Socialist country don't usually do a good job of raising children. Teachers do not really care if they do a good job or not. And the education system do not have accountability.
Actually countries like Norway have a long paternal leave |
|
|
|
Why not allow people the ability to homestead a small parcel of land?
Because its too late for that |
|
|
|
Argentina could print pesos to buy dollars to pay back their debts. As they sell more pesos, the value of each peso would decrease so the more they print the less dollars they can buy on a per peso basis.
No country has managed to mint its way out of a crisis. I agree. Monetary policy alone cannot solve economic problems |
|
|
|
|
You realize the anti-trust is to create competition don't you?
Before when AT&T monopolized the telephone system in USA there was no competition b/c barrier to entry is too great. The break up of Bell is what allowed competition
|
|
|
|
The debt is on me (bank), and if I'm not able to return the debt (deposit), it will be passed to a guarantor on the debt (FDIC). If this guarantor is a state and can't pay the debt, it can either default or print more money (Fed), thus indirectly (I hope I won't have to repeat this again) passing the debt on to the taxpayers (US citizens). I see no logic at all in what you say or ask. You could just as well bumble something incoherent with a clever face.
In this scenario you still are the debtor. What you don't seem to grasp is that the money is loaned not given for free There's no FED printing money either for FDIC. That's something you made up It is not relevant to the point discussed whether I would remain a debtor or not. What's important here is who will pay the debts and with what means. Regarding the FED not printing money directly for the FDIC, it is not relevant here either. If it ever comes to choosing between default and printing more money, the FDIC will get all the money they would need, whether through the Treasury or directly from the FED, but this wouldn't change anything. You're just trying to cling to insignificant details and obfuscate the issue (that debts will be socialized). What do you mean its not relevant? Thats the entire topic we are discussing. "Default" means can't pay the loan. Has FDIC borrowed any money? NO. The correct term you want is "insolvent" Insolvency means the inability of a debtor to pay their debt. And now find the difference with your "default means can't pay the loan". And stop making value judgments, they speak more about you than me. "Default" essentially means a debtor has not paid a debt which he or she is required to have paid. "Insolvency" means that a debtor is unable to pay his or her debts. --> In accounting terms it means liabilities exceed assets If liabilities of FDIC exceed its assets then FDIC is "insolvent" --> This is what we are talking about. Run on bank deposits that exceed the FDIC fund. We are not talking about FDIC defaulting on a loan. The correct term is "insolvent" The issue here is you don't know what you are talking about. Instead of researching by yourself and once and for all understand how it works you continue to argue w me. Like I said, look it up for yourself or continue in ignorance. I don't care either way |
|
|
|
Haven't I already explained it that the Fed would print money for the FDIC after Congress would pass a corresponding act in case there is a need for such a legislation? Where did you get that the FDIC would be borrowing from the public? Please show me that part. Debts incur losses (if not paid indeed), they are just the two sides of the same coin. And if loss refers to income (according to your words), what the heck you began talking about losses when we were talking about debts?
If it comes down from it the FDIC would need to borrow money from the government via it's line of credit at the Treasury. Since the government is run "by the people and for the people" and since the public pays taxes to the government, the FDIC would essentially be borrowing from the public. So, in this case, the losses incurred from the uncollectible debts (bank defaults) will be paid by ordinary people directly. Now try to explain this to that guy who is ready to admit that I can't understand his explanations, but who still tries to make me explain to him how socializing debts (losses) works. Dude, can you think logically for a second and stop being argumentative ? If you run a business and you needed an extra $1M. You borrowed $1M from your mom. Does it mean the debt is passed to your mom? You think this means your mom paid the debt? The debt is on me (bank), and if I'm not able to return the debt (deposit), it will be passed to a guarantor on the debt (FDIC). If this guarantor is a state and can't pay the debt, it can either default or print more money (Fed), thus indirectly (I hope I won't have to repeat this again) passing the debt on to the taxpayers (US citizens). I see no logic at all in what you say or ask. You could just as well bumble something incoherent with a clever face. In this scenario you still are the debtor. What you don't seem to grasp is that the money is loaned not given for free There's no FED printing money either for FDIC. That's something you made up It is not relevant to the point discussed whether I would remain a debtor or not. What's important here is who will pay the debts and with what means. Regarding the FED not printing money directly for the FDIC, it is not relevant here either. If it ever comes to choosing between default and printing more money, the FDIC will get all the money they would need, whether through the Treasury or directly from the FED, but this wouldn't change anything. You're just trying to cling to insignificant details and obfuscate the issue (that debts will be socialized). What do you mean its not relevant? Thats the entire topic we are discussing. "Default" means can't pay the loan. Has FDIC borrowed any money? NO. The correct term you want is "insolvent" I've said enough. Its obvious you don't know about accounting. You got everything wrong and you think you can make a blanket statement about the FED and inflation. LOL Please continue in ignorance |
|
|
|
Haven't I already explained it that the Fed would print money for the FDIC after Congress would pass a corresponding act in case there is a need for such a legislation? Where did you get that the FDIC would be borrowing from the public? Please show me that part. Debts incur losses (if not paid indeed), they are just the two sides of the same coin. And if loss refers to income (according to your words), what the heck you began talking about losses when we were talking about debts?
If it comes down from it the FDIC would need to borrow money from the government via it's line of credit at the Treasury. Since the government is run "by the people and for the people" and since the public pays taxes to the government, the FDIC would essentially be borrowing from the public. So, in this case, the losses incurred from the uncollectible debts (bank defaults) will be paid by ordinary people directly. Now try to explain this to that guy who is ready to admit that I can't understand his explanations, but who still tries to make me explain to him how socializing debts (losses) works. Dude, can you think logically for a second and stop being argumentative ? If you run a business and you needed an extra $1M. You borrowed $1M from your mom. Does it mean the debt is passed to your mom? You think this means your mom paid the debt? The debt is on me (bank), and if I'm not able to return the debt (deposit), it will be passed to a guarantor on the debt (FDIC). If this guarantor is a state and can't pay the debt, it can either default or print more money (Fed), thus indirectly (I hope I won't have to repeat this again) passing the debt on to the taxpayers (US citizens). I see no logic at all in what you say or ask. You could just as well bumble something incoherent with a clever face. In this scenario you still are the debtor. What you don't seem to grasp is that the money is loaned not given for free There's no FED printing money either for FDIC. That's something you made up |
|
|
|
Did you forget about your own claims dude? I was not talking about privatizing profits, which you obviously failed to see, but was talking about just one particular example of socializing losses, i.e. socializing bank debts. Nevertheless, I'm pleased that you finally looked at what Google says about this notion.
Your claim was that if FDIC fund was insufficient the Fed would print money to lend them. This is already not true. Credit comes from the Treasury who can not expand money supply Even IF this was true, then its the FED that holds the debt not the public. IF the FDIC is borrowing from the public then the public is holding debt making it an asset for the public (not a liability). Debts & losses are not same things. Loss refers to income. Debt refers to asset / liability. You can't use these terms interchangeably unless you don't understand accounting Please, if you have a point then explain yourself instead of giving straw men Haven't I already explained it that the Fed would print money for the FDIC after Congress would pass a corresponding act in case there is a need for such a legislation? Where did you get that the FDIC would be borrowing from the public? Please show me that part. Debts incur losses (if not paid indeed), they are just the two sides of the same coin. And if loss refers to income (according to your words), what the heck you began talking about losses when we were talking about debts? If it comes down from it the FDIC would need to borrow money from the government via it's line of credit at the Treasury. Since the government is run "by the people and for the people" and since the public pays taxes to the government, the FDIC would essentially be borrowing from the public. So, in this case, the losses incurred from the uncollectible debts (bank defaults) will be paid by ordinary people directly. Now try to explain this to that guy who is ready to admit that I can't understand his explanations, but who still tries to make me explain to him how socializing debts (losses) works. Dude, can you think logically for a second and stop being argumentative ? If you run a business and you needed an extra $1M. You borrowed $1M from your mom. Does it mean the debt is passed to your mom? You think this means your mom paid the debt? If FDIC borrows money from Treasury, then FDIC is debtor. Treasury/ creditor gets interest payments. You're just reaching now. FDIC doesn't cover defaults. They insure deposits. Just forget your political bias and do some research. Sheesh |
|
|
|
You could have physical bitcoins/ satoshis circulated. This would solve the problem of access/ training.
Where would they come from? Argentina can't produce Bitcoins, physical or otherwise, out of thin air to circulate. Argentina would have to buy them. You will have to do the same things that you do when you dollarize an economy. They wouldn't peg to bitcoin… too much volatility. |
|
|
|
I would personally think he is full of it. It is very unlikely IMO that someone who "blow the whistle" on reddit. It is just not the kind of forum that you can easily show proof. It would be much more effective if he were to go to congress or go to the MSM who could verify his story but keep his identity private.
Yeah why not use wikileaks? |
|
|
|
This is about Argentina defaulting on its bonds. Bonds are denominated in USD so they can't print pesos to get out of mess. Not comparable to Cyprus situation. Cypriots bought bitcoin because imposed bank holiday Stop thinking everything is good for bitcoin. LOL  If Argentinians could buy USD, they would. Depends on whether BTC is easier to lay hands on, or USD. In the end, it could be good for bitcoin. Did you read the story? Agentina is defaulting on some bonds. What does this have to go people converting their currency The link is Argentina defaults --> Harder to get external credit --> More printing of pesos --> High Inflation. In the end, people will have to look after themselves, if their pesos get devalued very quickly. The bonds are denominated in USD though. Plus they're already having inflation problems. Why would they print more pesos? If anything they'll go back to pegging their currency or they'll go to IMF and be forced to follow whatever IMF reccomends For regular Argentinian people I think they have already been buying USD but the govt placed limitation in Jan. I'm gonna ask my Argentinian friend about it. I don't think in times of crisis most people will suddenly start speculating. I think they seek stability This does work somewhat however the more pesos that are printed the less effective this becomes as this would cause a sell off in pesos. I seriously doubt that the IMF will bail out Argentina as they are really too big of a country for the IMF to lend to. The IMF usually lends to countries with very small economies that never had access to capital markets while Argentina has had access to the capital markets. Printing more ARS wont pay off USD denominated debts. They have to acquire USD from somewhere. Is Argentina bigger than S Korea in 1997? IMF actually proposed a restructuring in 2003 but plan was abandoned due to pressures from USA Argentina could print pesos to buy dollars to pay back their debts. As they sell more pesos, the value of each peso would decrease so the more they print the less dollars they can buy on a per peso basis. It doesn't work like that. Now that I've researched the story in more detail. Its not that Argentina can't pay, they refused to pay some vulture funds and they got sued in US courts. The judges ruling forced them to miss bond payment and thats why credit rating was rated as default But their money is still a mess |
|
|
|
This is about Argentina defaulting on its bonds. Bonds are denominated in USD so they can't print pesos to get out of mess. Not comparable to Cyprus situation. Cypriots bought bitcoin because imposed bank holiday Stop thinking everything is good for bitcoin. LOL If Argentinians could buy USD, they would. Depends on whether BTC is easier to lay hands on, or USD. In the end, it could be good for bitcoin. Did you read the story? Agentina is defaulting on some bonds. What does this have to go people converting their currency The link is Argentina defaults --> Harder to get external credit --> More printing of pesos --> High Inflation. In the end, people will have to look after themselves, if their pesos get devalued very quickly. The bonds are denominated in USD though. Plus they're already having inflation problems. Why would they print more pesos? If anything they'll go back to pegging their currency or they'll go to IMF and be forced to follow whatever IMF reccomends For regular Argentinian people I think they have already been buying USD but the govt placed limitation in Jan. I'm gonna ask my Argentinian friend about it. I don't think in times of crisis most people will suddenly start speculating. I think they seek stability This does work somewhat however the more pesos that are printed the less effective this becomes as this would cause a sell off in pesos. I seriously doubt that the IMF will bail out Argentina as they are really too big of a country for the IMF to lend to. The IMF usually lends to countries with very small economies that never had access to capital markets while Argentina has had access to the capital markets. Printing more ARS wont pay off USD denominated debts. They have to acquire USD from somewhere. Is Argentina bigger than S Korea in 1997? IMF actually proposed a restructuring in 2003 but plan was abandoned due to pressures from USA |
|
|
|
|
You don't want this guy on your team. Nut job
|
|
|
|
So, if given the choice would you keep your money in the Argentina Peso or bitcoins?
I don't think anyone is given that choice. Unless there are exchanges selling bitcoin for Argentine peso. If so, links? Given a choice, people in Argentina will want to be paid preferably in Bitcoin. They do not need to convert their paycheck in bitcoin, just sell good and services in bitcoins and refuse unneeded pesos (at best the will accept some pesos to pay taxes with them). Foreigners will find favorable prices if they pay in bitcoins or any other half decent foreign currency. I bet you can rent a lot of ass and pussy in Argentina for bitcoins and get favorable treatment. So your solution is prostitution?  |
|
|
|
Haven't I already explained it that the Fed would print money for the FDIC after Congress would pass a corresponding act in case there is a need for such a legislation? Where did you get that the FDIC would be borrowing from the public? Please show me that part. Debts incur losses (if not paid indeed), they are just the two sides of the same coin. And if loss refers to income (according to your words), what the heck you began talking about losses when we were talking about debts?
Theres no protocol for FDIC getting money from the Fed. FDIC would get money from Treasury. I said this like 3 times already. You are explaining something you made up and does not reflect any factual evidence. Just doesn't work how you imagine. Accept it or go on being ignorant If FDIC borrows the money the debt isn't "socialized" because its the FDIC that holds the debt. You are claiming that FDIC borrows money and taxpayers has to repay the debt. WRONG. FDIC repays the debt. Theres no way for them to pass it off to taxpayers. They can pass it on to banks by raising premiums then banks can pass onto bank customers by raising fees. If you explained how I just did then you can argue the concept "privatized profits, socialized losses" NOT "socialized debts". You can't pass off your debts like that. You can default or you can restructure Debt is not losses. Debt is an asset for lender and liability for borrower. If you borrow $1M to buy a house you didn't lose $1M. You have a liability. If the house falls below your buying price then you lose money. You can't even get simple concepts right |
|
|
|
life should be about sharing and caring, not about hoarding for your own pleasure.
Says the guy who hoards bit coins. |
|
|
|
Is it valuable only because it's short? I don't understand why  remember mp3.com? haha maybe this is this generation's mp3.com |
|
|
|
It's not economic growth when just the numbers increase. And usually the prices increase much more than the wages.
Nice economic growth when the majority of the people gets ripped of, and only the stinking rich get even richer.
All this so called growth does is increase the gap between rich and poor.
Thats the game. Play by the rules or take your chances |
|
|
|
Did you forget about your own claims dude? I was not talking about privatizing profits, which you obviously failed to see, but was talking about just one particular example of socializing losses, i.e. socializing bank debts. Nevertheless, I'm pleased that you finally looked at what Google says about this notion.
Your claim was that if FDIC fund was insufficient the Fed would print money to lend them. This is already not true. Credit comes from the Treasury who can not expand money supply Even IF this was true, then its the FED that holds the debt not the public. IF the FDIC is borrowing from the public then the public is holding debt making it an asset for the public (not a liability). Debts & losses are not same things. Loss refers to income. Debt refers to asset / liability. You can't use these terms interchangeably unless you don't understand accounting Please, if you have a point then explain yourself instead of giving straw men |
|
|
|
I've been thinking about this lately a lot: How could a state be run with Bitcoin when it's soooo volatile? isn't a solid stability in price a necessity for a currency be realiable? what is the purchasing power of 1BTC without the references on FIAT?
When speculative demand ends and as adoptions increases, BTC is expected to become less volatile. If a state uses a crypto it won't be bitcoin. Bitcoin is volatile because its speculative. The Fed operates a big clearing system. If anything they'll use blockchain technology to run this clearing system. USD is legal tender and that wouldn't change. What changes is that users have option to hold the crypto USD in their own wallets and transfer it digitally without 3rd party |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
