Need Bees Removed?
International
Beekeeping Forums
July 28, 2014, 07:22:40 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Beemaster's official FACEBOOK page
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar bee removal Login Register Chat  

Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: FAIR SHARE TAXES  (Read 4854 times)
tecumseh
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 391

Location: College Station, Tx


« Reply #40 on: October 01, 2010, 08:05:40 AM »

tshnc writes:
'I think you may be neglecting to look at the benefits returned directly to people.  For example, that person that pays FICA from a wage level of $32,000 per year will receive MUCH more money back in social security and medicare benefits than they ever paid in (assuming the system stays viable).  The congressional budget office makes exactly this same point in claiming that taken on a whole it is a PROGRESSIVE benefit.'

tecumseh:
absolutely but.... since none of us know how long we will life the benefits become a bit difficult to calculate.  I would say (via my own experience) that the 'death benefits' of social security/fica are often times overlooked until some young mother finds themselves a widow.

welcome peteG2 and thanks for the added information.

a kathyp snip..
'tecumseh, do you find that people attach the descriptor "arrogant" to your name on a regular basis?'

tecumseh:
absolutely not.  unlike some folks I don't BEGIN some conversation by name calling or demeaning and emotionally loaded rhetoric.  since SOME folks information is ALWAYS a bit narrowly focused I can see why they do so often rely on the 'who shouts the loudest... wins' trick.

beehappy writes:
'I was addressing a generalized shot'

tecumseh:
there was nothing generalized about this casual observation.  it was absolutely NOT directed at you. 

my take... most folks want to be though to be informed, so on many occasion you will hear folks make some statement in regards to some book or work when in actuality they have never even seen the cover of the book in question.  I have even noticed this tendency in some very educated folks, although when you ask them directly they are at least honest enough to say that no they have not. 




Logged

I am 'the panther that passes in the night'... tecumseh.
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15027


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #41 on: October 01, 2010, 10:05:29 AM »

Quote
since SOME folks information is ALWAYS a bit narrowly focused I can see why they do so often rely on the 'who shouts the loudest... wins' trick.

i do try to keep my answers narrow because i know that i tend to drift out into the weeds if i am not careful.  i see the drifting as a fault that can detract from what i was trying to say,  but maybe i have over corrected.

to be honest, i have trouble following some of your posts because they seem designed to be argumentative rather than informative....and to be honest, they seem designed to impress people with what you know, rather than an attempt to share a point of view.  perhaps i have misread you, but it's not getting better for me and i don't want to be dragged into a urinating contest with you.

i think i will take BB's out on this, and agree to disagree with you. 
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
Bee Happy
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1656


Location: Between Panama city, Florida and Dothan Al.

that's me - setting a phoenix free


« Reply #42 on: October 01, 2010, 10:38:59 AM »



beehappy writes:
'I was addressing a generalized shot'

tecumseh:
there was nothing generalized about this casual observation.  it was absolutely NOT directed at you. 


My mistake, I thought I was brought into it through your "and others" statement with reference to postulating on Karl 'skid' Marx
Logged

be happy and make others happy.
thebalvenie
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 187


Location: Missoula, MT

Vote Ron Paul!!!!!!!!!!!!!


« Reply #43 on: October 04, 2010, 12:35:18 PM »

"The most sinister of all taxes is the inflation tax and it is the most regressive. It hits the poor and the middle class. When you destroy a currency by creating money out of thin air to pay the bills, the value of the dollar goes down, and people get hit with a higher cost of living. It’s the middle class that’s being wiped out. It is most evil of all taxes." - Ron Paul

"I would get rid of the inflation tax. It’s a tax that nobody talks about. We live way beyond our means. We print money for it. The value of the money goes down, and poor people pay higher prices. That is a tax. That’s a transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class to Wall Street. Wall Street’s doing quite well, but the inflation tax is eating away at the middle class of this country. We need to get rid of the inflation tax with sound money." -Ron Paul
Logged

"Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"
AllenF
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8107

Location: Hiram, Georgia


« Reply #44 on: October 04, 2010, 01:02:51 PM »

But the only way the government has planned to pay off the trillions of dollars they owe, is to devalue the dollar to make it worthless.  That way it would be easier for them to pay back (or easier to collect in taxes).   This is what will kill our savings.   
Logged
tecumseh
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 391

Location: College Station, Tx


« Reply #45 on: October 05, 2010, 08:33:25 AM »

balevenie writes:
I would get rid of the inflation tax. It’s a tax that nobody talks about. We live way beyond our means. We print money for it.

tecumseh:
first off if the picture besides your name is what I think it is??? it is also one of my favorite movies.

I agree that as a general rule folks are living way beyond their means.  Inflation is a real issue and as a general rule it is an advantage to anyone that owns property.  As such it may well be regressive in nature. I must say I never really though of the progressive vs regressive nature of inflation.

I often time hear folks make some comment in regards to the government printing money.  It is a nice sound bite but it hardly reflects how the system works at the current time.  Money is created via the reserve rate and borrowing.  Borrowing creates money and paying back debt destroys money.  The other effects of paying back debt and destroying money may not be as wonderful as some folks (who commonly use the 'government prints money' crowd) think.   
Logged

I am 'the panther that passes in the night'... tecumseh.
thebalvenie
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 187


Location: Missoula, MT

Vote Ron Paul!!!!!!!!!!!!!


« Reply #46 on: October 05, 2010, 08:55:31 AM »

tecumseh,

fractional reserve banking/lending is taking money from someone else, investing it, hoping for a big return, when that big return is a big loss they take more money from the people for a bailout.

your soundbyte that debt is wealth is equally absurd.  keynes is wrong....creating money out of thin air leads to bubbles and recession/depression. 

here ya go:
A Simple Example

Suppose a teenager, Bill, is rummaging in the attic and finds $1,000 in physical currency in an old chest. Bill is ecstatic and runs to the local bank, where he opens a checking account and deposits the green pieces of paper.

Under a 100-percent-reserve banking system, this would be the end of the story. In the act of making the deposit, Bill's currency holdings would fall by $1,000, while his checkbook balance would rise by $1,000. Putting the money in the bank wouldn't affect the total amount of money in the economy.

However, in our current system, Bill's bank would see a new profit opportunity. After the bank put the $1,000 of paper currency into its vault, its reserves would be that much higher, while its outstanding deposit liabilities would have risen by $1,000 as well (in the form of Bill's new checking account). But since banks in the United States are subject only to a reserve requirement of (approximately) 10 percent, the bank would have new excess reserves of $900. If it found a suitable borrower, the bank would have the legal ability to grant a new loan for this amount.

Suppose the bank found such a borrower, Sally, and charged her 5-percent interest for a 12-month loan. Assuming she paid off the loan in a timely manner, here is what the bank's balance sheet would look like at various stages in the process:

I. Bank's Balance Sheet after Billy's Deposit
Assets
Liabilities + Shareholder's Equity
$1,000 in vault cash
$1,000 (Billy's checking account balance)
 


II. Bank's Balance Sheet after Loan Granted to Sally
Assets
Liabilities + Shareholder's Equity
$1,000 in vault cash
$900 loan to Sally at 5% for 12 months
$1,000 (Billy's checking account balance)
$900 (Sally's new checking account)
 


III. Bank's Balance Sheet after Sally Spends Her Loan on Business Supplies
Assets
Liabilities + Shareholder's Equity
$100 in vault cash
$900 loan to Sally at 5% for 12 months
$1,000 (Billy's checking account balance)
$0 (Sally's checking account balance)
 


IV. Bank's Balance Sheet after Sally Sells Her Products for $1,000 Cash and Deposits the Proceeds in Her Account
Assets
Liabilities + Shareholder's Equity
$1,100 in vault cash
$900 loan to Sally at 5% for 12 months
$1,000 (Billy's checking account balance)
$1,000 (Sally's checking account balance)
 


V. Bank's Balance Sheet After Sally Pays Off Her Loan Plus Interest
Assets
Liabilities + Shareholder's Equity
$1,100 in vault cash
$1,000 (Billy's checking account balance)
$55 (Sally's checking account balance)
$45 in bank shareholder equity
 

As our hypothetical example[1] makes clear, with the power of fractional-reserve banking, bankers can apparently earn income out of nothing! So long as Billy leaves his money in the bank, and so long as Sally is able to earn enough revenues from her business to avoid defaulting on her loan, the bank's shareholders end up with $45 of the community's cash, free and clear.

Now, the bank didn't stick a gun in anyone's belly, and the original owners of that $45 voluntarily traded them to Sally in exchange for whatever goods or services her business produced. Still, something seems a bit fishy in that the bank created $900 in new money, earned $45 in "old" money held by the outside community, and then destroyed the $900 when Sally paid back her loan.

Incidentally, it is because of these strange machinations that many critics of our current financial system describe it as "debt-based money." In a very real sense, if people stopped taking out new loans (from banks) and paid off their outstanding loans, the total quantity of money would shrink drastically. In my opinion this would be a good thing — especially if the politicians and the Fed sat back and let it happen — but it is nonetheless a very strange feature of our current system.

Creating Money Out of Thin Air?

Some people deny that commercial banks "create money out of thin air." They agree that the Fed does so when it buys assets by writing a check on itself. However, in our example above, it seems that the commercial bank at worst is taking $900 of "Bill's money" and handing it over to Sally. Sure, that might be dubious, but it's not as blatant as when the Fed literally writes checks drawn on thin air, right?

Actually, I think this standard textbook description — in which each new bank in the sequence creates new loans equal to 90 percent of the new deposit — is a bit misleading. There is nothing in the legal reserve requirement to prevent banks from making new loans that are large multiples of a new deposit. Instead, it is prudence on the part of the banks that enforces this restraint.

To see this, let's repeat the above story but have the bank make a much larger business loan to Sally:

I. Bank's Balance Sheet after Billy's Deposit
Assets
Liabilities + Shareholder's Equity
$1,000 in vault cash
$1,000 (Billy's checking account balance)
 


II. Bank's Balance Sheet after Loan Granted to Sally
Assets
Liabilities + Shareholder's Equity
$1,000 in vault cash
$9,000 loan to Sally at 5% for 12 months
$1,000 (Billy's checking account balance)
$9,000 (Sally's new checking account)
 

Let's stop at this point and consider what has happened. The bank's balance sheet still checks out — $10,000 in assets and $10,000 in liabilities. So the accountant's head won't explode on account of the large loan to Sally.

But perhaps the bank in our updated scenario is running afoul of the 10-percent reserve requirement enforced by the Fed? Again, no — as of the moment of the new loan to Sally, the bank's total customer checking account balances are $10,000, and the bank has $1,000 in physical currency in its vault, "backing up" those accounts. So the bank is satisfying the 10-percent reserve requirement.

To understand why the bank would be foolish to make a $9,000 loan to Sally after receiving Billy's $1,000 in cash, we must look ahead one step:

III. Bank's Balance Sheet after Sally Spends Her Loan on Business Supplies
Assets
Liabilities + Shareholder's Equity
($8,000) in vault cash
$9,000 loan to Sally at 5% for 12 months
$1,000 (Billy's checking account balance)
$0 (Sally's checking account balance)
 

Now we see the problem: Presumably, Sally is not going to borrow $9,000 at interest, in order to let that balance sit in her checking account. She is going to spend the money, by writing checks on the account. The people who receive those checks are going to deposit them in their own banks; and, during normal interbank clearing operations, the original bank will receive requests to transfer out $9,000 of its reserves.

We now see why standard economics textbooks have banks only making new loans equal to 90 percent of the amount of each new injection of deposits. The assumption is that the new depositor won't withdraw his money anytime soon, but that the new borrower (i.e., the person getting the loan) will withdraw the money very soon.

Let's be clear though on the moral of the story: in this second scenario — which is not in violation of the reserve requirement (though it might violate capital requirements or other regulations) — the commercial bank is quite obviously "creating money out of thin air."

Consider: The bank received $1,000 in currency from Bill, and it then made a loan of $9,000 to Sally. This new money didn't "come from" anywhere; it existed as soon as the bank clerk changed the numbers on the ledger. Sally went from having $0 in her checking account to having $9,000, with the simple push of a button.

Conclusion

In the present article, we have walked through a simple example to illustrate the strange nature of fractional-reserve banking. In a very real sense, this process creates money out of thin air. This observation alone doesn't prove its illegitimacy, let alone its connection with the business cycle, but it should give pause to those who see nothing wrong with the practice.

mises.org
Logged

"Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"
thebalvenie
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 187


Location: Missoula, MT

Vote Ron Paul!!!!!!!!!!!!!


« Reply #47 on: October 05, 2010, 12:37:20 PM »

just wanted to share some rothbard.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/12_2/12_2_1.pdf

enjoy! 
Logged

"Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"
AllenF
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8107

Location: Hiram, Georgia


« Reply #48 on: October 05, 2010, 02:21:58 PM »

But you did not include the 1% financial transaction tax that some in congress want to pass.
Logged
tecumseh
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 391

Location: College Station, Tx


« Reply #49 on: October 06, 2010, 08:38:51 AM »

thebalvanie writes:
"fractional reserve banking/lending is taking money from someone else, investing it, hoping for a big return, when that big return is a big loss they take more money from the people for a bailout.

your soundbyte that debt is wealth is equally absurd.  keynes is wrong....creating money out of thin air leads to bubbles and recession/depression."

tecumseh:
your first sound bite make it appear bankers lurk along the road, hold up anyone that comes along the way with cash in their pocket and takes their money at the point of a gun.
 
I suspect if you read my prior post again with a bit more discerning eye you will notice that the word I used was money and not wealth.  evidently you think/suspect/hypothesis that the two words are one and the same?

your example(s) only suggest you have OVERLOOKED that what is true for the individual is not necessarily applicable for a population.  the examples are meaningless in regards to the system you seem to think you are describing.

keynes has nothing to do with this argument.  he did hypothesize that the supply side of the market for liquid funds could have been one possible reason why classical theory did not seem to be working (great depression era).

over time the evidence suggest Keynes was much more insightful and correct than most folks initially thought.

and as to your randomly constructed dialogue.... economics is economics and finance is finance.  you will not learn much in an economic text about anything financial.... or vice versa. 
Logged

I am 'the panther that passes in the night'... tecumseh.
thebalvenie
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 187


Location: Missoula, MT

Vote Ron Paul!!!!!!!!!!!!!


« Reply #50 on: October 06, 2010, 09:30:13 AM »

your first sound bite make it appear bankers lurk along the road, hold up anyone that comes along the way with cash in their pocket and takes their money at the point of a gun.
 
I suspect if you read my prior post again with a bit more discerning eye you will notice that the word I used was money and not wealth.  evidently you think/suspect/hypothesis that the two words are one and the same?

your example(s) only suggest you have OVERLOOKED that what is true for the individual is not necessarily applicable for a population.  the examples are meaningless in regards to the system you seem to think you are describing.

keynes has nothing to do with this argument.  he did hypothesize that the supply side of the market for liquid funds could have been one possible reason why classical theory did not seem to be working (great depression era).

over time the evidence suggest Keynes was much more insightful and correct than most folks initially thought.

and as to your randomly constructed dialogue.... economics is economics and finance is finance.  you will not learn much in an economic text about anything financial.... or vice versa. 



lol...there's hardly any proof or evidence keynesian economics works....i didn't overlook anything.  as Rothbard states: "The General Theory was not truly revolutionary at all but merely old and oft -refuted mercantilist and inflationist fallacies dressed up in shiny new garb, replete with newly constructed and largely
incomprehensible jargon."  you're one that most likely subscribes to the idea that destruction creates wealth and debt is wealth.  last time i checked, economics and finance go hand in hand or did you overlook that? 

in fact if you were half as educated as you claim to be i doubt we'd be having this "conversation."  and it seems you overlooked AllenF's post a couple posts back: "But the only way the government has planned to pay off the trillions of dollars they owe, is to devalue the dollar to make it worthless.  That way it would be easier for them to pay back (or easier to collect in taxes).   This is what will kill our savings."   

so keep singing your song that debt begets wealth...or did i overlook when you said: "paying back what you borrow destroys money" ? to answer your question, nope. i don't think money and wealth are one and the same but i do know and understand money [monetary system] destroys wealth.  but thanks for overlooking.  i suggest using a discerning eye when you read people's post and try to be a bit more condescending...the current level you're at isn't working for any of us.

here's some light reading for you...

http://mises.org/books/dollarssave.pdf

http://mises.org/books/inflation.pdf

http://mises.org/books/failureofneweconomics.pdf

http://mises.org/books/wisdom.pdf

http://mises.org/books/critics.pdf

http://mises.org/books/keynes_the_man_rothbard.pdf

 
Logged

"Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"
tecumseh
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 391

Location: College Station, Tx


« Reply #51 on: October 07, 2010, 08:37:15 AM »

a few snips from balvenie<followed by tecumseh's comments:
lol...there's hardly any proof or evidence keynesian economics works....i didn't overlook anything. 
>well it has worked time and time again, so how much proof do you need?  Keynes aggregate demand/ aggregate supply are consider to be quite robust and still defines a lot of national economic policy.  His liquidity trap hypothesis was completely speculative and he stated it in quite that manner. 

in fact if you were half as educated as you claim to be i doubt we'd be having this "conversation."
>I didn't know I had made any claim in regards to my education.  Is this another of misconstructed facts? 

so keep singing your song that debt begets wealth...or did i overlook when you said:
>evidently you have reading comprehension problems and or poor eyesight.  I have now repeated that you seem to assume money is wealth.  If you will read my prior post a bit more carefully I don't think you will find even a mere mention of the word wealth.  the confusion of one for the other does suggest a certain quality of confused mind of the writer.

here's some light reading for you...
>humm... the references are much more informative that you might suspect.  why would anyone want to spend a lot of time reading something that has been consider junk science for 75 years.  actually from the get go mise is anti analytical and anti scientific.  the writing of mise will lead you no where but to more confusion.  perhaps this is why you seem to confuse money with wealth.
Logged

I am 'the panther that passes in the night'... tecumseh.
thebalvenie
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 187


Location: Missoula, MT

Vote Ron Paul!!!!!!!!!!!!!


« Reply #52 on: October 07, 2010, 11:28:40 AM »

a few snips from balvenie<followed by tecumseh's comments:
lol...there's hardly any proof or evidence keynesian economics works....i didn't overlook anything. 
>well it has worked time and time again, so how much proof do you need?  Keynes aggregate demand/ aggregate supply are consider to be quite robust and still defines a lot of national economic policy.  His liquidity trap hypothesis was completely speculative and he stated it in quite that manner. 

in fact if you were half as educated as you claim to be i doubt we'd be having this "conversation."
>I didn't know I had made any claim in regards to my education.  Is this another of misconstructed facts? 

so keep singing your song that debt begets wealth...or did i overlook when you said:
>evidently you have reading comprehension problems and or poor eyesight.  I have now repeated that you seem to assume money is wealth.  If you will read my prior post a bit more carefully I don't think you will find even a mere mention of the word wealth.  the confusion of one for the other does suggest a certain quality of confused mind of the writer.

here's some light reading for you...
>humm... the references are much more informative that you might suspect.  why would anyone want to spend a lot of time reading something that has been consider junk science for 75 years.  actually from the get go mise is anti analytical and anti scientific.  the writing of mise will lead you no where but to more confusion.  perhaps this is why you seem to confuse money with wealth.

again...loud and clear. i do not confuse money and wealth to be one and the same.  you stated earlier that Adam Smith was the first economist.  this is not true.  he was the first to debunk and foil the idea that money is wealth. 

you should read Reed's 7 fallacies of econmics.  i'm not muddling or confusing anything here...i believe it's your ego that's getting in the way of discussion; not to mention several logical fallacies riddled within your posts.

you appear to be a troll...look it up.

to name a few:

Ad Hominem; Mises and Austrian theory use science and number/fact based material as well as praxeology

Appeal To Flattery; yes cool hand luke is a wonderful movie, but you'll win no favors with me cause as i see an butthole is an butthole no matter how many movies we agree on.

Appeal To Authority; your ego and pretentiousness are not flattering at all.  you come off as a jerk and know it all.  so while you might know and might have heard of marx or smith or even mises....it appears you can't tie any logical ideas of your own to theirs.

Begging the Question/Circular Reasoning; your dizzying logic makes me nauseous and when i'm finished posting this it will conclude anything i ever have to do with you.

Disjunctive Syllogism; use a more discerning eye when reading everyone's posts.

Hasty Generalization; not everyone who thinks Govt is a printing press falls into the category of being the ignorant retards you make them out to be.

Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam; look it up

Logged

"Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"
hardwood
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3482


Location: Osteen, Fl (just south of Daytona)

Alysian Apiaries youtube.com/MrBeedude


« Reply #53 on: October 07, 2010, 05:36:41 PM »

 pop
Logged

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Theodore Roosevelt 1907
tecumseh
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 391

Location: College Station, Tx


« Reply #54 on: October 08, 2010, 08:34:34 AM »

Distraction* does seems to be a well used strategy in these days and time.

well I guess when your are incapable of answering a few simple questions concerning MISREPRESENTING what someone else wrote or said then the preferred path is to go tangential or at least toss the blame into the other fellow's lap.  at least that way you do not need to address the why or the wherefore of the misrepresentation.  you need not wonder if the mote is in your own eye.

quite evidently one logic course will not an economist make. 

how's the popcorn hardwood?
 
*I don't confuse 'going tangential' on any of these threads with a strategy of Distraction.  going tangential is quite normal and at least for me suggest that often times how the mind works in considering problems can be fairly random. 
Logged

I am 'the panther that passes in the night'... tecumseh.
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15027


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #55 on: October 08, 2010, 10:11:42 AM »


thebalvenie, i admire your perseverance, but i fear you tread water with this one.  he's not a debater.  it ends up being more like two caged monkeys throwing crap at each other.  fun to watch, but a little smelly.   grin   Wink
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
tecumseh
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 391

Location: College Station, Tx


« Reply #56 on: October 09, 2010, 07:14:57 AM »

well I would guess when you have nothing to really add in regards to information* that name calling is the only way to go? 

or perhaps paint the other side as in some ways in league with the devil? 

most time when folks haven't really considered all sides of an argument or question they need to prepare yourself to be run over by a tank.  or in the case above malled by a panther.

no debater... kind of cute.  actually I suspect what balvenie seems to have forgotten is what we have here is an exercise in rhetoric and logic only rules 1/3 of the stage.  actually logic rules very little outside of some logic class because it is an extremely weak tool in the rhetorical tool box. 

*as I have stated previously I am no more for raising taxes on myself than any other person on this board.  largely I agree with the larger stated purpose of the TEA party.  which is, I think most folks are very much tax enough already.  however there does seem to be certain folks that still believe all they need to is repeat a lie or half truth enough and someway magically it becomes the truth.  propaganda (information in German I think???) is still a viable mechanism that seems to work quite well for some folks.


Logged

I am 'the panther that passes in the night'... tecumseh.
Brian D. Bray
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 7369


Location: Anacortes, WA 98221

I really look like this, just ask Cindi.


WWW
« Reply #57 on: October 09, 2010, 05:30:01 PM »

Let's play a game.

Let's try to figure out how much of the current currency, paper or coin, is actual minted or coined, and how much exists only as data. 

I see it this way, ie I have an fictional income of say $4,000.00 per month.  The "money" is electronically credited to my account at the 1st of each month.  I then spend the credit posted to my account via electronic payments over the internet or via debt card for in person purchases, the cycle repeats each month.  How much of the credit posted was due to electronic crediting to begin with? 

In today's world so much is done electonically, that if a major disruption of a power grid in any of the financial centers of the world, damaging hard drives and data storage devices as much as 2/3 of the world's wealth could disappear.  Our current "Recession" was created by a loss of electronic wealth, whether it be the shrinkage of a home's value, flucuations of the stock market, or bank reserves verses liabilities, the money existed only as data.  If it weren't for elctronic money the stock market would probably never reached a value of 1000 let alone the current excess of 10,000 that it now rates. 

It's kind of like blowing up a balloon, ever molecule of air has an assigned value within the ballon while it is increasing in sign (most due to inflation)[parden the pun] until the balloon bursts and then the balloon no longer has value because it can no longer hold air.
Logged

Life is a school.  What have you learned?   Brian      The greatest danger to our society is apathy, vote in every election!
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Beemaster's Beekeeping Ring
Previous | Home | Join | Random | Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.328 seconds with 21 queries.

Google visited last this page July 26, 2014, 07:29:45 PM
anything