|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 28 2019 07:42 Wombat_NI wrote:
That all sounds unnecessarily complicated
to be fair it's not really. The key is whether one accepts that USD has inherent value, then, if and where whatever value it has is derived from.
I suppose the concept is complicated in general but the "ponzi" analogy is supposed to make it easier to understand. Granted it complicates things if one does believe that USD does indeed have inherent value.
|
I think Berzerk sword is confusing basic monetary policy intending to continue inflation at a steady rate as a grand conpiracy thats somehow a ponzi scam where no one gets scamed and everyone benifits.
|
United States42772 Posts
On April 28 2019 07:33 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2019 07:00 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 06:46 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 06:45 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 06:38 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 05:50 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 05:48 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 05:21 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 05:09 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 05:01 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
I'm not sure on the rest but it is interesting to read and think about. And I've said many times if their dirty get em out, I'm not like you and am OK with my guy being dirty as long as theirs is too.
But clearly Trump was in this game long before Clinton or Schumer. I mean Trump had been operating for decades before Clinton moved South or had any concept of NY let alone creating a system of Mob funded projects. If anything you think Trump would be educating them. Perhaps Trump actually run the Deep state and this is his greatest con! Had you considered that? the fact that Trump was allowed to win and is alive (and the fact that he isnt really doing anything that different in terms of economy) is suspicious to me. he's still letting the fed fuck the country over, so it's possible they "got to him" fact of the matter is that we'll probably never know and there's nothing we can really do. I already gave up on the system long ago. it's corrupt beyond repair. the keynsians, war hawks, and globalists won. If I'm understanding correctly, you think there is a conspiracy that would lead "the Fed" to kill Trump to stop him from stopping them. When Trump survived this caused you to call your conspiracy theory into question because if "the Fed" were all powerful and in opposition to Trump then he would be dead. He was not dead which caused conflict with your original theory about a secret all powerful entity called "the Fed". Then you realized that there was actually a second conspiracy in which Trump had secretly been compromised by "the Fed" and therefore the fact that nothing had happened to Trump didn't disprove your first conspiracy theory but actually showed how powerful they were by forcing him to partake in the second conspiracy to secretly support the first conspiracy by making it look like there was no conspiracy at all. You're not understanding correctly. I'm just bringing up possibilities, rather than claiming to know the exact MO of the dep state. but i didn't write that well. I shouldn't have put that part in parentheses I do think that if trump went after the fed's monetary empire something would be done to make sure he's not in office. The fact that he is allowing a soft version of what Obama did makes me think he was compromised or he just reneged on his promises because it would make the stock market look bad/economy. That is the bottom line to me though - that he is keeping the ponzi scheme alive and well It's not really relevant but could you explain the Ponzi scheme reference for us? The methods the government (thanks to the federal reserve) use to dump depreciating fiat currency on the majority of americans. The major culprit is the fed's easy money stance also known as quantitative easing. Which leads to inflation and ultimately a tax burdern that increases the lower on the economic totem pole you are in the U.S. (I call it a tax because wealth is transferred from the citizen to the government) When the government sells a bond for say, 100 billion dollars, a bank like JP Morgan Chase can come in and buy the bond, representing the bank lending the government 100 bil. and now the government owe's the bank principle plus interest. Government then transfers the 100 billion dollars to bureaucrats, contractors, etc. Then the federal reserves looks to buy government debt, and of course it finds the 100 billion dollar bond that JP morgan chase has. It buys the bond by printing the dollar value of the bond (100 billion + interest) and giving it to jp morgan, which is now in profit. End result is that JP morgan profited, the government owes nothing to jp morgan, and technically the government owes money to the fed, but the fed gives that money back because it is a "government corporation" The government loses nothing, the big bank actually gained money. Everyone in this deal came out richer. The people who lose out are the outsiders who do not see any of that newly printed money since their value of the money they traded for labor/capital has just went down. That entails the first part of QE. Aside from straight up printing money, they also lower short term federal funds rates, which in turn increases money supply the problem with driving the federal funds rate to near zero like has been going on for over a decade is that leads to a market distortion that has adverse consequences the poorer someone is. there is no value of saving/holding fiat money (since the interest rates on it are near zero) compared to investing it in something like the stock market or property. so while the economy in america sucked for most of the 2000s so far, anyone who had their money in stocks or property (ie anyone who could afford it) made off like bandits while middle class and lower class just got worse and worse off. the guy living pay check to pay check is seeing his hard earned peanuts become worth less and less (because all he is doing is living off of fiat) basically, the federal reserve is dumping continually depreciating fiat money on people under the disguise of macroeconomic management. this is why the wealth gap just keeps increasing without a corresponding increase in capital (aka bad economy), even under the leftist hero obama Now could you define a Ponzi scheme for us? https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/ponzischeme.asp I think you're missing the point. I know what a Ponzi scheme is, it's a scheme where you steal from each subsequent round of "investors" to return the investment to the previous round. What I don't understand is why you're describing monetary policy as a Ponzi scheme. Let's put it in relatively simple terms. The way a Ponzi scheme works is that Mr Ponzi offers Adam the opportunity to double his money with a high yield investment if Adam gives Ponzi the money. Adam gives Ponzi the money. Ponzi gives Adam regular account statements showing an increasing balance and Adam is so happy he tells Bob and Charlie about it too and they buy in. When Adam asks for his money back Ponzi can't give him the real investment returns because the investment never existed and so Ponzi steals money from Bob and Charlie's investments to give to Adam. Then when they want their returns he takes money from the next wave of investors (David, Ed, Fred, and George), and so forth. It continues much like a pyramid scheme until the number of new investors joining is insufficient to pay those leaving at which point Ponzi simply takes all the money and flees to a non extradition haven. Could you explain why monetary policy is a Ponzi scheme in terms of which entity plays the part of Ponzi, Adam, Bob, and Charlie, what exactly the high yield investment they're offered is, what mechanism is used to transfer the money from Bob and Charlie to Adam and Ponzi, and what Ponzi's exit strategy is, ideally including the safe haven? I'm guessing you didnt understand my explanation then lol Mr. Ponzi = U.S government circle as i described above The high yield investment Adam - Zach is offered is investment in the U.S. Dollar. Adam - Zach are told they should invest their labor/skills/capital into USD. The mechanism of transfer is getting people to invest in the USD (exchange it for skills/capital/etc) and then decreasing the ability of the dollar to exchange for goods/services. keep in mind i am talking about the transfer of wealth/capital to Mr. Ponzi, not raw fiat money. It continues until the Yaneck's and Zach's are virtually no longer able to be paid for their dollars (ie, the dollars they hold cannot buy anything). The exit strategy is amassing a bunch of food and shelter and other excesses (remember these are the things Yaneck and Zack want to trade their USD for but really cant) and live like kings for when the economy collapses. The safe haven is the military compound surrounded by slums and starvation. See zimbabwe, venezuela, or so. Or maybe some other country. I dont know the detailed plans of the world's elite obviously it's more nuanced than that and I am not saying the U.S is going to replicate zimbabwe (at least anytime soon) but that is the concept. the essence of this whole thign is a ponzi scheme
But individuals aren't investing in USD, the vast majority of US families can't lay their hands on $400. They've got clothes, cars, houses, food, land, many even have stocks and shares, but they don't generally have large amounts of liquid cash. It wouldn't make sense for them to have cash either, cash is a medium of exchange to avoid bartering. Wealth is still kept in noncash assets, cash simply lets you sell your noncash asset to person A for tokens and then give those tokens to person B for his noncash asset because person B didn't want the asset you would have bartered.
If cash becomes worthless people will be fine. The average American doesn't have hundreds of thousands of dollars under his mattress, he has physical possession of a house and a car, a loan on both of those denominated in dollars which is now essentially settled, student loan debt which is also now settled, and some credit cards. If he's lucky he also has some investments which, while valued in dollars, are ownership stakes in tangible things which will have preserved their value.
Dollars are lubrication, a way of making tangible assets exchangeable, it's not the value itself. If the dollars go we'll find something else, the physical paper is a negligible portion of overall wealth. Hell, I'm doing pretty well for myself but I generally have negative dollars on hand at any given time. If assets kept their value but currency ceased to be worth anything my net worth would rise because my liabilities are dollars but my assets are value generating.
|
On April 28 2019 11:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2019 07:33 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 07:00 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 06:46 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 06:45 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 06:38 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 05:50 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 05:48 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 05:21 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 05:09 BerserkSword wrote:
[quote]
the fact that Trump was allowed to win and is alive (and the fact that he isnt really doing anything that different in terms of economy) is suspicious to me. he's still letting the fed fuck the country over, so it's possible they "got to him"
fact of the matter is that we'll probably never know and there's nothing we can really do. I already gave up on the system long ago. it's corrupt beyond repair. the keynsians, war hawks, and globalists won. If I'm understanding correctly, you think there is a conspiracy that would lead "the Fed" to kill Trump to stop him from stopping them. When Trump survived this caused you to call your conspiracy theory into question because if "the Fed" were all powerful and in opposition to Trump then he would be dead. He was not dead which caused conflict with your original theory about a secret all powerful entity called "the Fed". Then you realized that there was actually a second conspiracy in which Trump had secretly been compromised by "the Fed" and therefore the fact that nothing had happened to Trump didn't disprove your first conspiracy theory but actually showed how powerful they were by forcing him to partake in the second conspiracy to secretly support the first conspiracy by making it look like there was no conspiracy at all. You're not understanding correctly. I'm just bringing up possibilities, rather than claiming to know the exact MO of the dep state. but i didn't write that well. I shouldn't have put that part in parentheses I do think that if trump went after the fed's monetary empire something would be done to make sure he's not in office. The fact that he is allowing a soft version of what Obama did makes me think he was compromised or he just reneged on his promises because it would make the stock market look bad/economy. That is the bottom line to me though - that he is keeping the ponzi scheme alive and well It's not really relevant but could you explain the Ponzi scheme reference for us? The methods the government (thanks to the federal reserve) use to dump depreciating fiat currency on the majority of americans. The major culprit is the fed's easy money stance also known as quantitative easing. Which leads to inflation and ultimately a tax burdern that increases the lower on the economic totem pole you are in the U.S. (I call it a tax because wealth is transferred from the citizen to the government) When the government sells a bond for say, 100 billion dollars, a bank like JP Morgan Chase can come in and buy the bond, representing the bank lending the government 100 bil. and now the government owe's the bank principle plus interest. Government then transfers the 100 billion dollars to bureaucrats, contractors, etc. Then the federal reserves looks to buy government debt, and of course it finds the 100 billion dollar bond that JP morgan chase has. It buys the bond by printing the dollar value of the bond (100 billion + interest) and giving it to jp morgan, which is now in profit. End result is that JP morgan profited, the government owes nothing to jp morgan, and technically the government owes money to the fed, but the fed gives that money back because it is a "government corporation" The government loses nothing, the big bank actually gained money. Everyone in this deal came out richer. The people who lose out are the outsiders who do not see any of that newly printed money since their value of the money they traded for labor/capital has just went down. That entails the first part of QE. Aside from straight up printing money, they also lower short term federal funds rates, which in turn increases money supply the problem with driving the federal funds rate to near zero like has been going on for over a decade is that leads to a market distortion that has adverse consequences the poorer someone is. there is no value of saving/holding fiat money (since the interest rates on it are near zero) compared to investing it in something like the stock market or property. so while the economy in america sucked for most of the 2000s so far, anyone who had their money in stocks or property (ie anyone who could afford it) made off like bandits while middle class and lower class just got worse and worse off. the guy living pay check to pay check is seeing his hard earned peanuts become worth less and less (because all he is doing is living off of fiat) basically, the federal reserve is dumping continually depreciating fiat money on people under the disguise of macroeconomic management. this is why the wealth gap just keeps increasing without a corresponding increase in capital (aka bad economy), even under the leftist hero obama Now could you define a Ponzi scheme for us? https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/ponzischeme.asp I think you're missing the point. I know what a Ponzi scheme is, it's a scheme where you steal from each subsequent round of "investors" to return the investment to the previous round. What I don't understand is why you're describing monetary policy as a Ponzi scheme. Let's put it in relatively simple terms. The way a Ponzi scheme works is that Mr Ponzi offers Adam the opportunity to double his money with a high yield investment if Adam gives Ponzi the money. Adam gives Ponzi the money. Ponzi gives Adam regular account statements showing an increasing balance and Adam is so happy he tells Bob and Charlie about it too and they buy in. When Adam asks for his money back Ponzi can't give him the real investment returns because the investment never existed and so Ponzi steals money from Bob and Charlie's investments to give to Adam. Then when they want their returns he takes money from the next wave of investors (David, Ed, Fred, and George), and so forth. It continues much like a pyramid scheme until the number of new investors joining is insufficient to pay those leaving at which point Ponzi simply takes all the money and flees to a non extradition haven. Could you explain why monetary policy is a Ponzi scheme in terms of which entity plays the part of Ponzi, Adam, Bob, and Charlie, what exactly the high yield investment they're offered is, what mechanism is used to transfer the money from Bob and Charlie to Adam and Ponzi, and what Ponzi's exit strategy is, ideally including the safe haven? I'm guessing you didnt understand my explanation then lol Mr. Ponzi = U.S government circle as i described above The high yield investment Adam - Zach is offered is investment in the U.S. Dollar. Adam - Zach are told they should invest their labor/skills/capital into USD. The mechanism of transfer is getting people to invest in the USD (exchange it for skills/capital/etc) and then decreasing the ability of the dollar to exchange for goods/services. keep in mind i am talking about the transfer of wealth/capital to Mr. Ponzi, not raw fiat money. It continues until the Yaneck's and Zach's are virtually no longer able to be paid for their dollars (ie, the dollars they hold cannot buy anything). The exit strategy is amassing a bunch of food and shelter and other excesses (remember these are the things Yaneck and Zack want to trade their USD for but really cant) and live like kings for when the economy collapses. The safe haven is the military compound surrounded by slums and starvation. See zimbabwe, venezuela, or so. Or maybe some other country. I dont know the detailed plans of the world's elite obviously it's more nuanced than that and I am not saying the U.S is going to replicate zimbabwe (at least anytime soon) but that is the concept. the essence of this whole thign is a ponzi scheme But individuals aren't investing in USD, the vast majority of US families can't lay their hands on $400. They've got clothes, cars, houses, food, land, many even have stocks and shares, but they don't generally have large amounts of liquid cash. It wouldn't make sense for them to have cash either, cash is a medium of exchange to avoid bartering. Wealth is still kept in noncash assets, cash simply lets you sell your noncash asset to person A for tokens and then give those tokens to person B for his noncash asset because person B didn't want the asset you would have bartered. If cash becomes worthless people will be fine. The average American doesn't have hundreds of thousands of dollars under his mattress, he has physical possession of a house and a car, a loan on both of those denominated in dollars which is now essentially settled, student loan debt which is also now settled, and some credit cards. If he's lucky he also has some investments which, while valued in dollars, are ownership stakes in tangible things which will have preserved their value. Dollars are lubrication, a way of making tangible assets exchangeable, it's not the value itself. If the dollars go we'll find something else, the physical paper is a negligible portion of overall wealth. Hell, I'm doing pretty well for myself but I generally have negative dollars on hand at any given time. If assets kept their value but currency ceased to be worth anything my net worth would rise because my liabilities are dollars but my assets are value generating.
Indeed the value is "stored" in private ownership and the expansion of the concept of personal property into the commons. Then the paper (and digital records) that document it and the forces which enforce those concepts. From my perspective anyway.
That's to say your ownership is only as valuable as your ability to secure it against those who would claim ownership themselves, so the value of your property isn't really yours so much as it is allowed you by the system which assures you it is.
The manifestation of this (because it may be confusing) would be Japanese Americans in the 40's. They had property that held value until the system (people) decided they didn't. The property I think we agree had value, but their ownership of that value is less obvious (granted there were some formal reparations).
|
United States42772 Posts
On April 28 2019 12:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2019 11:53 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 07:33 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 07:00 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 06:46 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 06:45 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 06:38 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 05:50 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 05:48 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 05:21 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
If I'm understanding correctly, you think there is a conspiracy that would lead "the Fed" to kill Trump to stop him from stopping them.
When Trump survived this caused you to call your conspiracy theory into question because if "the Fed" were all powerful and in opposition to Trump then he would be dead. He was not dead which caused conflict with your original theory about a secret all powerful entity called "the Fed".
Then you realized that there was actually a second conspiracy in which Trump had secretly been compromised by "the Fed" and therefore the fact that nothing had happened to Trump didn't disprove your first conspiracy theory but actually showed how powerful they were by forcing him to partake in the second conspiracy to secretly support the first conspiracy by making it look like there was no conspiracy at all. You're not understanding correctly. I'm just bringing up possibilities, rather than claiming to know the exact MO of the dep state. but i didn't write that well. I shouldn't have put that part in parentheses I do think that if trump went after the fed's monetary empire something would be done to make sure he's not in office. The fact that he is allowing a soft version of what Obama did makes me think he was compromised or he just reneged on his promises because it would make the stock market look bad/economy. That is the bottom line to me though - that he is keeping the ponzi scheme alive and well It's not really relevant but could you explain the Ponzi scheme reference for us? The methods the government (thanks to the federal reserve) use to dump depreciating fiat currency on the majority of americans. The major culprit is the fed's easy money stance also known as quantitative easing. Which leads to inflation and ultimately a tax burdern that increases the lower on the economic totem pole you are in the U.S. (I call it a tax because wealth is transferred from the citizen to the government) When the government sells a bond for say, 100 billion dollars, a bank like JP Morgan Chase can come in and buy the bond, representing the bank lending the government 100 bil. and now the government owe's the bank principle plus interest. Government then transfers the 100 billion dollars to bureaucrats, contractors, etc. Then the federal reserves looks to buy government debt, and of course it finds the 100 billion dollar bond that JP morgan chase has. It buys the bond by printing the dollar value of the bond (100 billion + interest) and giving it to jp morgan, which is now in profit. End result is that JP morgan profited, the government owes nothing to jp morgan, and technically the government owes money to the fed, but the fed gives that money back because it is a "government corporation" The government loses nothing, the big bank actually gained money. Everyone in this deal came out richer. The people who lose out are the outsiders who do not see any of that newly printed money since their value of the money they traded for labor/capital has just went down. That entails the first part of QE. Aside from straight up printing money, they also lower short term federal funds rates, which in turn increases money supply the problem with driving the federal funds rate to near zero like has been going on for over a decade is that leads to a market distortion that has adverse consequences the poorer someone is. there is no value of saving/holding fiat money (since the interest rates on it are near zero) compared to investing it in something like the stock market or property. so while the economy in america sucked for most of the 2000s so far, anyone who had their money in stocks or property (ie anyone who could afford it) made off like bandits while middle class and lower class just got worse and worse off. the guy living pay check to pay check is seeing his hard earned peanuts become worth less and less (because all he is doing is living off of fiat) basically, the federal reserve is dumping continually depreciating fiat money on people under the disguise of macroeconomic management. this is why the wealth gap just keeps increasing without a corresponding increase in capital (aka bad economy), even under the leftist hero obama Now could you define a Ponzi scheme for us? https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/ponzischeme.asp I think you're missing the point. I know what a Ponzi scheme is, it's a scheme where you steal from each subsequent round of "investors" to return the investment to the previous round. What I don't understand is why you're describing monetary policy as a Ponzi scheme. Let's put it in relatively simple terms. The way a Ponzi scheme works is that Mr Ponzi offers Adam the opportunity to double his money with a high yield investment if Adam gives Ponzi the money. Adam gives Ponzi the money. Ponzi gives Adam regular account statements showing an increasing balance and Adam is so happy he tells Bob and Charlie about it too and they buy in. When Adam asks for his money back Ponzi can't give him the real investment returns because the investment never existed and so Ponzi steals money from Bob and Charlie's investments to give to Adam. Then when they want their returns he takes money from the next wave of investors (David, Ed, Fred, and George), and so forth. It continues much like a pyramid scheme until the number of new investors joining is insufficient to pay those leaving at which point Ponzi simply takes all the money and flees to a non extradition haven. Could you explain why monetary policy is a Ponzi scheme in terms of which entity plays the part of Ponzi, Adam, Bob, and Charlie, what exactly the high yield investment they're offered is, what mechanism is used to transfer the money from Bob and Charlie to Adam and Ponzi, and what Ponzi's exit strategy is, ideally including the safe haven? I'm guessing you didnt understand my explanation then lol Mr. Ponzi = U.S government circle as i described above The high yield investment Adam - Zach is offered is investment in the U.S. Dollar. Adam - Zach are told they should invest their labor/skills/capital into USD. The mechanism of transfer is getting people to invest in the USD (exchange it for skills/capital/etc) and then decreasing the ability of the dollar to exchange for goods/services. keep in mind i am talking about the transfer of wealth/capital to Mr. Ponzi, not raw fiat money. It continues until the Yaneck's and Zach's are virtually no longer able to be paid for their dollars (ie, the dollars they hold cannot buy anything). The exit strategy is amassing a bunch of food and shelter and other excesses (remember these are the things Yaneck and Zack want to trade their USD for but really cant) and live like kings for when the economy collapses. The safe haven is the military compound surrounded by slums and starvation. See zimbabwe, venezuela, or so. Or maybe some other country. I dont know the detailed plans of the world's elite obviously it's more nuanced than that and I am not saying the U.S is going to replicate zimbabwe (at least anytime soon) but that is the concept. the essence of this whole thign is a ponzi scheme But individuals aren't investing in USD, the vast majority of US families can't lay their hands on $400. They've got clothes, cars, houses, food, land, many even have stocks and shares, but they don't generally have large amounts of liquid cash. It wouldn't make sense for them to have cash either, cash is a medium of exchange to avoid bartering. Wealth is still kept in noncash assets, cash simply lets you sell your noncash asset to person A for tokens and then give those tokens to person B for his noncash asset because person B didn't want the asset you would have bartered. If cash becomes worthless people will be fine. The average American doesn't have hundreds of thousands of dollars under his mattress, he has physical possession of a house and a car, a loan on both of those denominated in dollars which is now essentially settled, student loan debt which is also now settled, and some credit cards. If he's lucky he also has some investments which, while valued in dollars, are ownership stakes in tangible things which will have preserved their value. Dollars are lubrication, a way of making tangible assets exchangeable, it's not the value itself. If the dollars go we'll find something else, the physical paper is a negligible portion of overall wealth. Hell, I'm doing pretty well for myself but I generally have negative dollars on hand at any given time. If assets kept their value but currency ceased to be worth anything my net worth would rise because my liabilities are dollars but my assets are value generating. Indeed the value is "stored" in private ownership and the expansion of the concept of personal property into the commons. Then the paper (and digital records) that document it and the forces which enforce those concepts. From my perspective anyway. That's to say your ownership is only as valuable as your ability to secure it against those who would claim ownership themselves, so the value of your property isn't really yours so much as it is allowed you by the system which assures you it is. The manifestation of this (because it may be confusing) would be Japanese Americans in the 40's. They had property that held value until the system (people) decided they didn't. The property I think we agree had value, but their ownership of that value is less obvious (granted there were some formal reparations).
The point is that inflation only impacts cash and cash flows. If the purchasing power of cash goes down I don't give a shit because I don't have any cash and my fixed cash outflows (mortgage payments) are greater than my fixed cash inflows (possibly my rate of pay but that's not really fixed, it increases with cost of living).
The idea that inflation is stealing wealth from the general population makes no sense. It's also not a Ponzi scheme, for what it's worth.
|
On April 28 2019 12:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2019 12:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2019 11:53 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 07:33 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 07:00 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 06:46 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 06:45 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 06:38 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 05:50 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 05:48 BerserkSword wrote:
[quote]
You're not understanding correctly. I'm just bringing up possibilities, rather than claiming to know the exact MO of the dep state. but i didn't write that well. I shouldn't have put that part in parentheses
I do think that if trump went after the fed's monetary empire something would be done to make sure he's not in office.
The fact that he is allowing a soft version of what Obama did makes me think he was compromised or he just reneged on his promises because it would make the stock market look bad/economy. That is the bottom line to me though - that he is keeping the ponzi scheme alive and well
It's not really relevant but could you explain the Ponzi scheme reference for us? The methods the government (thanks to the federal reserve) use to dump depreciating fiat currency on the majority of americans. The major culprit is the fed's easy money stance also known as quantitative easing. Which leads to inflation and ultimately a tax burdern that increases the lower on the economic totem pole you are in the U.S. (I call it a tax because wealth is transferred from the citizen to the government) When the government sells a bond for say, 100 billion dollars, a bank like JP Morgan Chase can come in and buy the bond, representing the bank lending the government 100 bil. and now the government owe's the bank principle plus interest. Government then transfers the 100 billion dollars to bureaucrats, contractors, etc. Then the federal reserves looks to buy government debt, and of course it finds the 100 billion dollar bond that JP morgan chase has. It buys the bond by printing the dollar value of the bond (100 billion + interest) and giving it to jp morgan, which is now in profit. End result is that JP morgan profited, the government owes nothing to jp morgan, and technically the government owes money to the fed, but the fed gives that money back because it is a "government corporation" The government loses nothing, the big bank actually gained money. Everyone in this deal came out richer. The people who lose out are the outsiders who do not see any of that newly printed money since their value of the money they traded for labor/capital has just went down. That entails the first part of QE. Aside from straight up printing money, they also lower short term federal funds rates, which in turn increases money supply the problem with driving the federal funds rate to near zero like has been going on for over a decade is that leads to a market distortion that has adverse consequences the poorer someone is. there is no value of saving/holding fiat money (since the interest rates on it are near zero) compared to investing it in something like the stock market or property. so while the economy in america sucked for most of the 2000s so far, anyone who had their money in stocks or property (ie anyone who could afford it) made off like bandits while middle class and lower class just got worse and worse off. the guy living pay check to pay check is seeing his hard earned peanuts become worth less and less (because all he is doing is living off of fiat) basically, the federal reserve is dumping continually depreciating fiat money on people under the disguise of macroeconomic management. this is why the wealth gap just keeps increasing without a corresponding increase in capital (aka bad economy), even under the leftist hero obama Now could you define a Ponzi scheme for us? https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/ponzischeme.asp I think you're missing the point. I know what a Ponzi scheme is, it's a scheme where you steal from each subsequent round of "investors" to return the investment to the previous round. What I don't understand is why you're describing monetary policy as a Ponzi scheme. Let's put it in relatively simple terms. The way a Ponzi scheme works is that Mr Ponzi offers Adam the opportunity to double his money with a high yield investment if Adam gives Ponzi the money. Adam gives Ponzi the money. Ponzi gives Adam regular account statements showing an increasing balance and Adam is so happy he tells Bob and Charlie about it too and they buy in. When Adam asks for his money back Ponzi can't give him the real investment returns because the investment never existed and so Ponzi steals money from Bob and Charlie's investments to give to Adam. Then when they want their returns he takes money from the next wave of investors (David, Ed, Fred, and George), and so forth. It continues much like a pyramid scheme until the number of new investors joining is insufficient to pay those leaving at which point Ponzi simply takes all the money and flees to a non extradition haven. Could you explain why monetary policy is a Ponzi scheme in terms of which entity plays the part of Ponzi, Adam, Bob, and Charlie, what exactly the high yield investment they're offered is, what mechanism is used to transfer the money from Bob and Charlie to Adam and Ponzi, and what Ponzi's exit strategy is, ideally including the safe haven? I'm guessing you didnt understand my explanation then lol Mr. Ponzi = U.S government circle as i described above The high yield investment Adam - Zach is offered is investment in the U.S. Dollar. Adam - Zach are told they should invest their labor/skills/capital into USD. The mechanism of transfer is getting people to invest in the USD (exchange it for skills/capital/etc) and then decreasing the ability of the dollar to exchange for goods/services. keep in mind i am talking about the transfer of wealth/capital to Mr. Ponzi, not raw fiat money. It continues until the Yaneck's and Zach's are virtually no longer able to be paid for their dollars (ie, the dollars they hold cannot buy anything). The exit strategy is amassing a bunch of food and shelter and other excesses (remember these are the things Yaneck and Zack want to trade their USD for but really cant) and live like kings for when the economy collapses. The safe haven is the military compound surrounded by slums and starvation. See zimbabwe, venezuela, or so. Or maybe some other country. I dont know the detailed plans of the world's elite obviously it's more nuanced than that and I am not saying the U.S is going to replicate zimbabwe (at least anytime soon) but that is the concept. the essence of this whole thign is a ponzi scheme But individuals aren't investing in USD, the vast majority of US families can't lay their hands on $400. They've got clothes, cars, houses, food, land, many even have stocks and shares, but they don't generally have large amounts of liquid cash. It wouldn't make sense for them to have cash either, cash is a medium of exchange to avoid bartering. Wealth is still kept in noncash assets, cash simply lets you sell your noncash asset to person A for tokens and then give those tokens to person B for his noncash asset because person B didn't want the asset you would have bartered. If cash becomes worthless people will be fine. The average American doesn't have hundreds of thousands of dollars under his mattress, he has physical possession of a house and a car, a loan on both of those denominated in dollars which is now essentially settled, student loan debt which is also now settled, and some credit cards. If he's lucky he also has some investments which, while valued in dollars, are ownership stakes in tangible things which will have preserved their value. Dollars are lubrication, a way of making tangible assets exchangeable, it's not the value itself. If the dollars go we'll find something else, the physical paper is a negligible portion of overall wealth. Hell, I'm doing pretty well for myself but I generally have negative dollars on hand at any given time. If assets kept their value but currency ceased to be worth anything my net worth would rise because my liabilities are dollars but my assets are value generating. Indeed the value is "stored" in private ownership and the expansion of the concept of personal property into the commons. Then the paper (and digital records) that document it and the forces which enforce those concepts. From my perspective anyway. That's to say your ownership is only as valuable as your ability to secure it against those who would claim ownership themselves, so the value of your property isn't really yours so much as it is allowed you by the system which assures you it is. The manifestation of this (because it may be confusing) would be Japanese Americans in the 40's. They had property that held value until the system (people) decided they didn't. The property I think we agree had value, but their ownership of that value is less obvious (granted there were some formal reparations). The point is that inflation only impacts cash and cash flows. If the purchasing power of cash goes down I don't give a shit because I don't have any cash and my fixed cash outflows (mortgage payments) are greater than my fixed cash inflows (possibly my rate of pay but that's not really fixed, it increases with cost of living). The idea that inflation is stealing wealth from the general population makes no sense. It's also not a Ponzi scheme, for what it's worth.
I agree, it's just that I think that's only in a stable economy. If inflation runs out of control (or wages don't keep up to real inflation) those that live on wages are effectively left behind while the wealthiest in that society (those that live off wealth) maintain the "real assets" while wage earners must pawn them off to survive.
Those with wealth are presumed to be preserved, their promises to be honored, and should they not, they have ample real property to appropriate. Those without assets (wage, cash, debt) are expendable, their promises rubbish, and have nothing of value to exchange for survival (but more labor).
Inflation in it's most simple monetary sense is not a ponzi scheme, but when combined with the political system , whether it is or not is contingent on the whim of a nation (as with the Japanese American example).
They bought into a system that completely abandoned them, stole everything, and left them penniless (until much later and many had died) and some of those that tricked them into the system got rich. Sounds close enough to me.
|
Right wing terrorism continues to be an ongoing threat to American citizens.
A 19-year-old man with an assault rifle opened fire at the Chabad of Poway synagogue in Poway, Calif., Saturday morning, leaving one dead and three injured, according to authorities.
Four people were transported to Palomar Medical Center with gunshot injuries around noon, Pacific time, officials said in a news conference Saturday afternoon.
One of the victims, a woman, “succumbed to their wounds,” according to Poway Mayor Steve Vaus. The three others — a girl and two men — remain in the hospital with non-life-threatening injuries.
“I can only tell you that we have a fatality,” Vaus said in an interview with MSNBC, “and I can also tell you that it was a hate crime, and that will not stand.”
Authorities did not identify the victims.
Saturday’s shooting in Poway, approximately 20 miles north of San Diego, comes six months after the massacre at Pittsburgh’s oldest synagogue, Tree of Life, where an armed shooter killed 11 people and injured six others in the deadliest attack on Jews in the history of the United States.
In an apparent manifesto posted online, the alleged shooter drew inspiration for his attack from that tragedy as well as the mosques shootings in New Zealand in March.
The San Diego County Sheriff's office identified the suspect as John Earnest. According to Sheriff William D. Gore, the assault weapon might have malfunctioned after the gunman fired inside the Chabad of Poway, preventing a more extensive tragedy. An off-duty border patrol agent fired at the shooter when he was fleeing, but missed. The agent struck the suspect’s car as he fled, Gore said in a news conference.
San Diego police Chief David Nisleit said the suspect called in to police to say he was involved in the shooting and gave his location. A K-9 officer who was on his way to the synagogue saw the suspect’s car. “The suspect jumped out of the car with his hands up,” said Nisleit, and was taken into custody. While making the arrest, the officer saw an assault rifle in the suspect’s car, Nisleit said.
The suspect is in custody for questioning, according to Nisleit, and Gore confirmed the alleged shooter had no earlier contact with law enforcement.
Earnest is a California State University San Marcos student, the university’s President Karen S. Haynes said, according to the Associated Press.
In a manifesto published online Saturday under the name John Earnest, the writer described plans to kill Jews, referring to himself as an “anti-Semite” and “white supremacist.” It referenced the alleged shooters at the Pittsburgh Tree of Life synagogue and the New Zealand mosques, Jesus Christ and Adolf Hitler as role models. The writer expressed no remorse for his impending actions.
In the document, the writer confessed to setting fire to a mosque in Escondido, Calif., located fewer than nine miles from the Poway Chabad, a month earlier, and dedicated the arson to the alleged New Zealand shooter. The writing mirrors the alleged New Zealand shooter’s manifesto.
In a post on 8chan, an Internet message board, a user who appears to be Earnest shared the manifesto and announced his plan to live-stream his actions on Facebook and shared a link, but the social media platform blocked the profile before it gained widespread attention. www.washingtonpost.com
|
United States42772 Posts
On April 28 2019 13:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2019 12:52 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 12:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2019 11:53 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 07:33 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 07:00 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 06:46 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 06:45 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 06:38 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 05:50 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
It's not really relevant but could you explain the Ponzi scheme reference for us? The methods the government (thanks to the federal reserve) use to dump depreciating fiat currency on the majority of americans. The major culprit is the fed's easy money stance also known as quantitative easing. Which leads to inflation and ultimately a tax burdern that increases the lower on the economic totem pole you are in the U.S. (I call it a tax because wealth is transferred from the citizen to the government) When the government sells a bond for say, 100 billion dollars, a bank like JP Morgan Chase can come in and buy the bond, representing the bank lending the government 100 bil. and now the government owe's the bank principle plus interest. Government then transfers the 100 billion dollars to bureaucrats, contractors, etc. Then the federal reserves looks to buy government debt, and of course it finds the 100 billion dollar bond that JP morgan chase has. It buys the bond by printing the dollar value of the bond (100 billion + interest) and giving it to jp morgan, which is now in profit. End result is that JP morgan profited, the government owes nothing to jp morgan, and technically the government owes money to the fed, but the fed gives that money back because it is a "government corporation" The government loses nothing, the big bank actually gained money. Everyone in this deal came out richer. The people who lose out are the outsiders who do not see any of that newly printed money since their value of the money they traded for labor/capital has just went down. That entails the first part of QE. Aside from straight up printing money, they also lower short term federal funds rates, which in turn increases money supply the problem with driving the federal funds rate to near zero like has been going on for over a decade is that leads to a market distortion that has adverse consequences the poorer someone is. there is no value of saving/holding fiat money (since the interest rates on it are near zero) compared to investing it in something like the stock market or property. so while the economy in america sucked for most of the 2000s so far, anyone who had their money in stocks or property (ie anyone who could afford it) made off like bandits while middle class and lower class just got worse and worse off. the guy living pay check to pay check is seeing his hard earned peanuts become worth less and less (because all he is doing is living off of fiat) basically, the federal reserve is dumping continually depreciating fiat money on people under the disguise of macroeconomic management. this is why the wealth gap just keeps increasing without a corresponding increase in capital (aka bad economy), even under the leftist hero obama Now could you define a Ponzi scheme for us? https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/ponzischeme.asp I think you're missing the point. I know what a Ponzi scheme is, it's a scheme where you steal from each subsequent round of "investors" to return the investment to the previous round. What I don't understand is why you're describing monetary policy as a Ponzi scheme. Let's put it in relatively simple terms. The way a Ponzi scheme works is that Mr Ponzi offers Adam the opportunity to double his money with a high yield investment if Adam gives Ponzi the money. Adam gives Ponzi the money. Ponzi gives Adam regular account statements showing an increasing balance and Adam is so happy he tells Bob and Charlie about it too and they buy in. When Adam asks for his money back Ponzi can't give him the real investment returns because the investment never existed and so Ponzi steals money from Bob and Charlie's investments to give to Adam. Then when they want their returns he takes money from the next wave of investors (David, Ed, Fred, and George), and so forth. It continues much like a pyramid scheme until the number of new investors joining is insufficient to pay those leaving at which point Ponzi simply takes all the money and flees to a non extradition haven. Could you explain why monetary policy is a Ponzi scheme in terms of which entity plays the part of Ponzi, Adam, Bob, and Charlie, what exactly the high yield investment they're offered is, what mechanism is used to transfer the money from Bob and Charlie to Adam and Ponzi, and what Ponzi's exit strategy is, ideally including the safe haven? I'm guessing you didnt understand my explanation then lol Mr. Ponzi = U.S government circle as i described above The high yield investment Adam - Zach is offered is investment in the U.S. Dollar. Adam - Zach are told they should invest their labor/skills/capital into USD. The mechanism of transfer is getting people to invest in the USD (exchange it for skills/capital/etc) and then decreasing the ability of the dollar to exchange for goods/services. keep in mind i am talking about the transfer of wealth/capital to Mr. Ponzi, not raw fiat money. It continues until the Yaneck's and Zach's are virtually no longer able to be paid for their dollars (ie, the dollars they hold cannot buy anything). The exit strategy is amassing a bunch of food and shelter and other excesses (remember these are the things Yaneck and Zack want to trade their USD for but really cant) and live like kings for when the economy collapses. The safe haven is the military compound surrounded by slums and starvation. See zimbabwe, venezuela, or so. Or maybe some other country. I dont know the detailed plans of the world's elite obviously it's more nuanced than that and I am not saying the U.S is going to replicate zimbabwe (at least anytime soon) but that is the concept. the essence of this whole thign is a ponzi scheme But individuals aren't investing in USD, the vast majority of US families can't lay their hands on $400. They've got clothes, cars, houses, food, land, many even have stocks and shares, but they don't generally have large amounts of liquid cash. It wouldn't make sense for them to have cash either, cash is a medium of exchange to avoid bartering. Wealth is still kept in noncash assets, cash simply lets you sell your noncash asset to person A for tokens and then give those tokens to person B for his noncash asset because person B didn't want the asset you would have bartered. If cash becomes worthless people will be fine. The average American doesn't have hundreds of thousands of dollars under his mattress, he has physical possession of a house and a car, a loan on both of those denominated in dollars which is now essentially settled, student loan debt which is also now settled, and some credit cards. If he's lucky he also has some investments which, while valued in dollars, are ownership stakes in tangible things which will have preserved their value. Dollars are lubrication, a way of making tangible assets exchangeable, it's not the value itself. If the dollars go we'll find something else, the physical paper is a negligible portion of overall wealth. Hell, I'm doing pretty well for myself but I generally have negative dollars on hand at any given time. If assets kept their value but currency ceased to be worth anything my net worth would rise because my liabilities are dollars but my assets are value generating. Indeed the value is "stored" in private ownership and the expansion of the concept of personal property into the commons. Then the paper (and digital records) that document it and the forces which enforce those concepts. From my perspective anyway. That's to say your ownership is only as valuable as your ability to secure it against those who would claim ownership themselves, so the value of your property isn't really yours so much as it is allowed you by the system which assures you it is. The manifestation of this (because it may be confusing) would be Japanese Americans in the 40's. They had property that held value until the system (people) decided they didn't. The property I think we agree had value, but their ownership of that value is less obvious (granted there were some formal reparations). The point is that inflation only impacts cash and cash flows. If the purchasing power of cash goes down I don't give a shit because I don't have any cash and my fixed cash outflows (mortgage payments) are greater than my fixed cash inflows (possibly my rate of pay but that's not really fixed, it increases with cost of living). The idea that inflation is stealing wealth from the general population makes no sense. It's also not a Ponzi scheme, for what it's worth. I agree, it's just that I think that's only in a stable economy. If inflation runs out of control (or wages don't keep up to real inflation) those that live on wages are effectively left behind while the wealthiest in that society (those that live off wealth) maintain the "real assets" while wage earners must pawn them off to survive. Those with wealth are presumed to be preserved, their promises to be honored, and should they not, they have ample real property to appropriate. Those without assets (wage, cash, debt) are expendable, their promises rubbish, and have nothing of value to exchange for survival (but more labor). Inflation in it's most simple monetary sense is not a ponzi scheme, but when combined with the political system , whether it is or not is contingent on the whim of a nation (as with the Japanese American example). They bought into a system that completely abandoned them, stole everything, and left them penniless (until much later and many had died) and some of those that tricked them into the system got rich. Sounds close enough to me.
Japanese interment has nothing to do with Ponzi schemes either. A Ponzi scheme is a specific kind of scam that has a specific series of steps. People on the internet seem to use it as “financial thing I don’t understand” but it’s almost never used for Ponzi schemes.
|
On April 28 2019 13:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2019 13:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2019 12:52 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 12:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2019 11:53 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 07:33 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 07:00 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 06:46 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 06:45 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 06:38 BerserkSword wrote:
[quote]
The methods the government (thanks to the federal reserve) use to dump depreciating fiat currency on the majority of americans.
The major culprit is the fed's easy money stance also known as quantitative easing. Which leads to inflation and ultimately a tax burdern that increases the lower on the economic totem pole you are in the U.S. (I call it a tax because wealth is transferred from the citizen to the government)
When the government sells a bond for say, 100 billion dollars, a bank like JP Morgan Chase can come in and buy the bond, representing the bank lending the government 100 bil. and now the government owe's the bank principle plus interest. Government then transfers the 100 billion dollars to bureaucrats, contractors, etc.
Then the federal reserves looks to buy government debt, and of course it finds the 100 billion dollar bond that JP morgan chase has. It buys the bond by printing the dollar value of the bond (100 billion + interest) and giving it to jp morgan, which is now in profit.
End result is that JP morgan profited, the government owes nothing to jp morgan, and technically the government owes money to the fed, but the fed gives that money back because it is a "government corporation"
The government loses nothing, the big bank actually gained money. Everyone in this deal came out richer. The people who lose out are the outsiders who do not see any of that newly printed money since their value of the money they traded for labor/capital has just went down.
That entails the first part of QE. Aside from straight up printing money, they also lower short term federal funds rates, which in turn increases money supply
the problem with driving the federal funds rate to near zero like has been going on for over a decade is that leads to a market distortion that has adverse consequences the poorer someone is. there is no value of saving/holding fiat money (since the interest rates on it are near zero) compared to investing it in something like the stock market or property. so while the economy in america sucked for most of the 2000s so far, anyone who had their money in stocks or property (ie anyone who could afford it) made off like bandits while middle class and lower class just got worse and worse off. the guy living pay check to pay check is seeing his hard earned peanuts become worth less and less (because all he is doing is living off of fiat)
basically, the federal reserve is dumping continually depreciating fiat money on people under the disguise of macroeconomic management. this is why the wealth gap just keeps increasing without a corresponding increase in capital (aka bad economy), even under the leftist hero obama Now could you define a Ponzi scheme for us? https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/ponzischeme.asp I think you're missing the point. I know what a Ponzi scheme is, it's a scheme where you steal from each subsequent round of "investors" to return the investment to the previous round. What I don't understand is why you're describing monetary policy as a Ponzi scheme. Let's put it in relatively simple terms. The way a Ponzi scheme works is that Mr Ponzi offers Adam the opportunity to double his money with a high yield investment if Adam gives Ponzi the money. Adam gives Ponzi the money. Ponzi gives Adam regular account statements showing an increasing balance and Adam is so happy he tells Bob and Charlie about it too and they buy in. When Adam asks for his money back Ponzi can't give him the real investment returns because the investment never existed and so Ponzi steals money from Bob and Charlie's investments to give to Adam. Then when they want their returns he takes money from the next wave of investors (David, Ed, Fred, and George), and so forth. It continues much like a pyramid scheme until the number of new investors joining is insufficient to pay those leaving at which point Ponzi simply takes all the money and flees to a non extradition haven. Could you explain why monetary policy is a Ponzi scheme in terms of which entity plays the part of Ponzi, Adam, Bob, and Charlie, what exactly the high yield investment they're offered is, what mechanism is used to transfer the money from Bob and Charlie to Adam and Ponzi, and what Ponzi's exit strategy is, ideally including the safe haven? I'm guessing you didnt understand my explanation then lol Mr. Ponzi = U.S government circle as i described above The high yield investment Adam - Zach is offered is investment in the U.S. Dollar. Adam - Zach are told they should invest their labor/skills/capital into USD. The mechanism of transfer is getting people to invest in the USD (exchange it for skills/capital/etc) and then decreasing the ability of the dollar to exchange for goods/services. keep in mind i am talking about the transfer of wealth/capital to Mr. Ponzi, not raw fiat money. It continues until the Yaneck's and Zach's are virtually no longer able to be paid for their dollars (ie, the dollars they hold cannot buy anything). The exit strategy is amassing a bunch of food and shelter and other excesses (remember these are the things Yaneck and Zack want to trade their USD for but really cant) and live like kings for when the economy collapses. The safe haven is the military compound surrounded by slums and starvation. See zimbabwe, venezuela, or so. Or maybe some other country. I dont know the detailed plans of the world's elite obviously it's more nuanced than that and I am not saying the U.S is going to replicate zimbabwe (at least anytime soon) but that is the concept. the essence of this whole thign is a ponzi scheme But individuals aren't investing in USD, the vast majority of US families can't lay their hands on $400. They've got clothes, cars, houses, food, land, many even have stocks and shares, but they don't generally have large amounts of liquid cash. It wouldn't make sense for them to have cash either, cash is a medium of exchange to avoid bartering. Wealth is still kept in noncash assets, cash simply lets you sell your noncash asset to person A for tokens and then give those tokens to person B for his noncash asset because person B didn't want the asset you would have bartered. If cash becomes worthless people will be fine. The average American doesn't have hundreds of thousands of dollars under his mattress, he has physical possession of a house and a car, a loan on both of those denominated in dollars which is now essentially settled, student loan debt which is also now settled, and some credit cards. If he's lucky he also has some investments which, while valued in dollars, are ownership stakes in tangible things which will have preserved their value. Dollars are lubrication, a way of making tangible assets exchangeable, it's not the value itself. If the dollars go we'll find something else, the physical paper is a negligible portion of overall wealth. Hell, I'm doing pretty well for myself but I generally have negative dollars on hand at any given time. If assets kept their value but currency ceased to be worth anything my net worth would rise because my liabilities are dollars but my assets are value generating. Indeed the value is "stored" in private ownership and the expansion of the concept of personal property into the commons. Then the paper (and digital records) that document it and the forces which enforce those concepts. From my perspective anyway. That's to say your ownership is only as valuable as your ability to secure it against those who would claim ownership themselves, so the value of your property isn't really yours so much as it is allowed you by the system which assures you it is. The manifestation of this (because it may be confusing) would be Japanese Americans in the 40's. They had property that held value until the system (people) decided they didn't. The property I think we agree had value, but their ownership of that value is less obvious (granted there were some formal reparations). The point is that inflation only impacts cash and cash flows. If the purchasing power of cash goes down I don't give a shit because I don't have any cash and my fixed cash outflows (mortgage payments) are greater than my fixed cash inflows (possibly my rate of pay but that's not really fixed, it increases with cost of living). The idea that inflation is stealing wealth from the general population makes no sense. It's also not a Ponzi scheme, for what it's worth. I agree, it's just that I think that's only in a stable economy. If inflation runs out of control (or wages don't keep up to real inflation) those that live on wages are effectively left behind while the wealthiest in that society (those that live off wealth) maintain the "real assets" while wage earners must pawn them off to survive. Those with wealth are presumed to be preserved, their promises to be honored, and should they not, they have ample real property to appropriate. Those without assets (wage, cash, debt) are expendable, their promises rubbish, and have nothing of value to exchange for survival (but more labor). Inflation in it's most simple monetary sense is not a ponzi scheme, but when combined with the political system , whether it is or not is contingent on the whim of a nation (as with the Japanese American example). They bought into a system that completely abandoned them, stole everything, and left them penniless (until much later and many had died) and some of those that tricked them into the system got rich. Sounds close enough to me. Japanese interment has nothing to do with Ponzi schemes either. A Ponzi scheme is a specific kind of scam that has a specific series of steps. People on the internet seem to use it as “financial thing I don’t understand” but it’s almost never used for Ponzi schemes.
I'm agreeing with you that it's not a Ponzi scheme in the sense that it's not literally a Ponzi scheme, but to the degree that the term is colloquially used the point is true enough, for me anyway. I think there's probably a more accurate description of the phenomena at play than "basic monetary policy" or "a Ponzi scheme". I'm not sure what that is but I bet you could help.
On April 28 2019 13:54 Belisarius wrote:
Something can be deeply unfair while also not being a Ponzi scheme.
Leaning on a bad analogy really just obfuscates the real issues, ie. that it's much easier to gain wealth if you already have wealth.
More generally I've never understood why people here are so keen to engage with the random conspiracy theories that wander through the door. Like I guess if nothing else is going on, but man it's boring to read.
I was trying to extract the important information from the more conspiratorial stuff personally. It's not that bad of analogy though was my point. Particularly when I don't think "it's easier to gain wealth if you already have wealth" really captures what's being described either.
I can get behind not calling what we're talking about a Ponzi scheme but we should do better than "takes money to make money" imo.
|
Something can be deeply unfair while also not being a Ponzi scheme.
Leaning on a bad analogy really just obfuscates the real issues, ie. that it's much easier to gain wealth if you already have wealth.
Plus, a small group of people being disenfranchised by the state under very specific circumstances is really stretching the definition to the point that it's useless, even "colloquially".
More generally I've never understood why people here are so keen to engage with the random conspiracy theories that wander through the door. Like I guess if nothing else is going on, but man it's boring to read.
|
United States42772 Posts
On April 28 2019 13:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2019 13:40 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 13:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2019 12:52 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 12:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2019 11:53 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 07:33 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 07:00 KwarK wrote:I think you're missing the point. I know what a Ponzi scheme is, it's a scheme where you steal from each subsequent round of "investors" to return the investment to the previous round. What I don't understand is why you're describing monetary policy as a Ponzi scheme. Let's put it in relatively simple terms. The way a Ponzi scheme works is that Mr Ponzi offers Adam the opportunity to double his money with a high yield investment if Adam gives Ponzi the money. Adam gives Ponzi the money. Ponzi gives Adam regular account statements showing an increasing balance and Adam is so happy he tells Bob and Charlie about it too and they buy in. When Adam asks for his money back Ponzi can't give him the real investment returns because the investment never existed and so Ponzi steals money from Bob and Charlie's investments to give to Adam. Then when they want their returns he takes money from the next wave of investors (David, Ed, Fred, and George), and so forth. It continues much like a pyramid scheme until the number of new investors joining is insufficient to pay those leaving at which point Ponzi simply takes all the money and flees to a non extradition haven. Could you explain why monetary policy is a Ponzi scheme in terms of which entity plays the part of Ponzi, Adam, Bob, and Charlie, what exactly the high yield investment they're offered is, what mechanism is used to transfer the money from Bob and Charlie to Adam and Ponzi, and what Ponzi's exit strategy is, ideally including the safe haven? I'm guessing you didnt understand my explanation then lol Mr. Ponzi = U.S government circle as i described above The high yield investment Adam - Zach is offered is investment in the U.S. Dollar. Adam - Zach are told they should invest their labor/skills/capital into USD. The mechanism of transfer is getting people to invest in the USD (exchange it for skills/capital/etc) and then decreasing the ability of the dollar to exchange for goods/services. keep in mind i am talking about the transfer of wealth/capital to Mr. Ponzi, not raw fiat money. It continues until the Yaneck's and Zach's are virtually no longer able to be paid for their dollars (ie, the dollars they hold cannot buy anything). The exit strategy is amassing a bunch of food and shelter and other excesses (remember these are the things Yaneck and Zack want to trade their USD for but really cant) and live like kings for when the economy collapses. The safe haven is the military compound surrounded by slums and starvation. See zimbabwe, venezuela, or so. Or maybe some other country. I dont know the detailed plans of the world's elite obviously it's more nuanced than that and I am not saying the U.S is going to replicate zimbabwe (at least anytime soon) but that is the concept. the essence of this whole thign is a ponzi scheme But individuals aren't investing in USD, the vast majority of US families can't lay their hands on $400. They've got clothes, cars, houses, food, land, many even have stocks and shares, but they don't generally have large amounts of liquid cash. It wouldn't make sense for them to have cash either, cash is a medium of exchange to avoid bartering. Wealth is still kept in noncash assets, cash simply lets you sell your noncash asset to person A for tokens and then give those tokens to person B for his noncash asset because person B didn't want the asset you would have bartered. If cash becomes worthless people will be fine. The average American doesn't have hundreds of thousands of dollars under his mattress, he has physical possession of a house and a car, a loan on both of those denominated in dollars which is now essentially settled, student loan debt which is also now settled, and some credit cards. If he's lucky he also has some investments which, while valued in dollars, are ownership stakes in tangible things which will have preserved their value. Dollars are lubrication, a way of making tangible assets exchangeable, it's not the value itself. If the dollars go we'll find something else, the physical paper is a negligible portion of overall wealth. Hell, I'm doing pretty well for myself but I generally have negative dollars on hand at any given time. If assets kept their value but currency ceased to be worth anything my net worth would rise because my liabilities are dollars but my assets are value generating. Indeed the value is "stored" in private ownership and the expansion of the concept of personal property into the commons. Then the paper (and digital records) that document it and the forces which enforce those concepts. From my perspective anyway. That's to say your ownership is only as valuable as your ability to secure it against those who would claim ownership themselves, so the value of your property isn't really yours so much as it is allowed you by the system which assures you it is. The manifestation of this (because it may be confusing) would be Japanese Americans in the 40's. They had property that held value until the system (people) decided they didn't. The property I think we agree had value, but their ownership of that value is less obvious (granted there were some formal reparations). The point is that inflation only impacts cash and cash flows. If the purchasing power of cash goes down I don't give a shit because I don't have any cash and my fixed cash outflows (mortgage payments) are greater than my fixed cash inflows (possibly my rate of pay but that's not really fixed, it increases with cost of living). The idea that inflation is stealing wealth from the general population makes no sense. It's also not a Ponzi scheme, for what it's worth. I agree, it's just that I think that's only in a stable economy. If inflation runs out of control (or wages don't keep up to real inflation) those that live on wages are effectively left behind while the wealthiest in that society (those that live off wealth) maintain the "real assets" while wage earners must pawn them off to survive. Those with wealth are presumed to be preserved, their promises to be honored, and should they not, they have ample real property to appropriate. Those without assets (wage, cash, debt) are expendable, their promises rubbish, and have nothing of value to exchange for survival (but more labor). Inflation in it's most simple monetary sense is not a ponzi scheme, but when combined with the political system , whether it is or not is contingent on the whim of a nation (as with the Japanese American example). They bought into a system that completely abandoned them, stole everything, and left them penniless (until much later and many had died) and some of those that tricked them into the system got rich. Sounds close enough to me. Japanese interment has nothing to do with Ponzi schemes either. A Ponzi scheme is a specific kind of scam that has a specific series of steps. People on the internet seem to use it as “financial thing I don’t understand” but it’s almost never used for Ponzi schemes. I'm agreeing with you that it's not a Ponzi scheme in the sense that it's not literally a Ponzi scheme, but to the degree that the term is colloquially used the point is true enough.
If we’re just going by volume of colloquiums then call it cultural Marxism and be done with it. Let language be damned. I’m sure there’s a significant audience prepared to hear the words “monetary policy is cultural Marxism” and nod in agreement. Let all things simply be known as cultural Marxism.
|
On April 28 2019 13:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2019 13:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2019 13:40 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 13:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2019 12:52 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 12:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2019 11:53 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 07:33 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 07:00 KwarK wrote:I think you're missing the point. I know what a Ponzi scheme is, it's a scheme where you steal from each subsequent round of "investors" to return the investment to the previous round. What I don't understand is why you're describing monetary policy as a Ponzi scheme. Let's put it in relatively simple terms. The way a Ponzi scheme works is that Mr Ponzi offers Adam the opportunity to double his money with a high yield investment if Adam gives Ponzi the money. Adam gives Ponzi the money. Ponzi gives Adam regular account statements showing an increasing balance and Adam is so happy he tells Bob and Charlie about it too and they buy in. When Adam asks for his money back Ponzi can't give him the real investment returns because the investment never existed and so Ponzi steals money from Bob and Charlie's investments to give to Adam. Then when they want their returns he takes money from the next wave of investors (David, Ed, Fred, and George), and so forth. It continues much like a pyramid scheme until the number of new investors joining is insufficient to pay those leaving at which point Ponzi simply takes all the money and flees to a non extradition haven. Could you explain why monetary policy is a Ponzi scheme in terms of which entity plays the part of Ponzi, Adam, Bob, and Charlie, what exactly the high yield investment they're offered is, what mechanism is used to transfer the money from Bob and Charlie to Adam and Ponzi, and what Ponzi's exit strategy is, ideally including the safe haven? I'm guessing you didnt understand my explanation then lol Mr. Ponzi = U.S government circle as i described above The high yield investment Adam - Zach is offered is investment in the U.S. Dollar. Adam - Zach are told they should invest their labor/skills/capital into USD. The mechanism of transfer is getting people to invest in the USD (exchange it for skills/capital/etc) and then decreasing the ability of the dollar to exchange for goods/services. keep in mind i am talking about the transfer of wealth/capital to Mr. Ponzi, not raw fiat money. It continues until the Yaneck's and Zach's are virtually no longer able to be paid for their dollars (ie, the dollars they hold cannot buy anything). The exit strategy is amassing a bunch of food and shelter and other excesses (remember these are the things Yaneck and Zack want to trade their USD for but really cant) and live like kings for when the economy collapses. The safe haven is the military compound surrounded by slums and starvation. See zimbabwe, venezuela, or so. Or maybe some other country. I dont know the detailed plans of the world's elite obviously it's more nuanced than that and I am not saying the U.S is going to replicate zimbabwe (at least anytime soon) but that is the concept. the essence of this whole thign is a ponzi scheme But individuals aren't investing in USD, the vast majority of US families can't lay their hands on $400. They've got clothes, cars, houses, food, land, many even have stocks and shares, but they don't generally have large amounts of liquid cash. It wouldn't make sense for them to have cash either, cash is a medium of exchange to avoid bartering. Wealth is still kept in noncash assets, cash simply lets you sell your noncash asset to person A for tokens and then give those tokens to person B for his noncash asset because person B didn't want the asset you would have bartered. If cash becomes worthless people will be fine. The average American doesn't have hundreds of thousands of dollars under his mattress, he has physical possession of a house and a car, a loan on both of those denominated in dollars which is now essentially settled, student loan debt which is also now settled, and some credit cards. If he's lucky he also has some investments which, while valued in dollars, are ownership stakes in tangible things which will have preserved their value. Dollars are lubrication, a way of making tangible assets exchangeable, it's not the value itself. If the dollars go we'll find something else, the physical paper is a negligible portion of overall wealth. Hell, I'm doing pretty well for myself but I generally have negative dollars on hand at any given time. If assets kept their value but currency ceased to be worth anything my net worth would rise because my liabilities are dollars but my assets are value generating. Indeed the value is "stored" in private ownership and the expansion of the concept of personal property into the commons. Then the paper (and digital records) that document it and the forces which enforce those concepts. From my perspective anyway. That's to say your ownership is only as valuable as your ability to secure it against those who would claim ownership themselves, so the value of your property isn't really yours so much as it is allowed you by the system which assures you it is. The manifestation of this (because it may be confusing) would be Japanese Americans in the 40's. They had property that held value until the system (people) decided they didn't. The property I think we agree had value, but their ownership of that value is less obvious (granted there were some formal reparations). The point is that inflation only impacts cash and cash flows. If the purchasing power of cash goes down I don't give a shit because I don't have any cash and my fixed cash outflows (mortgage payments) are greater than my fixed cash inflows (possibly my rate of pay but that's not really fixed, it increases with cost of living). The idea that inflation is stealing wealth from the general population makes no sense. It's also not a Ponzi scheme, for what it's worth. I agree, it's just that I think that's only in a stable economy. If inflation runs out of control (or wages don't keep up to real inflation) those that live on wages are effectively left behind while the wealthiest in that society (those that live off wealth) maintain the "real assets" while wage earners must pawn them off to survive. Those with wealth are presumed to be preserved, their promises to be honored, and should they not, they have ample real property to appropriate. Those without assets (wage, cash, debt) are expendable, their promises rubbish, and have nothing of value to exchange for survival (but more labor). Inflation in it's most simple monetary sense is not a ponzi scheme, but when combined with the political system , whether it is or not is contingent on the whim of a nation (as with the Japanese American example). They bought into a system that completely abandoned them, stole everything, and left them penniless (until much later and many had died) and some of those that tricked them into the system got rich. Sounds close enough to me. Japanese interment has nothing to do with Ponzi schemes either. A Ponzi scheme is a specific kind of scam that has a specific series of steps. People on the internet seem to use it as “financial thing I don’t understand” but it’s almost never used for Ponzi schemes. I'm agreeing with you that it's not a Ponzi scheme in the sense that it's not literally a Ponzi scheme, but to the degree that the term is colloquially used the point is true enough. If we’re just going by volume of colloquiums then call it cultural Marxism and be done with it. Let language be damned. I’m sure there’s a significant audience prepared to hear the words “monetary policy is cultural Marxism” and nod in agreement. Let all things simply be known as cultural Marxism.
I think you know I care about words.
I can get behind not calling what we're talking about a Ponzi scheme but we should do better than "takes money to make money" "financial thing I don't understand" etc... imo.
Plus, a small group of people being disenfranchised by the state under very specific circumstances is really stretching the definition to the point that it's useless, even "colloquially".
I think this is better but I think it still feels pretty euphemistic. I feel like you could describe anything from the burning of Black Wallstreet to the 40 acres and a mule theft to potentially worse with that.
I think the point I'm trying to stress is that there's an important truth we're painting over with euphemistic language to avoid confronting a harder truth.
|
On April 28 2019 11:16 Sermokala wrote:
I think Berzerk sword is confusing basic monetary policy intending to continue inflation at a steady rate as a grand conpiracy thats somehow a ponzi scam where no one gets scamed and everyone benifits.
I am not
On April 28 2019 11:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2019 07:33 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 07:00 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 06:46 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 06:45 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 06:38 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 05:50 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 05:48 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 05:21 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 05:09 BerserkSword wrote:
[quote]
the fact that Trump was allowed to win and is alive (and the fact that he isnt really doing anything that different in terms of economy) is suspicious to me. he's still letting the fed fuck the country over, so it's possible they "got to him"
fact of the matter is that we'll probably never know and there's nothing we can really do. I already gave up on the system long ago. it's corrupt beyond repair. the keynsians, war hawks, and globalists won. If I'm understanding correctly, you think there is a conspiracy that would lead "the Fed" to kill Trump to stop him from stopping them. When Trump survived this caused you to call your conspiracy theory into question because if "the Fed" were all powerful and in opposition to Trump then he would be dead. He was not dead which caused conflict with your original theory about a secret all powerful entity called "the Fed". Then you realized that there was actually a second conspiracy in which Trump had secretly been compromised by "the Fed" and therefore the fact that nothing had happened to Trump didn't disprove your first conspiracy theory but actually showed how powerful they were by forcing him to partake in the second conspiracy to secretly support the first conspiracy by making it look like there was no conspiracy at all. You're not understanding correctly. I'm just bringing up possibilities, rather than claiming to know the exact MO of the dep state. but i didn't write that well. I shouldn't have put that part in parentheses I do think that if trump went after the fed's monetary empire something would be done to make sure he's not in office. The fact that he is allowing a soft version of what Obama did makes me think he was compromised or he just reneged on his promises because it would make the stock market look bad/economy. That is the bottom line to me though - that he is keeping the ponzi scheme alive and well It's not really relevant but could you explain the Ponzi scheme reference for us? The methods the government (thanks to the federal reserve) use to dump depreciating fiat currency on the majority of americans. The major culprit is the fed's easy money stance also known as quantitative easing. Which leads to inflation and ultimately a tax burdern that increases the lower on the economic totem pole you are in the U.S. (I call it a tax because wealth is transferred from the citizen to the government) When the government sells a bond for say, 100 billion dollars, a bank like JP Morgan Chase can come in and buy the bond, representing the bank lending the government 100 bil. and now the government owe's the bank principle plus interest. Government then transfers the 100 billion dollars to bureaucrats, contractors, etc. Then the federal reserves looks to buy government debt, and of course it finds the 100 billion dollar bond that JP morgan chase has. It buys the bond by printing the dollar value of the bond (100 billion + interest) and giving it to jp morgan, which is now in profit. End result is that JP morgan profited, the government owes nothing to jp morgan, and technically the government owes money to the fed, but the fed gives that money back because it is a "government corporation" The government loses nothing, the big bank actually gained money. Everyone in this deal came out richer. The people who lose out are the outsiders who do not see any of that newly printed money since their value of the money they traded for labor/capital has just went down. That entails the first part of QE. Aside from straight up printing money, they also lower short term federal funds rates, which in turn increases money supply the problem with driving the federal funds rate to near zero like has been going on for over a decade is that leads to a market distortion that has adverse consequences the poorer someone is. there is no value of saving/holding fiat money (since the interest rates on it are near zero) compared to investing it in something like the stock market or property. so while the economy in america sucked for most of the 2000s so far, anyone who had their money in stocks or property (ie anyone who could afford it) made off like bandits while middle class and lower class just got worse and worse off. the guy living pay check to pay check is seeing his hard earned peanuts become worth less and less (because all he is doing is living off of fiat) basically, the federal reserve is dumping continually depreciating fiat money on people under the disguise of macroeconomic management. this is why the wealth gap just keeps increasing without a corresponding increase in capital (aka bad economy), even under the leftist hero obama Now could you define a Ponzi scheme for us? https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/ponzischeme.asp I think you're missing the point. I know what a Ponzi scheme is, it's a scheme where you steal from each subsequent round of "investors" to return the investment to the previous round. What I don't understand is why you're describing monetary policy as a Ponzi scheme. Let's put it in relatively simple terms. The way a Ponzi scheme works is that Mr Ponzi offers Adam the opportunity to double his money with a high yield investment if Adam gives Ponzi the money. Adam gives Ponzi the money. Ponzi gives Adam regular account statements showing an increasing balance and Adam is so happy he tells Bob and Charlie about it too and they buy in. When Adam asks for his money back Ponzi can't give him the real investment returns because the investment never existed and so Ponzi steals money from Bob and Charlie's investments to give to Adam. Then when they want their returns he takes money from the next wave of investors (David, Ed, Fred, and George), and so forth. It continues much like a pyramid scheme until the number of new investors joining is insufficient to pay those leaving at which point Ponzi simply takes all the money and flees to a non extradition haven. Could you explain why monetary policy is a Ponzi scheme in terms of which entity plays the part of Ponzi, Adam, Bob, and Charlie, what exactly the high yield investment they're offered is, what mechanism is used to transfer the money from Bob and Charlie to Adam and Ponzi, and what Ponzi's exit strategy is, ideally including the safe haven? I'm guessing you didnt understand my explanation then lol Mr. Ponzi = U.S government circle as i described above The high yield investment Adam - Zach is offered is investment in the U.S. Dollar. Adam - Zach are told they should invest their labor/skills/capital into USD. The mechanism of transfer is getting people to invest in the USD (exchange it for skills/capital/etc) and then decreasing the ability of the dollar to exchange for goods/services. keep in mind i am talking about the transfer of wealth/capital to Mr. Ponzi, not raw fiat money. It continues until the Yaneck's and Zach's are virtually no longer able to be paid for their dollars (ie, the dollars they hold cannot buy anything). The exit strategy is amassing a bunch of food and shelter and other excesses (remember these are the things Yaneck and Zack want to trade their USD for but really cant) and live like kings for when the economy collapses. The safe haven is the military compound surrounded by slums and starvation. See zimbabwe, venezuela, or so. Or maybe some other country. I dont know the detailed plans of the world's elite obviously it's more nuanced than that and I am not saying the U.S is going to replicate zimbabwe (at least anytime soon) but that is the concept. the essence of this whole thign is a ponzi scheme But individuals aren't investing in USD, the vast majority of US families can't lay their hands on $400. They've got clothes, cars, houses, food, land, many even have stocks and shares, but they don't generally have large amounts of liquid cash. It wouldn't make sense for them to have cash either, cash is a medium of exchange to avoid bartering. Wealth is still kept in noncash assets, cash simply lets you sell your noncash asset to person A for tokens and then give those tokens to person B for his noncash asset because person B didn't want the asset you would have bartered. If cash becomes worthless people will be fine. The average American doesn't have hundreds of thousands of dollars under his mattress, he has physical possession of a house and a car, a loan on both of those denominated in dollars which is now essentially settled, student loan debt which is also now settled, and some credit cards. If he's lucky he also has some investments which, while valued in dollars, are ownership stakes in tangible things which will have preserved their value. Dollars are lubrication, a way of making tangible assets exchangeable, it's not the value itself. If the dollars go we'll find something else, the physical paper is a negligible portion of overall wealth. Hell, I'm doing pretty well for myself but I generally have negative dollars on hand at any given time. If assets kept their value but currency ceased to be worth anything my net worth would rise because my liabilities are dollars but my assets are value generating.
Every time someone gets paid in USD, he/she is investing in USD. Last time I checked Americans are paid in USD.
You ignored when I said the situation in America is more nuanced and slow moving than a zimbabwe or venazuela type situation where pepole are wheelbarrowing around cash to by bread. Youre ignoring the factor of time and sequence that i described before. The basic principle is that people early in the sequence get enriched while the people at the end get impoverished. This happens in all degrees of inflation, just to a different extent depending on inflation rate. The people at the bottom of the socio-economic pyramid - the people who do not have access to non-depreciating assets and who live paycheck to paycheck with maybe a small cash sum in their bank account continually get fucked over.
As this goes on the people who are affected spreads to higher up the economic ladder. Decades ago a high school grad had a solid chance of working 40 hrs a week in a factory and trading his labor for USD capable of getting his family a house as well as resources to live. The middle class used to NEVER worry about things like health insurance. Decades are going by and now we have the most college educated generation stuck renting most of the time and a health insurance crisis that is even affecting the middle class.
On April 28 2019 12:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2019 12:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2019 11:53 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 07:33 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 07:00 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 06:46 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 06:45 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 06:38 BerserkSword wrote:On April 28 2019 05:50 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2019 05:48 BerserkSword wrote:
[quote]
You're not understanding correctly. I'm just bringing up possibilities, rather than claiming to know the exact MO of the dep state. but i didn't write that well. I shouldn't have put that part in parentheses
I do think that if trump went after the fed's monetary empire something would be done to make sure he's not in office.
The fact that he is allowing a soft version of what Obama did makes me think he was compromised or he just reneged on his promises because it would make the stock market look bad/economy. That is the bottom line to me though - that he is keeping the ponzi scheme alive and well
It's not really relevant but could you explain the Ponzi scheme reference for us? The methods the government (thanks to the federal reserve) use to dump depreciating fiat currency on the majority of americans. The major culprit is the fed's easy money stance also known as quantitative easing. Which leads to inflation and ultimately a tax burdern that increases the lower on the economic totem pole you are in the U.S. (I call it a tax because wealth is transferred from the citizen to the government) When the government sells a bond for say, 100 billion dollars, a bank like JP Morgan Chase can come in and buy the bond, representing the bank lending the government 100 bil. and now the government owe's the bank principle plus interest. Government then transfers the 100 billion dollars to bureaucrats, contractors, etc. Then the federal reserves looks to buy government debt, and of course it finds the 100 billion dollar bond that JP morgan chase has. It buys the bond by printing the dollar value of the bond (100 billion + interest) and giving it to jp morgan, which is now in profit. End result is that JP morgan profited, the government owes nothing to jp morgan, and technically the government owes money to the fed, but the fed gives that money back because it is a "government corporation" The government loses nothing, the big bank actually gained money. Everyone in this deal came out richer. The people who lose out are the outsiders who do not see any of that newly printed money since their value of the money they traded for labor/capital has just went down. That entails the first part of QE. Aside from straight up printing money, they also lower short term federal funds rates, which in turn increases money supply the problem with driving the federal funds rate to near zero like has been going on for over a decade is that leads to a market distortion that has adverse consequences the poorer someone is. there is no value of saving/holding fiat money (since the interest rates on it are near zero) compared to investing it in something like the stock market or property. so while the economy in america sucked for most of the 2000s so far, anyone who had their money in stocks or property (ie anyone who could afford it) made off like bandits while middle class and lower class just got worse and worse off. the guy living pay check to pay check is seeing his hard earned peanuts become worth less and less (because all he is doing is living off of fiat) basically, the federal reserve is dumping continually depreciating fiat money on people under the disguise of macroeconomic management. this is why the wealth gap just keeps increasing without a corresponding increase in capital (aka bad economy), even under the leftist hero obama Now could you define a Ponzi scheme for us? https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/ponzischeme.asp I think you're missing the point. I know what a Ponzi scheme is, it's a scheme where you steal from each subsequent round of "investors" to return the investment to the previous round. What I don't understand is why you're describing monetary policy as a Ponzi scheme. Let's put it in relatively simple terms. The way a Ponzi scheme works is that Mr Ponzi offers Adam the opportunity to double his money with a high yield investment if Adam gives Ponzi the money. Adam gives Ponzi the money. Ponzi gives Adam regular account statements showing an increasing balance and Adam is so happy he tells Bob and Charlie about it too and they buy in. When Adam asks for his money back Ponzi can't give him the real investment returns because the investment never existed and so Ponzi steals money from Bob and Charlie's investments to give to Adam. Then when they want their returns he takes money from the next wave of investors (David, Ed, Fred, and George), and so forth. It continues much like a pyramid scheme until the number of new investors joining is insufficient to pay those leaving at which point Ponzi simply takes all the money and flees to a non extradition haven. Could you explain why monetary policy is a Ponzi scheme in terms of which entity plays the part of Ponzi, Adam, Bob, and Charlie, what exactly the high yield investment they're offered is, what mechanism is used to transfer the money from Bob and Charlie to Adam and Ponzi, and what Ponzi's exit strategy is, ideally including the safe haven? I'm guessing you didnt understand my explanation then lol Mr. Ponzi = U.S government circle as i described above The high yield investment Adam - Zach is offered is investment in the U.S. Dollar. Adam - Zach are told they should invest their labor/skills/capital into USD. The mechanism of transfer is getting people to invest in the USD (exchange it for skills/capital/etc) and then decreasing the ability of the dollar to exchange for goods/services. keep in mind i am talking about the transfer of wealth/capital to Mr. Ponzi, not raw fiat money. It continues until the Yaneck's and Zach's are virtually no longer able to be paid for their dollars (ie, the dollars they hold cannot buy anything). The exit strategy is amassing a bunch of food and shelter and other excesses (remember these are the things Yaneck and Zack want to trade their USD for but really cant) and live like kings for when the economy collapses. The safe haven is the military compound surrounded by slums and starvation. See zimbabwe, venezuela, or so. Or maybe some other country. I dont know the detailed plans of the world's elite obviously it's more nuanced than that and I am not saying the U.S is going to replicate zimbabwe (at least anytime soon) but that is the concept. the essence of this whole thign is a ponzi scheme But individuals aren't investing in USD, the vast majority of US families can't lay their hands on $400. They've got clothes, cars, houses, food, land, many even have stocks and shares, but they don't generally have large amounts of liquid cash. It wouldn't make sense for them to have cash either, cash is a medium of exchange to avoid bartering. Wealth is still kept in noncash assets, cash simply lets you sell your noncash asset to person A for tokens and then give those tokens to person B for his noncash asset because person B didn't want the asset you would have bartered. If cash becomes worthless people will be fine. The average American doesn't have hundreds of thousands of dollars under his mattress, he has physical possession of a house and a car, a loan on both of those denominated in dollars which is now essentially settled, student loan debt which is also now settled, and some credit cards. If he's lucky he also has some investments which, while valued in dollars, are ownership stakes in tangible things which will have preserved their value. Dollars are lubrication, a way of making tangible assets exchangeable, it's not the value itself. If the dollars go we'll find something else, the physical paper is a negligible portion of overall wealth. Hell, I'm doing pretty well for myself but I generally have negative dollars on hand at any given time. If assets kept their value but currency ceased to be worth anything my net worth would rise because my liabilities are dollars but my assets are value generating. Indeed the value is "stored" in private ownership and the expansion of the concept of personal property into the commons. Then the paper (and digital records) that document it and the forces which enforce those concepts. From my perspective anyway. That's to say your ownership is only as valuable as your ability to secure it against those who would claim ownership themselves, so the value of your property isn't really yours so much as it is allowed you by the system which assures you it is. The manifestation of this (because it may be confusing) would be Japanese Americans in the 40's. They had property that held value until the system (people) decided they didn't. The property I think we agree had value, but their ownership of that value is less obvious (granted there were some formal reparations). The point is that inflation only impacts cash and cash flows. If the purchasing power of cash goes down I don't give a shit because I don't have any cash and my fixed cash outflows (mortgage payments) are greater than my fixed cash inflows (possibly my rate of pay but that's not really fixed, it increases with cost of living). The idea that inflation is stealing wealth from the general population makes no sense. It's also not a Ponzi scheme, for what it's worth.
Dude. It's good to hear that you are doing alright, but we are not talking about you, specifically....
And I explained in two ways (defining quantitative easing and your Mr Ponzi Adam, Bob, Charlie scenario) how inflation transfers wealth from the bottom to the top. As long as the general population gets paid in USD, inflation takes wealth from them.
|
|
|
All of your posts can be shortened to "printing new 'empty' money is bad for the economy", to which I believe everyone would agree, as history has showed time and again that it's a really bad idea. The whole ponzi scheme arguments and lenghty explanations only obfuscate the point you're trying to make.
|
Canada11350 Posts
learn the economics
Well then it's definitely a bad analogy.
The point of an analogy is to take that which is unknown and explain it more simply by something that is known.
But if you have to learn the unknown thing in order to understand the connection to the known thing and how it explains the unknown... there is literally no purpose to the analogy as an explanatory device.
There is perhaps a rhetorical purpose:
Ponzi scheme = bad.
Inflationary policy = Ponzi scheme
Therefore Inflationary policy = bad
|
On April 28 2019 16:38 PoulsenB wrote:All of your posts can be shortened to "printing new 'empty' money is bad for the economy", to which I believe everyone would agree, as history has showed time and again that it's a really bad idea. The whole ponzi scheme arguments and lenghty explanations only obfuscate the point you're trying to make.
Moderate and responsible quantitative easing is a totally valid monetary tool and has never led to hyper inflation, anywhere, ever. Saying it leads to Zimbabwe is like saying that you should never take an aspirin because if you swallow 45 packs you will be in trouble.
Expanding the monetary mass can be extremely useful, for example if inflation is too low (economists agree that a target of 2% is reasonable) or if deflation looms, which can be absolutely catastrophic.
With all due respects, rants about « printing money » and « Ponzi schemes » are basically always a huge red flag that the person talking has leant his economics on Zeitgeist or some libertarian forum and has absolutely no clue about macroeconomics whatsoever. And of course it’s not about solving public finance problems by printing a lot of bank notes but about readjusting the monetary mass when it’s too low.
|
On April 28 2019 16:48 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2019 16:38 PoulsenB wrote:All of your posts can be shortened to "printing new 'empty' money is bad for the economy", to which I believe everyone would agree, as history has showed time and again that it's a really bad idea. The whole ponzi scheme arguments and lenghty explanations only obfuscate the point you're trying to make. Moderate and responsible quantitative easing is a totally valid monetary tool and has never led to hyper inflation, anywhere, ever. Saying it leads to Zimbabwe is like saying that you should never take an aspirin because if you swallow 45 packs you will be in trouble. Expanding the monetary mass can be extremely useful, for example if inflation is too low (economists agree that a target of 2% is reasonable) or if deflation looms, which can be absolutely catastrophic. With all due respects, rants about « printing money » and « Ponzi schemes » are basically always a huge red flag that the person talking has leant his economics on Zeitgeist or some libertarian forum and has absolutely no clue about macroeconomics whatsoever. And of course it’s not about solving public finance problems by printing a lot of bank notes but about readjusting the monetary mass when it’s too low.
Oh, I agree that controlled inflation is good, I meant things like the Zimbabwe example are bad, sorry for not making it clear.
|
On April 28 2019 16:38 PoulsenB wrote:All of your posts can be shortened to "printing new 'empty' money is bad for the economy", to which I believe everyone would agree, as history has showed time and again that it's a really bad idea. The whole ponzi scheme arguments and lenghty explanations only obfuscate the point you're trying to make.
Well you need to re-read the posts maybe, because it's pretty clear that some people dont think printing new "empty" money is bad. It's been described by them as "basic monetary policy" as if it's some standard that should be regularly done, someone said that the idea that this inflationary policy transfers wealth from the general population is nonsense , and someone else said that the idea that QE is something that transfers wealth is a random conspiracy theory.
The only reason I made those long posts was because I was continually asked to explain this concept.
|
On April 28 2019 16:39 Falling wrote:Well then it's definitely a bad analogy. The point of an analogy is to take that which is unknown and explain it more simply by something that is known. But if you have to learn the unknown thing in order to understand the connection to the known thing and how it explains the unknown... there is literally no purpose to the analogy as an explanatory device. There is perhaps a rhetorical purpose: Ponzi scheme = bad. Inflationary policy = Ponzi scheme Therefore Inflationary policy = bad
huh?
I called the fed's monetary policy a ponzi scheme
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
