**** Work

[Dessert_All_Day]

If macroeconomics is the way you understand it, yes, I don't and don't want to understand it.

Fair enough. That's a very closed-minded and unscientific attitude.

The US government is actually the biggest thief. It reneged during Nixon's presidency on pegging its currency to the amount of gold reserves it hold. To get away from its obligations. And that was a good forty years. Ago. The US government, instead of reducing its obligations, keep adding to its debt. I guess there's truth to the saying "One good round deserves another."

Pegging a national currency to gold (or anything else) is counterproductive. It adds a constraint for no reason. You're continuing to think inside the box of "federal government = household." The federal government is there in order to optimize the growth of the economy for all of its people by incentivizing things like free trade, personal savings, etc. Pegging a currency to gold can only restrict its people from freely trading and accumulating savings.

Before fiat money was conceived by the bankers, the world economy was functioning. Can't say fiat money and US printing money wantonly ever made things better. In fact, it got worse. Still, academics and an author can't see it. I suggest you hold off on printing your book "Poverty Cured."

Wrong. Yeah, I'll probably tap now out because it's clear to me that you're just so blatantly not interested in even considering that you might be wrong.

You're the only one advocating this, other than the politicians who just don't want to tell the electorate the burden of truth. Kicking the can down the road is all you can do.

Ermmm....every politician would side with you in this conversation FWIW. If that makes you think you're on solid footing, well okay then.

 

[Dessert_All_Day]

WTF you're reading way to much out of it. Why are Americans associating everything with racism? Way oversensitive

You're saying low-IQ folks are responsible for their low IQ. Like race, IQ is something people have no control over. Thus, comparing your stance to racism is perfectly reasonable. What don't you understand about this?

 

[yerrag]

WTF you're reading way to much out of it. Why are Americans associating everything with racism? Way oversensitive

He's Canadian, but a US dollar fan and apologist.

 

[Jarman]

You're saying low-IQ folks are responsible for their low IQ. Like race, IQ is something people have no control over. What don't you understand about this?

Huh are you talking about my reply here

My grandpa-father were. My grandpa was poor as f*** but he saved enough money for my father to attend college and became a doctor. Now my dad makes good money and supports our family. Note that I'm not American so the tuition cost isn't ridiculous. My dad keeps reminding him how being poor made him want to get out of it and be successful. I get that life lesson everyday.

If they can't walk away because they feel that they don't have the options, that's BS. That's all in their head making excuses.

I said nothing about low-IQ at all.

If you're referring "they" as low-IQ people, then you made all that stuff out in your head. I'm speaking about people in general making excuses they cant do this or that. People make life choices some good and some bad it's their own reponsibilities

 

[Dessert_All_Day]

I said nothing about low-IQ at all.

If you're referring "they" as low-IQ people, then you made all that stuff out in your head. I'm speaking about people in general making excuses they cant do this or that. People make life choices some good and some bad it's their own reponsibilities

"That's because "they" is mostly low-IQ people. Those who "feel they don't have options" (your words) usually feel that way for a reason: they really don't have options. They are usually low-IQ. They know it. They also know that better off people will effectively blame them for their shitty situation by citing people who escaped such situations likely because they had higher IQs than them (in this case your father/grandpa) like you seem content to do.

I stand by my claim that such an attitude is just as toxic as racism, because you're attributing some magical free will or control over one's circumstances where it can't possibly exist. There are people that aren't just making excuses. They are working just as hard as your father/grandpa and they're just plain f*cked because they don't have the cognitive horsepower to overcome their situation.

 

[yerrag]

Fair enough. That's a very closed-minded and unscientific attitude.

I'm closed to fallacious ideas. There is no science to your ideas, just the stamp of pompousness given to that academics gave it the light of day, and made use of politicians to make something out of nothing to fulfill their promises.

Pegging a national currency to gold (or anything else) is counterproductive. It adds a constraint for no reason. You're continuing to think inside the box of "federal government = household." The federal government is there in order to optimize the growth of the economy for all of its people by incentivizing things like free trade, personal savings, etc. Pegging a currency to gold can only restrict its people from freely trading and accumulating savings.

As opposed to using Mickey mouse money? Too many Disney vacations can do that to you.

Wrong. Yeah, I'll probably tap now out because it's clear to me that you're just so blatantly not interested in even considering that you might be wrong.

Goes both ways.

 

[Dessert_All_Day]

I'm closed to fallacious ideas. There is no science to your ideas, just the stamp of pompousness given to that academics gave it the light of day, and made use of politicians to make something out of nothing to fulfill their promises.

Most academics and all politicians reject the ideas I've expressed. This shows you clearly don't understand my ideas.

As opposed to using Mickey mouse money? Too many Disney vacations can do that to you.

Ah, resorting to ad hominem now are we?

Goes both ways.

No, I don't think it does. I think I clearly see where you're coming from, at one time held views very similar to yours, and can reasonably summarize your beliefs on this topic.

I don't think you have any idea where I'm coming from though, nor is it likely (judging by your responses) that you've held views even remotely similar to mine. Furthermore, I'm almost certain you can't accurately summarize my beliefs on this topic. You've also stated outright that you have no interest in changing your views. I have not made such a declaration.

This asymmetry is a problem on your end, not mine.

 

[yerrag]

Ah, resorting to ad hominem now are we?

No, it's called sarcasm. Mickey Mouse money however, aptly describes the US dollar. Japan minted a lot of mickey mouse money during the 2nd world war. Because Japan lost, that money is no longer accepted.

No, I don't think it does. I think I clearly see where you're coming from, at one time held views very similar to yours, and can reasonably summarize your beliefs on this topic.

I don't think you have any idea where I'm coming from though, nor is it likely (judging by your responses) that you've held views even remotely similar to mine. Furthermore, I'm almost certain you can't accurately summarize my beliefs on this topic. You've also stated outright that you have no interest in changing your views. I have not made such a declaration.

This asymmetry is a problem on your end, not mine.

Just because you've "evolved" doesn't mean you have a better understanding. Even before paper money was used, people understood the value of an IOU note. If it comes from a creditworthy person, it carries weight. If it comes from a scoundrel, it has no value. Paper money started out as IOU notes, with good backing. Never out of thin air, which is what you believe in. As long as that paper money- currency, is backed by the US government, it has value, no matter how little solid backing it has - gold, grains, intellectual property. Perhaps the only backing it has is superior military firepower. What does that make the US currency but the currency of a bully? And you believe that by continuing to use this money at a very generous rate, the economy will be goosed into recovering, and eventually there will be capital accumulation. Sorry if I'm second-guessing you. You can explain yourself if I don't quite get your drift. It begs the question of whether the debt accumulated will ever be repaid before capital begins to accumulate. Meanwhile, while that's going on, as more people subscribe to the illusion you espouse, more people are just going to sit on their tight **** receiving more money for no work, so how really does any productive work get done to eventually bring the country to accumulate capital? Answer that.

 

[lvysaur]

Driving a car is far more complex than cutting hair and far, far more dangerous.

If you're asking it from a societal perspective, as I said previously: we're about to find out. Because a lot of peoples' livelihoods are at risk in the coming years, and they'll have no other skills to fall back on.

Driving a car is less complex than cutting hair, because driving is an objective and algorithm-oriented task. Cutting hair well is subjective. I'd say they're equally dangerous (cutting an ear off versus car accidents; many car crashes have zero injuries).

If enough people lose enough income, you'll see civil unrest. Before that ever happens, it's likely that we'll just ramp up welfare, bit by bit. We can certainly afford to.

 

[yerrag]

We can certainly afford to.

Affordability is a matter of delaying the inevitable. Yes, we can buy some time while we apply some more band-aids. Planning for the long term gets thrown out; adapting and being creative on a moment by moment basis. Becoming tacticians instead of relying on strategy. And yes - a dependence on the hero archetype, or a savior, or a dictator - to meet the needs of the drowning masses.

 

[lvysaur]

Affordability is a matter of delaying the inevitable. Yes, we can buy some time while we apply some more band-aids.

the inevitable conclusion is that everything dies in heat death.

This shorter-term inevitable conclusion is that we just gradually increase welfare until we can't any longer, at least if the US wants to play nice.

If not, then low income communities are to be policed and allowed to die. The women will marry up, the men will lose more and more resources, and eventually it just won't be a problem.

 

[yerrag]

I have this faint notion that if we're on more solid ground and aren't living beyond our means, and our net worth isn't so inflated, due to fiat money inflation, the world would be a bit more boring. But boring is still a better alternative to a Las Vegas rendition of public finance by the Ivy League Choir of Angels.

 

[lvysaur]

I have this faint notion that if we're on more solid ground and aren't living beyond our means, and our net worth isn't so inflated, due to fiat money inflation, the world would be a bit more boring. But boring is still a better alternative to a Las Vegas rendition of public finance by the Ivy League Choir of Angels.

Unless you live at the top, in which case why would you want a boring life just so that some poor plebs can suffer less?

 

[yerrag]

Unless you live at the top, in which case why would you want a boring life just so that some poor plebs can suffer less?

Life itself isn't boring, even when you're not rich. But progress oftentimes takes away from you what you used to take for granted. You look back, not out of nostalgia, and realize you have to pay for what used to be free. Can you speak as freely now? Can you feel as safe now with those potent drugs being abused more now? Can you live free with the constant spectre of a lawsuit coming at you? These are interesting times. More issues to argue about. Some with good points worth arguing about. Many pointless and pedantic. Look at our news. Where is the objectivity? Would you like a neighbor greeting you with no agenda behind it? So many things to sift and to sort through, right? I prefer boring if you ask me.

 

[Energizer]

I'm no economist, but it doesn't take an economist to realize we're driving our own economy into the ground by destroying the ecosystem which our "jobs" rely on. Loggers, commercial fishermen, and mass farming with GMOS comes to mind (Monsanto anyone?). Can't have much of an economy if we destroy all of the natural life that it depends on. On top of that, I think Peat mentioned capitalism is such an unstable system that it requires that we go to war every few years. So our economy seems like it could collapse without much notice.

The other problem is, as wealth consolidates, and maybe some of you economics buffs can help me understand this better since I what is going to happen to everyone else? If the richest 80 people in the world own half the wealth, that seems like it could create a huge problem if it's not already doing so. Power imbalances... monopolies... Isn't that a problem?

the inevitable conclusion is that everything dies in heat death.

This shorter-term inevitable conclusion is that we just gradually increase welfare until we can't any longer, at least if the US wants to play nice.

If not, then low income communities are to be policed and allowed to die. The women will marry up, the men will lose more and more resources, and eventually it just won't be a problem.

Great attitude, kill off the poor or allow them to die off through negligence. It sounds like you're really committed to building a more compassionate world.

 

[DaveFoster]

I don't mean to be rude, but you don't understand how money works.

Money spent is not money burnt. Money circulates through an economy. This is why Ben Bernanke "spent 7 trillion dollars" to save us from a 2nd great depression in 2009.

He and every other great economist knows that such seemingly aggressive government deficit spending can be useful for growing the economy (or in this particular case, saving the economy from complete collapse). I should add that Bernanke had the courage to do this despite knowing that no non-economist would understand his reasoning and that he'd be criticized and misunderstood by 99% of the population as a "wall street crony for bailing out the rich" for generations to come. He saved the middle and lower classes from total poverty and despair, he did what he knew was right--his legacy and reputation be damned--and he deserves a lot of credit for that.

The U.S. economy produces $17 trillion in GDP annually and that number will continue to rise. So $12 trillion a year for a large basic income for every citizen is actually doable, not that I think that's necessarily an optimal amount. Just saying: your analysis is way off.

 

[yerrag]

The other problem is, as wealth consolidates, and maybe some of you economics buffs can help me understand this better since I what is going to happen to everyone else? If the richest 80 people in the world own half the wealth, that seems like it could create a huge problem if it's not already doing so. Power imbalances... monopolies... Isn't that a problem?

It depends. If the wealth accumulated by these rich people is used well, it is still better than spreading this wealth to a million people only to be used unproductively. Just consider that the wealthy will have the honor of being that wealthy, but who is actually enjoying the fruits of that wealth? How many people does he employ, and how many suppliers does he give business to? If he does well and grows his business, these employees and suppliers benefit. Who owns the wealth is irrelevant, as long as the wealth is used well. Contrast this wealth being used by big government. Guess what? Chances are this wealth will be used unproductively. Bids and contracts will be rigged. Decisions made will be based on popularity, not out of what makes the most business sense. Whereas a well-run business leads to surplus and profits and capital is accumulated, thereby giving employees and suppliers a true sense of security, a typical large government will spend more than it can afford, and end up with ever increasing deficits and debt. Hello California! The richest state becomes the one mired in most debt.

Where do the SJW's come from? From the ranks of the entitled beneficiaries of government largesse. They money they have they did not earn, they just receive as if it's their birthright. It's easy for them to say "Borrow borrow borrow," they have no idea at all what borrowing means. It doesn't mean the license to keep borrowing, it means you have the obligation to pay back what you owe. With a government that doesn't tire of printing money out of thin air, and with academicians and think tanks that spew out arcane theories of economics, they form a system that discourages entrepreneurship. Taken as a whole, they are a mockery of what made the USA a great nation.

 

[sladerunner69]

You can't expect a society in general without work. It would just be a bunch of individuals caring for themselves. Like every man was stuck on a desert island with his friends. Also I completely disagree that half American jobs are going to be automated. It is not within our culture to do so.

Also most people actually like working, even if they don't realize it. Old people retire and become bored, even depressed. My father knew this and never wanted to stop working. A quality job provides a purpose and even a passion...

 

[Constatine]

Also most people actually like working, even if they don't realize it. Old people retire and become bored, even depressed. My father knew this and never wanted to stop working. A quality job provides a purpose and even a passion...

A problem is that they do not realize it. If given the choice I'm sure most people would not work even if they would be happier doing so.

 

[yerrag]

A problem is that they do not realize it. If given the choice I'm sure most people would not work even if they would be happier doing so.

If you have some outside pursuits and hobbies and interests, and work keeps you from that, and you have enough saved up, I think these alternatives make work less appealing. But if you're used to the routine that work forces upon you, and would lose a sense of direction, it makes sense to continue working. If you have great friendships at work, the more so you want to stay on. When you're in Southeast Asia though, mostly if your commute eats up a lot of your time, I think you'd want to call it quits, considering how much time and life you've lost to traffic going to and from work.