[SteveC]

You may recall that Bush handed out rebates when he first came to office. This is generically known as "raiding the treasury" but as we know, the treasury is in hock for $7,000,000,000,000.00 This number grew so big for various reasons, but in general, every "bust" cycle is fixed by raiding the treasury. We have been doing this for 200+ years, and we are going to do it again.

A few definitions are in order:
Stupid: Stupid is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Ignorance: Ignorance is to be unaware.

Unfortunately, people are ignorant of how stupid they are, so they repeat the same choices expecting different results.

The cost of every war eventually bankrupts society. With a million active duty soldiers, another million prisoners, plus guards, plus a huge defense industry (what Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex) we have an entire economy based on fear. It is simply too expensive to maintain, and all this non-useful labor drives up the cost of consumables (food, shelter, heat, healthcare, etc.)

We have reached the point where the debtors are broke, the creditors are broke, and the government is broke. This is a historical reoccurrence. Collapse is inevitable since whatever the government does, it will make the problem worse for somebody else. There is nothing it can do that is "right" except start over, and that is the one thing everybody is most afraid of, since it would require admitting they were wrong.

The "crisis" is the collapse of the status quo. Rather than welcoming change, they are trying to prevent it, which simply makes the situation worse.

People cling to the past like straws.

As usual, those at the top of society are the last to know what is really going on. It doesn't matter if it is Bush, Clinton or Obama. You get to the top by acquiescing in the established status quo, and it is the status quo that is the source of all the problems.

People will spend their taxcuts. People need the money. Some parts of the economy are a self-fulfilling prophesy, but people cannot spend what they do not have. Long-term, however, this approach doesn't fix anything.

A better plan would require all trust funds, non-profits and endowments to liquidated. The hoarding by the universities and non-profit organizations is a major problem within the global economy. Forcing them to spend their money would kill two birds with one stone. Instead, we have insane things like Warren Buffet giving all his money to Bill Gates, and nobody says "boo." (What could be more insane than the second richest man in the world giving all his money to the world's richest man?)

Instead of foreclosures, the deeds should be given to the people that possess the home. Mercy is a good policy, both politically and mathematically. But since we remain a paranoid police state; we choose revenge and bankruptcy instead.

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher. Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer! Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise.-Thomas Paine

[SteveC]

Originally Posted by Moogs Faust: my answer to your question is, because no matter the incentives, it's always the right thing to do (to save more than you spend on wants). Sure the government could have better incentives or whatever but it boils down to personal responsibility x80,000,000 or however many spending adults are out there in the US.

"Personal responsibility" generally means being a better predator than your neighbor. If you are rich, you do the things to stay rich, and blame the poor for not being like you. But in a predator-prey system (which is what we have) there has to be a loser. Personal responsibility just doesn't cut it.

I would agree, however, that it is impossible to have a virtuous society without virtuous people. Virtue, however, requires mutual responsibility. Personal responsibility is usually just better managed greed, which lacks virtue.

[SteveC]

Originally Posted by faust I'd love to know why I have to pay taxes on my income, my stock gains, and on any chump change I get from my savings. And then when I die someone in my family will get taxed yet again on my money.

Because you do not "own" your money. Money is a government created and regulated commodity.

I usually say it is a (mis)regulated commodity.

There are two powerful abstract ideas in the world. One is the belief in money. The other is the belief in God.
Almost everyone believes that money is real.

[kieran]

SteveC:

You crack me up. Thank you for continuing to post here. Please do so more often.

I'd love for you to explain this:

Almost everyone believes that money is real.

[Kickaha]

Dangit, don't do that - I have him on ignore for a reason.

[kieran]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Dangit, don't do that - I have him on ignore for a reason.

So you won't have to read it anyways.

I just think he's funny. Plain and simple.

[bassplayinMacFiend]

Originally Posted by Taskiss Also, about SteveC's comment - no, money isn't "real". It's purely a mechanism for exchange. People used to trade the work they did for material goods and services, and money just allows the exchange mechanism to be virtualized so we don't get paid in chickens.

But but but, I like chickens.




On topic though, in my home state they started with these kickbacks before the feds started and I think the best point brought out was, if you don't need the money / can afford to give the money back then why not lower tax rates. Of course this didn't happen as it seemed more like an election year tactic from a governor that within a year had been chased from office on bribery and kickback charges (John Rowland).

I think this is nothing more than a diversionary tactic. There are so many ways this money could actually useful beyond giving people a few hundred bucks to be used as play money. Combined together (which is what the gov't is supposed to provide in a capitalistic society, services that cannot or would not be provided by individuals (like roads, public schooling, etc.) ) due to the enormous costs associated with it.

I noticed someone else quoted Lewis Black earlier. Another thing he said is the gov't should pick a poor state that could use an economic boost and build a big fucking thing. Then tourists from around the country would come in to see the big fucking thing. Then enterprising people from the area could put up a big f-ing thing hotel and big f-ing thing movie house etc., etc. If the gov't so wants to spur the economy, why not create some jobs that'll actually pay living wages so that low income workers don't have to work 80 hours a week to pay rent. How about serious training of people on public funding to help them learn needed skills to be able to work. Heck, maybe 1/2 of them could learn to run a daycare while the other 1/2 works or something.

[SteveC]

Chickens don't fit in your pocketss as easily as money, whatever form the money takes.

Also, there is always a need for credit in the economy, which makes using money easier FOR SOME PEOPLE. But money exists primarily for the government, not for you. It was believed that a central bank would make financing a war easier, because you could go to war without the people's support. (We have been at war ever since.)

What most people don't know (and I only discovered this recently) is that counting "in money" is a relatively new routine. At the time of the American Revolution, credit was regularly counted in goods, not money.

For example, if you shipped a hogshead of tobacco (I'm not really sure what a hogshead is, but that's what they called it) then you would write down that Mr. So & So Company owes you for 1 hogshead of tobacco, not $12.00. You might be willing to take 3 cords of lumber in exchange, I suppose, and that is how accounts would be settled. In other words, 230 years ago, even though money existed, it was still primarily a barter economy. (Due in part also because England wanted all the gold and silver specie for herself.)

The Constitution changed all that. With the Constitution came paper money. Franklin had the idea of paper money in his head as far back as 1726, when he was only 23 years old. But even the existence of paper money isn't the whole story.

There needed to be a shift in accounting methods from counting goods to counting the "value" of the goods. This is a huge difference, because as we know, the value of money and prices of goods can change rapidly, while others can manipulate money through interest. (All these things still go on.) Jefferson opposed the shift from counting goods to using money values because he believed that most farmers were too weak at math and would get screwed. Boy was that a prescient warning, even if for the wrong reasons.

Anyway, a major shift occurred, and a lot of history has passed since then. Instead of throwing tea into the harbor, the rebel flies planes into banks. History repeats itself, but the root cause of the conflict is the same: unfair trade.

Men cannot serve two masters any better today than they have been able to for thousands of years.

Of course, they won't teach you this in college. There you pay $40,000 to get brain-washed. Or, you give a politician money to repeat the lies that you want to hear. If somebody dares to tell the truth that money has no value, except in your impaired imagination, they tend to get executed. (Socrates, Jesus.) They're accused of "corrupting the young" for exposing the lies of those in authority.

Trade is good. We all need trade to survive. The problem is HOW we trade, whether we use money or not.

A tax cut is a farce. It isn't going to fix anything. The two parties have been cutting and raising taxes ad nauseam for hundreds of years. They have no idea of how the economy really works because they genuflect at the alter of George Washington. The blind follow the blind.

Thomas Paine once wrote to Washington

And as to you, Sir, treacherous in private friendship (for so you have been to me, and that in the day of danger) and a hypocrite in public life, the world will be puzzled to decide whether you are an apostate or an impostor; whether you have abandoned good principles, or whether you ever had any.

Washington doesn't matter, but repeating the mistakes of the past isn't going to fix anything. Stupid is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.

[InactionMan]

How come my government won't give me money for a new iPod?

:cry:

[SteveC]

Originally Posted by Taskiss Nearly every US dollar spent on "the war" goes to an American company to pay a wage to an American. EVERY dollar spent on the space program stays in the atmosphere and NONE of it "gets thrown away in outer space". If you follow the money, you'll see.

That is a fallacy. Building castles does not "go to" anyone, except to the castle.

If you really follow the money, you will get a totally different picture of how the economy works.

For example, the game Monopoly is based on the economic theories of Henry George. It was originally called The Landlord's game. If you follow the money to the end of the game, there are houses and hotels everywhere, and all the people (except one) are bankrupt. The phenomenon he described 100 years ago is coming true again on a national scale.

At the beginning of the Monopoly game, there is lots of new money coming into the game. Suddenly everybody is buying and selling. It is this stage that everybody wants to create, and that is what the Fed and the tax cut hope to replicate. This stage is generally referred to as "sustainable growth." But as we know from the game (and from reality,) bust must follow boom. The tax cut will do some, and people buying up foreclosed houses sets the stage for the next boom. Because the economy is a zero sum game, somebody will profit on somebody else's loses. But the bust will return. Those who prey on the foreclosures will eventually be preyed upon, too. You cannot escape the Golden Rod when you ignore the Golden Rule.

But, returning to your claim, the worst thing to do is to build pyramids and call it a "public works project." That is pretty much what people argue in regard to NASA, defense, tourism, sports stadiums, etc. They argue the domino effect, but what is supposed to occur never happens. These projects are not consumable, and the more we have, the more we raise the cost of living and lower quality of life. (Look at us today, we are living in a growing police state.)

Henry George's theories are extremely important in regard to what is going on, and as equally unpopular academically and politically. They are much more accurate than the "prime the pump" and the "greed is good," crowd of economists. However, I think George missed something equally important, and that is that gold is just colored dirt. Money is an intellectual agreement; it isn't real. When he was watching the gold miners digging in the dirt in the 1800's, and watching the trading of deeds, he focused on the deeds. But the idea that "colored dirt" was valuable is an important part of the phenomenon of poverty and wealth.

As the Moody Blues put it

Men's mighty mine-machines digging in the ground, Stealing rare minerals where they can be found. Concrete caves with iron doors, bury it again,

Why dig colored dirt out of the ground, only to lock it up again? This is an absurd behavior. And then to argue whether money is "backed" by gold or not simply revalidates an absurdity. This has been going on for thousands of years, and is as absurd today as it was then.

The warehouses are full of food, and people go hungry because they do not have colored dirt or green pieces of paper. Those who have money are too afraid to share, and those who have food are too afraid to share, too. To "follow the money," you really need to understand more than just the absurdity of the system (which George understood) but also the role of fear and pride. As men become rich, they become stupid, too. Fear makes everyone stupid, and those who have more, have more to lose, so they tend to be the most afraid, too. Then, the poor put their faith in the rich, which further compounds the problem.

The Earth is more than big enough to accommodate and sustain everyone, but because men "follow the money" rather than logic or compassion, we suffer the consequences. It really is a question of balance, and there are many lies in the world, and they are repeated on many tongues.

[SteveC]

Originally Posted by Ryan I agree, and obviously the intent of the Founders was not to imply that we should be kept equal in some Harrison Bergeron-esque dystopia, merely that, as you say, we are equal in the eyes of the law and should all have ample oppurtunity for improvement. Perhaps I'm extrapolating a bit with that last one, but that's how I interpret it.

LOL The "Founding Fathers" believed that everyone was equal under the law, as long as they got to make the laws! Funny how equality always has the same stench attached to it, eh?

The "Founding Fathers" were more akin to the Neo-cons and al Qaeda. When they had no power, violence against the government was good; when they had power, violence against the government was bad.

The story of every nation is the story of hypocrisy. America is no exception.

If fact, we are the beneficiaries of what was probably the most successful genocide in history. The world fears America because we are so good at killing, and we are rich because we are so good at plundering. Between our weapons and our pens, we control most of the world intellectually or physically.

Everybody is an equal, as long as they obey. Like 1984, the individual is a threat. Thoughtcrime is not tolerated.

All men are equal, but only if they put God above them. The Declaration of Independence put the King below everyone. Funny how there always needs to be somebody to kill before the perfect society can commence, isn't it?

[SteveC]

Originally Posted by ast3r3x As a college student, I have about $8000 in credit card debt, and an ungodly amount of debt in loans. I really would LOVE to get $300-$800 dollars to help pay off my credit cards since it's is a compounding problem and if I don't start being serious with my money I will go past a point where I can't earn enough money to cover my expenses in a month. I am already part of the problem because I am severely curbing my spending to just pay off my credit cards. This is a problem that I can still fix and just have to work it down and move off cards with higher interests as possible. Luckily I am never really screwed since I can always fall back on selling some stock to fix my problem, but how many adults have an option like that? So I'll take it, I'm moving out of this country in 2-3 years anyways after school, so I just have to make it to then, and I don't see the country crumbling before then, although it is in the cards of the US I really believe in the next 50 years.

That's insane. You are trying to make money on your stocks, and paying credit card interest at the same time? Where do you think the stock profits are coming from?

You are a slave of yourself!!!! Sell all your stocks, get out of the ponzi scheme, and get out of debt. Are you thinking about moving out of the country so you can skip out on your debts?

Also, you are not "part of the problem" by living within your means, you are part of the problem by owning stocks. If you can make money without working, then somebody is working without getting paid. Why are you screwing people? What goes around comes around, and all this interest gain causes inflation, too. So any profit you make ALWAYS comes back to you as increased expenses.

1 Timothy 6:10

[torifile]

Steve, rather than continuing to cut and paste from some deranged manifesto against money, why don't you tell us how you'd run the world?

[MCQ]

As a college student, I have about $8000 in credit card debt, and an ungodly amount of debt in loans. I really would LOVE to get $300-$800 dollars to help pay off my credit cards since it's is a compounding problem and if I don't start being serious with my money I will go past a point where I can't earn enough money to cover my expenses in a month. I am already part of the problem because I am severely curbing my spending to just pay off my credit cards. This is a problem that I can still fix and just have to work it down and move off cards with higher interests as possible. Luckily I am never really screwed since I can always fall back on selling some stock to fix my problem, but how many adults have an option like that?

Hm, I actually agree somewhat with SteveC. If you have money tied up in stocks right now, sell them and use the proceeds to pay off as much of your debt as possible (unless that debt happens to be at a low interest rate).

[ast3r3x]

Originally Posted by SteveC Also, you are not "part of the problem" by living within your means, you are part of the problem by owning stocks. If you can make money without working, then somebody is working without getting paid. Why are you screwing people? What goes around comes around, and all this interest gain causes inflation, too. So any profit you make ALWAYS comes back to you as increased expenses.

I am not sure I agree with that. Money isn't finite, a proper market can 'create' more money (wealth) in a prospering capitalistic scheme. The problem with the US is that we are making more money than we should have.

Also, you are not "part of the problem" by living within your means, you are part of the problem by owning stocks. If you can make money without working, then somebody is working without getting paid. Why are you screwing people? What goes around comes around, and all this interest gain causes inflation, too. So any profit you make ALWAYS comes back to you as increased expenses.

Also, I wasn't living within my means which is why I racked up that debt. I think it would be much better for the economy to have gradual spending then spend a lot for one year, and then take off the next year of spending much at all.

Originally Posted by MCQ Hm, I actually agree somewhat with SteveC. If you have money tied up in stocks right now, sell them and use the proceeds to pay off as much of your debt as possible (unless that debt happens to be at a low interest rate).

Well I really need to sit down and check if the yearly increase on my stocks is more than the interests I owe on my debt I think.

[SteveC]

Originally Posted by torifile Steve, rather than continuing to cut and paste from some deranged manifesto against money, why don't you tell us how you'd run the world?

One cannot "run" the world. That is the problem that all reformers make. (Washington, Lenin, Mao, bin Laden, etc.) The world is run by the strength of intellectual conventions. (Fear, pride and greed being the most powerful.)

The strongest practical convention is that profit and interest is "good," when in reality they create inflation. Inflation cause wealth to divide and eventually leads to civil war.

If you want to live in a world of peace and plenty, then everybody needs to exercise self-restraint and mercy. Just as you need to exercise self-restraint in regard to drugs, violence, eating, partisanship, we also need to exercise self-restraint in regard to money. The "greed is good" model is a dismal failure, and revenge is worse.

The great problem of democracy is also its greatest promise: it works so perfectly. A foolish and merciless people elect foolish and merciless leaders. In contrast, a wise and merciful people need few leaders.

People are indoctrinated before they are educated. It is no accident that a college kids owns stocks and debt simultaneously. It is the nature of the double-think that they have been taught. Most kids, however, just own debt. Only when they get older do they try to profit on the debt of others. (The world is full of Scrooges.)

The previous generation worked 30 years to own a plot of land, and then they drop dead and the next generation works 30 years to own the same plot of land. And so it goes. While this system is better than serfdom, where the land owned the serf and the noble owned the land, it isn't much better.

I am trying to change your historical perspective regarding the role of money. This is no easy task, since your indoctrination is repeated and reinforced every day, and I am only a small voice against a multitude. However, I am confident that I am correct. I have spent 30 years working on this problem. Of course, weaving a narrative that people can understand is no easy task. In fact, it is as difficult as figuring out the problem, but as the economy melts down, what I am saying is beginning to make more sense to more people. It's rather bittersweet, since the meltdown is what I have been trying to prevent. (I have been beating this same drum for at least 5 years.)

Unless people are willing to change their understanding and relationship with money, nothing can change. Politicians always promise that the government can put a chicken in every pot; and what I am saying is that people need to change (and blame) themselves. Oh the horrors! People much prefer denial to accepting that they are responsible for the problems in the world.

It is a tragedy the lies that children are taught, and I have plenty of evidence to document my claims. It is no accident that a person can own debt and stocks simultaneously. He is acting on what he has been taught, perhaps even taught by his own parents. People live their whole life unawares, and repeat lies thousands of years old. A lie is a lie, regardless of its age and the opinion of the majority.

The problem is described in a Grateful Dead song written by Gerrit Graham

These are the horns of the dilemma What truth is proof against all lies When sacred fails before profane The wisest man is deemed insane

Am I deranged, or you?
I no longer believe that 2+2=5. But I once did, which is why I know your errors so well. They were once mine, too.

I was thinking the other day that when we go to college, half of what we are taught is a lie. Your education is only complete when you know which half is which.

[ast3r3x]

Someone call the US Fish & Wilflife Service, there is a looney bird on the loose.

Also, no I don't plan skipping out on my debt, but I plan on leaving a country that whose economy doesn't seem to have a good future.

[turbulentfurball]

Originally Posted by ast3r3x Also, no I don't plan skipping out on my debt, but I plan on leaving a country that whose economy doesn't seem to have a good future.

Where to, just out of interest?

[SteveC]

Originally Posted by ast3r3x I am not sure I agree with that. Money isn't finite, a proper market can 'create' more money (wealth) in a prospering capitalistic scheme. The problem with the US is that we are making more money than we should have.

There is always a finite amount of money, goods and people, at any one moment. The economy is a zero-sum game. (Actually the Earth is a zero-sum game. We will never have more than what we already have.) While there are fluctuations from moment to moment (births and deaths, etc.) everything is the same as it has always been. There is never anything new under the Sun.

Originally Posted by ast3r3x Also, I wasn't living within my means which is why I racked up that debt. I think it would be much better for the economy to have gradual spending then spend a lot for a year, and then take off a year of spending much at all.

What you are describing are numerical imbalances, which are abstract, not real. Keep in mind that everything manufactured eventually becomes waste. We are living out of balance on a wide scale, which is why we have so much pollution. (Pollution itself is an imbalance, since everything on the Earth originated on the Earth. Pollution is properly understood as migration.)

Originally Posted by ast3r3x Well I really need to sit down and check if the yearly increase on my stocks is more than the interests I owe on my debt I think.

No, you just need to get out of the stock market, because it is the right thing to do. It is always the right time to do the right thing. It doesn't matter if you win or lose when you take your snapshot, since inflation will always win. We are living in a movie, not a photograph. The gains are an illusion. And the more labor spent "managing numbers" the poorer we become collectively, both intellectually and practically.

[SteveC]

Originally Posted by jcoley2 Bingo! And hence the problem with these "stimulus" packages aimed at consumers. How much do they stimulate the economy? In this example--zero!!!! They money has already been spent and all this tax rebate would do is lower his debt, not increase GDP spending and cause businesses to hire more people. This is just an old fashion wealth transfer. I would prefer to take a longer approach and lower taxes. Here's a text book example: Ireland! Has any one been there in the last four years? They have massively lowered tax rates on corporations to 12.5%. It's one of the lowest in the world. And their economy is booming. Travel anywhere there and you will see the evidence. We would be better off lowering US Corporate Tax rates to like 0-10%, eliminate all the stupid corporate tax loopholes and let business hire a lot of people--that would cause the economy to boom here too. Giving rebates to a bunch of poor people is going to cause a short term consumer spending blimp on a bunch of worthless things that will have no lasting effect on the economy IMHO.

Because of the nature of boom and bust cycles, which are not in unison in different economies, it is perpetually possible to point to somebody who is doing better or worse because of some single factor. These arguments are an intellectual farce.

The more complicated the system, the more it is riddled with fallacies, since every change is an attempt to correct a previously unexpected consequence.

The other thing is that people cannot become "rich" without somebody else becoming poor. So the desire to make everybody rich is itself impossible, and imitating systems that claim to accomplish this is a mistake.

There is a huge difference between the standard of living and the cost of living. Bigger numbers mean that people are getting poorer. More millionaires means more poor people, and too much inflation.

It is people that are important, not numbers.

[Taskiss]

Originally Posted by SteveC There is always a finite amount of money, goods and people, at any one moment. The economy is a zero-sum game. (Actually the Earth is a zero-sum game. We will never have more than what we already have.) While there are fluctuations from moment to moment (births and deaths, etc.) everything is the same as it has always been. There is never anything new under the Sun.

Earth is zero sum? Then you should be all about the space program.

I know that argument and it's never more than rambling. There are more people living today than have ever died in all of history. Your "everything's the same" assertion ignores reality.

Since "money" is a physical representation of the state where the agreed upon value of a hour of labor is waiting to be turned into a good or service, then the finite amount of "money" is as relative as all the hours of work by all the people in the work force...which isn't how "finite" is defied. Heck, even the vale of one person's hour of work is different from another's, except when considered statistically. There is no way it can be quantified and considered as an absolute.

To prove your assertion, show that the number of people in the work force has stayed the same...

...but of course, you cant.

[MCQ]

Originally Posted by ast3r3x Also, I wasn't living within my means which is why I racked up that debt. I think it would be much better for the economy to have gradual spending then spend a lot for one year, and then take off the next year of spending much at all.

Yep.

Well I really need to sit down and check if the yearly increase on my stocks is more than the interests I owe on my debt I think.

Absolutely. Keep in mind that the market's looking increasingly fragile, especially over the last month (otherwise, why would we have a thread about needing to stimulate the economy?).

[SteveC]

Originally Posted by Taskiss Earth is zero sum? ..... To prove your assertion, show that the number of people in the work force has stayed the same... ...but of course, you cant.

I never said it was the same, I said it was a zero-sum game. All the material that has ever existed still exists. People are created from the Earth's dust, and to the dust we shall return. We are no different than the vegetation.

Everyday is not the same, but no day is new either. Only from a personal perspective is it new. A child loses innocence, and an adult loses his arrogance. A child is born and somebody dies. This occurs every day. Things are constantly changing, but it does not follow that the economy can constantly "grow" in terms that most economists/politicians/citizens use. They are simply chasing numbers. They are slaves to the money, not masters of it.

But we do have a conscious existence, which as far as we know, does not exist in the "material" world. Consciousness, oddly enough, is not a zero-sum game. It is as big as you have the courage to delve, and the amount of consciousness would presumably increase with the amount of conscious beings. Of course, we have no idea where this consciousness resides, or how. The deeper the ocean, the greater the mystery.

Others splash in puddles and are sure they know everything there is to know. Of course, they all believe that money is real. Whereas I do not. I believe that you believe that money is real. Huge difference.

[ast3r3x]

Originally Posted by turbulentfurball Where to, just out of interest?

I was thinking Canada, since it is the closest that isn't completely bat-shit crazy, but I don't really know their immigration policies, and it is kinda close to the US should they ever look up to Canada's resources

Of course I'd consider somewhere more pirate friendly like sweden or the netherlands too, except I am not too hot at languages, which is another reason Canada might be great for me.

I know a guy who runs a commune down in Costa Rica, I could probably manage there for a while, but I have a feeling my computer science knowledge wouldn't hold much water down there

[bassplayinMacFiend]

Originally Posted by ast3r3x Someone call the US Fish & Wilflife Service, there is a looney bird on the loose. Also, no I don't plan skipping out on my debt, but I plan on leaving a country that whose economy doesn't seem to have a good future.

Maybe not as loony as everyone makes him out to be. Either that or I like it when people find validation of their ideas about money and monetary policy from "Victim or the Crime". Still, whether you agree with SteveC or not, there's some good points in those ramblings, IMO.

[Taskiss]

Originally Posted by bassplayinMacFiend Maybe not as loony as everyone makes him out to be.

The whole "stock market is a ponzi scheme" tirade isn't indicative of a well thought out philosophy.

There are good companies offering shares of their business to the public so they can capitalize on their present success in ways that will grow their business faster than they could via private funding. It's what the whole "selling stock" is all about. It's a gamble, of course, but to assert that it's a fraudulent activity intended to exploit investors is foolish. It's specifically intended to be a "win-win" situation.

Equating a business selling registered securities and using open bookkeeping and accurate filings as a scheme to "get rich quick!" is a disingenuous ploy for attention. Big accusations take big evidence to back them up, and there's no big evidence in SteveC's tirades, just empty assertions.

[bassplayinMacFiend]

I don't know, you could think of some aspects of the stock market as a ponzi scheme. During an IPO, investment bankers and insiders are given shares that are already profitable at the initial IPO price. So the people who got in the earliest will profit the most.

During a company's life, the mahogany row individuals are given shares as compensation. The strike price of these shares are usually well below market value. Look at the AAPL executive who recently realized millions of dollars selling shares that had been granted to him at a price in the double digits (AAPL has been in the triple digits for some time now). Just another way the 'open market' can be sidestepped for insiders to make x amount of profit based on; nothing really.

Also, look at 401(k) plans that many of us contribute to. Most of the mutual funds involved with these plans have cash limits set during their incorporation which means they have to buy into the market. Doesn't matter if the market is going up down or sideways. Doesn't matter if there aren't currently any good fits with the supposed investment credo for a particular fund, they still have to buy market securities.

In doing so, we're watching the market shoot up to unprecedented heights (how long did it take the market to hit 10K? Now how long did it take to hit 11, 12, 13 & 14K?). Basically we're force-feeding the market biweekly. What is the real value of these stocks now? The funds have to buy, so they're irrationally pushing PEs upward because they have to. At some point this bird will come home to roost and the people who'll end up paying are the middle class, hard working people who had to do the 401(k)/403(b) shuffle because that's what's offered now.

I'm not saying 401(k) funds are a bad thing. On the contrary, I get >100% match by my employer so I'm doubling my money before any market activities are even taken into account. You have to be smart with retirement accounts though and I don't believe the masses of people investing in 401(k) accounts all know what they are doing or how to maximize their return and these are the people that will be crying when they're retired, all their funds are still in volatile stocks/bonds, the market takes a downturn and their nest egg goes rotten.

[bassplayinMacFiend]

Originally Posted by Taskiss Equating a business selling registered securities and using open bookkeeping and accurate filings as a scheme to "get rich quick!" is a disingenuous ploy for attention. Big accusations take big evidence to back them up, and there's no big evidence in SteveC's tirades, just empty assertions.

Enron
Worldcom
Adelphia
Qwest

Michael Miliken
Carl Icahn

[Taskiss]

Originally Posted by bassplayinMacFiend Enron Worldcom Adelphia Qwest Michael Miliken Carl Icahn

OK, can I post the list of legitimate companies by linking the companies on the NYSE and NASDAQ and you can eliminate those you listed? After all, to base a business philosophy on a few notable exceptions is about the most foolish thing one can do.

If your list represented the rule instead of an exception, you wouldn't have heard about it and those responsible wouldn't have been prosecuted. When your list covers the majority of companies listed on public exchanges, THEN you have "big evidence" to go along with all the doom and gloom. 'Till then, it's just notable exceptions.

Except for Carl Icahn. Show me where he earned a place on your list/

[SteveC]

Originally Posted by Taskiss The whole "stock market is a ponzi scheme" tirade isn't indicative of a well thought out philosophy.

LOL You don't understand how a ponzi scheme works.

Actually, it isn't just the stock market that is a ponzi scheme, all insurance and even the government is a ponzi scheme.

How can anybody give you back more than you gave them, without taking it from somebody else first? Especially people who are not productively employed in the creation of goods. We have millions of paper pushing professionals in this country. We are not a paper tiger, as Mao called us, we are a paper cesspool. And it is all most certainly is a ponzi scheme, as generally defined.

The entire system is an intellectual farce. It is not new, however. It has been this way for thousands of years, wherever money is involved. The proliferation of money (paper money and electronic digits) has made the problem faster, but the problem can be found in every society throughout history. The swings get bigger as the values grow.

What is most amazing is that Charles Ponzi got his start in Boston, and Fidelity Investments is Boston based. Mutual funds are a refinement of the ponzi scheme. The government is now an enabler, since it attempts to guarantee returns to the public employees, which of course must be borne by the taxpayer. But how is the taxpayer going to pay, when it is the government that controls/creates and regulates the money? For the citizens to increase profits, it just drives up the overhead of the government.

The government is the biggest employer, the biggest customer, and the biggest debtor, in every country, throughout history. Tax creates inflation, profits create inflation, unearned income creates inflation. There is endless inflation, and people are too afraid of inflation (and the threat of violence) to act wisely.

Once the first penny of tax is collected "to protect you," it sets off a domino effect. Inflation creates the need for more inflation, and so debt and the concentration of wealth inevitably follows.

We are all a participant in the problem, since it is now the only way to survive, but the analysis I offer is valid. The government is simply a reflection of the habits of the people.

You can deny it, of course, but that doesn't change the situation. Every effect has a cause, and if you "follow the money," then you will discover the reason for all sorts of things, including why planes fly into banks (9/11,) and why powerful countries invade weak countries (Iraq.)

Fear has a thousand faces, but most of it begins from money. The rich are afraid to lose their money and power, and the poor are afraid to stay poor. As the wealth divides (which it must given how the system is rigged,) society collapses in war and civil war. The last world war cost 100 million lives.

Will you get out of the stock market if it can save 100 million lives, or will you persist? The world we are in is the same as throwing virgins into the volcano. (Which is why college kids are in debt, child actors and singers are basket-cases, and Mommy needs to work so the kids can raise themselves on TV and video games.) You may think you can play with fire and not get burnt, but experience is not on your side. You have already been burnt.

Inflation eats everyone alive. Inflation is a man-made phenomenon. When you "grow" your money, it all comes back to you. The Golden Rule also has a Golden Rod.