Surprised to see Paris Hilton promoting it wasn't one reason
182 karma · joined October 22, 2013
When the hell did people forget that free speech also includes the speech you vehemently disagree with, justifiably or not?
People walk around with false stories/narratives (and increasingly intricate ones at that!) in their head not because it served some evolutionary purpose, but instead because it just wasn't consequential enough to prevent survival.
You're right, of MV = PT they have only manipulated the M (Money supply) so far.
But unless this destructive dogma and school of thought is put to an end they will begin to institute velocity efforts during the next crash since rates are essentially zero and it's all they'd have left: wealth tax or applied negative interest rate on deposits, helicopter money, etc.
MV=PT
What you see above is central basis by which to interoperate all of the fed's behavior.
The above equation roughly translates to:
(Money supply) * (Turnover rate) = (Price) * (Transactions)
where: -money supply is outstanding cash or dollars -turn over rate is the frequency in which the cash changes hands = All the transactions that took place and their price
Current dogma of keynesian academic economists is that an ability to control the money supply will affect the rest of the equation and in theory the real economy. So (Money supply) is the variable the fed can control they use to pull the levers of our economy.
What's implied here then is a gross misunderstanding of what money actually is: a means of instrumentation and measurement.
For economies to properly function, entrepreneurs and participants in the economy need a consistent and reliable gauge to measure the performance of their (economic) experiments.
When supply of money in relation to other "things" is constantly and artificially manipulated, it becomes near impossible for the prices of goods and services to reflect actual information about fundamentals, comparative advantages, etc.
If you're technically inclined, I am essentially making an argument from the perspective of information theory.
Claude Shannon basically showed that to convey information, you need a medium that stays constant. Without that, it's impossible to distinguish the "medium" from the "message".
This is precisely what our academic oriented economists in charge of the fed and our prevailing economic school of thought have fucked up: They've tried to send a message through the medium itself in an attempt to activate parts of the economy, and have completely fooled themselves into thinking that while socialism and command economies are bad, control of the money supply is somehow different.
The issue is what people don't realize, is that free markets aren't about free exchanges of goods and services, but about free exchanges of information. And through the temptations and hubris of central planning they've compromised the medium through which participants in the economy can exchange information.
We've had enormous volatility, especially in forex and debt markets.
We should have a federal reserve, but one who doesn't engage in central planning and has a healthy respect for the efficacy of free markets. If they raised rates fully in 2011-2013 they would've been heros, now they've completely distorted the global economy because prices simply cannot reflect information about the economy when money itself so widely fluctuates.
Money is a measuring stick, plain and simple. Economic activity can be thought of as scientific experimentation, except the results of these experiments can't reliably be measured when the measuring stick itself changes widely for political, and not fundamental reasons.
I'm not really making an argument for institutional changes, just that the people currently occupying the fed are benevolent morons.
The feds fund rate has been set to near zero for almost 8 years. This is acts as the baseline cost of credit in our country and given our global financial stature, the world.
https://americanprinciplesproject.org/economics/new-george-g...
(Not necessarily advocating getting rid of fdic)
It's also far less preposterous when you read the next sentence where he advocates banks have a 20% capital reserve requirement.
Trump is an exceptionally flawed candidate, but I encourage everyone to consider that perhaps their perception of him is to some debatable degree (a big degree in my opinion) due to people out there trying very hard and spending a lot of money to portay him as "literally hitler"
So here's a guy actually moving our society forward in transportation and the environment, and these smug writers try to cast him as a clown.
Does anyone actually defend on substance any of the activities Gawker was engaging in? These people pushed wrong narratives and destroyed lives over reasons that were most often proven false and always self serving to the interests of gawker.
I think peter is a smart guy, but I really feel a sense of gratitude to him for ridding the world of that awful organization.
Everyone sensationalistically shouts he's an evil billionaire damaging free speech and journalism, but gawker was engaged in voyeurism and bullying. And a court of law agreed with it. We make exceptions to pure free speech all the time, such as not being allowed to shout fire in a movie theater, etc.
I don't care to comment about his support of trump, but I also find it curious most of his vocal critics are themselves journalists, and are in my opinion resentful of the fact he set a precedent that the power "journalists" have is also something that can be held accountable.
I have the nagging sensation that if were up to todays hyper-sensitized media on how society should look and function, we would all be grey globs in a grey world, devoid of any differences.
The more depressing truth? Striking these chords are an absolute goldmine for ratings and clicks. Everyone is naturally curious about how they might be currently oppressed or disadvantaged, it plays to our instinctual tribalism.
So please, realize you can do anything you want in this world, and don't be seduced by hate and bitterness from some writer sitting in Soho that has a click-quota to meet this month.
"Capitalism is not a system, it's a word invented by some 19th century hipster to describe a situation where people freely buy and sell things" -abbreviated and author unknown
Point being capitalism is not a system....it is THE natural system. All else is a hinderance to it.
^His campaign videos sure had some nice things to say about her in 2008
I like it so far.
I'm aware of the definition, instead of replying with semantics you could try to outline the specifics of your defense of it.
From how I see it, in no morally relativistic sense do I see how making more money means I should have to forfeit more of my income because that's what's decided to be right and just by people who make less money.
I think if someone claims they have a bigger claim on my money because I earn more, you must PROVE why that is.
The issue with fairness is that it's impossible to arrive at a definition of fairness without it inevitably just serving the interest of whomever defined it.
What I do take issue with is the fact that I don't think my tax dollars are being used as effectively as they should be, not just because I don't feel like I get proportionate value from what they're supposedly funding, but more importantly I dont think anyone is.
I think by and large the world runs on incentives, and I don't think that the people whose job it is to allocate the resources obtained through taxes have the kind of skin in the game that's necessary to make decisions in the long term best interest of all parties involved. Anytime you have a scenario where a organization of people in society unbounded by naturally selective forces, waste and misallocation of resources will take place. It would make me feel a lot better if my taxes were going towards a system characterized by bottom up trial and errors rather than grand design, and unfortunately I think the latter best describes how our country appropriates tax dollars to our collective benefit.
As for your other question, I think there is something fundamentally fair about the concept of proportionality. I don't think its the job or role of taxation to act as punishment, because it's not as "fair" for someone making 50k a year to pay 20% in taxes to pay the same 20% as someone making 500k. I find great injustice in this idea, as I want to live in a society that seeks to empower people to become the best that they can, in a spiritual and economic sense. Not send the message that those who've achieved economic success somehow have engaged in a misdeed they have to pay or make up for.
I'm curious to know the company if you're willing to share because I grew up in Bellevue and worked at a software company downtown there as well.