Enqyoob Sirji,enqyoob wrote: LUCK has saved US again, with your kind presence in Stockton, CA. Alla* B Praised!!
It should be going into savings. Wrecklessly consuming and printing without producing & saving is what's destroying the economy. That type of silly keynesian logic of ripping off one segment of society so a far smaller segment of society can consume & live comfortably is wrecking the economy.Christopher Sidor wrote:These Gold-plated pensions, like the American Social Security, are there for a very good reason. They help the wage-earners and salaried to concentrate on consumption, without worrying about old-age support. Without these pensions and the medical/health support that the americans/canadians/europeans/australians/etc are entitled to, the wage-earners would not consume so much. In fact, in their absence, quite a significant amount of their wages and salaries would go into savings.
By definition, a recession means there is too much capasity and infrastructure gets used less. Roads & rail get used less. Airports and ports get used less. In some cases they are used less to a point where they are no longer economically viable to even maintain.Sanjay M wrote:He just loves dipping his hands into other peoples' pockets, doesn't he?
Empirical study will show that great wealth was generated initially through the industrial revolution which began in Europe. Natural resources had very little to do with it. Paradoxically most countries that have natural resources have remained poor. Just look at Africa. Also, countries that are called rich today did not practice the economic theory that they preached. Rather economic policy was quite different from economic thought or theory. Tariff walls and other non tariff barriers were high throughout the period when today's rich countries were becoming rich, from Europe in the 1800s and early 1900s to the US in the early and mid 1900s.IMO, American wealth over the past 2 centuries came from (a) ripping out the natural resources of the North American continent and showing others how to rip out natural resources elsewhere, and (b) somehow channeling the wealth from this into generating new wealth through mechanized agriculture, mechanized industry for transportation, mass production, construction, and a fabulous education/R&D system to fuel innovation. These are what made the average worker so productive compared to others across the world, that the per-worker wealth generation rose to unprecedented levels.
Now, the natural resources have not been exhausted, but they alone cannot sustain individual income. The Services Industry which operated on trickle-down e-Khanomics has been shown to be unsustainable, because a lot of that can be outsourced at much lower cost. Mass manufacturing does not pay because the mechanisation has been exported to places where the workers get paid a lot less.
Argentines risking all to carry huge wads of cash
By ALMUDENA CALATRAVA and MICHAEL WARREN, Associated Press Writers Almudena Calatrava And Michael Warren, Associated Press Writers Mon Sep 6, 4:01 pm ET
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina – The "marker" lurks inside the bank, looking for people pulling large amounts of cash from a safe deposit box or bank account. The gunmen linger outside, usually on motorcyles, waiting to make their move.
For people like Carolina Piparo, eight months pregnant and carrying a purse full of cash for a down payment on her first home, gangs like these are an unavoidable risk in today's Argentina, where the underground cash economy is fueling a frightening new crime wave.
The July 29 attack that left Piparo comatose and killed her child added to a toll of thousands of crime victims — 4,998 reported "withdrawal robberies" in the first half of this year alone, according to Louis Vicat, a security consultant who keeps track privately because the government hasn't published detailed crime statistics since 2007.
Many victims don't even report being robbed, because they wouldn't be able to explain to tax agents where they got the money, says Vicat, who retired as deputy internal affairs chief of the Buenos Aires provincial police.
And yet cash on the table is simply the only way to do business — even when buying homes or entire companies — for many people in Argentina.
Transferring such money electronically would solve the problem in an instant. But in a society where income tax evasion runs about 50 percent and taxes eat up 65 percent of the money people do declare, many people are reluctant to use banks that way. Even people who want to pay all their taxes have a hard time complying, because there's always someone demanding to hide all or part of the transaction by paying in cash — preferably U.S. dollars.
The attack on Piparo in provincial La Plata prompted anti-crime marches and no end of fingerpointing .. Despite some arrests, "withdrawal robberies" continue unabated.
Piparo had saved for years with her husband to buy a home to raise their baby in. When it came time to withdraw the down payment, the teller told them the bank branch didn't have enough dollars; they would have to come back the next day.
Piparo did, with her mother, carefully putting $13,250 in her purse.
The bank's cameras recorded a burly man watching from behind them in line — a "marker" who later confessed to signaling others outside. Two men on a motorcycle stopped their car, threw Piparo to the ground and shot her in the face and chest as she begged them to just take the money. Her baby boy, Isidro, was born as she lay comatose, but didn't survive.
Piparo is now slowly recovering and seven people have been arrested, but many Argentines remain furious that they are exposed to such risks.
Politicians, economists, security experts and others interviewed by The Associated Press say one of the root causes of the robberies is Argentina's undeclared economy, along with the widespread reluctance of people to use a bureaucratic and costly banking system.
Add inflation of 25 percent or more this year, and people have many reasons to avoid transferring money from one account to another.
Soccer player Fabian Cubero lost a huge sum last month when his accountant left a bank with cash and was attacked by two criminals on a motorcycle in the parking garage. The player wouldn't say publicly just how the robbers got, but several newspapers reported it was 600,000 pesos — $150,000.
"These things happen on a daily basis. One has to get used to being robbed and be thankful for not getting killed," Cubero said.
Argentines aren't obligated to file tax returns each year unless they declare an annual income of least 144,000 pesos ($36,000) — and only 20 percent of the people officially meet this threshold. Many people handle as many transactions as possible in ways that avoid the scrutiny of tax agents.
With income tax compliance so low, the government seeks revenue in many other ways, imposing a 21 percent sales tax, bank transaction taxes, a "stamp tax" on business contracts, an annual "wealth tax" on personal property and many fees based on the declared value of a person's home.
"Of every 100 pesos you make, 65 you owe to the state through various taxes. That is why there is so much of this underground economy," said Ponciano Vivanco, a veteran notary in Buenos Aires who estimates that 90 percent of Buenos Aires' real estate is purchased in cash.
Argentina also taxes money transfers, check deposits and withdrawals and other routine banking transactions. Banks add their own fees and rules to discourage customers from using rival banks or credit cards.
"There are big Argentine companies that keep an important part of their management off the books. This also is common with small and medium enterprises. Anything you want to buy, you don't get an official receipt for it," economist Marcelo de Las Carreras said.
Still another factor that leads many Argentines to rely on cash is a mistrust of the country's currency.
Argentines can't forget the 2001 economic crisis that forced the government to devalue the peso, robbing most people of two-thirds or more of their wealth overnight. Banks were ordered to freeze deposits, and dollar-denominated savings could be withdrawn only in devalued pesos.
"Banks swindled us not long ago," Vivanco, the notary, said. "People who had their deposits in dollars were given back pesos and many lost 70 percent of their savings, and they blame the financial entities for this, even though the banks were just following the government's orders."
Many people avoid peso-denominated bank accounts, and convert their pesos into dollars that they stash in safe deposit boxes. Or they spend their cash on the likes of cars, appliances and apartments in hopes of protecting their wealth.
"The big money is kept in safe deposit boxes, not in bank accounts," ... .
VOTE *********. IT'S EASIER THAN THINKING
In light of the above a few articles have been posted by members highlighting the US push to increase China's represenation at the IMF (mostly at European country's expense).Neshant wrote:We are moving to an SDR type system as a global currency. Its another worthless paper system which surely won't last more than a few years before it dawns on everyone this is the same wine in a new bottle. Its exactly as Jim Rickards predicted. One of the key signs of this is the rebalancing of voting rights at the IMF for China. US wants China to have a bigger voting share so its willing to come onboard with the idea.
Jim Rickards Interview from June 14th with Eric King
http://www.kingworldnews.com/kingworldn ... 3A2010.mp3
Umm but wasn't the WW2 policy effectively the same? - undertake huge govt expenditure in the 'war machinery'. Do look at the US debt-GDP ratio at the time. What sort of productive capacity did it add to? What happenned to the US unemployment rates after the demobilisation in 1945?Sanjay M wrote:
Between 1929 and the 1950s, there was a little event called WW2 which caused the US to emerge from the Great Depression, by stimulating massive production capacity.
Obama is not adding to US capabilities or capacity by his pork-barrel spending. He's just doling out some pork to get re-elected, but his nation will pay a price for this. He is not boosting competitiveness.
What type of infrastructure spending would add to US competitiveness?
There was enormous scope for spending in simply preventing declines in normal investments; due to revenue shortfalls associated with the recession local governments and transit organisations curtailed services, raised fares, delayed procurement, and halted expansion. These changes were both damaging to local communities and representative of missed opportunities for easy stimulus.
And obviously there are many other needs to be addressed. Roads and bridges are undermaintained. America's rail system is inadequate and in need of repair and expansion. Electrical grids are weak in many places and could be turned into smart grids in others to facilitate a more efficient use of energy. Water and sewer systems in cities around the country are aging and vulnerable. Broadband coverage in many metropolitan areas is pitiful relative to that elsewhere in the developed world. And so on. The country could usefully spend several hundred billion dollars a year on such investments, for years to come.
the biggest economic advantage of infrastructure spending is that it represents investments that are probably needed in any case. There would be positive returns to such investments whether or not the economy was weak. That there are ample underused resources at present merely sweetens the deal. Projects can be done cheaply and effectively now, without risk of crowding out private investment and while providing desperately needed support for aggregate demand.
How does it matter? Say tomorrow if the US govt asks the 6th fleet to sink the 7th fleet and then build more ships to augment 'demand' for the lost fleet - would this be creating actual demand? Why not do something produtive for a change - build a good transportation rail network / power grids etc?Sanjay M wrote:^^^ Yeah, but the expansion of production capacity was based on actual demand - ie. the demands of a massive globe-spanning war.
Lots of ships were being launched, but lots of them were being sunk, too. There was no possibility of a supply glut in that regard.
You got the definition of productive mixed up. There is no need for this stuff. Its not needed any more than you need to build 3 more garages for your house or install 10 more bathrooms. It is just an expenditure of capital on something that's not needed and which will incur an upkeep cost for a long time. Therefore it is unproductive.arnab wrote:Why not do something produtive for a change - build a good transportation rail network / power grids etc?
Good reference, ramana garu.ramana wrote:Hari Seldon < Have you read Robert McElvaine's, the History Prof on the Great Depression? He had similar stats which showed wealth concentration was a major facor tha led to the crash.
...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-s-mcelvaine
Which is why it is important to understand some basic economics. There is something known as a 'counter cyclical' policy. A recession is the 'bust' phase of an economic cycle. If people are using 'less stuff' then govts should not add to this pressure by also using 'less stuff'. Otherwise the economy goes into a down-ward spiral of less consumption feeding on even lower employment.Neshant wrote: .
A recession means people use less of stuff. If people use less of ports, roads, bridges, power, oil..etc. what is the need for building more when the market does not demand it? Is the current power grid failing on a daily basis that it needs a total over haul?
There isn't counter cyclical anything. This is just keynesian economic theory which is bankrupting many states the world over like Greece. If the solution to every economic problem was just spending more, there would be no problems.arnab wrote: Which is why it is important to understand some basic economics. There is something known as a 'counter cyclical' policy. A recession is the 'bust' phase of an economic cycle. If people are using 'less stuff' then govts should not add to this pressure by also using 'less stuff'. Otherwise the economy goes into a down-ward spiral of less consumption feeding on even lower employment.
Sir who is this 'productive segment' of society? At a basic level - one needs nothing except food and water to survive (A Robinson Crusoe economy). Everything else is an artificially created demand - a product of glib marketing. So this inference that the public servants and big bankers are leeches but the poor new york taxi driver is a productive member of the economy is of course nonsense.Neshant wrote: At some point one gets a negative rate of return. That is for every dollar of debt you go into to stimulate the economy, you get less than a dollar back. This is especially so when govt gets bright ideas and start building/spending on stuff that nobody needs. Keep stimulating and you could well be stimulating yourself into an ever deeper economic hole. Then what do you do? Start printing? Its just a robbery from the productive segment of society which in turn destroys that productive segment and pull the economy down further.
Actually the govt does have an infinite money tapSanjay M wrote:^^ Arnab, you act like a govt has an infinite money tap, and that the rest of the public won't notice the rampant borrowing that the govt would have to engage in just to maintain the rampant spending. Remember, govt doesn't create money, it just uses up other peoples' money.
- Even Zimbawe hasn't exactly collapsed despite the dire predictions for a while now. It depends only on how much inflation you are willing to tolerate It is worth pausing to consider the financial crisis in 2008. For the most part, it was a routine culmination of a business cycle. During an aggressive upsurge in an economy, interest rates are necessarily low. Conservative investors seek to increase yield without increasing risk. Financial institutions are first and foremost marketing organizations, designed to devise products satisfying demand. As the business cycle moves to climax, financial institutions must become more aggressive in crafting these products, frequently increasing the hidden risk in the product. At the end of the cycle, the weakness is revealed and the house comes crashing down. Consider the dot-com meltdown at the turn of the century.
When the devastation affects a financial sector, rather than a non-financial economic sector like dot-coms, the consequences are doubled. First, there are financial losses. Second, the ability of the financial sector to function, to provide liquidity to the economy, contracts. In the United States, the normal solution has been federal intervention. In the 1970s, the federal government intervened in a possible meltdown in municipal bonds by bailing out New York City—guaranteeing its bonds. In the 1980s, when third world countries began defaulting on debt because of declining commodity prices, the United States led an international bailout that essentially guaranteed the third world debt via the Brady Bond. In 1989, when a collapse in the commercial real estate market devastated the savings and loan industry, the federal government intervened through the Resolution Trust Corporation. The crisis of 2008 was triggered by the decline of housing prices, forcing the government to intervene to guarantee those loans and other functions of the financial system.
Debt is measured against net worth. If you owe a thousand dollars and have a net worth that’s negative, you have problems if you lose your job. If you owe a million dollars but have a net worth of a billion dollars, you don’t have a problem. The U.S. economy has a net worth measured in hundreds of trillions of dollars. Therefore, a debt crisis measuring a few trillion cannot destroy it. The problem is, how can this country’s net worth be used to cover the bad loans, since that net worth is in hundreds of millions of private hands? Only the government can do that, and it does it by guaranteeing the debts, using the state’s sovereign taxing power, and utilizing the Federal Reserve’s ability to print money to bail out the system.
In that sense, the 2008 crisis was not materially different from previous crises. While the underlying economy will go through a recession, recessions are normal and common parts of the business cycle. But at the same time, we are seeing an important harbinger of the more distant future. The decline in housing prices has many reasons, but lurking in back of it is a demographic reality. As global population growth declines, the historic assumption that land and other real estate will always rise in price due to greater demand becomes suspect. The crisis of 2008 was not yet really a demographically driven crisis. But it showed a process that will reveal itself more fully over the next twenty years: an equity crisis driven by demographics. Declines in residential real estate prices are startling. They have not been drivers in the past. This one is hardly a defining moment. Think of it as a straw in the wind, a sign of things to come—from pressure on real estate to greater government control of the economy.
When we talk of economic crisis, all fears turn immediately to the Great Depression. In fact, historically, the terminal crisis of a cycle has usually resembled deep discomfort more than the profound agony of the Depression. The stagflation of the 1970s or the short, sharp crises of the 1870s are far more likely than the prolonged, systemic failure of the 1930s. As will be true for the crisis of the 2020s, we don’t have to be facing a Great Depression in order to be confronting a historical turning point.
For the first century of the United States, the driving problem was the structure of land ownership. For the next 150 years, the primary issue was how to manage the relationship between capital formation and consumption. The solution swung between favoring capital formation and favoring consumption, sometimes settling on balancing the two. But for 250 years of American history, labor was never an issue. The population always grew and the younger, working- age cohorts were more numerous than the older.
Underlying the crisis of 2030 is the fact that labor will no longer be the reliable component it has been up to that point. The surge in birthrate following World War II and the increase in life expectancy will create a large aging population, increasingly out of the workforce but continuing to consume. And here’s a fact that should get you thinking: when Social Security set the retirement age at sixty- five, the average life expectancy for a male was sixty- one. It makes us realize how little Social Security was designed to pay out. The subsequent surge in life expectancy has changed the math of retirement entirely.
The decline in birthrates since the 1970s, coupled with later and later entry into the workforce, reduces the number of workers to each retiree. During the 2020s this trend will intensify. It is not so much that workers will be supporting retirees, although that will be a factor. The problem will be that retirees, drawing on equity in homes and retirement funds, will still be consuming at high rates. Therefore, workers will be needed to fill their demand. With a declining workforce, and steady demand for goods and services, inflation will soar because the cost of labor will go through the roof. It will also accelerate the rate at which retirees exhaust their wealth.
Retirees will divide into two groups. Those lucky or smart enough to have equity reserves in houses and 401(k)s will be forced to sell those assets. A second group of retirees will have few or no assets. Social Security, under the best of circumstances, leaves people in abject poverty. The pressure to maintain reasonable standards of living and health care for the baby boomers will be intense, and it will come from a group that will continue to retain disproportionate political power because of their numbers. Retirees vote disproportionately to other groups, and the baby boomer vote will be particularly huge. They will vote themselves benefits.
Boomers will start retiring in about 2013. If we assume an average retirement age of seventy (and health and financial need will push it there), the years after will see the start of a surging retired population. A significant drop- off won’t occur until well after 2025, and the economic repercussions will continue to echo well after that. Those born in 1980 will be coping with this problem from their mid- thirties to their mid- forties. For an important part of their working life, they will be living in an increasingly dysfunctional economy. From a broad historical point of view this is just a passing problem. For those born between 1970 and 1990 this not only will be painful but will define their generation. It may not be on the order of another Great Depression, but those who remember the stagflation of the 1970s will have a point of reference.
Baby boomers came in with a generation gap. They will go out with a generation gap.
Haven't read the piece yet but remember, JK Galbraith is a guy who advocates that 'deficits don't matter'. He has his (plausible) reasons.Chinmayanand wrote:James K. Galbraith: "Fraud at the root of the financial crisis"
Yes they dont matter'deficits don't matter'. He has his (plausible) reasons.
We were selling products that had been around for 20 years
and faced a lot of price pressure from Wal-Mart, Kmart, and
Target—our three biggest customers. They kept threatening
to go to suppliers in China or India unless we lowered our
prices. We had four alternatives: (1) reduce costs to match
China and India, (2) buy from China and India and resell to
our customers, (3) introduce new products (one of which
was close at hand), or (4) do a combination of the above.
My hypothesis was that we could best minimize the price pressure
by introducing new products. Sure enough, when we
walked into the Big 3 to introduce the new product, they
were excited; we could practically charge whatever we
wanted. After that, they were much less concerned about
beating us up on price, even on the established products, as
long as we kept generating new products. Therefore, the
hypothesis worked out.
We could have taken one of the other approaches and tried
to cut costs to beat India and China. In fact, several of our
key managers thought cost reduction was the only answer, as
it had been in the past. Well, good luck; you can’t beat China
and India on costs with U.S.–made products. Naturally, cost
reduction was part of the answer for the long term; we
launched a cost reduction effort, but we never got down to
Chinese or Indian costs.
The other option, purchasing from China and India and
reselling to Kmart, Wal-Mart, and Target, while popular
with a small faction of management, made no sense to me.
All we would be doing was setting up a distribution system
for the Asian manufacturers and, once established, they
would go directly to the buyers and cut us out. Because of
constant price pressure, this option will continue to be on the
table, but as long as we have other values to offer the Big 3,
the better off we are going to be.
the Ganga spouting from his head, Acharya ji did the above post spout out of your hat or there is some other source I humbly ask?
Yup, and like a wise wag on the web quipped, "We've seen how that movie ends."A surge in bank lending. A speculative rush to buy houses – not just second properties, but third or fourth homes. Soaring property prices. Banks hiding the loans off their balance sheets. Surely it could not be happening again? And not so soon? But it is – in China.
Yawn,. Nothing will happen. PLA can simply shoot all the troublemakers - bondholders, subprime deadbeats, bank managements and so on - and start afresh on a clean slate. Now whatever could go wrong with that, eh?The world's most populous country survived the crash that crippled economies in the West, but Beijing did so by stimulating spending, especially by pushing money into property. Now the regulators are worried that boom will lead to bust there too.
The China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC) has asked the country's lenders to stress-test their balance sheets to see what will happen if house prices fall by 10 per cent, 20 per cent or 30 per cent.
The answers are worrying. Banks have been told to raise more capital to strengthen their reserves and curb property lending, though they will not have to bring off-balance-sheet loans – estimated at £200bn – into their accounts until the end of next year. But three of China's biggest banks announced plans last week to raise more than 200bn yuan (£19bn) from shareholders.
Someone was quipping abt some shenzen vs haipin or something a moon or so ago somewhere on brf only....However, in a country still moving from communism to capitalism, the banks, the borrowers and the shareholders are all part of the state. Although leading banks such as Bank of China, China Construction Bank, and Industrial and Commercial Bank of China are listed on the Beijing or Shanghai stock markets, the state still controls them via its Central Huijin Investment vehicle. The government must thus subscribe for much of the new capital or see its stakes diluted.
Over the past decade, Western countries have relied on China as a source of both cheap imports and capital as the export proceeds are reinvested in America or Europe. But the property boom has absorbed not only money that would have been deposited in foreign countries but funds that would have been lent to small businesses. A growing proportion of the Chinese economy is based on inflated property values rather than manufacturing or exporting.
The fact that one has to ask the above question is itself testament to how badly mauled common sense gets under keynesian economics.arnab wrote: Sir who is this 'productive segment' of society?
enqyoob wrote:Banks are evil. Mine has started charging me $2/mo for "check image statement facility" even when there is not a single check image in the statement, seriously eroding the balance.
No - a taxi gets a person from A to B, but you have the option of walking from A to B or taking public transport. The 'demand' is created only because there is a supply of taxis. You don't really need it. A taxi also causes pollution which people do not demand but the driver is not asked to bear the cost. A taxi driver in new york earns 20 times more than a taxi driver in mumbai for no additional skills. He just takes advantage of being in a country whose government protects his salary by not allowing free taxi driver migration from mumbai to NY till the wages drop to mumbai levels (so much for 'free market' !!). So - see your govt provides a service. The same for your banks - they provide a service. So you pay for it.Neshant wrote: The fact that one has to ask the above question is itself testament to how badly mauled common sense gets under keynesian economics.
A productive segment of society is one which profitably fulfills a demand in society. A taxi driver gets people from point A to B. A guy working a factory job produces something that people want to buy.
Now unless there is a demand among people to be scammed of their hard earned money by financing & banking crooks, that would be classified as non-productive.
To put it bluntly, its destructive. Even if one accepts the utility role of banks (which is increasingly of marginal value given technology), one has to ask is it worth anywhere near what this 'industry' drains from the productive economy. By all indications, its a useless middle man industry.
arnab wrote:No - a taxi gets a person from A to B, but you have the option of walking from A to B or taking public transport. The 'demand' is created only because there is a supply of taxis.
Wow. And you know that, how? By that logic, denitists' patients too probably don't need painkiller. I know, I know ... the analogy's imperfect and all, but is it really?You don't really need it.
True. Quite true. And who shall compute and assign what each activity 'costs' the planet? Why, a super duper (and unelected) gubmint babucracy, of course! The elected legislators, trapped as they are -poor souls - in a permanent campaign mode, nowadays needn't bother with the intricacies of thinking and writing bills, I'm told. Why, corporate lobbyists do it for them already, and that too for FREE, I hear. Can anyone say, "Hello cap-n-trade"?A taxi also causes pollution which people do not demand but the driver is not asked to bear the cost.
Just as true. If not even more so.A taxi driver in new york earns 20 times more than a taxi driver in mumbai for no additional skills. He just takes advantage of being in a country whose government protects his salary by not allowing free taxi driver migration from mumbai to NY till the wages drop to mumbai levels
Universal bugbear. While nobody's saying there ever is or was a free market, everybody's accusing everyone else of a free market doomsday cultism only. Just like the 'nazi' label is an easy stick to beat debate opponents with, I guess.(so much for 'free market' !!).
I agree.So - see your govt provides a service. The same for your banks - they provide a service. So you pay for it.
Hari saar - all contextual onleeHari Seldon wrote:^^^ Interesting perspective arnab da.
Must say I somewhat-maybe kinda agree only. However nitpicks remain....
Remember Say's law? (Supply creates it own demand).
Option being the key word.arnab wrote: No - a taxi gets a person from A to B, but you have the option of walking from A to B or taking public transport.
By that logic, demand for housing should be booming since there's a ready supply of it. Demand is created by need/want not supply.arnab wrote:The 'demand' is created only because there is a supply of taxis.
There are already an army of illegals driving cabs in America.arnab wrote:He just takes advantage of being in a country whose government protects his salary by not allowing free taxi driver migration.
Only if I choose to. To reiterate : A productive segment of society is one which profitably fulfills a demand in society. Scamming is not productive and nobody signs up to be ripped off by banking crooks nor have their liabilities offloaded onto their backs. Its forced upon productive society by a useless middle man industry. Amen.arnab wrote:So you pay for it.
1. Don't bank your money. keep it under your pillow.Neshant wrote:Option being the key word.arnab wrote: No - a taxi gets a person from A to B, but you have the option of walking from A to B or taking public transport.
Now where do I sign up for the option of not getting ripped off by banking crooks?
By that logic, demand for housing should be booming since there's a ready supply of it. Demand is created by need/want not supply.arnab wrote:The 'demand' is created only because there is a supply of taxis.
There are already an army of illegals driving cabs in America.arnab wrote:He just takes advantage of being in a country whose government protects his salary by not allowing free taxi driver migration.
Only if I choose to. To reiterate : A productive segment of society is one which profitably fulfills a demand in society. Scamming is not productive and nobody signs up for it. Its forced upon the productive by a useless middle man industry.arnab wrote:So you pay for it.
In order for the productive to have the option of keeping money under their pillow, it should retain its purchasing power. Since the crooked middle man industry produces nothing, its only means of income is stealing it from others - hence the need for 'promoting' inflation. Now to stop the thievery, central banking would have to be disbanded. Except that won't happen because the middle man industry's primary means of looting the people of their wealth will be gone. So there's no option for me to keep it under my pillow.arnab wrote: 1. Don't bank your money. keep it under your pillow.
I don't need it, but I have the option of having it if I agree to trade my hard earned money for it. When I do and Apple makes a sale. Its a reward for having produced a product somebody wants to have. Nobody opts to be scammed by banking crooks. Again where's the option to sign off?arnab wrote:2. yes but demand can be 'manufactured' - do you really need an iphone4?.
Sounds good if the whole world be put in a free market. Why just cabbies?3. Yes - but they are illegals right? Why doesn't the govt legally get cabbies in a 'free market' instead of unnecessarily shoring up the wages of such unskilled people?
I'm afraid not every piece of sillyness engaged in by govts at the urging of a useless middle man industry or lobbyists can be categorized as the public good.4. Yes - you can pay for goods that you can 'choose' to have or not have. But the protection (and facilities) offered to you by the US govt comes to you just by virtue of staying there. So you don't have the option of 'choosing'. So you pay (this is known as a public good)