Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

OWS - Finger-Wiggling Their Way To a Better Tomorrow

1787981838487

Posts

  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    To the extent that OWS was ever relevant, it is no longer relevant, due entirely to their own short-sighted stupidity.

    Nobody else cares about them, why do you?

    sig.png
  • CptKemzikCptKemzik Registered User regular
    Apparently people like you and spool32 care about them enough to talk about mic-checking and how nobody cares about them.

  • TL DRTL DR Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    "OWS has no cohesive message!"

    "OWS members shouting a cohesive message is scary!"

    TL DR on
    eokNV.jpg
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    adytum wrote: »
    Nope, not clicking on a link to a website that espouses racism.

    Want to find the story somewhere reputable?
    National Review doesn't espouse racism, and is quite reputable.
    Yeah, guys, come on, as of four days ago, they don't even have any white supremacist writers on their staff (that they know of).

    About that...

    http://www.salon.com/2012/04/17/another_national_review_contributor_pals_around_with_nativists/

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    I wonder what you guys think about this. It's clear the OWS groups planned on entering this rally, a Tea party event where Romney was giving a speech, in order to disrupt the event. When they're denied entry the shouting predictably starts. Those with tickets are told they'll be given refunds but that doesn't cut it for the OWS folks. However, in the middle of this shouting match, at a cue from the women who seems to be leading the charge, they all just begin chanting. Discourse is over at that point.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/sites/default/files/nfs/uploaded/u498/2012/04/phillyprotest.MOV

    The thing that bothers me about this... and honestly find it chilling... is the 'mic-check' thing that seeks to silence opposition in what strikes me as a very... robotic, brainwashed footsoldier sort of way.

    Anyhow, I thought you'd find it interesting, and maybe my reaction interesting. I'm not sure if you guys see this sort of behavior as heroic or laudable, but if so, I'm telling you it doesn't play the way you maybe think it does.

    It's just as dickish as it was from the Tea Party in the summer of '09.

    Haven't the Tea Party done worse? Like showing up with guns during an early Obama speech?

  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    The thing that bothers me about this... and honestly find it chilling... is the 'mic-check' thing that seeks to silence opposition in what strikes me as a very... robotic, brainwashed footsoldier sort of way.

    You really don't get it if you are trying to paint mic-check like that; everyone who participates in a mic-check is volunteering their voice to over come a lack of a microphone, if at any point they don't agree with what the speaker who is the center of that town crier gone crowd sourced, they can opt out and not pass the message along - messages that do not resonate with those protesting do not get passed along. Calling them robotic or brainwashed is straight up BS - the powerful emotional impact of a crowd of people speaking with one message that echoes through the rest of a crowd like a boisterous game of telephone was probably an unintended side effect but now that crowds realize it has emotional weight and entertainment value, so it captures people's attention, it has empowered them.

    meh, acting like everyone participating is behaving in the same way they would normally strikes me as optimistic. It's not that hard to get a crowd to start chanting bullshit, it doesn't really have to resonate with everyone.

    that said, there's also not really anything chilling about it. crowds act like that.

  • TL DRTL DR Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    I wonder what you guys think about this. It's clear the OWS groups planned on entering this rally, a Tea party event where Romney was giving a speech, in order to disrupt the event. When they're denied entry the shouting predictably starts. Those with tickets are told they'll be given refunds but that doesn't cut it for the OWS folks. However, in the middle of this shouting match, at a cue from the women who seems to be leading the charge, they all just begin chanting. Discourse is over at that point.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/sites/default/files/nfs/uploaded/u498/2012/04/phillyprotest.MOV

    The thing that bothers me about this... and honestly find it chilling... is the 'mic-check' thing that seeks to silence opposition in what strikes me as a very... robotic, brainwashed footsoldier sort of way.

    Anyhow, I thought you'd find it interesting, and maybe my reaction interesting. I'm not sure if you guys see this sort of behavior as heroic or laudable, but if so, I'm telling you it doesn't play the way you maybe think it does.

    It's just as dickish as it was from the Tea Party in the summer of '09.

    Haven't the Tea Party done worse? Like showing up with guns during an early Obama speech?

    Yes, but
    -bad behavior by one group does not excuse it in another group
    -comparing the Tea Party to OWS is apples and oranges; the former is a heavily establishment-sponsored and -promoted astroturf organization that had the singular goal of defeating Obama, especially with regards to the ACA. OWS is a disparate group of individuals opposed to the influx of private money into our democracy and the resulting corruption, especially with regards to the financial sector.

    eokNV.jpg
  • Fallout2manFallout2man Registered User regular
    Haven't the Tea Party done worse? Like showing up with guns during an early Obama speech?

    They held a rally in D.C. that was near an Obama event I believe. So it's not quite the same thing (I doubt the secret service would let anyone get that close to Obama while armed anyway.) One thing about the TP though is as loud as they are they're always very timely and permit-oriented with what they do. AFP or whomever's running the event pays for everything, people get bussed in, Fox covers it, and then they go on their merry way after the event is over. OWS on the other hand has openly violated permit requirements and does show up at public events and shout-down or openly question public figures (they even do this at certain Obama events as well.) They don't really pick fights, but there is usually some eliminationist rhetoric going back and forth.

    Personally I think what spool secretly finds chilling is the idea that *gasp* a crowd would DARE to challenge a public speaker if he's peddling BS they don't agree with at all. A certain "break in etiquette" unique to OWS because OWS couldn't get anything done without breaking the rules. The entire system we have now is set up to do literally everything possible to prevent large scale changes from occurring in response to the needs of the majority of the people. So if a spectacle wasn't made about it, such as via breaking certain rules meant to stifle effective speech, then no one would ever pay attention. The idea that a crowd can challenge someone lying to them, I'm sure, is an especially frightening idea to anyone who supports candidates that rely on misinformation to get elected.

    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    TL DR wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    I wonder what you guys think about this. It's clear the OWS groups planned on entering this rally, a Tea party event where Romney was giving a speech, in order to disrupt the event. When they're denied entry the shouting predictably starts. Those with tickets are told they'll be given refunds but that doesn't cut it for the OWS folks. However, in the middle of this shouting match, at a cue from the women who seems to be leading the charge, they all just begin chanting. Discourse is over at that point.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/sites/default/files/nfs/uploaded/u498/2012/04/phillyprotest.MOV

    The thing that bothers me about this... and honestly find it chilling... is the 'mic-check' thing that seeks to silence opposition in what strikes me as a very... robotic, brainwashed footsoldier sort of way.

    Anyhow, I thought you'd find it interesting, and maybe my reaction interesting. I'm not sure if you guys see this sort of behavior as heroic or laudable, but if so, I'm telling you it doesn't play the way you maybe think it does.

    It's just as dickish as it was from the Tea Party in the summer of '09.

    Haven't the Tea Party done worse? Like showing up with guns during an early Obama speech?

    Yes, but
    -bad behavior by one group does not excuse it in another group
    -comparing the Tea Party to OWS is apples and oranges; the former is a heavily establishment-sponsored and -promoted astroturf organization that had the singular goal of defeating Obama, especially with regards to the ACA. OWS is a disparate group of individuals opposed to the influx of private money into our democracy and the resulting corruption, especially with regards to the financial sector.

    My point was that spool was being silly saying OWS was being intimidating with tactics typically used by all protest groups and that they're harmless compared to their Republican counter-parts (and opposites). I'm not endorsing the Tea Party's methods. Yes, I know the Tea Party are a astroturf but they're the closest counter-part to the OWS I can think of at the moment.

  • centraldogmacentraldogma Registered User regular
    In a stinging rebuke, Citigroup shareholders rebuffed on Tuesday the bank’s $15 million pay package for its chief executive, Vikram S. Pandit, marking the first time that stock owners have united in opposition to outsized compensation at a financial giant.

    The shareholder vote, which comes amid a rising national debate over income inequality, suggests that anger over pay for chief executives has spread from Occupy Wall Street to wealthy institutional investors like pension fund and mutual fund managers. About 55 percent of the shareholders voting were against the plan, which laid out compensation for the bank’s five top executives, including Mr. Pandit.

    “C.E.O.’s deserve good pay but there’s good pay and there’s obscene pay,” said Brian Wenzinger, a principal at Aronson Johnson Ortiz, a Philadelphia money management company that voted against the pay package. Mr. Wenzinger’s firm owns more than 5 million shares of Citigroup.

    While the vote at Tuesday’s annual meeting in Dallas is not binding, it serves as a warning shot to other banks that have increased the pay of their top executives this year despite middling performance.

    You know things are bad when the shareholders start thinking CEOs are overpaid.

    signaturecreation.gif
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    Wake me when they think employees are underpaid.

    steam_sig.png
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    The whole point of fractional reserve banking is that you can loan out more money than you actually have to make that back with interest. It's genius if you're a banker, you just make up something and label it as the only legal tender, then hand it out with no cost to you and make it back with even more without having to do much of anything. Others do all the work, you make all the money.

    The idea of ending the Fed is to remove their monopoly on currency. The more currencies people can invest in the more secure their assets will be. If the USD or Euro crashes as long as you have some silver or gold others can trade you're far better off. Mexico has recently allowed for the Peso to be traded in for silver at their banks.
    Mic checking isn't anything new. Ron Paul supporters use it all the time.

    I don't see how it's "chilling". It's annoying, but it's hardly chilling.

    I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds it annoying. It's also slow and inefficient .

    rayofash on
  • DisruptedCapitalistDisruptedCapitalist silly fellow, silly fellow, is against me Registered User regular
    In a stinging rebuke, Citigroup shareholders rebuffed on Tuesday the bank’s $15 million pay package for its chief executive, Vikram S. Pandit, marking the first time that stock owners have united in opposition to outsized compensation at a financial giant.

    The shareholder vote, which comes amid a rising national debate over income inequality, suggests that anger over pay for chief executives has spread from Occupy Wall Street to wealthy institutional investors like pension fund and mutual fund managers. About 55 percent of the shareholders voting were against the plan, which laid out compensation for the bank’s five top executives, including Mr. Pandit.

    “C.E.O.’s deserve good pay but there’s good pay and there’s obscene pay,” said Brian Wenzinger, a principal at Aronson Johnson Ortiz, a Philadelphia money management company that voted against the pay package. Mr. Wenzinger’s firm owns more than 5 million shares of Citigroup.

    While the vote at Tuesday’s annual meeting in Dallas is not binding, it serves as a warning shot to other banks that have increased the pay of their top executives this year despite middling performance.

    You know things are bad when the shareholders start thinking CEOs are overpaid.

    I hold 50 shares of C. I also voted against the CEO's pay package, mainly because of the "retention" bonus they gave him. Honestly that's the biggest load of BS there is in executive pay. It's like a John Galt sort of thing that somehow the CEO might go on strike if they don't pay him a bonus, even though the obvious question is WHERE WOULD HE GO? It's not like Europe is doing that well these days and as far as I know the other major financials are doing just fine with their CEOs. He's reallllly not at risk for jumping ship, so it's just an excuse of the board of directors to scratch each other's backs and not get any flack about it from shareholders.

    Of course, I'm just one tiny shareholder so it's not like they're going to ask me why I voted the way I did. Fortunately the big investors seem to have the same objection I do, so at least our point is being heard.

    In the end, shareholders are nearly as powerless as anyone else in the OWS movement these days because so many board of directors are insiders and have no incentive to do anything for the shareholders. If it weren't for this mandatory vote, they probably would have never known the dissatisfaction among the shareholders.

  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    The whole point of fractional reserve banking is that you can loan out more money than you actually have to make that back with interest. It's genius if you're a banker, you just make up something and label it as the only legal tender, then hand it out with no cost to you and make it back with even more without having to do much of anything. Others do all the work, you make all the money.

    The idea of ending the Fed is to remove their monopoly on currency. The more currencies people can invest in the more secure their assets will be. If the USD or Euro crashes as long as you have some silver or gold others can trade you're far better off. Mexico has recently allowed for the Peso to be traded in for silver at their banks.

    Except if those loans don't get repaid. Or if the money supply increases too fast the cash you get back has less purchasing power than the cash you lent out. Then you've lost.

    There's nothing stopping you from holding foreign currencies right now. There are quite a lot of them! You can hold them, bank with them, even invest them! You can even buy gold bars if you really want! You just can't use them to buy stuff at your local store, which is a damn good thing. You don't want to have prices listed in a dozen currencies, nor do you want to weigh out a fraction of a gram of gold dust to buy something.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    The whole point of fractional reserve banking is that you can loan out more money than you actually have to make that back with interest. It's genius if you're a banker, you just make up something and label it as the only legal tender, then hand it out with no cost to you and make it back with even more without having to do much of anything. Others do all the work, you make all the money.

    The idea of ending the Fed is to remove their monopoly on currency. The more currencies people can invest in the more secure their assets will be. If the USD or Euro crashes as long as you have some silver or gold others can trade you're far better off. Mexico has recently allowed for the Peso to be traded in for silver at their banks.

    Full reserve banking is a giant fucking drag on the economy.

    Multiple currencies are a terrible fucking idea and also a huge drag on the economy.

    What you are talking about with Mexico sounds like some kind of silver standard? Non-fiat currencies cause huge problems with the economy.

    We've moved away from all this shit for a reason.

  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    That claim about Mexico is going to need a citation.

    etxvv5.jpg
  • CanadianWolverineCanadianWolverine Registered User regular
    I was linked this article recently and thought others here might enjoy the reading. Remember that guy shot in the head with a gas canister in Oakland?

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/scott-olsen-casualty-of-the-occupation-20120119

    And to see if you read the whole thing, I'm not going to tell you which page this gem comes from:
    A slightly haggard man with a white beard and a walrus mustache approaches Olsen and, like many before him, offers his thanks. He turns out to be a veteran too. He wants to give his first name only, Jack.

    Jack had been helping out at Occupy Santa Cruz, because they needed people with first-aid experience and he'd worked as a paramedic. "The last time anything like this happened in this country, I was in Vietnam," Jack tells me. "I had a different job back then. I was killing people." He shrugs. "I'm hopeful, but I don't want to get excited. I've seen things like this become flashes in the pan. What's the best we can hope for? If anyone here thinks the one percent will give away anything to the rest of us, they're delusional. It won't happen without a real fight." At this last line, a dark glint comes into his eye. He's clearly not talking about more protests. "I'm afraid that's what has to happen. During Vietnam, it almost jumped off in that direction with us soldiers. Remember, we were the ones with guns. There was a reason so many lieutenants were getting fragged out there." He laughs mordantly. "You have to watch history, man, or it'll repeat itself."

    steam_sig.png
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Phyphor wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    The whole point of fractional reserve banking is that you can loan out more money than you actually have to make that back with interest. It's genius if you're a banker, you just make up something and label it as the only legal tender, then hand it out with no cost to you and make it back with even more without having to do much of anything. Others do all the work, you make all the money.

    The idea of ending the Fed is to remove their monopoly on currency. The more currencies people can invest in the more secure their assets will be. If the USD or Euro crashes as long as you have some silver or gold others can trade you're far better off. Mexico has recently allowed for the Peso to be traded in for silver at their banks.

    Except if those loans don't get repaid. Or if the money supply increases too fast the cash you get back has less purchasing power than the cash you lent out. Then you've lost.

    There's nothing stopping you from holding foreign currencies right now. There are quite a lot of them! You can hold them, bank with them, even invest them! You can even buy gold bars if you really want! You just can't use them to buy stuff at your local store, which is a damn good thing. You don't want to have prices listed in a dozen currencies, nor do you want to weigh out a fraction of a gram of gold dust to buy something.

    Which is why you start with non-risky loans and control the increase in supply. If you want it to work you do it right.

    >There's nothing stopping you from holding foreign currencies right now.

    Except for the second part of your post where you mention how I wouldn't be able to spend it.
    shryke wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    The whole point of fractional reserve banking is that you can loan out more money than you actually have to make that back with interest. It's genius if you're a banker, you just make up something and label it as the only legal tender, then hand it out with no cost to you and make it back with even more without having to do much of anything. Others do all the work, you make all the money.

    The idea of ending the Fed is to remove their monopoly on currency. The more currencies people can invest in the more secure their assets will be. If the USD or Euro crashes as long as you have some silver or gold others can trade you're far better off. Mexico has recently allowed for the Peso to be traded in for silver at their banks.

    Full reserve banking is a giant fucking drag on the economy.

    Multiple currencies are a terrible fucking idea and also a huge drag on the economy.

    What you are talking about with Mexico sounds like some kind of silver standard? Non-fiat currencies cause huge problems with the economy.

    We've moved away from all this shit for a reason.

    Sorry, I thought I had mentioned how FRB creates a major boost in the economy.

    As for the rest of your post you're going to have to cite your claim that multiple currencies cause a drag on the economy. And as for non-fiat currencies causing problems that's demonstrably untrue. We moved away from non-fiat currencies because bankers bought out the politicians, not for some economic benefit.

    As for Mexico and silver, I'm currently looking for a source. I heard it on a news program this morning so I don't have one immediately available.

    rayofash on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Reading the article now, my my its got a lot of fluff on the first page.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    So wait, you expect to be able to walk into a store and buy directly in multiple currencies? How would that even work?

    The store owner now has a basket of currencies that he has to deal with. US banks aren't going to want to bank Mexican Pesos, what does he do with them? Banks that issue their own currencies (which they will if you go all the way and allow official sub-currencies) will refuse to touch competitor's currencies, so he'll have to bank at every bank.
    Prices fluctuate daily now, with exchange rates
    Making change would require either a ridiculous amount of math (pay in one currency, change in another) or a huge drawer (change for every currency in use).
    You will probably be getting completely screwed on every currency except the one the owner prefers, so he doesn't have to adjust his prices / do exchange as often.
    What currencies do you pay your taxes / fees / whatever to the government? They won't want foreign / commercial bills, they will want USD.

    You already did all this before, it didn't turn out so well

    Phyphor on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    The whole point of fractional reserve banking is that you can loan out more money than you actually have to make that back with interest. It's genius if you're a banker, you just make up something and label it as the only legal tender, then hand it out with no cost to you and make it back with even more without having to do much of anything. Others do all the work, you make all the money.

    The idea of ending the Fed is to remove their monopoly on currency. The more currencies people can invest in the more secure their assets will be. If the USD or Euro crashes as long as you have some silver or gold others can trade you're far better off. Mexico has recently allowed for the Peso to be traded in for silver at their banks.

    Except if those loans don't get repaid. Or if the money supply increases too fast the cash you get back has less purchasing power than the cash you lent out. Then you've lost.

    There's nothing stopping you from holding foreign currencies right now. There are quite a lot of them! You can hold them, bank with them, even invest them! You can even buy gold bars if you really want! You just can't use them to buy stuff at your local store, which is a damn good thing. You don't want to have prices listed in a dozen currencies, nor do you want to weigh out a fraction of a gram of gold dust to buy something.

    Which is why you start with non-risky loans and control the increase in supply. If you want it to work you do it right.

    >There's nothing stopping you from holding foreign currencies right now.

    Except for the second part of your post where you mention how I wouldn't be able to spend it.
    shryke wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    The whole point of fractional reserve banking is that you can loan out more money than you actually have to make that back with interest. It's genius if you're a banker, you just make up something and label it as the only legal tender, then hand it out with no cost to you and make it back with even more without having to do much of anything. Others do all the work, you make all the money.

    The idea of ending the Fed is to remove their monopoly on currency. The more currencies people can invest in the more secure their assets will be. If the USD or Euro crashes as long as you have some silver or gold others can trade you're far better off. Mexico has recently allowed for the Peso to be traded in for silver at their banks.

    Full reserve banking is a giant fucking drag on the economy.

    Multiple currencies are a terrible fucking idea and also a huge drag on the economy.

    What you are talking about with Mexico sounds like some kind of silver standard? Non-fiat currencies cause huge problems with the economy.

    We've moved away from all this shit for a reason.

    Sorry, I thought I had mentioned how FRB creates a major boost in the economy.

    As for the rest of your post you're going to have to cite your claim that multiple currencies cause a drag on the economy. And as for non-fiat currencies causing problems that's demonstrably untrue. We moved away from non-fiat currencies because bankers bought out the politicians, not for some economic benefit.

    As for Mexico and silver, I'm currently looking for a source. I heard it on a news program this morning so I don't have one immediately available.

    One might want to explore the period of near chaos that was the United States under the Articles of Confederation.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    >There's nothing stopping you from holding foreign currencies right now.

    Except for the second part of your post where you mention how I wouldn't be able to spend it.

    You can spend it. You just have to convert it to local currency first or the person you are doing business with has no obligation to accept it.

    shryke wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    The whole point of fractional reserve banking is that you can loan out more money than you actually have to make that back with interest. It's genius if you're a banker, you just make up something and label it as the only legal tender, then hand it out with no cost to you and make it back with even more without having to do much of anything. Others do all the work, you make all the money.

    The idea of ending the Fed is to remove their monopoly on currency. The more currencies people can invest in the more secure their assets will be. If the USD or Euro crashes as long as you have some silver or gold others can trade you're far better off. Mexico has recently allowed for the Peso to be traded in for silver at their banks.

    Full reserve banking is a giant fucking drag on the economy.

    Multiple currencies are a terrible fucking idea and also a huge drag on the economy.

    What you are talking about with Mexico sounds like some kind of silver standard? Non-fiat currencies cause huge problems with the economy.

    We've moved away from all this shit for a reason.

    Sorry, I thought I had mentioned how FRB creates a major boost in the economy.

    As for the rest of your post you're going to have to cite your claim that multiple currencies cause a drag on the economy. And as for non-fiat currencies causing problems that's demonstrably untrue. We moved away from non-fiat currencies because bankers bought out the politicians, not for some economic benefit.

    As for Mexico and silver, I'm currently looking for a source. I heard it on a news program this morning so I don't have one immediately available.

    Hahahahahaha. Holy shit.

    Milton Friedman wants a word with you. If you don't know who that is, you shouldn't be talking like you know anything about fiat currency and why we all switched to it. The understanding of the contribution of non-fiat currency to the Great Depression is like .. 40+ years old at this point.

    Also, you seem extremely confused about the difference between multiple currencies and fiat currency. These are not related.

    The drag effect of multiple currencies is pretty obvious. Phyphor hits on most of the points above.

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    So wait, you expect to be able to walk into a store and buy directly in multiple currencies? How would that even work?

    He keeps the currency or pays his bill with it or exchanges it to the other form he wants to use or whatever he wants. People might just use it for their savings as a backup (which some people use gold and silver for now) and use one form of currency for all their everyday transactions.

    >What currencies do you pay your taxes / fees / whatever to the government? They won't want foreign / commercial bills, they will want USD.

    They would accept it and then convert it into whatever they need it for. Money is becoming mostly digital now anyways so it wont be to much of a hassle. In fact the US government is now planning on paying all of its SSI checks digitally.

    >Banks that issue their own currencies (which they will if you go all the way and allow official sub-currencies) will refuse to touch competitor's currencies

    Not if they're based on a commodity like gold or silver.

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    >There's nothing stopping you from holding foreign currencies right now.

    Except for the second part of your post where you mention how I wouldn't be able to spend it.

    You can spend it. You just have to convert it to local currency first or the person you are doing business with has no obligation to accept it.

    shryke wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    The whole point of fractional reserve banking is that you can loan out more money than you actually have to make that back with interest. It's genius if you're a banker, you just make up something and label it as the only legal tender, then hand it out with no cost to you and make it back with even more without having to do much of anything. Others do all the work, you make all the money.

    The idea of ending the Fed is to remove their monopoly on currency. The more currencies people can invest in the more secure their assets will be. If the USD or Euro crashes as long as you have some silver or gold others can trade you're far better off. Mexico has recently allowed for the Peso to be traded in for silver at their banks.

    Full reserve banking is a giant fucking drag on the economy.

    Multiple currencies are a terrible fucking idea and also a huge drag on the economy.

    What you are talking about with Mexico sounds like some kind of silver standard? Non-fiat currencies cause huge problems with the economy.

    We've moved away from all this shit for a reason.

    Sorry, I thought I had mentioned how FRB creates a major boost in the economy.

    As for the rest of your post you're going to have to cite your claim that multiple currencies cause a drag on the economy. And as for non-fiat currencies causing problems that's demonstrably untrue. We moved away from non-fiat currencies because bankers bought out the politicians, not for some economic benefit.

    As for Mexico and silver, I'm currently looking for a source. I heard it on a news program this morning so I don't have one immediately available.

    Hahahahahaha. Holy shit.

    Milton Friedman wants a word with you. If you don't know who that is, you shouldn't be talking like you know anything about fiat currency and why we all switched to it. The understanding of the contribution of non-fiat currency to the Great Depression is like .. 40+ years old at this point.

    Also, you seem extremely confused about the difference between multiple currencies and fiat currency. These are not related.

    The drag effect of multiple currencies is pretty obvious. Phyphor hits on most of the points above.

    I know who Milton Friedman is, and macro economics is all voodoo.

    >The understanding of the contribution of non-fiat currency to the Great Depression is like .. 40+ years old at this point.

    This is debatable, and is debated among economists.

    I see your Milton Friedman and raise you Steve Keen. I'd also recommend learning a little bit about the history of currency.

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    Dude, Milton Friedman beats Steve Keen with one hand tied behind his back and 7 years in the grave. I don't like his school of economics and I think that.

    And as for learning about the history of currency... that link goes back to the start of thread. Which Shryke has contributed too from the very start.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    Milton Friedman can be wrong. I don't like his school of economics either.

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    Milton Friedman can be wrong. I don't like his school of economics either.

    Just because he was wrong, does not mean Steve Keen was right.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    I know who Milton Friedman is, and macro economics is all voodoo.
    rayofash wrote: »
    Milton Friedman can be wrong. I don't like his school of economics either.

    Oh god, this just keeps getting better and better. :lol:

  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    He keeps the currency or pays his bill with it or exchanges it to the other form he wants to use or whatever he wants. People might just use it for their savings as a backup (which some people use gold and silver for now) and use one form of currency for all their everyday transactions.

    Okay, credit cards functionally do all of this already. CCs are denominated in one currency but can pay in another. You get charged exchange fees, but guess what? Those aren't going away in your model either. Technically, anyone can pay in any currency to any currency through bank exchanges... by paying a few percent extra in fees.

    Prices will rise because now the store owners need to take an extra step to make their money useful. Either they add a premium on all non-USD prices (for example), or all prices go up.

    Your backup savings example is meaningless, because you can already do that today (yes, you'd need to convert back from your savings currency to USD, but you're not going to be carrying around gold bars anyway so you'll likely still need to convert).
    rayofash wrote: »

    >What currencies do you pay your taxes / fees / whatever to the government? They won't want foreign / commercial bills, they will want USD.

    They would accept it and then convert it into whatever they need it for. Money is becoming mostly digital now anyways so it wont be to much of a hassle. In fact the US government is now planning on paying all of its SSI checks digitally.

    Right, they'll convert it. Or, rather, they'll require you convert it first and pay to do so. You'll pay USD, you'll be taxed in USD. Your cheques are already effectively paid digitally, you're not getting mailed cash. How does this make things any better?
    rayofash wrote: »

    >Banks that issue their own currencies (which they will if you go all the way and allow official sub-currencies) will refuse to touch competitor's currencies

    Not if they're based on a commodity like gold or silver.

    That just leads to the valuation problems of modern day metal standards. They won't be able to issue much currency and so won't matter. Or they won't have enough gold to back the currency they issue

  • Fallout2manFallout2man Registered User regular
    abloo bloo bloo Resource Based Econony abloo bloo bloo ;p

    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    UC Davis: It's Worse Than You Thought:

    http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/459368.html

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • VanguardVanguard The system was breaking down. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Yeah, that is pretty damning. Let's hope it translates into something actually being done.

  • DisruptedCapitalistDisruptedCapitalist silly fellow, silly fellow, is against me Registered User regular
    UC Davis: It's Worse Than You Thought:

    http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/459368.html

    And does anyone care? Will anything be done about it? Nope. So long as the trustees keep getting their back scratched, nothing will change.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    Can someone explain to me what the fuck is wrong with us as a society?

    I only ask this because mobs of angry people haven't marched on the headquarters of the major banks, barricaded the exits, and set them the fuck on fire.

  • override367override367 misogynist/MRA/socially irresponsible Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    What? People can't pay their bills at the hospital?!

    What is this fucking sorcery, I was assured by speaker Boehner that this isn't a serious issue and attempting to correct it will bankrupt hospitals

    I wish I could get out of America so hard lately

    override367 on
    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • Fallout2manFallout2man Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Can someone explain to me what the fuck is wrong with us as a society?

    I only ask this because mobs of angry people haven't marched on the headquarters of the major banks, barricaded the exits, and set them the fuck on fire.

    You know, sometimes it makes you wonder if the conspiracy nuts got one or two things right. I mean, why doesn't anyone notice shit like this either?

    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
  • VanguardVanguard The system was breaking down. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    So today is the big strike. We should probably talk about this.

    Last night, anarchists smahsed a bunch of shit in 'Frisco. I hope NYC doesn't go this route today.

  • L Ron HowardL Ron Howard Registered User regular
    There's also the whole thing where a bunch of anarchists have tried to bomb a bridge in Ohio, or something. CNN is reporting it's linked to the 99% Occupy Movement (roughly their words).

    steam_sig.png
    NNID - bejamus | ESO - (at)guinneapig
  • VanguardVanguard The system was breaking down. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    There's also the whole thing where a bunch of anarchists have tried to bomb a bridge in Ohio, or something. CNN is reporting it's linked to the 99% Occupy Movement (roughly their words).

    Weird. None of the sources I've seen have made this link.

  • L Ron HowardL Ron Howard Registered User regular
    It was on their TV program that was covering it. I was watching it earlier this morning while waiting in line to get food. Maybe they've changed their tune in the last hour?

    steam_sig.png
    NNID - bejamus | ESO - (at)guinneapig
Sign In or Register to comment.