not that hard. The budget for each and every
year is
available as an excel spreadsheet. |
|
| |
Also, doubling sounds shocking but it's not really -- for example, if you get 7% on your money, it
would double in less than a decade, right? So if spending grows at twice the rate or higher than
economic growth -- then of course it would increase. |
|
| |
The interest rate on the new debt, however, is much lower than the interest on the old debt. An
important argument that has been going on in the Federal Reserve is whether to refinance some of
the debt to longer term, so as to lock in the lower rates. |
|
| |
but evidence appears to be that rates don't want to go up -- which is a way of the market saying
that for now it doesn't care about the deficit. |
|
| |
//Max, did you do this?// I hate to admit it, but it's
possible. I did some consultancy over there recently, and
sucked money out of Washington like a ten-inch siphon. I
also had a couple of very, very nice lunches. |
|
| |
But more generally, [doc], I think it's pretty clear that
neither you nor I actually understand what the national
debt is. I do at least understand that it's a fiscal tool, and
an economic lubricant. I also understand that it's largely an
internal debt. |
|
| |
If I've got my sums right, the US owes every US citizen about
$65,000 (slightly less, if you assume that some of the debt is
international). So, while it's really jolly decent of you,
[doc], to waive that debt, doing it wholesale will just kill
the US stone dead. I'm sure that the pyramid of finance
built on the national debt is far taller, and will crash down
far harder, than the pyramid that you guys built on sub-
prime mortgages. And just remember what happened when
somebody decided they weren't worth anything. |
|
| |
My finger is tired from scrolling and I still don't understand
about the tiger. Better luck next idea. :-) |
|
| |
It's quite straightforward, [bliss]. The US has borrowed
money in order to print more money so that it can pay back
the people it borrowed the money from, except that it
didn't and spent all the more-money on tigers. As a result,
overdemand for tigers has driven up their price, and also
the price of tigerfood. So, the US has had to issue bonds
based on virtual tigers, charging at below parity, to recoup
some of its losses whilst also supporting the whole tiger
sector (which now represents 16% of all jobs in the US).
These bonds have a face value plus a debt-interest value,
and the latter has been sold to (guess who?) the American
public. Meanwhile, the supply of new tigers has dried up,
meaning that the entire tiger-based economy is walking on
thin ice and potentially vulnerable to global warming. If it
all falls through, there will be knock-on effects on the polar
bear and ice-fishing industries, and who knows what'll
happen after that. |
|
| |
I've simplified a little, but you get the picture. |
|
| |
Wow. Can't you just substitute a few lions, or bears? Tell em
they're mutated tigers? Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my!!! |
|
| |
No no no. The bear market is a completely different thing.
You'd risk devaluing the tiger sector, which would then
devalue the striped animal sector in general. The newer
markets (like ocelots) would take up some of the slack, but
you're still looking at non-renewable debt remarketing with
debenture penalties that could only be reinvested in equity-
led options. Do try to keep up. |
|
| |
Felidaeconomics is a fairly new field and it can get
a bit confusing but the core principles are pretty
simple: tigers represent loan portfolios in deferred
market segments prorated to insure non-defaulted
derivatives from lump sum mortage backed sectors
to leverage standardized share witholding
subordinate rated securities. |
|
| |
Forgive my oversimplification, just wanted to get
you up to speed Blissy. |
|
| |
//US owes every US citizen about $65,000//
That's some good healthcare right there. Pity there would have to be virtual ocelots to fund it. |
|
| |
Not working. Simplifying has made it worse. I'm a dummy, a
dunce, a no-duh. Nevermind. I'm walking to Madagascar, or so
it seems. |
|
| |
Not true Blissy, sometimes the smartest thing a
person can say is "I don't know" and the dumbest is
"I know everything". |
|
| |
Once upon a time a self proclaimed know-it-all was
asked why the sun came up in the morning. Being
expected to have all the answers they said "Well,
it's
clearly being pulled across the heavens by a
magical chariot." At a different time in history,
somebody else was asked the same question and
said "I don't know." Although they didn't have the
answer, the question sparked their curiosity.
They
researched, gathered the available information,
examined it, prosessed it into a plausible
hypothetical explanation and came upon the truth
that we now all share today. |
|
| |
That sentence: "I don't know." is the seed of all
human knowledge. The sentence "I know
everything." is the seed of all human ignorance. |
|
| |
(A guy who actually DOES know everything.) |
|
| |
(Except for the stuff they taught in High School
because he never went.) |
|
| |
(And some of that mathey shit which is for dorks.) |
|
| |
Anecdote: Bertrand Russell was at a party and got lumbered
with a man who talked on and on and on and on. At one
point, Bertrand got a word in, and said "D'you know, between
the two of us, I think we must know everything." "Oh?", said
the other man, "why's that?" "Well", said Bertrand, "you seem
to know everything except for the fact that you're a bore, and
I know that." |
|
| |
Did the guy who was just trying to carry on a
conversation (that was not up to Bert's standards)
punch him in the face? Please tell me
he
punched him in the face. |
|
| |
Anyway, I think Monty Python addressed this
beautifully. (link) |
|
| |
All fun aside, I've noticed is that the people who
really do know the most are always questioning
themselves. The Dunning Kruger effect or
something. I think Douglas Adams explored this
concept with the introduction of a god figure
(maybe it was God) who was very un-sure of
himself. That being said, experts in any given field
should be confident in their knowledge. I don't
want a brain surgeon saying "I'm pretty sure this is
the frontal lobe, but I could be wrong." but a good
brain surgeon will probably predict outcomes by
saying stuff like "Looking at a 90% probability this
operation will work." Another example of that
enlightened "I don't know." thing. |
|
| |
I think the study of smart people getting things
wrong because they've achieved social status that
doesn't allow them to say "How the hell should I
know?" thus leading to bad decisions on their part
should be explored. Being a bit of a history dork I
seem to come across a lot of horrible events in
human history where the intellectual elite leads
people into horrible disasters, and it's my dumbass
opinion that it's a hallowed tradition that's still
going strong. |
|
| |
To many to name but I'll just say, never trust a
drunk, bearded German with a typwriter. |
|
| |
The very same Bertrand Russell said "The trouble with the
world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are
full of doubt." |
|
| |
Good name for a pub all the same: Cocksure &
Doubt. |
|
| |
Not sure that's a problem, it might be a good
thing. |
|
| |
Within reason though. If I start from the premise
that nothing is sure, I
might be a brain in a jar in a lab someplace where
they said "Run the Halfbakery program on it, see
what it does." but my best guess is that's not the
case, so unlikely is that scenario that I won't put
any effort into accomodating that scenario. On
other subjects, like complicated tiger to debt
ratios, I'd be wise to check, double check and
triple check my conclusions. |
|
| |
Extreme example but it's all best guess. The
beauty of science is that when new information
presents itself the conclusion is simply changed. |
|
| |
I guess dogma is the opposite of that. |
|
| |
//Cocksure & Doubt.// Or a 70s vocal / dance
music group. |
|
| |
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure
and the intelligent are full of doubt." |
|
| |
Except to when it comes to global warming, of course. On
this I'm told the reverse is true. |
|
| |
In my mind [blissmiss], The intricate details, I haven't researched but money comes down to assigning value, from rare art to businesses. One guy will value a business at 1,000,000, another will value it at 2,000,000. The true rock bottom value is probably what it is worth if it all goes pair shaped and goes into receivership. Now money people are clever and think up very clever ways to make that value difference into real in the hand money, usually involving bits of paper or cute tigers. Governments can do the same thing but the cleverer try not to have receivers and stretch further away from real value. Sometimes OK (if the economy rises to support it) and sometimes with people hurting implications. |
|
| |
Being undoubtedly cocksure or am I wrong? |
|
| |
Wow, I think I got it now. Thank you, [wjt] for the clarity. I
also just got done meditating and I'm not as dumb after
that.In fact, I can have a lot of insight during that happy
little snippet of time after a good session of nothingness. |
|
| |
My Mother, bless her heart, had this horrific lamp in her
living room, that was nothing short of butt-ass ugly. She
loved it and paid a whole of moola for it. She thought that
all of us kids would fight over it, at the time of her
passing.Well, she was wrong. |
|
| |
Everyone hated it but no one wanted to toss it. (Bad Juju
and all). I have no idea what happened to it, being the
youngest I was usually left clueless when it came to such
sensitive issues. So I get the concept of "one man's trash is
another man's treasure." Or one person's lamp is seen as art
but in reality it's really an ugly piece of shit. |
|
| |
(On a side note, I was thinking I had read Bertrand Russell
before, but looking at titles, am mistaken. But I just read a
synopsis of his life, personal and professional, and I think
he sounds like someone who truly lived life. Boom. Really
lived his life. I may scrounge around for a good biography.) |
|
| |
He did indeed. Few people know that Bertrand Russell: |
|
| |
(1) Pioneered what would go on to become HALO parachute
techniques during his time in the RAF
(2) Kept and bred pigeons, and developed the Wapham
Ringneck
(3) Had contracted, and been cured of, all currently available
STDs by the age of 40
(4) Published three detective novels, under a pseudonym
(5) Was a highly accomplished saxophonist. |
|
| |
[Blissmiss] Interesting, You can't think of any reason your mother loved the lamp so much, a deeper family story or do you think it was purely an emotional resonant essence? |
|
| |
Money can't really capture real individuality, it seems a Borg-ish entity. |
|
| |
My Mother's speciality was odd, weird, crappy home decor.
Most of it cheap, a few items she would actually save for
and then binge on buying. The lamp was one of said pieces.
She lived a very delusional and paranoid life, and always
thought us kiddos would try and kill each other for her nik-
naks. Poor women. None of us wanted anything from her
after death, but prayed she finally found some peace of
mind. Thank you for asking. |
|
| |
[MaxwellB]. I shall add those little tidbits to my list of
fascinations about this man. Not all of them are pretty, but
all of them seem pretty exceptional in scope, at the very
least. |
|
| |
Russell is also known for his teapot which may or may not exist. |
|
| |
Reading about old Burt Russell and wondering what
he would say about this idea. Guy was pretty fluid
in his thinking, that is, open to looking at stuff
from various perspectives and changing his mind
without embarrassment. |
|
| |
My take on this idea is, the first step to eliminating
inter-generational debt is to accept that it's a bad
thing that never should have happened and work
forward from there. |
|
| |
A payoff plan might be a good start. |
|
| |
It's not the payoff plan, it's always the generate real income plan. |
|
| |
Well, generate real income to pay off the debt no? |
|
| |
The thing you are groping towards, [dr3], is called a "sinking
fund". |
|
| |
Maynard Keynes, who in some circles is better known than
Bertrand Russell, famously said that in the long run, we'll
all be dead (as part of justification for stimulus
spending) |
|
| |
[dr], deficits only matter to the living. And if deficits
prevent the living from armed revolution and pitchforks
on the street, they're worth it. If they ultimately cause
the pitchforks (as in Greece some years back), they're not
worth it. |
|
| |
I urge you to review the linked article -- since 2010 we've
been at negative interest rates -- meaning the money
we've borrowed had lost more value than the interest
rate. It's just not really an issue. |
|
| |
It would become an issue if no one wanted our debt or if
the economy stopped growing. 40% is held by outsiders --
but even those outsiders are mostly banks -- and
though we owe them they owe us. Such a scenario --
where no one would want the debt -- is unlikely so long as
the US is the superpower or one of the superpowers.
75 to 100 years after Britain's ceding of the world
currency to the dollar, people still want Sterling debt. |
|
| |
Unfunded liabilities are a much bigger issue -- but as said
earlier -- who even knows what factor medicine plays in
costs in 50 years, we can't see past the event
horizon. |
|
| |
And of course if the current slate of Dem candidates gets
even a fraction of their Atlas Shrugged program into
actual policy, we'd be in a whole different kind of story. |
|
| |
None of this means you should borrow for the sake of
borrowing. And in an ideal situation, growth would be
such that you would be able to reduce the debt. |
|
| |
But if, for instance, you increased taxes significantly, or
cut spending significantly enough to make a difference --
you would actually squeeze the economy to a degree that
would be counter productive. |
|
| |
We are not at levels that are scary. We ARE if you count
unfunded liabilities, which makes things like Medicare for
All even scarier -- but again, that's a different story. |
|
| |
//I urge you to review the linked article// |
|
| |
Will do, but reading about this Bertrand Russell fellow is
tops
on my reading list now though. Interesting guy. |
|
| |
If you have a finite amount of time for reading, you should read what Bertrand Russell wrote, rather than what others have written about Bertrand Russell |
|
| |
Nice 3rd order regression there [Calum], writing about what other people have written about Bertrand Russell. |
|
| |
I'm getting "Why Men Fight". |
|
| |
I'm a big anti-WW1 activist so his take on why we got into
that disaster should be interesting. |
|
| |
// I'm a big anti-WW1 activist// Go for it [doc] - pray gods
we're not too late to stop it. |
|
| |
Might have missed the chance on that one but maybe by
understanding its root causes, and I don't mean an
Archduke getting whacked, we can prevent WW5. WW3
was the war to make everybody happy with Communism,
WW4 was the war to make everybody in the middle east
happy, not sure what WW5 will be. Somebody needing to
be made happy about something or else I expect. |
|
| |
Speaking of happiness, got his book The Conquest Of
Happiness. |
|
| |
Already found out he was an anti nuke activist that at one
time proposed a nuclear strike on Russia and welcoming
the Nazis in for tea to avoid WW2. He also changed his
mind on both ideas so he's smart enough to not fall in love
with his views should circumstances change apparently.
Very Dunning Crugery story his. |
|
| |
I'll give 'em a read but I'm not going through all 60 or so
books the guy wrote. I'll have to mix in a few
generalizations about the guy written by others. |
|
| |
My misunderstanding with the monetary system is inflation. A lolly worth 5 cents becomes one that is 10 cents and with inflation the price just keeps going. Wages rise to try and compete but to me this is making the economy weaker not stronger. A stronger economy would be the the lolly's price getting less and less relative to wages that may or may not fairly decrease. Wanting more pay is not necessarily sane if prices are just going to adjust up. Although, percentage increases are good for the high end. |
|
| |
that's not exactly how inflation works. wages don't "try to
rise" any more than lolly prices "try to rise". In the
absence of productivity increases, increased demand
drives prices for everything including labor itself, and it's
more of a continuous self-adjusting cycle than individual
waves. |
|
| |
The reason reserve banks RAISE rates to combat inflation
is that's the only tool they have -- slowing down demand
breaks the cycle. |
|
| |
One of the conundrum of modern times (going back to a
phrase Greenspan was found of) is that productivity
increases nominally slowed down (per human) but first
outsourcing to cheaper labor markets, and now
increasingly automation, are far outpacing that slow
down, and that is why inflation has been very low in the
US and why wage increases have been difficult to sustain. |
|
| |
As to your second point, which is what is the point of
wage increases if all they do is drive the cost of goods up,
that is why the minimum wage is a form of the broken
window fallacy. If the cost of living in a given area is
significantly higher than the cost of labor, a minimum
wage cannot ultimately fix that imbalance, and
everything that cities do to theoretically fix this -- from
fixing rents to fixing labor costs -- is actually
exacerbating it, which is why it's quite typical that the
richest cities in the world (i.e. NY, SF) have very high
concentrations of poor people. |
|
| |
I'm not sure the world has ever seen homeless
camps down the street from luxury hotels like this
before, but American cities are becoming third
world shitholes. |
|
| |
I'd like to see our politicians spend a little more
time on problems like this and a little less time on
figuring out if they can throw Trump in prison for
paying some porn star's blackmail demands. |
|
| |
Maybe split their time in half between the two
issues? Or
even 10% of their efforts towards dealing with
problems like this, or the opioid crisis that's killing
tens of thousands of Americans and destroying
countless lives. |
|
| |
// I'm not sure the world has ever seen homeless camps
down the street from luxury hotels like this before, but
American cities are becoming third world shitholes. // |
|
| |
The homeless issue is largely a combo of the drug issue
and the laws adopted in the 60s to toughen mental
hospital commitment requirements -- the latter largely as
a reaction to the Soviet Union's policies of incarcerating
opponents as being mentally ill. |
|
| |
No one is homeless because the rent is too damn high. |
|
| |
All laws have unintended consequences -- not as strong as
"all men must die" but somewhat of an irrefutable maxim. |
|
| |
I remember that, politicians grandstanding about
how evil these institutions were like they're friggin'
internment camps. They closed them all down and
"liberated" the poor souls. |
|
| |
I guarantee they were very proud of that
achievement. |
|
| |
Rent too high , lollies inflating, it all comes down to the pumped up self esteem. My price on the work deserves more profit, look at everyone else's inflation. Heaven forbid the lollies should sell out, just wack on some inflation. |
|
| |