We are all Slaves/The Truth of Money
- Thread starter NoDrama
- Start date
potheadsmoker
Well-Known Member
misshestermoffitt
New Member
I think when the bottom falls out of shit, the pot smokers / growers are the ones that will stay fed.
medicineman
New Member
Great. It sounds more and more like I ougt to become fast friends with you Miss, I'll bring the guns, ammo, and cash, you supply the shelter and food.
misshestermoffitt
New Member
Sounds good Med. I have no guns or ammo and cash would be great. I can grow anything, so we'll be fed and there are deer around here so we'll have meat. I also live near Amish so we can trade for other things.
Sure FloJo, we can have our own bunker to live in. The Happy Stoners place.
Sure FloJo, we can have our own bunker to live in. The Happy Stoners place.
cheeseysynapse
Well-Known Member
MissHester. I grew up in Mattoon. Not far from Arthur.
Not trying to shoot you down or anything but that seems like a terrible idea
, why would we ever do that could explain a bit more. I do agree with you that no politician would ever do that however, that would be suicide
cheeseysynapse
Well-Known Member
Not trying to shoot you down or anything but that seems like a terrible idea
That's why its so hard to do. No politician ever wants to deliberately throw the nation into a deep recession. After WW2 economists believed inflation was unavoidable. So, they thought, as long as we can keep it low...around 2%, we won't do that much damage, and we can accommodate the demands of a growing economy. Well, in the late 60s/early 70s...it got out of control...Never too high, but it got up to around 5-7% almost every year throughout the 70s. That doesn't sound like a whole lot. But, if you compound that rate year after year for a decade.........it doesn't take long to realize that it nearly costs double for everything. Well, after Reagan was elected, the country had had enough. Paul Volker was the Federal Reserve Chairman at the time, he got the o.k. from Reagan to do everything he could to kill inflation. He raised the short-term interest rates up to 20%. It took a while for long term interest rates to follow. Eventually, they got to around 15%. The recession lasted almost 18 months. And it was tough. The reason raising interest rates to nosebleed levels works is because you effectively withdraw money from the system. Whereas before, there always too much money chasing too few goods - causing prices to rise. Raising interest rates created a lack of money. Milton Friedman is famous for saying "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomena." What that means is central banks creating too much money. Its important to remember that during the 80s, when we had a great economy, we still had relatively high interest rates. Interest rates have been coming down ever since Volker started lowering them after he choked off inflation. But, they came down slowly. Ask your parents what their mortgage rates were in the early 80s. But, expectations for inflation were killed, because interest rates were above the inflation level after that for a very long time - up until the 90s. Raising interest rates sends a message to savers. Don't spend! So, extra cash that would be running around chasing those few goods, is now locked up in savings because the rates are fantastic. Today, we have the exact opposite. Because our economy is so weak, the fed as lowered interest rates to basically zero. Its sending the message to savers - SPEND!
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
A retarded solution, because it is nothing more than a system that relies upon graft. Stealing from those that save to give to those that borrow and spend. Hardly a really viable solution has we have seen with the modern collapse, and even the Great Depression, where the savers saw their savings consumed by corruption and the borrowers.
Borrowing and Spending only works as long as there are people to borrow from, and it doesn't work at all when there are people fearful of losing their job, and thus saving their money to be prepared.
A better solution would be to do away with our debt-based money supply and either print the money (which would give the government a much more solid control on inflation rather than fucking with interest rates, and force the Federal Reserve to do something more than live off of the government's tit like a vulture.) or to switch to a commodity backed currency (Gold/Silver/Copper) which would take the power completely out of the hands of government to effect the money supply, and thus would allow for more economic freedom, and more economic security.
The problem with our money supply is that money is worthless paper...
Amazingly, government is the only entity that can take a useful commodity like paper and slap some ink on it and make it worth less than the paper and the ink.
cool yeah i get all the stuff about monetary policy and interest rates stimulating investment, i'm actually studying for my macro exam so all of the discussion helps me remeber it lol, interesting read didn't know all that volker stuff. one of the things i'm learning about at the moment is phillips curves, one theory presented based on rational rather than adaptive expectations is that if the gov announces info on its plans and policies,the private sector, as long as they trust them, should react and accordingly adjust their expectations, meaning lower wages which means that firms don't need to reduce supply until wages catch up, meaning no increase in unemployment. Is that reasonable to assume or is it one of those building blocks that will be proved wrong as i read on.
Did Clinton not manage to reduce inflation with no adverse effects to employment? or was that something i imagined, i'm pretty clueless to real life economics lol so its good to put it all in context
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
Inflation was worse under Clinton than Reagan, and thanks to his retarded free money supply we got the Internet Bubble.
Reagan brought inflation under control, of course interest rates were an arm and a leg, but inflation is a quiet thief. Besides, interest rates when properly high discourage borrowing and encourage savings instead. Better that people own their home then the bank owning it, we have seen what results of the bank owning homes is, with people just renting from them. Foreclosures up the ass...
Of course for some odd reason government fails to separate mortgaged homes from owned homes, and records both as owner occupied houses. Hardly owner-occupied if there is a lien on the property, because then the creditors own it.
misshestermoffitt
New Member
I want a homestead, where I can produce my own foods and not have to pay grocery store prices. Yes there will be some things we would still have to buy. The bad thing about it is, every year the IL state gov. will have their hand out expecting me to pay them for the privilage of owning my own property.
What a bunch of shit, when you buy a home, it should be yours. Big Gov needs to learn to tighten then belt and do a lot more with a lot less cash, welcome to the world of the people.
What a bunch of shit, when you buy a home, it should be yours. Big Gov needs to learn to tighten then belt and do a lot more with a lot less cash, welcome to the world of the people.
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
Government of the Politicians, by the Politicians, for the Politicians
Everything the Anti-Federalists warned against...
misshestermoffitt
New Member
So I had heard back last summer that the people of Mass. (I think) had gotten together a petition or something to end property tax in their state. They decided that their state lawmakers could cut back and try to budget in a more responsible manner. I haven't heard anything else about it. I wonder if they got it passed, or if the thing just died out.........
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
I thought it was an abolishment of the state income tax... and I thought it had passed...
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
Nope, it didn't pass
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/11/income_tax_repe.html
More like the Coalition for Our Government Contracts...
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/11/income_tax_repe.html
More like the Coalition for Our Government Contracts...
misshestermoffitt
New Member
I wonder how much money the state wasted on all these adds and mailers? What a bunch of greedy fucks. We need to limit their pay. Politicians wages should be tied to minimum wage somehow, like they shouldn't make more than 10 times minimum wage, or if they get a pay increase, then minimum wage increases by that same percentage.
We need to start by cutting their salaries, their expense accounts, getting rid of their pricey limos, Smart cars for all of them. I need to run for office. I could live on a fraction of what they make per year, I can drive myself and I don't need a hotel suite when I go out of town, a regular room will do just fine. I can fly coach, no big deal, coach gets to the gate at the same time as first class. I don't need to eat at fancy restaurants either, I kind of like mom and pop diners. Good food, fair price.
We need to start by cutting their salaries, their expense accounts, getting rid of their pricey limos, Smart cars for all of them. I need to run for office. I could live on a fraction of what they make per year, I can drive myself and I don't need a hotel suite when I go out of town, a regular room will do just fine. I can fly coach, no big deal, coach gets to the gate at the same time as first class. I don't need to eat at fancy restaurants either, I kind of like mom and pop diners. Good food, fair price.
cheeseysynapse
Well-Known Member
The Phillips curve is kind of a relic. Simply stated, the lower the unemployment level, the higher wages should rise.
That makes sense, until we had Stagflation. Where we had slowing economic growth AND inflation. Basically, this was a new phenomena in economics. It was the result two outcomes. 1) Too much money from the central bank over the last decade and 2) The budget deficits from Vietnam and Social Programs forced us to abandon gold - we didn't have the gold. So that meant a devaluation of the dollar.
As to clinton. Interest rates were still coming down from Volker in 82. Although there were periods where the central bank raised interest rates - but those were attempts to cool off the economy to prevent inflation, rather than fighting inflation that was in the system.
Greenspan remarked continually about productivity. For greenspan, and many others at the time, there was no need to stop the roaring economy of the 90s because of the huge gains in productivity. He believed that if productivity rises faster than the economy is growing at.......then you don't have the problem of too much money chasing too few goods. Basically, this means you can do more with less. So, you don't have massive labor demands that normally coincide with an expanding economy.
If you are studying economics - I highly recommend a PBS documentary put out in 99 or 2000 - its called "the commanding heights" and it profiles the history of command style economics vs. market style economics during the 20th century.
Its long......So, take a weekend.........grab your bong....
http://video.google.com/videosearch?rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS291US303&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=commanding+heights&um=1&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#
That makes sense, until we had Stagflation. Where we had slowing economic growth AND inflation. Basically, this was a new phenomena in economics. It was the result two outcomes. 1) Too much money from the central bank over the last decade and 2) The budget deficits from Vietnam and Social Programs forced us to abandon gold - we didn't have the gold. So that meant a devaluation of the dollar.
As to clinton. Interest rates were still coming down from Volker in 82. Although there were periods where the central bank raised interest rates - but those were attempts to cool off the economy to prevent inflation, rather than fighting inflation that was in the system.
Greenspan remarked continually about productivity. For greenspan, and many others at the time, there was no need to stop the roaring economy of the 90s because of the huge gains in productivity. He believed that if productivity rises faster than the economy is growing at.......then you don't have the problem of too much money chasing too few goods. Basically, this means you can do more with less. So, you don't have massive labor demands that normally coincide with an expanding economy.
If you are studying economics - I highly recommend a PBS documentary put out in 99 or 2000 - its called "the commanding heights" and it profiles the history of command style economics vs. market style economics during the 20th century.
Its long......So, take a weekend.........grab your bong....
http://video.google.com/videosearch?rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS291US303&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=commanding+heights&um=1&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#
^^^ cool cheers man, funny that i'm learning economics on a weed site lol, i've got loads to read still for my exam on monday but if i get time i'll try read that as well, the examiners always appreciate knowledge outside of the course material. If not i'll probably read it at some point anyway with my bong
, it's weird but i kind of like thinking about economics when i'm high its a pretty crazy stuff really the way we can do this stuff
yeah kind of figured the old phillips curve is dated, what about the expectations-adjusted one by friedman? just doing a bit about the new consensus model which must use an updated version as it seems to be one of the building blocks.
, it's weird but i kind of like thinking about economics when i'm high its a pretty crazy stuff really the way we can do this stuffyeah kind of figured the old phillips curve is dated, what about the expectations-adjusted one by friedman? just doing a bit about the new consensus model which must use an updated version as it seems to be one of the building blocks.
Similar threads
