Guest SgtMinor Posted July 22, 2007 Posted July 22, 2007 Neolibertarian wrote: > In article <5rmdnfzzboaYzzzbnZ2dnUVZ_oLinZ2d@comcast.com>, > SgtMinor <Sarge@the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote: > > > >>>>>>First clue, diversify. Investors with any brains rarely tie all their >>>>>>money up in one country >>>>>>Second clue. There is money to be made in any market, up or down. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Americans were the first people on earth to use the term "to make >>>>>money." Before that, money was static--it had to be inherited, stolen, >>>>>borrowed or begged. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>Bullshit, the USA was not the first country to use fiat money or go off >>>>the gold standard >>>> >>>> >>>>>Yes, wealth comes from /making/ money. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Printing paper and creating debt you mean >>>> >>> >>>If you don't know how an economy works, nor how wealth is created--you >>>have plenty of company. Especially here at Usenet. >>> >> >>Nobody knows how an economy works. > > > You may not. > > However, just because you don't know, doesn't mean no one knows. > > >>Economics is a social science, the >>study of human behavior, > > > Certainly some aspects of economics--though this branch of social > science is highly quantifiable. > > >>and all you can do to explain such behavior is >>to mumble a few theories. > > > Valid scientific theories must be predictive. Many economic theories > have been proven successfully predictive. > > >>And your "wealth creation" theory is pathetic. > > > I haven't articulated any theories. > > Yet. > What were these statements then: "high taxes keep an economy flat." "You can't get richer if the economy doesn't grow." "Yes, wealth comes from /making/ money." In response to the statement "Nobody knows how an economy works," you opine: "You may not. However, just because you don't know, doesn't mean no one knows." If these are not theories, what are they? Just because you believe these things does not make them facts. Economics depends on the choices made by billions of people around the globe. Anyone who thinks that he can predict that behavior with machine-like precision is delusional. The fact that you still have not responded to my two questions posed in reference to your tax and economic growth theory strikes me as a de facto admission that you also don't know how an economy works. To remind you, those questions were and are: What does large deficit spending do for economic growth? What would a balanced budget do? The first question deals with current conditions. Both relate to taxes. These are two simple questions about cause and effect, and since you state that, while economics might be a social science, it is "highly quantifiable," you should be able to produce an explanation. Quote
Guest SgtMinor Posted July 22, 2007 Posted July 22, 2007 Governor Swill wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 20:23:33 -0400, SgtMinor > <Sarge@the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote: > > >>>>Printing paper and creating debt you mean >>>> >>> >>>If you don't know how an economy works, nor how wealth is created--you >>>have plenty of company. Especially here at Usenet. >>> >> >>Nobody knows how an economy works. Economics is a social science, the >>study of human behavior, and all you can do to explain such behavior is >>to mumble a few theories. And your "wealth creation" theory is pathetic. > > > I can link 21st century international finance to the coinage of the > Holy Roman Empire. > > Economics is a not a social science but it is dependent on human > behaviors. It is an exact science modified by human application of > it's principles. Try again. Take a few minutes and look here - http://qurl.net/1T1 - for definitions like these: Definitions of economics on the Web: the branch of social science that deals with the production and distribution and consumption of goods and services and their management wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn Economics (deriving from the Greek words οίκω [okos], 'house', and νέμω [nemo], 'rules' hence household management) is the social science that studies the allocation of scarce resources to satisfy unlimited wants. This involves analyzing the production, distribution, trade and consumption of goods and services. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of wealth, and with the various related problems of labor, finance, taxation, etc. (Webster's New World) http://www.worldtrans.org/whole/wholedefs.html The study of choice and decision-making in a world with limited resources. http://www.mcwdn.org/ECONOMICS/EcoGlossary.html Economics is one of the disciplines that studies human decision making. It involves psychology, sociology, political science, finance, accounting and other areas of academic interest. > > Wealth does not exist in some finite supply under the ground somewhere > that is dug up, refined and then locked away. The supply of consumers > long ago outstripped the supply of metal backing let alone metal coin. > This is why during the last century, modern nations began to withdraw > from metal backing and converting to a paper money supply that has > value based on consumer and investor confidence and trust in it's > value. You can use coin no matter how many people there are. If gold is the standard and the quantity of available gold grows at a slower rate than population growth, the value of gold will go up and you will need to provide more goods or services for an equal amount of gold. Conversely, a smaller piece of precious metal may be used to buy the same item at a later point in time. Prices drop, the coin is now too big, let's hack it into eight pieces. > Wealth is not how much money you have, it's how many tangible things > you have or can get. Paper money is an agreed upon medium of > exchange. It's a point system for wealth distribution. Humans used > to mint coins out of metals in order to keep score. To equate wealth with ownership or control of tangible goods is a very narrow definition. Do one's family, friends, a good meal, drink, music, the joy of nature, and a myriad of other things have no value? > > Go anywhere in the world. No matter what you want there, > transportation, food, lodging, local crafts or 14 year old virgins, if > you have dollars, they will accept them. They would probably take > euros and perhaps wuan as well these days. In many places, many > regional currencies would be acceptable. In the Pacific Rim, I'm sure > yen is acceptable in payment while baht or KHR are mostly not. I know, it does not speak well of us as a people. > > The more of your currency it takes to buy a thing, the less value it > has. You can buy more in more places with a dollar than you can with > the market equivalent of a dollar in local currency. In some places, > the local currency is so inflated that they can't make change for a > dollar. This explains $10 hotels abroad. This is because the > dollar's value is agreed on by the planet. The LAK is agreed on only > by Laos. > > This gives dollar holders economic power which motivates them to > continue to acquire dollars even though they are mere slips of paper, > and non dollar holders struggle to obtain them. Possession of dollars > means global economic security. The United States is the source of > dollars. > > Capitalism is really quite old. Mints made money by stamping coins > from the King's metal supply. These coins were then lent to banks and > merchants at very low interest rates. They lent the coins to > consumers at profitably higher interest rates. Then you keep books, > consider your accounts receivable to be assets which you can loan out > and borrow against as future expected payments coming from your > debtors. > > An economy gets out of control when there is way too much money 'on > the books' than in circulation or when consumers lose faith in the > coinage. In history you'll find many examples of times when merchants > and consumers carefully filed a bit from the edges of coins and > collected the dust for smelting later. > > When there's not enough metal to go around and prices are kept > depressed, what do you do to keep your economy humming? > > You switch to paper, and keep the actual metal in vaults. Trouble is, > that doesn't actually increase the supply of metal so what you do is > maintain public confidence and trust that you can meet your financial > obligations. > > Eventually, the King goes 'off' gold and says, "Ok, it's just paper. > But let's say it's gold, ok?" And the people say, "Well, we've never > tried this before. Are you sure it will work?" "It'll work as long > as you agree to follow the rules of the system." > > "Ok." > > So now everybody simply agrees that these little green and white slips > of paper are worth something. And because a vast majority makes that > agreement, they are. > > This brings about an epiphany that forms a sound philosophical basis > for this method. It recognizes that it is not money which is > wealth, it is what one has and can get that is wealth. Money is > simply a point system for keeping score. > > There are all sorts of checks, balances and accounting practices > required. This explains why there are so many regulations in high > finance and why the best accountants need so much schooling and make > such good money. :-) > > When you think about all the dollars in account books everywhere, you > aren't looking at how many dollars there actually are, you're looking > at a flow chart of where they're going and where they've been. > > The Fed distributes a dollar. It starts to circulate. If you track > this dollar around, it shows up all over the place. It gets lent and > spent and paid back over time and lent right back out so what you're > seeing is a snapshot of that dollar's trail. > > After a while, there are enough dollars in circulation that financiers > start borrowing from and lending to each other which added confusion > further inflates the apparent money supply and helps reduce the need > for more supply. It's a filter level to the consumer which works as a > check against printing press induced hyperinflation. It's this > confusion that induces the economic fears that metallists in > particular feel. > > If one can comprehend that any broad view of how much money exists is > actually a snapshot of where all the money is and has been , one can > realize the system works extremely well. > > There was a mountain in Germany so rich in silver that it became the > official source of currency for the Holy Roman Empire. The place was > called Joachimthalers and the coins became known as 'thalers. Now you > know where the word "dollar" comes from. > > Swill Quote
Guest Neolibertarian Posted July 22, 2007 Posted July 22, 2007 In article <RsGdnT6l08IRPj_bnZ2dnUVZ_rGrnZ2d@comcast.com>, SgtMinor <Sarge@the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote: > Neolibertarian wrote: > > In article <5rmdnfzzboaYzzzbnZ2dnUVZ_oLinZ2d@comcast.com>, > > SgtMinor <Sarge@the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > >>>>>>First clue, diversify. Investors with any brains rarely tie all their > >>>>>>money up in one country > >>>>>>Second clue. There is money to be made in any market, up or down. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Americans were the first people on earth to use the term "to make > >>>>>money." Before that, money was static--it had to be inherited, stolen, > >>>>>borrowed or begged. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>>Bullshit, the USA was not the first country to use fiat money or go off > >>>>the gold standard > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Yes, wealth comes from /making/ money. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>>Printing paper and creating debt you mean > >>>> > >>> > >>>If you don't know how an economy works, nor how wealth is created--you > >>>have plenty of company. Especially here at Usenet. > >>> > >> > >>Nobody knows how an economy works. > > > > > > You may not. > > > > However, just because you don't know, doesn't mean no one knows. > > > > > >>Economics is a social science, the > >>study of human behavior, > > > > > > Certainly some aspects of economics--though this branch of social > > science is highly quantifiable. > > > > > >>and all you can do to explain such behavior is > >>to mumble a few theories. > > > > > > Valid scientific theories must be predictive. Many economic theories > > have been proven successfully predictive. > > > > > >>And your "wealth creation" theory is pathetic. > > > > > > I haven't articulated any theories. > > > > Yet. > > > > What were these statements then: "high taxes keep an economy flat." > "You can't get richer if the economy doesn't grow." "Yes, wealth comes > from /making/ money." In response to the statement "Nobody knows how an > economy works," you opine: "You may not. However, just because you > don't know, doesn't mean no one knows." > > If these are not theories, what are they? Unsubstantiated statements. They're certainly not articulated theories. > Just because you believe > these things does not make them facts. True. > > Economics depends on the choices made by billions of people around the > globe. Anyone who thinks that he can predict that behavior with > machine-like precision is delusional. Machine-like precision isn't necessary. > > The fact that you still have not responded to my two questions posed in > reference to your tax and economic growth theory strikes me as a de > facto admission that you also don't know how an economy works. To > remind you, those questions were and are: What does large deficit > spending do for economic growth? Nothing. However, the federal budget isn't the economy of the United States. Economic growth goes on, largely despite the federal government. > What would a balanced budget do? The > first question deals with current conditions. Both relate to taxes. Taxes are one way to "balance" the federal budget. Drastically reducing spending is another way. Pay-as-you-go federal services is yet another. After all, there ain't no secha thing as a free lunch. > > These are two simple questions about cause and effect, and since you > state that, while economics might be a social science, it is "highly > quantifiable," you should be able to produce an explanation. I can do better than explain with mere words: http://elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg -- NeoLibertarian "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" ---Ronald Reagan Quote
Guest Harold Burton Posted July 22, 2007 Posted July 22, 2007 In article <Xns9970CD7925C09fubar@63.218.45.252>, Amanda Williams <pms@fu.com> wrote: > Captain Compassion <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> allegedly said in > news:rekq93hm97a81t8phro00sglkvsmfa4fj7@4ax.com: > > > Irritation grows over taxes > > http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1891543.ece > > > > Another riechtard "think-tank" does a "survey" and finds, to everyone's > COMPLETE astonishment, that people don't like paying taxes... > > WOW... Imagine that eh? > > How can we live without such insightfull information??? Looks like someone struck another of Mandy's nerves. Quote
Guest Governor Swill Posted July 22, 2007 Posted July 22, 2007 On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 01:49:44 GMT, Neolibertarian <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote: >> The fact that you still have not responded to my two questions posed in >> reference to your tax and economic growth theory strikes me as a de >> facto admission that you also don't know how an economy works. To >> remind you, those questions were and are: What does large deficit >> spending do for economic growth? > >Nothing. However, the federal budget isn't the economy of the United >States. Deficits don't affect the economy? Then why are so many people griping about them? >Economic growth goes on, largely despite the federal government. It stumbles along without guidance. >> What would a balanced budget do? The >> first question deals with current conditions. Both relate to taxes. > >Taxes are one way to "balance" the federal budget. > >Drastically reducing spending is another way. He didn't ask how you balance a budget, he asked what effect it would have on the economy. >Pay-as-you-go federal services is yet another. After all, there ain't no >secha thing as a free lunch. You missed the answer on the first one and didn't even answer the second. Swill -- Picture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html Quote
Guest Governor Swill Posted July 22, 2007 Posted July 22, 2007 On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 20:43:48 -0400, SgtMinor <Sarge@the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote: >> Wealth is not how much money you have, it's how many tangible things >> you have or can get. Paper money is an agreed upon medium of >> exchange. It's a point system for wealth distribution. Humans used >> to mint coins out of metals in order to keep score. > >To equate wealth with ownership or control of tangible goods is a very >narrow definition. Do one's family, friends, a good meal, drink, music, >the joy of nature, and a myriad of other things have no value? The topic is material wealth. That is wealth of another kind. However, as food, clothing and shelter become less difficult to come by, there is more time for the personal kind. :-) Swill -- Picture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html Quote
Guest Governor Swill Posted July 22, 2007 Posted July 22, 2007 On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 20:43:48 -0400, SgtMinor <Sarge@the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote: >> Go anywhere in the world. No matter what you want there, >> transportation, food, lodging, local crafts or 14 year old virgins, if >> you have dollars, they will accept them. They would probably take >> euros and perhaps wuan as well these days. In many places, many >> regional currencies would be acceptable. In the Pacific Rim, I'm sure >> yen is acceptable in payment while baht or KHR are mostly not. > >I know, it does not speak well of us as a people. gasp How does it not? It means that we are a successful people. More successful than those paying their rent in bahts! Swill -- Picture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html Quote
Guest Neolibertarian Posted July 22, 2007 Posted July 22, 2007 In article <5tu5a3h5h7h7hpe5m1nm92oeducqgvpo25@4ax.com>, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 01:49:44 GMT, Neolibertarian <cognac756@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> The fact that you still have not responded to my two questions posed in > >> reference to your tax and economic growth theory strikes me as a de > >> facto admission that you also don't know how an economy works. To > >> remind you, those questions were and are: What does large deficit > >> spending do for economic growth? > > > >Nothing. However, the federal budget isn't the economy of the United > >States. > > Deficits don't affect the economy? Then why are so many people > griping about them? > > >Economic growth goes on, largely despite the federal government. > > It stumbles along without guidance. > > >> What would a balanced budget do? The > >> first question deals with current conditions. Both relate to taxes. > > > >Taxes are one way to "balance" the federal budget. > > > >Drastically reducing spending is another way. > > He didn't ask how you balance a budget, he asked what effect it would > have on the economy. > > >Pay-as-you-go federal services is yet another. After all, there ain't no > >secha thing as a free lunch. > > You missed the answer on the first one and didn't even answer the > second. How you balance the budget will effect the economy in different ways, just as how you finance deficit spending will effect the economy in different ways. Silly. -- NeoLibertarian "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" ---Ronald Reagan Quote
Guest Governor Swill Posted July 24, 2007 Posted July 24, 2007 On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 14:21:49 -0500, Neolibertarian <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote: >> >Drastically reducing spending is another way. >> >> He didn't ask how you balance a budget, he asked what effect it would >> have on the economy. >> >> >Pay-as-you-go federal services is yet another. After all, there ain't no >> >secha thing as a free lunch. >> >> You missed the answer on the first one and didn't even answer the >> second. > >How you balance the budget will effect the economy in different ways, >just as how you finance deficit spending will effect the economy in >different ways. > >Silly. Well, that's just rephrasing one of his questions into a statement. He didn't ask you IF a balanced budget affected the economy, he asked you how different budget policies affected the economy. Sgt Minor asked you: "What does large deficit spending do for economic growth? What would a balanced budget do?" And you still haven't answered those questions. Is it because you don't know? Trying to figure it out so you can respond in another couple of days? Swill -- Picture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.