My god that is an idiotic thing to say because you're trying to argue with me by making my point for me.
"That's as valid as "It's a historical fact that increasing prices will raise profits."" Noting the Sarcasm in this statement please read the following.
increasing prices will raise profits - no they decrease profits
decreasing prices will raise profits - yes more people buy when it's cheaper
increasing taxes will raise tax revenue - no they decrease revenue
decreasing taxes will raise tax revenue - yes more people buy when it's cheaper to live
You're right, not a very good example. From my business education standpoint, you increase prices, you lose profits from competition. You decrease prices, you lose profits due to high variable costs not being covered. "decreasing prices will raise profits - yes more people buy when it's cheaper" only works if you're actually covering your costs, and the number of buyers (tax payers) isn't infinite. Both tax rates and product prices have diminishing returns, and both have peaks. We may be over the peak with too high of a tax rate, but we may also be on the other side of the peak with taxes being too low. That really depends on whom you ask (I have no opinion because I don't believe I am fully informed, but then neither are most of our politicians). Just automatic "lower taxes = higher tax revenues" is total BS. Regarding your examples, the tax rate was easily too high when Reagan came to power, and it's good that he realized that, but don't forget that he also ended up raising taxes later when he realized the revenues were too low. Clinton raised taxes in the 90's, and we ended up increasing revenues and getting rid of the deficit. Bush lowered taxes (though also increased spending), and we have a HUGE debt. It really isn't as simple as you make it out to be. Out of curiosity, though, why do you believe that the reduction of tax rates in your examples resulted in the "rich" paying a higher share of tax revenues? Did the rich skimp out on paying taxes before? What about a decreasing tax rate drives up these tax revenues? |
|
|
|
|
Back in MY day, we didn't have all those fancy 0's in front of prices like you do today. We didn't have nothin' like mili, or micro. We just called it Bitcoin, and weeeeee liked it!
|
|
|
|
School is not made to learn stuff, it's to get a diploma to give you access to better job in the future.
I would explain to them that school is mostly to teach you what there is to learn about, with maybe some guidance on where to start, but the actual learning is then done later on, on your own, on things you're actually interested in. Without going to school, likely the only things you'll ever bother with, or even be aware of learning about, are things you come across in your own life, which will likely be TV shows and fast food :/ |
|
|
|
Yup. there are Dozens of ways to get into space without carrying rockets up with you. The old, inefficient way is not the only way to do things. Though being Konstantin Tsiolkovsky's great-great-great-grandson, I'm somewhat biased towards the multi-stage approach  Also, I notice that article is missing the idea I read more recently about blasting stuff into space using underwater nukes... That would be extremely cheap compared to the other methods, and we already have plenty of materials, though people will complain about the radiation no doubt. |
|
|
|
Seriously dude it's a historical fact that reducing Taxes increases Tax Receipts. This is why the Globalists rate Tax Cuts. It stimulate the economy and they don't like that. we are discussing spending cuts but that and your article is zero reason to not roll back the tax cuts that have helped explode our deficit as bush's Treasury sect Paul O;Neil warned would happen, right before he was forced out for saying that.
That's as valid as "It's a historical fact that increasing prices will raise profits." We also obviously know that 0% tax rate does not result in infinity% tax receipts. There's an upside down hyperbola function with pretty much everything financial/economic. You just have to find the peak. |
|
|
|
But lenders take the liquidity premium without providing any service to society.
The money holder has the power to enable commerce...
So, which is it? Money holders/lenders don't provide any service, or money holders/lenders enable commerce? Money provides the service, lenders take the profit. Also they enable other "capitalists" to take it too. Is that like "rental car provides the service, rental car agency that maintains the fleet or cars take the profit?" You are also apparently focusing in on the "liquidity premium" as the main evil of interest. Is liquidity, aka easy access to capital, a useless/worthless service?
I focus on it because I don't want to attack the risk premium. No, liquidity is so important that influences all the economy and capital accumulation. But, without liquidity, economic activity would grind to a slow pace, since everyone who needs capital for whatever purpose will have to wait a long time until their request for such is fulfilled (like putting a buy price at MtGox, and waiting for hours until your order is filled, if it ever does) How can you make a profit on liquidity without lending???
Very good question. The easy answer (just like the borrowers would do it) doesn't apply here, because we're supposing that we're in a recession environment in which no borrower can make any investment that yields more than the liquidity premium in any sector of the economy. A very extreme scenario, by the way, I bet impossible within capitalism. That's what merchants do. They make profit on liquidity through the wares. If they're borrowers, they pay it to their lender. [/quote] Using exact definitions of the words, a "liquidity premium" is basically what the money holder can get on a spread in a currency market. If no one is borrowing/buying money (no trading of currency), the spread will be irrelevant, and thus might as well be 0. What's your definition of this liquidity premium? I think mis-communication as to what you mean by that is what may be causing problems in this discussion. By the way, I've come to the conclusion that Gesell is a TERRIBLE writer, since the book tends to have a lot of words with little explanation regarding the assumptions behind them. What is YOUR definition and explanation of it? |
|
|
|
Multi-billion dollar corporations in this country are not paying any corporate income tax due to tax loopholes and credits. Granted yes those companies do pay other taxes however if you look at a company like GE which makes billions off the Federal and even local Gov'ts yet paid no corporate income tax last year it's clear they are not owning up to paying their fair share which in turn creates this country in which they are able to make those profits.
Others like Microsoft, Intel and Google have moved vast amounts of money and corporate assets to other countries to avoid US taxes yet without the US those companies wouldn't exist.
Although I'm all for a tiered tax system, the things you pointed out warrant some explanation. GE didn't pay any corporate taxes because they, and many other corps, are still recouping the losses they had in 2008. Negative profits (or profit losses) are allowed to be carried forward and deducted for a few years. Likely GE still had plenty to carry forward. It just means that, although they may have made a huge profit over the last year, they made pretty much nothing over the last 3 years. As for why those tech companies moved overseas, it probably has almost nothing to do with taxes, and everything to do with being able to find a pool of highly skilled employees willing to work for much less money. Believe it or not, there are actual real problems with being able to find people skilled and educated enough in this country to do some of the things those companies need done  |
|
|
|
Someone needs to figure out how to combine a second-stage rocket engine with a first-stage MAGLEV propulsion track. Use cheaper nuclear electric power to accelerate these things to about 2000kmh up the side of a mountain, then let the rockets do the rest.
One problem I see here is that maglev might work well travelling on level ground/gentle slopes, it might not work at all if it has to fight gravity. The reason maglev trains can move so fast is because the propulsion only needs to fight air drag to move. As it is, it takes a lot of power to get a maglev vehicle up to speed and going up vertically would essentially mean doing that all the way. So it's not likely going to be able to hit 2000km/h, maybe not even anywhere close to the current train speed records. A dedicated nuclear or hydro plant with a capacitor stack may be enough. Also, the vehicle itself will not be heavy, since it won't have to carry the fuel and rocket shells with it (you'll only be moving the shuttle, not the booster rockets and giant tank). Worse case, you can just fire the thing out of a tunnel, with a series of gas explosions behind it, like a gas gun. Still way more efficient, since the fuel is still stored on the ground, instead of being launched along with the vehicle. |
|
|
|
|
The biggest problem with a default is that the ratings agencies will downgrade US Bonds from AAA to AA, and all the world's funds that are, by their own contracts, required to only keep AAA securities, will have to dump all their holdings on the market. The result will be a very severe crash of the USD. Even high interest rates will be meaningless in the face of a crash like that.
Also, don't forget that our chief exports are military hardware and USD. It's the only reason we as a country can buy so much more than we export. Kill off one of those....
|
|
|
|
|
Um, military, police, fire, legal system, fda, transportation, keeping old people off the streets, and all that debt that people voted FOR before they decided, "Nuh-uh! Not MY debt, it's the governments!" Seriously, why is it that when people vote for politicians and decisions that, say, get us stuck in a decade-long war, it's all good, but as soon as those same people are asked to pay for the money borrowed to support that war, it's all, "don't look at me! It's not MY debt."
|
|
|
|
|
Someone needs to figure out how to combine a second-stage rocket engine with a first-stage MAGLEV propulsion track. Use cheaper nuclear electric power to accelerate these things to about 2000kmh up the side of a mountain, then let the rockets do the rest.
|
|
|
|
|
I would question the authenticity of the letter, and contact the teachers to verify it first. Teachers usually know what the hell they're talking about, usually having earned a teaching degree and have studied the topic they were hired to teach in depth.
|
|
|
|
But lenders take the liquidity premium without providing any service to society.
The money holder has the power to enable commerce...
So, which is it? Money holders/lenders don't provide any service, or money holders/lenders enable commerce? You are also apparently focusing in on the "liquidity premium" as the main evil of interest. Is liquidity, aka easy access to capital, a useless/worthless service? The problem is that we can't reach the point where nobody borrows because there's no capital to invest in. Before reaching that point we reach the point where nobody lends, because holders can make more profit from their liquidity than what they could get from borrowers.
How can you make a profit on liquidity without lending??? |
|
|
|
I don't confuse virtual reality with actual reality. "Trolling douchebags" are created by real world problems, not a result of online communities.
An RBE would provide greater variety of such ingredients because food production can be incredibly scaled up to allow for it. Since we wouldn't waste so much area, materials time and effort on meaningless activities and goals, then a healthier community would emerge with a better agricultural base.
My point is that trolls and douchebags will always exist, in any community, as will corruption and abuse. Even if it starts just for the sake of being an abusive troll. I don't see how RBE will deal with such a situation, other than empower the trolls in the "science-based decision" sector, who may want to screw with the "ignorant masses." |
|
|
|
|
I think this should be changed to
How much of your ASSETS is stored in Bitcoins?
|
|
|
|
|
-68%
(have a large networth offset by a large collection of student loans)
|
|
|
|
Is not immoral to charge interest on money lending, is just the way money works as it is today.
But money is not a product, is more like a contract between all its users. And that contract can be flawed and lead to undesirable effects.
Money is artificially scarce and is the only capital whose yields cannot drop to zero by competition. Ironically is also the only capital that doesn't produce anything of value.
The difference is that profits disappear by competition and capital yields are artificially maintained "high" by the current design of money.
Simply by competing "dishonestly" with other capitals. The accumulation of every type of capital stops when that type of capital yields less than money itself (which as said doesn't produce any good or service on its own).
Pretty much everything you said there is equally applicable to any kind of scarce resource, like oil, steel, or gold. They are all: - traded on contracts
- are all scarce
- all "don't produce anything of value" (they can be used as ingredients in production, but are not productions of value in themselves)
- Their yields can not drop to zero by competition (way more demand than supply)
- All have the potential stop accumulation of other types of capital when opportunities to invest in these commodities exists
And like money, many of these commodities can last almost for ever, too. |
|
|
|
My point is that predictable deflation cannot be built into the price, because the only rational price would be infinite (at least in this oversimplified scenario). This is self-evidently false. The value of deflation can be built into the price and it's obviously finite. The problem is, you're starting with the assumption that deflation is not built into the price and then showing that it cannot be built into the price. Of course if it is not built into the price, it cannot be built into the price. You do this by saying "The value is X today, but it also has additional value because it will deflate. Let us calculate that additional value." The X already includes the deflation value, just as the future X's also include the predicted future deflation value past that point. There is nothing else to add. If you want to say "The value is X today, but it has additional value because it will deflate", your X must be the current value less the deflation value. And the future values you calculate the present value of must also be exclusive of the deflation value. If the deflation value is actually infinite, then the present value less the deflation value is infinitesimal, and the future values less their deflation values that you are adding to the present value are also infinitesimal, so you have a sum of an infinite number of infinitesimals which can be, and in this case must be, finite. This is especially so because a time frame of over, say, 1,000 years is self-evidently absurd. Nobody can be confident something will deflate for that long. Heck, we may not have physical bodies in 1,000 years. So, deflation has been built into the value of bitcoin as it's fluctuated from $0.00 to $30.00 and back down to...$10? I think you're missing some appreciable percentage of your parietal lobe... I think you're trying to argue this from a "wtf is this?" layman's point of view, while others are trying to argue this from a "standard business practices" point of view, and as a result, the two discussions are on completely different wavelengths. Yes, if I was running this business, I would have deflation expectations built into my prices, just as I have inflation built into my USD prices. Currency fluctuation is just something completely different I have to deal with, having nothing to do with deflation, which is something I already deal with when dealing with USD/EUR |
|
|
|
So the wallet data is stored in the cloud? So if I uninstall it that's all gone.
I guess if you got a new phone or reset your phone, as long as you log in with your google account you should be able to retrieve said wallet?
I would not trust it. My copy created a new wallet and overwrote the one in the cloud. Use Titanium Backup, and copy the backup file from the SD card to your computer. That may require a rooted phone though. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
