tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post1624172424172453911..comments2024-03-18T17:09:55.964-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Triumph of the Trump? Be afraid of the manic "will"David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger159125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-6816591946830725972017-07-16T19:27:22.441-07:002017-07-16T19:27:22.441-07:00This is my first time visiting this blog. That sa...This is my first time visiting this blog. That said, a friend recommended I read this post along with Solnit's “THE LONELINESS OF DONALD TRUMP.” I did; five times. And the results are in:<br /><br />1. It takes first place in the amount of Hyperbole (capital H) one has ever written in a biography (which it purports to be).<br /><br />2. Solnit's article fell short by not including the word “bombastic.” It used to be an enormously popular description of Trump but has since fallen out of favor (due to overuse it started sounding banal and began reflecting poorly on all of the talking heads and their “panelists” who used it). However, her article did manage to use the description “buffoon” (twice, and for that Tosh and I thank you).<br /><br />3. It reads like it was written by an armchair psychologist who watched too much Dr. Phil.<br /><br />Of course, I could be wrong about the above but let's hear from Ms. Solnit about it. Anywho, thanks for listening.<br /><br />Howie<br />Howie Beilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-56943370619024314862017-07-11T21:41:11.886-07:002017-07-11T21:41:11.886-07:00Viking is doing it again!! This time he claims “I...Viking is doing it again!! This time he claims “I am egalitarian and no fan of nepotism.” Then he proceeds to deny that skyrocketing inequality and the gathering of vast influence and toxic wealth accumulations in narrow clades simply doesn’t exist.<br /><br />You know that you have to be egalitarian and to hate nepotism. Ayn Rand sidestepped the whole issue by one simple means… none of her Galtian characters reproduced! Not one of them, in any book, in any way shape or form. And thus she could wave the problem away, as do you,<br /><br />Notice what Viking does. He claims that because the new money guys are richer, that means theres no inherited wealth problem! Yippee!<br /><br /><br />Bull. There is vast inherited wealth. Why do you think the top GOP legislative priority is to sneak in an end to the Inheritance Tax, which is by far the fairest tax of all and the one that no family need ever pay!<br /><br />Sure Gates (born moderately wealthy) and other (mostly) self-made tech billionaires are richer - slightly - than the Walmarts and Kochs and Murdochs. The latter still intend for their children to be kings and lords and to have vast, unfair advantages in a market place that should be flat-fair-open.<br /><br />And you keep weaseling and worming and worming and weaseling to avoid facing the fact that in 99.99 % of human societies that had agriculture, unfair family advantage by owner-lords was the norm, and they cheated like mad and used their wealth and power to ensure that flat-fair-open competition would never happen.<br /><br />Let me repeat that paragraph, so that you cannot worm around it: In 99.99 % of human societies that had agriculture, unfair family advantage by owner-lords was the norm, and they cheated like mad and used their wealth and power to ensure that flat-fair-open competition would never happen.<br /><br />It was the great enemy of Adam Smith and of the American founders, who seized 1/3 of the land in the former colonies and redistributed it to start the great American middle class. It would be the great worry of any honest and sapient “libertarian” who deserved the name! But instead you cultists suck up to your lords at every turn.<br /><br /><br />ANSWER in the next thread... <br /><br />onward<br /><br />onwardDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-64693885573404896832017-07-11T16:23:23.641-07:002017-07-11T16:23:23.641-07:00oops. Moving onward now. 8)oops. Moving onward now. 8)Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-90893199623653895772017-07-11T16:21:08.283-07:002017-07-11T16:21:08.283-07:00Paul451,
I used to work in the banking sector and...Paul451,<br /><br />I used to work in the banking sector and I'm keenly aware of that problem. I think it is a worse problem than lack of access to good medical services since it is possible to be healthy for much of one's life. I get quite upset at how some are shut-out.<br /><br />Don't fret about the education needs of your lunch partners, though. IF they have access, the AI's will do the work for us.<br /><br />It's just that I've thought deep about this part of our future. We MUST have access to financial markets with full powers even if we are ignorant louts. We simply must make this happen or people will be ground under and lost to our civilization. It ain't gonna happen if you can't trade on your own reputation.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-26854182345782221302017-07-11T16:09:39.350-07:002017-07-11T16:09:39.350-07:00@Dr. Brin,
"Oh, but never ever will he menti...@Dr. Brin,<br /><br />"Oh, but never ever will he mention the enemy of 6000 years. inherited wealth and privilege that ensures aristos children won’t have to compete with bright children of the poor. Mention THAT? Never!"<br /><br />I think you're confusing me with somebody else. I am egalitarian, no fan of nepotism. There has been lots of discussion about Piketty the last few years, but the weakness in his thesis is that the economy is not dominated by a few rich families. He is screaming the sky is falling, but where is the evidence? Gates, Buffet, various European fashion magnates as the world richest are not aristocrats, they are new money. There are people who inherited their wealth, like the Waltons, and the Kock brothers, but the Vanderbilts, the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds are gone, fossils of an older age without any influence that hurts us.<br /><br />There might be some old money/ivy league connections to investment banking, and I am generally contemptuous of the FIRE economy, as an engineer I consider bankers overpaid monkeys that might need to open their fly if they need to count to 11.<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIRE_economy<br /><br />My way is live within your means, I am against mortgages, I think the old way when people built their own modest houses in a pay as you go manner were better. We are over consuming housing, and the availability of mortgages has pushed up land prices.Vikingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-59829688870946963512017-07-11T16:04:41.708-07:002017-07-11T16:04:41.708-07:00Having an advanced degree in the study of humans, ...Having an advanced degree in the study of humans, this is a little hard to just shrug at:<br /><br /> "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races"<br /><br />Actually, the first half of this is not racism, it's racialism, which is just the belief that separate human races exist. They don't. I'll refer you to the American Anthropology Association's Statement on Race from 1998.<br /><br />http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic888771.files/aaa_statement.pdf<br /><br />The second part of that statement, about assertions of superiority/inferiority is what racism is actually about. It sounds a little counter-intuitive that people can be prejudiced against something that doesn't really exist, but what we are talking about is making an artificial distinction and treating it as if it were real (reification error, at best).<br /><br />The claim that Matthew is racist simply because he points out racial disparity is a level of obfuscatory bullshit we have seen from our faux rancher many times before. <br /><br />I have to say I share Sociotard's opinion on the overuse of the term. "When the Left wing is too ready with the assumption of racism, they turn a necessary tool into a weapon, and the tool is made less useful." In some cases it does more harm than good. I have heard a number of people who decided to vote for President Grope specifically because of the "deplorable" appellation. They believed that neither they nor their friends and family were racist, but being tarred with that brush for even considering an alternative to Clinton pushed them into the Grope camp. Likewise I once had a coworker get rather miffed when I posted something on FB about racism in the Republican agenda. She insisted that not all conservatives are racists. My response was that only about half of them are, but that's a hell of a lot better than when we were young.<br /><br />This is not to downplay the importance of racism in society, but I strongly suspect that if class were more equal, race would become much less pronounced a factor - and the same applies to sex. Paul SBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-78753663859596191132017-07-11T16:01:41.657-07:002017-07-11T16:01:41.657-07:00onward
onwardonward<br /><br />onwardDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-21013457440173330832017-07-11T15:47:41.082-07:002017-07-11T15:47:41.082-07:00Annabelle wrote,
"Still.Not.True."
- G...Annabelle wrote,<br /><br />"Still.Not.True."<br /><br />- Got proof?<br /><br />Argument by assertion doesn't go far with smart people, and though I don't agree with everyone here all the time, it's clear that most of our regulars have more between their ears than simple conformity.Paul SBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-81768767552611726792017-07-11T15:09:10.559-07:002017-07-11T15:09:10.559-07:00sociotard, bull. I predicted - accurately - that c...sociotard, bull. I predicted - accurately - that certain MEMES — and not races - might propel macho societies to wage war against us, out of zero-sum thinking and especially out of fear that their women may become like our women, confident equals. You are grasping at straws.<br /><br />Viking: “"If this list contained owners of any big government contractors like Lookheed, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics etc, I would also consider them oligarchs with ill gotten gains." “<br /><br />Oh, but never ever will he mention the enemy of 6000 years. inherited wealth and privilege that ensures aristos children won’t have to compete with bright children of the poor. Mention THAT? Never!<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-26892701363704051132017-07-11T14:29:15.949-07:002017-07-11T14:29:15.949-07:00Viking:
That is the main reason for avoiding defa...Viking:<br /><i><br />That is the main reason for avoiding default, it would be a headache to actually prioritize what we really need, rather than kicking the can down the road.<br /></i><br /><br />Caveat emptor, I'm no economist. But I believe that a cut-back of government spending to levels it could afford if it were a family on a budget would immediately cause massive unemployment and a new Great Depression just by shrinking the money supply. In that sense, we're kinda stuck on the treadmill we're on. Or to quote (as close as I can from memory) Mustapha Mond in "Brave New World": "Before the wheels started turning, there were one billion people. Now, there are two billion. And if the wheels ever stop, the survivors won't have time to bury the dead."<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-84414563586983199242017-07-11T14:05:57.174-07:002017-07-11T14:05:57.174-07:00Dr. Differ and locumranch:
""Our kids c...Dr. Differ and locumranch:<br /><br />""Our kids can choose to default and any creditor that doesn’t take that into consideration is a fool", argues Alfred, including the opinion that "default is always, always, always an option". So why don't we default on our purported obligations? We don't because contractual breach implies certain forfeits, adverse consequence & the threat of force. The threat of Force. It's the giant white elephant in the room. Always there, always lurking. "<br /><br />As I commented before, I don't consider a US debt default as unlikely us the mainstream does. Dr. Differ points out that default is possible, therefore the debt is not slavery, and locumranch mentions consequences of default.<br /><br />Given our present strength, violence is not a likely consequence, but a balanced budget is. The day we defaulted, we would immediately have to switch to a pay as you go model, like Bill Clinton did during his government shutdown.<br /><br />That is the main reason for avoiding default, it would be a headache to actually prioritize what we really need, rather than kicking the can down the road.Vikingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-58936087627470292332017-07-11T14:00:03.164-07:002017-07-11T14:00:03.164-07:00Alfred,
"If I offer to buy lunch in quatloos,...Alfred,<br /><i>"If I offer to buy lunch in quatloos, the supplier has to be able to trade them easily. This was a non-trivial problem in the days before the internet. Nowadays, prices could be quoted and converted using spot markets"</i><br /><br />Jesus, you really do belong to a different species.<br /><br />There are people in US cities who can't get access to basic banking services, like cheque cashing, and you're talking about them becoming online currency traders in order to buy lunch.Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-12257113164399204822017-07-11T13:59:43.728-07:002017-07-11T13:59:43.728-07:00What would a lifetime of internet cost without mon...What would a lifetime of internet cost without monopolization? More or less than $33,000 per person?Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-81177839710216329732017-07-11T13:52:07.720-07:002017-07-11T13:52:07.720-07:00@donzelion:
I misplaced my "If"!
"...@donzelion:<br /><br />I misplaced my "If"!<br /><br />"If this list contained owners of any big government contractors like Lookheed, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics etc, I would also consider them oligarchs with ill gotten gains." <br /><br />Your point about "what is your life worth to you?" is a good one, and it is often reflected in drug prices, where the customer pays based on the number of days, but not based on the dose. Consumers are perfectly capable of cutting a pill in two pieces. But I believe you are perfectly correct in picking up the meme of pricing drugs based on how the customer values his or her life. It seemed to be that way for the recent Hepatitis C drug, where the US cost is $500 to $1000 per pill, for a total cost of 45K to 90K for a cure. But it still is more cost effective than a liver transplant, but probably less cost effective than flying the patient to France for a liver transplant.<br /><br />When a supplier switches from delivering a product to delivering a service is often the point they will try and push such a pricing model. It smells fishy to me immediately when I notice.Vikingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-85681416447571259582017-07-11T13:50:17.409-07:002017-07-11T13:50:17.409-07:00"Our kids can choose to default and any credi...<br />"Our kids can choose to default and any creditor that doesn’t take that into consideration is a fool", argues Alfred, including the opinion that "default is always, always, always an option". So why don't we default on our purported obligations? We don't because contractual breach implies certain forfeits, adverse consequence & the threat of force. The threat of Force. It's the giant white elephant in the room. Always there, always lurking. <br /><br />Specifically, this is where Matthew errs when he argues "that people of color suffer disproportionately in our nation". <br /><br />Firstly, his attribution of 'disproportionate suffering' to specific races is racist in & of itself, insomuch as 'racism' is defined as "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races". <br /><br />And, secondly, Matthew invokes the threat of Force by implying contractual breach.<br /><br />Well, screw him & the socially progressive horse he rode in on!!<br /><br />The claim of 'disproportionate suffering' no longer applies.<br /><br /><br />Best<br />locumranchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-58814838699568090792017-07-11T13:50:14.643-07:002017-07-11T13:50:14.643-07:00Paul451: "The US government is the largest ho...Paul451: "The US government is the largest holder"<br /><br />If you're referring to intragovernmental debt, yes, but when a government agency maintains its operations to pay costs, it is technically a 'buyer' of debt - but not like any other buyer one imagines. The Social Security Trust Fund buys debt, since where else would they put 3 trillion bucks? The OPM Retirement fund, Military Retirement fund, and most other government trust funds also buy US debt (again, where else to put their money)? <br /><br />The "foreign" debt - about $6.5 trillion, or about 1/3 of the total debt - likewise is often held ultimately in foreign government 'trust funds' or 'social security' funds. Many of those operate somewhat like America does, ultimately channeling that debt through their own pension funds to finance operating budgets.<br /><br />It's not that 'mom and pop' hold the debt personally, or that mutual funds sell the debt to 'mom and pop' investors - it's that the entire structure of retirement depends on debt financing. Not quite Viking's view of 'retirees buying debt' - but a world of difference from government's 'buying debt.'<br /><br />For the super wealthy, when a buyer can leverage debt to increase payouts, they care much more about the direction debt moves (any slight vacillation in direction creates massive harm to their holdings) and slight tweaks in the bands of movement. This is a massive market, driven largely by tax avoidance: if one has assets that increase more than $100m / year in value, one still wants as low a (taxable) 'income' as possible (rather, they'll take on new debt to pay current expenses and disguise their income). donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-66828621134247432402017-07-11T13:38:55.191-07:002017-07-11T13:38:55.191-07:00Sociotards link to the National Review is more idi...<i>Sociotards link to the National Review is more idiotic screeching. The basic premise of the article is that anyone that thinks that Trump was winking at white nationalists is in fact, themselves, the racist. Because anyone that notices racism is the real racist.</i><br /><br />Noticing racism =/= speculation that Trumps speech was winking at racists. I would say that the point of his article was that the 'reading between the lines' to find racism indicated that Leftists are using the brand of racism as a weapon in a civil war, not to actually help alleviate racially-based suffering.<br /><br /><i>It's not racist to note that people of color suffer disproportionately in our nation. It's reality. <br /><br />It is racist to deny this reality. I don't give a fig for the motivation, it is flat-out racist and evil to deny that America has problems with race.</i> <br /><br />I concur. As the article did not say racism was gone, I suspect the author would concur. But was this particular charge of racism accurate, or just mudslinging?<br /> <br />Play a game with me. Which of these statements about championing Western Civilization is from Donald Trump in his Warsaw speech, and which came from David Brin's blog? On which statement is it easier to read racial bias?<br /><br /><b>1)</b> <i>A strong Poland is a blessing to the nations of Europe, and they know that. A strong Europe is a blessing to the West and to the world. One hundred years after the entry of American forces into World War I, the transatlantic bond between the United States and Europe is as strong as ever and maybe, in many ways, even stronger. <br />This continent no longer confronts the specter of communism. But today we’re in the West, and we have to say there are dire threats to our security and to our way of life. You see what’s happening out there. They are threats. We will confront them. We will win. But they are threats. <br />. . .<br />the West will never, ever be broken. Our values will prevail. Our people will thrive. And our civilization will triumph.</i><br /><br /><b>2)</b><i>Likewise, today we are transfixed with what I forecast in 1989 to be our next major adversary -- not so much a particular nation or superficial dogma, but one brand or another of cultural machismo. One of the hot-belt cultures, that have long revolved around male-dominated memes, tribal loyalties, deeply suspicious religiosity and prickly, short-tempered pride. <br />Back in that 1989 speech and essay, I predicted that one of these memic realms would have to dig in and resist - often violently - the cultural changes threatened by Western influence. Especially the influence that our culture might have on their womenfolk. <br />I suggested, then, that it would likely be some of the Islamic macho nationalities, that led a violent and angry rejection of neo-western values. But I left open the possibility that Latin or Hindi versions of machismo might lead the way, instead. In any event, we do seem to be in the full flux of that era, exacerbated by our own leadership’s counter-productive strategy of pouring gasoline on every fire.</i><br /><br />To repeat: <b>Racism is real, and I'm not saying it isn't</b> When we try to understand 'the other side', we should be open to the idea that they are motivated by racism. We should also be open to the idea that they aren't. When the Left wing is too ready with the assumption of racism, they turn a necessary tool into a weapon, and the tool is made less useful.sociotardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11697154298087412934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-20848990553924145502017-07-11T13:38:29.458-07:002017-07-11T13:38:29.458-07:00@Paul451
I was responding to:
" I don't...@Paul451<br /><br />I was responding to:<br /><br />" I don't like high government debt for a completely different reason that it has to be paid off (if you have your own currency it doesn't actually have to be paid off) but because it promises guaranteed streams of income to the already rich."<br /><br />My response (to Reason) was that the motivation for buying treasuries is a wish to avoid volatility, it is not an investment, and as such, I was outlining some motivations for owning treasuries, I was not intending to describe who owns what fraction of treasuries, and my argument that treasuries are not a good investment does not depend on who owns it.<br /><br />If the Federal Reserve literally gives their treasuries to the US treasury, that would amount to monetizing the debt. We are not that far gone yet, but it would be quite interesting. On the other hand, redeeming the treasuries at the expiration dates, and thus taking the money out of circulation would be a strong protection against inflation!Vikingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-72082546117997366842017-07-11T13:33:33.611-07:002017-07-11T13:33:33.611-07:00Viking: "This list contained owners of any b...Viking: <i>"This list contained owners of any big government contractors like Lookheed, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics etc, I would also consider them oligarchs with ill gotten gains."</i><br /><br />I believe that's a typo, "this list contained NO owners" - closest would be Page/Oracle (not exactly a government contractor, but his products power quite a few government databases), and Slim, whom you've already mentioned.<br /><br /><i>"I am against any corporate rent seeking, I do think government is often complicit, for example without FDA regulating generics,"</i><br />The government does play a role, often less than helpful, but cheaper German (or Canadian, or even Peruvian drugs) reflect far more intrusive government controls (often applying criminal penalties for price gouging in the third world, or universal health care that lowers prices in the 'first'). Regulatory capture is an issue, but market capture (through third party services - insurers, drugstores, etc.) vastly more problematic.<br /><br />In a free market, to the question, "what is your life worth to you?" the answer is "everything." If sellers refuse to supply drugs at the price you want to pay, they can enforce whatever price they wish and still find buyers. Given the incentives, were doctors to deliberately act as capitalists and charge as much as they could, medicine would always be about extortion ("I see you're in pain...how much would it be worth to you for me to stop it?") - hence, most of the world removed market incentives to the extent they could from the entire field (just as they did from military service - we don't want our troops to ask, "How much is it worth to you for me to follow that order and put my life in danger?").<br /><br />As for feudal lords...it's not unlike those 3d images that you have to 'defocus' your eyes a bit and stare before they snap into focus. However, look at every 'government' action you've ever seen that annoys you, and look for the 'rather hidden, but hardly invisible' hand operating behind it. Once you get in that habit, you'll see a small handful of folks using the government to advance their own ends, one way or the other - and then blaming a 3rd party for the oppression that never fails, somehow, to make them richer (usually at your expense).<br />donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-84335423428854111852017-07-11T13:32:28.634-07:002017-07-11T13:32:28.634-07:00Alfred Differ:
@LarryHart | Do you suppose I can ...Alfred Differ:<br /><i><br />@LarryHart | Do you suppose I can pay my taxes in Euros? It is real money, right? Try it. See what happens.<br /></i><br /><br />Ok, I should have said "real dollars". Sure, the government is requiring you to use a particular currency for paying taxes, but they're a party to the transaction, so they can do that, even in your construct.<br /><br /><i><br />The old argument for a single currency made sense based on transaction costs. If I offer to buy lunch in quatloos, the supplier has to be able to trade them easily. <br /></i><br /><br />That was my point entirely. It's not so much that the government forces you to trade in dollars and that the government insures that dollars are easily converted to actual value.<br /><br />Ok, I see your point if you don't want to accept dollars, and you're pretty much forced to.<br /><br /><i><br />This was a non-trivial problem in the days before the internet. <br /></i><br /><br />So was hacking elections. :)<br /><br />Serious point, I'd hate to be unable to trade because of denial of service or other such interruptions.<br /><i><br />You WILL see broken monopolies in a number of developing countries where informal currencies are displacing national ones. Even ‘minutes’ of cell phone service can be traded like money with a long range predictability for the inflation rate. <br /></i><br /><br />Yeah, I can see that. Anything that has value to a critical mass of humans and that doesn't degrade with time or distance can be traded, even by those who aren't end-users themselves (cigarettes in prison, for example).<br /><br /><i><br />Bitcoin can’t do everything no matter how much it is loved by the libertarians. Try using them for futures contracts and you’ll see the problem. <br /></i><br /><br />I'm not a bitcoin advocate. I don't understand those who think it can be both a stable store of value <b>and</b> an investment that appreciates over time.<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-63290956608909615282017-07-11T13:15:56.698-07:002017-07-11T13:15:56.698-07:00Viking,
"I see buyers of US government debt a...Viking,<br /><i>"I see buyers of US government debt as retirees and near retirees"</i><br /><br />{laughs} Unless you mean the SSTF and state employee pension funds, then no. Private retirement funds make up less than 3% of holders of US Treasuries. Mutual funds, which includes many self-funded retirees, makes up around 5%, though most MF customers are institutional buyers.<br /><br />The US government is the largest holder, then foreign governments (Japan, China, Ireland, Brazil, in that order), then the Fed Reserve Bank, then mutual funds, then state pension funds, then banks, then private pension funds, then insurance companies.<br /><br />And lastly, US Savings Bonds, which are down in the rounding off error. <br /><br />The Fed Reserve's $2.4 trillion in Treasuries was bought with imaginary money, so when they want to raise interest rates (say to control inflation, in about seven to ten years if the 10-30yr yield rates are any guide), they can just give them back to the US Treasury and dissolve the debt.Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-83739880827656215042017-07-11T12:52:50.339-07:002017-07-11T12:52:50.339-07:00@LarryHart | Do you suppose I can pay my taxes in ...@LarryHart | Do you suppose I can pay my taxes in Euros? It is real money, right? Try it. See what happens.<br /><br />The old argument for a single currency made sense based on transaction costs. If I offer to buy lunch in quatloos, the supplier has to be able to trade them easily. This was a non-trivial problem in the days before the internet. Nowadays, prices could be quoted and converted using spot markets, but there are a number of legal hurdles that continue to make this unattractive in the US.<br /><br />You WILL see broken monopolies in a number of developing countries where informal currencies are displacing national ones. Even ‘minutes’ of cell phone service can be traded like money with a long range predictability for the inflation rate. Government policy could try to force one minute today to mean 59 seconds next year, but no one has tried that yet. 8)<br /><br />Bitcoin can’t do everything no matter how much it is loved by the libertarians. Try using them for futures contracts and you’ll see the problem. You need a trusted escrow agent who knows the identities of each party in the transaction. This agent is vulnerable to many pressures including government enforcement of financial rules that favor a national currency. The long term solution will likely use something like Bitcoin for cash transactions and a basket of other ideas for contracted ones.<br />Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-82743713987178486092017-07-11T12:49:50.902-07:002017-07-11T12:49:50.902-07:00Viking says: "The only feudalists I can see i...Viking says: "The only feudalists I can see in the western world, are those of high enough status to command a motorcade."<br /><br />Yep that's true and it is brave of you to openly admit your perceptual defect like this. Yes, it is clear that's the only feudal tendency that you see. <br /><br />Of course that shows utter blindness and hypocrisy, but admission is the first step of recovery.<br /><br />So-called "libertarians" who ignore the crucial facts are hypocrites:<br /><br />- that freedom and enterprise (F&E) had one major enemy across 99.99% of human history: "feudal" or monarchical or priestly domination by narrow owner-elites, who suppressed F&E and competition every single time. <br /><br />- that humans will cheat, when they can, and cheating destroys flat-fair-open competition.<br /><br />- that Adam Smith spoke of competition and denounced feudal cronyism and cheating. He barely mentioned socialism as a threat and spoke highly of using civil servants to counter owner elites.<br /><br />- that you randians have been cozened away from realizing any of that, or (hardly) ever even mentioning the c-word. Instead you rail against civil servants as the only conceivable threat to F&E! And unlimited personal property is gooooood! Even though it is associated with cheating and destruction of F&E in every... single... human... civilization... that... ever... existed.<br /><br />Fools or hypocrites. Or both.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-38133695113777916462017-07-11T12:46:32.268-07:002017-07-11T12:46:32.268-07:00"reason" invokes another illogical meme ..."reason" invokes another illogical meme common among liberals: any step backward in any area requires stepping everything backwards -- including electricity.<br /><br />I must give Obama great credit here: he signed on to repeal one of the most noxious of the New Deal reforms: the insane difficulty in raising capital directly from the public. <br /><br />BTW: who here has invested in Rayton Solar? If ye care so much about global warming, are you putting your money where your ideals are?<br /><br />Or do you think Bill Nye is advertising a scam?<br />Carl M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01278814334603631598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-65983056719232437522017-07-11T12:42:56.913-07:002017-07-11T12:42:56.913-07:00reason thanks. Keynsians get a bad rep because BA...reason thanks. Keynsians get a bad rep because BAD Keynsians forget the 2nd phase of the cycle. You use govt debt to stimulate in bad times, but then in good times you pay it down! Clinton did that, Jerry Brown in California has a tight choke chain on the Democratic super majority and hence we may be the best governed entity on the planet.<br /><br />Bad Keynsians are dangerous. But ALL supply-siders are either maniacs or traitors. Supply Side Voodoo Economics (SSVE) has never once made a successful prediction. Once. Ever. At all. And rational human beings should be able to notice such outcomes, recognizing that SSVE has simply been rape of the nation by cheating proto-feudalists.<br /><br />Go look at the deficit figure where I illustrate the “2nd derivative” and how it proves that democrats are the responsible ones.<br />http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2014/06/so-do-outcomes-matter-more-than-rhetoric.html<br /><br />No Carl M… you want to tussle over the New Deal as if there’s no burden of proof. You don’t get to worm out of that. Post FDR we had the most spectacular growth of every human desideratum ever seen, by orders of magnitude! The usual cycle of “panics” and economic disasters was wiped out, with a modest inflationary “crisis” caused by Vietnam and a modest bump in 87, under Reagan. The correlations are perfect. Spectacular growth and market entrepreneurship under tax and union structures YOU despise! And all such metrics declined with every single GOP “reform.”<br /><br />You can claim that correlation is not causation. And fine. That has been the right’s party line for ages. But dig it. Such strong correlations dump the burden of proof onto YOUR LAP!<br /><br />Armwaved, magical incantations won’t do it, son. They only prove how dogmatically incantatory modern libertarians have become. How utterly detached from Adam Smith and a core fealty to competition… the c-word… you guys now are.<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.com