Your psychosis is treatable. Please seek help.
I think you just proved his point. None of that makes sense to me, I don't even know what a tea party is except a bunch of people having tea together? But yes, I heard something about the irs targeted someone.
Well, perhaps you recall hearing of the incident where some patriots (your government would probably call them terrorists - come to think of it, so would ours, but that's beside the point) tossed a load of tea into Boston Harbor? Over here we called that the "Boston Tea Party." Fast forward ~250 years, and: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#History |
|
|
|
Just read a bit. Free-market goods are always better than one-size-fits-all goods forced upon one by the state.
This. Especially security. |
|
|
|
So, anyone want to place bets as to which currency gets to the "Cheaper to use directly as toilet paper than to buy toilet paper" stage first, the Dollar, the Euro, or the Yen? I'll bet you dollars that it is either yen or euros!  |
|
|
|
Bitcoin does not equal no taxes, it never has, it never will.
If taxation is defined as a government taking your money without your consent, it does. |
|
|
|
All major currencies maintain inflation at around 2%. There is no hyperinflation in Japan, Europe or the US.
Yet. |
|
|
|
If your neighbour pollutes the hell out of his chunk, quite a bit of it will go your way (depending on wind direction etc.)
And then you sue the shit out of him for damages. If you know exactly which neighbour it is. The smoke stack is probably a dead giveaway. BTW: Another scenario would be something that dissipates very well in small quantities, but the effect is quite bad. Like some sort of poison leaking out.
It could be traced. Just walk toward the higher concentrations. OR... Some kind of pollution that is hard to detect where it comes from, and most neighbours are polluting small amounts that add up and does damage.
Damage to whom? If most of them are doing it, and suffering damages from it, then they are suffering the damages from their own actions. If you're not doing it, and suffering damages from their actions, sue 'em. Or maybe some kind of pollution where it's hard to detect the source unless you are close, but someone far away does a lot of it, and his neighbours does not care or his land plot is large and the sources placed in a way that makes it hard to pinpoint the pollution without being at the private property. Not to mention that the pollutant is a part of unpolluted air, only in far less quantity. Again, it could be traced. Just walk toward the higher concentrations. |
|
|
|
So, anyone want to place bets as to which currency gets to the "Cheaper to use directly as toilet paper than to buy toilet paper" stage first, the Dollar, the Euro, or the Yen? |
|
|
|
So in conclusion I would define property as that which is created, without infringing on individual rights and can [be] exchanged in a free market.
That causes quite a few problems, the most obvious of which is IP. I won't argue the definition is half baked, and I won't disagree the idea is radical, but then so was abolishing slavery. Hell even a fixed money supply will "causes quite a few problems" to our current system. While I make a living creating IP, it is only the laws that make ideas as property possible, if the laws didn't exist I would still do what I do, only I would just employ a new business model and partners to monetise my IP (ideas). The meme of property is as damaged as current monetary system; I was just making the point that we are moving in the right direction, fixing the medium of exchange fixes half the problem. Creation alone is not enough to make a thing property.
Agreed, although I was referring to the act of creation in reference to property as a right Have you read Stephan Kinsella's " Against Intellectual Property"? He goes rather in-depth into what property is, why it is, and why IP isn't property, but land is. |
|
|
|
People love to talk about market forces solving all problems, but protecting the environment is something that market forces do a very poor job at protecting. See global warming on a global scale, or overfishing, it's the economic principle of externalities - also referred to as "the tragedy of the commons".
You know how to fix the tragedy of the commons, right? Well, my memory of economics tells me that the way of fixing the tragedy of the commons would be to build the externalities into the price of whatever is being sold. In other words, if you were to use gasoline as an example, put a large tax on it to account for the fact that it contributes to global warming. Over the long run, this will result in a situation where people will drive less, and use smaller cars, thus use less gas. So, in this case, the solution is government intervention. The same idea would apply for many other cases of tragedy of the commons, ie: some species is being overfished? Declare an area off limits for fishing for a set period of time. So on and so forth. I like minimalism in government, but environmental protections like these are regulations that I fully support. That's a common approach, halfawake, but not the textbook solution. The simple sollution to a "tragedy of the commons" is to privatize the common. That is, give it to someone. This will result in the resource being allocated to its most efficient use (see Coase Theorem). Lol - so who should own the whole atmosphere? Nobody. But it's a simple matter to split it up. Cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos. Not sure if you get my point. The problem is not in splitting up the atmosphere into ownable chunks, it is to keep whatever you put into the atmosphere inside your dedicated chunk. If your neighbour pollutes the hell out of his chunk, quite a bit of it will go your way (depending on wind direction etc.) And then you sue the shit out of him for damages. |
|
|
|
Godamnit. I was totally expecting Ekaros to pick kill again, too. Now I feel bad.  Don't feel bad, I'm pretty sure his strategy is, "Heads, I trade, tails I kill." |
|
|
|
You're trolling me? Not much of a challenge On the off-chance that you're serious, enjoy your life at the office -- i'll be on my 45-footer island-hopping in the caribbean somewhere. With what? You've loaned out all your money, and you won't get your profits for ten years. Assuming, of course, that they don't default. With what? With the monthly installments on my loan. Unless you feel that's impossible unless i allow the entirety of the loan to be repaid before it's due. Why not go back a page or two and reread everything before your answer? My mistake then, since I thought this meant that the whole lump sum would be out for the entire duration: A. Lend all the money, in one lump sum, to a single borrower for the duration of 10 years.
Now that you've clarified, of course I would prefer A. I don't like to work weekends. Even better would be C. Lend all the money out to numerous people, and arrange their payment plans such that I have regular weekly income. And wouldn't you know it, that's generally how lenders do it. |
|
|
|
They really need to decide which way they want to tax us. They can't have it both ways.
They can, and do. |
|
|
|
This is abuse of the tag [FUNNY].
This makes it worth it, I think: I'm not often right, but I'm always wright.
|
|
|
|
Japan - Land of the Rising Sun Hyperinflation. Has the hyperinflation roller coaster in Japan already started?
After over 20 years of stagnation and deflation, the Japanese are trying to get their economy going again by printing money.  Japan is the world's largest creditor nation, generally running an annual trade surplus and having a considerable net international investment surplus. As of 2010, Japan possesses 13.7% of the world's private financial assets (the 2nd largest in the world) at an estimated $14.6 trillion. As of 2011, 68 of the Fortune 500 companies are based in Japan. Am I missing something here? |
|
|
|
But you can lend, even at interest, in an inelastic currency, without practicing fractional reserve. And that's what we're taking about.
When you are doing full reserve lending as opposed to fractional, the interest rates are completely determined by the market. The lender has no control over it. Which is the other side of the picture I was talking about, earlier. Interest is the "market price" of money. If you lend out all the money in the world, the interest rate by then would effectively be infinity. I just kind of skimmed yourall's conversation, just saying.
Yeah, that's why the example is ridiculous, but I ran with it anyway. |
|
|
|
You're trolling me? Not much of a challenge On the off-chance that you're serious, enjoy your life at the office -- i'll be on my 45-footer island-hopping in the caribbean somewhere. With what? You've loaned out all your money, and you won't get your profits for ten years. Assuming, of course, that they don't default. |
|
|
|
So in conclusion I would define property as that which is created, without infringing on individual rights and can [be] exchanged in a free market.
That causes quite a few problems, the most obvious of which is IP. Creation alone is not enough to make a thing property. |
|
|
|
Here is the crux of the situation you guys are talking about (i think):
To make it easy to see what is going on let us create a situation that, while outwardly ridiculous, nonetheless accurately illustrates what really happens. It's ridiculousness just makes it more obvious.
Let us pretend that there is $0 (zero) dollars in the economy (that's the ridiculous part). Person A goes to a bank and borrows $1,000. Now there is $1,000 in the economy.
See, no. That's fractional reserve banking in an elastic currency. We're talking about an inelastic currency, like BTC. To actually perform FRB you need an instrument like a note that can be redeemed for the BTC. These notes are elastic Indeed there are. But you can lend, even at interest, in an inelastic currency, without practicing fractional reserve. And that's what we're taking about. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
