Calling all economic experts

[jtr1962]

Convenience. Id rather be 10 times as likely to die and spend 10 times less time in transit then take 10 times as long getting there but be 10 times safer.

You're compared apples to oranges here. Had both types of transportation received similar funding, public transit would be as fast or faster than the automobile. Even in the present skewed system, driving is slower in many places than taking the train. In most of the country public transit doesn't even exist, so you really have no basis at all for a speed comparison. It's certainly not 10 to 1 as you imply. At best auto travel can average ~70 mph. In the real world the overall average is closer to 40 mph since most trips are a mix of local and expressway driving. Except for crosstown buses in Manhattan during rush hour, I'm not aware of any type of public transit which averages only 4 mph. NYC's local subways average roughly 18-20 mph (that includes dwell time at stops). The expresses average around 25 mph. Commuter rail is something like 33 mph. Amtrak overall is around 50 mph, but on the electrified Northeast Corridor it's closer to 75 mph. In many cases here average waiting time is under 10 minutes. It's a myth that car travel is faster where moderately funded rail transit exists. I used to travel 70 miles each way to college on public transit with three vehicle changes. It took the same amount of time as driving would have, even counting waiting time. If the US had the foresight to build high-speed rail lines as exist in Europe and Japan driving would at best be less than half the speed of trains.

The main point here is that if you're doing a speed contest cars lose almost every time. In a congested place like NYC cars may be slightly faster late nights, but during the day the train rides over or under the congestion. Over long distances a car can't compete, period, except maybe if our roads had no speed limits and cars could all go 200 mph. What cars are good for is not long distance travel, or commuting medium distances to work, but rather running errands with frequent stops. Here admittedly public transit is often impractible. However, this is a niche use for cars at best. And sadly, today's cars are designed more as long-distance cruisers than the errand goers which they are better suited for.

The bottom line is that while driving may be the most dangerous thing most of us do day to day, it has allowed us as a race to accomplish great things. Do you think we would be where we are today without the automobile?

Since you asked, my answer is a lot better off. Can you enumerate the "great things" the auto let us accomplish which we couldn't otherwise have accomplished? Honestly, I can't think of any. People can and did get to work in a timely fashion when a decent rail network existed. They took business trips, vacations, really did the same things we did now. Think if the amount of economic activity centered around the auto were devoted to something more productive. After all, we're talking about basically getting from point A to point B here. We could do this as fast and more efficiently with rail, and with far less indirect costs. That leaves more money to go into actually creating wealth.

I'd rather die at 70 and have feel like I lived every minute then live to 120.

And die in something as pointless as an auto accident? A few weeks ago a car ran off the road into a local Arby's, killing a 69-year old woman. What a pointless, useless way to die. That's really the rub here. If the convenience of autos only endangered the lives of those who chose to use them than it's their choice. When they start taking others with them it becomes bad public policy to go on as we are. After all, a dead person can no longer produce anything. Neither can a severely injured person.

How high a price shall we put on our convenience? And is all this mobility really making us happy, or are we just trying to run away from our problems rather than facing them? I'll also add that a lot of the "need" for convenience stems from simple lack of advance planning in our lives. Years ago people went into town once a month with a list of everything they needed. Nowadays we run to the store to buy a pack of batteries. We don't even have the foresight to get two or ten packs so that we don't need to run out on an unplanned trip again. A lot of the need for the convenience of autos would simply vanish with a bit of planning in our lives.

BTW, in case anyone thinks this is getting too off-topic, I feel this is all highly relevant to the thread. Lack of planning in mainly responsible for the coming collapse. CEOs only think about the next quarter. Gone are the 5 year and 10 year plans. Politicians are the same way. Small wonder the general public has lives which are a microcosm of public policy.

in NYC, what is the ratio of cab drivers to everyone else? how about that same ratio is say LA?

There are 11787 taxi medallions in NYC. That's roughly one for every 800 people. I have no idea what the ratio is in LA. Taxis aren't used more here because fewer people own cars, if that's what you're implying. For one thing, they're too expensive. For another, it actually takes longer by taxi in many cases than by subway.

 

[jtr1962]

Well I did my best, what more can I say? If that is "crazyness" then so be it. If acquiring real money and some guns is a "bizarre" habit then I guess we deserve what we are getting. I'll offer no more on the subject, I have better things to do.

Well, I get what you're saying. IMHO returning to the gold standard would be the best thing we could do. It would keep government from having the ability to just print up more money, which in turn would force it to live within its means.

BTW, why is deflation such a bad thing? Home prices could use a bit of deflation right now. A home like the one my mom owns is worth about $575,000. It was purchased for $52,000 29 years ago. Had the price kept pace with inflation, it would now be worth maybe $175,000. Unfortunately, the nonsense of using the monthly payment, rather than purchase price, as the basis of affordability is what drove prices to this level. It used to be that a good basis for a house you could afford was 2 to 2.5 times your annual gross income. The ratio was skewed to as high as 10 times due to lower interest rates AND no down payments. Had even the traditional 20% down payment been retained, housing prices might have been much lower.

 

[Diesel_Bomber]

Great thread! Really makes me wonder about the security of some of my investments........

Automobile vs. suburban lifestyle, chicken vs. egg. I think surburbia had more to do with personal preference than the automobile. People wanted to move out of the city anyway, and it was the widespread use of the automobile that made that possible. Those that wanted to stay in the city, did.

:buddies:

 

[jtr1962]

Automobile vs. suburban lifestyle, chicken vs. egg. I think surburbia had more to do with personal preference than the automobile. People wanted to move out of the city anyway, and it was the widespread use of the automobile that made that possible. Those that wanted to stay in the city, did.

Not entirely true here. I have a little story based on my own personal experience. I studied electronics in college. If I wanted to work in my field there were few jobs in NYC, and no major electronics firms. Same thing for many other fields which used to be headquartered in major cities. Many city dwellers who finish school here face a choice of being either perpetually unemployed or underemployed, or moving to a suburb. This is especially true in anything having to with science or engineering. It's obvious what choice I made, but for every one of me there are likely ten more who were forced into the suburban lifestyle. And as I said, many of those who you say wanted to move out of the city only wanted to because of the poor conditions which could have been fixed. Suburbia was an experiment. I suppose it had to be tried. The mistake was the wholesale adoption of this lifestyle. Had we done only limited trials, eventually the pitfalls would have been seen. Whatever the advantages of suburbia, there are greater disadvantages. Owning a car is a huge expense, driving is dangerous, commute time is essentially wasted since you can't read or sleep, there's social isolation, etc. I don't even really feel it's better for the children. I had my independence, both physically and mentally, once I could ride the subways alone. I could go to Manhattan alone, travel miles to shop, whatever. That was when I was 13. Some of my friends started when they were 10 or 11. I wouldn't have traded that for a bigger room, or a front lawn, or a supposedly safer environment.

I should also point out that there's a big distinction between modern suburban and older rural/small town living here. The latter was and is a sustainable way of life, the former isn't. A good but imperfect predictor of what will likely survive the coming upheaval will be if it existed pre-1950 then it will likely be around. If it didn't, and it consists mostly of separate areas for housing, work, and shopping, with lots of parking lots, and separated by great distances, then it probably won't. The towns of old were similar in many respects to cities, only much smaller, much less dense. They supplied the surrounded farms and residences. They were the physical and economic center of their communities. Modern suburbs are simply just spread out for the sake of being spread out, with each different type of development neatly isolated from the others. They're not viable precisely because there is no real center. The towns of old could be nicely serviced with a railroad station or even a siding. That was the only long distance connection they needed to the outside world. Everything else was local, with either trolleys, interurbans, horse-drawn carriages, or even bicycles. The resources per capita were far less. Suburbs need roads going every which way, and require everyone to provide their own mechanized transportation. They easily use ten times the resources per capita that a small town or large city might.

Ugh, maybe I really should write a book on this. I'm probably already half way there in this thread. Every sentence here on this seems to elicit a few paragraphs in response from me.

 

[HarryN]

I'd say their competitive advantage has much more to do with things like how our respective economies are structured. Production vs. consumption. Plus the availability of easy personal credit is a huge factor, enabling americans to spend way outside the realm of their earning capacity.

It is easy to imagine / conceive that the reason China has been able to export so much to the US is related to the currency question. I personnally believe that this has almost nothing to do with it, and here is why:

1) Pres. Reagan said the same thing about the trade deficit with Japan, and pushed / helped drop the dollar from 220 yen / dollar to about 120 yen / dollar. Did this reduce the trade deficit - no, not at all. The result was that the Japanese used their new found buying power not to buy goods, but companies and real estate. There economy / policies strongly favored an export concept and greatly repelled an import marketplace.

China's structure is like this, but even more so. As PEU pointed out, they will let the value of their currency rise when it is a good time for them - then the dollar will crash vs the yaun, and they will buy US Companies - not goods.

2) In case we have all forgotten, China is a communist country. Over the years of the cold war, we liked to imagine that a communist structure is not as efficient as a capitalist structure. While this might be true in general, a blended system can be quite challenging to compete with, regardless of the currency system / ratio.

Think of it this way, a businessman in China wants to start a car company (in China) What does it take

a) The land is owned by the govt, so they GIVE them the land for the factory - more than they ever asked for
b) Same with the building
c) They guarrantee a labor pool and the wages
d) They "acquire" the design of a BMW or Mercedes or GM Truck by buying (one) and draw it up - or even better (e)
e) They offer to let a foreign company come in and set up a plant - but they must use the "chosen partner" and no matter how much capital they put in - they can never own more than 50 % of the plant.
f) Condition of deal - at leat 1/2 must be exported to the US.
g) Financial support - as needed

OK, maybe I am missing something, but if pretty much ANY country set up that kind of system, they could have a pretty competitive product line. Imagine if GM / Ford / Intel / AMD were GIVEN that much stuff and told "export" - I imagine they would be competitive.

 

[js]

MARNAV1,

I think you're misunderstanding what PEU was saying:

He wasn't saying that the FRN isn't a fiat currency. He wasn't saying it was backed by anything of intrinsic value, like a reserve note or something like that.

He was pointing out that there is a difference between USD that are already in the economy, circulating, being earned and spent, and USD that are created out of nothing and injected into the economy in one way or another.

USD (until the point of total collapse, which can happen very quickly, of course) will buy something of value.

USD are NOT the same as monopoly money because monopoly money won't be accepted by anyone.

I know you know this, and I agree with you in an ultimate, philosophical sense.

BUT, I disagree with your take on this. The fact is that if the government were run by ANGELS or SAINTS or (INSERT TERM FOR PERFECTLY MORAL BEINGS HERE) then a fiat currency system could be maintained indefinitely, and would be better than a reserve currency at maintaining a stable value.

You seem to think that money must have intrinsic value, but that's not true. Money represents value. Even if the money were gold coins, it's worth would not be determined by the intrinsic value of the gold, but by the economics of the free market and the amount of gold available to be minted. This is why the argument that there isn't enough gold to go back to a gold economy is false: whatever amount you have will represent the value of the economy. You don't need to find an amount of gold VALUED AT the same value as the economy.

I'm saying that the reason the US fiat currency system is in trouble (and probably doomed in the long run if they keep this crap up) is because THEY HAVE BEEN CREATING TOO MUCH MONEY OUT OF NOTHING FOR TOO LONG. And because of the continual trade defecit.

If the powers-that-be had NOT done this sort of thing, stealing the wealth from the economy via inflation, then things would be different. Of course, the thing is that no government or regulatory agency has EVER been able to resist doing just that. It's like a drug addict being in a room with his or her drug of choice, just waiting for him to use, and all sorts of pressure and withdrawal symptoms bothering him until he does.

This is the reason for a currency that has intrinsic value: money CAN NOT be created out of nothing, not unless you can create silver or gold or platinum out of nothing!!!

BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE VALUE OF THE MONEY REFLECTS THE INTRINSIC VALUE OF THE METAL.

The two do indeed become equal by law, normally because of free minting of bullion, but that isn't a natural, intrinsic measure of the value of the metal.

Point in case: when the US went off the bi-metalic currency, a huge amount of silver was dumped onto the market to the point where its value dropped so much that people started turning it into forks and knives.

MONEY REPRESENTS VALUE.

A fiat currency can and does also represent value. It's just that there is nothing solid behind that value, and in our case right now, that value is entirely dependent on "confidence" in the economy.

We're like the coyote walking over the cliff onto thin air, still walking and staying up simply because we haven't realized we're no longer standing on solid ground.

So, I pretty much agree with you, as you can maybe see (?), but I disagree that a fiat currency system's money is nothing. It's not. It can become nothing pretty damn quick after decades and decades of mismanagement, and historically no fiat currency system has ever lasted. BUT, theoretically speaking, if the money system were run only by entities that safe guarded its value and stabilized that over time relative to real goods and services, there's no reason it couldn't last indefinitely and be every bit as serviceable as a reserve currency.

That's a science fiction tale I've just described, of course! But still . . .

Again, the point is just that I think PEU is right, and that's why.

 

[js]

jtr1962,

Convenience. Id rather be 10 times as likely to die and spend 10 times less time in transit then take 10 times as long getting there but be 10 times safer. The bottom line is that while driving may be the most dangerous thing most of us do day to day, it has allowed us as a race to accomplish great things. Do you think we would be where we are today without the automobile?

I'd rather die at 70 and have feel like I lived every minute then live to 120.

in NYC, what is the ratio of cab drivers to everyone else? how about that same ratio is say LA?

thesurefire,

jtr believes that the purpose of government and social institutions is to make people better, whether they like it or not.

And, if I remember correctly, he has theoretically designed an ideal society in his mind.

Am I remembering that correctly, jtr? :devil:

This is my favorite bit:

. . . but fact is androids doing a lot of the menial chores of society will come to pass. Whether this happens in 10 years, 20, or 100 I don't know, but it will happen. What this means economically is anybody's guess. My take on it is that in time the concept of money may well be meaningless. You'll have the means to turn raw materials into whatever you want for practically the cost of the raw materials themselves, and to recycle them when they're no longer useful. That will mean a society where goods and services don't need pricing to ration them.

A Brave New World indeed and the ideal dream of many a utopian architect.

I have an even better idea! Why don't we just transfer everyone's brain onto the internet and then just dispense with all these pesky bodies and have robots maintain the infrastructure needed to keep the internet and the virtual world going.

 

[cat]

This topic is truly funny....and EVERY great civilization/ruling power will eventually be hoist with his own petard.

Thanks for the reminder.

 

[MarNav1]

I enjoyed PEU's post as well. He gave us a clear picture of the manipulation going on. I think you and I agree on most points, however American Jurisprudence does not allow for ANYTHING other than gold or silver coin. FRN's represent no value whatsoever under common law, which our country is supposedly founded on. But since the common law has been replaced by Admiralty law, the floodgates are open and under the merchant law you are stuck with whatever the banker in collusion with the government says you are going to use for currency or the swindling term they like to use "legal tender". Let me give you a couple examples of the swindle 1) A FRN is merely an IOU. Here is how it works. When politicians want more money, they dispatch a request to the Federal Reserve for whatever sum they desire. The Bureau of Printing and Engraving then prints up bonds indenturing taxpayers to redeem their debts. The bonds are then "sold" to the Federal Reserve. But note this unusual twist- the bonds are paid for with a check backed by nothing! It is just as if you were to look into your account and see a balance of $412 and then hearing government bonds were for sale, write a draft for $1billion. Of course if you did that, you'd be in the crossbar hotel. The bankers do not, they print the money to enable their check to clear. And we the taxpayers have to pay interest on their "legal tender" as well. 2) Let us see how a bank creates a mortgage lien on a house. A man who owns a building lot and has $20k needs an additional $75k to build a house. If the banker finds the collateral sufficient he may credit the man's account with $80k minus several points for expenses- against which checks can be written to pay for construction. When the house is completed it will usually have a thirty year lien at 12 to 15% (example). After working 30 years to liquidate the debt (which is not liquidated under common law) FRN's are only a promise to pay. The owner will have paid $300k for something that did not cost the banker a dime in the first place. This is how fractional reserve banking works. Your coyote example fits well. A disordered currency is one of the greatest political evils. It undermines the virtues necessary for the support of the social system, and encourages propensities destructive to its happiness. It wars against industry, frugality and economy, and it fosters evil spirits of extravagance and speculation. Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. Daniel Webster March 4, 1846

 

[London Lad]

........................snip

The world has way too much investment and dependency on many aspects of the US global position. It is obvious there is no other place for any of the world's powers to go as an alternative to US investments and markets. ...........................................

Just what Great Britain used to think when we owned the world, you just have to look at our past to see your future.

 

[js]

I enjoyed PEU's post as well. He gave us a clear picture of the manipulation going on. I think you and I agree on most points, however American Jurisprudence does not allow for ANYTHING other than gold or silver coin. FRN's represent no value whatsoever under common law, which our country is supposedly founded on. But since the common law has been replaced by Admiralty law, the floodgates are open and under the merchant law you are stuck with whatever the banker in collusion with the government says you are going to use for currency or the swindling term they like to use "legal tender". Let me give you a couple examples of the swindle 1) A FRN is merely an IOU. Here is how it works. When politicians want more money, they dispatch a request to the Federal Reserve for whatever sum they desire. The Bureau of Printing and Engraving then prints up bonds indenturing taxpayers to redeem their debts. The bonds are then "sold" to the Federal Reserve. But note this unusual twist- the bonds are paid for with a check backed by nothing! It is just as if you were to look into your account and see a balance of $412 and then hearing government bonds were for sale, write a draft for $1billion. Of course if you did that, you'd be in the crossbar hotel. The bankers do not, they print the money to enable their check to clear. And we the taxpayers have to pay interest on their "legal tender" as well. 2) Let us see how a bank creates a mortgage lien on a house. A man who owns a building lot and has $20k needs an additional $75k to build a house. If the banker finds the collateral sufficient he may credit the man's account with $80k minus several points for expenses- against which checks can be written to pay for construction. When the house is completed it will usually have a thirty year lien at 12 to 15% (example). After working 30 years to liquidate the debt (which is not liquidated under common law) FRN's are only a promise to pay. The owner will have paid $300k for something that did not cost the banker a dime in the first place. This is how fractional reserve banking works. Your coyote example fits well. A disordered currency is one of the greatest political evils. It undermines the virtues necessary for the support of the social system, and encourages propensities destructive to its happiness. It wars against industry, frugality and economy, and it fosters evil spirits of extravagance and speculation. Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. Daniel Webster March 4, 1846

I agree, MARNAV1. I agree. I said something similar regarding banks and money in my first one or two posts in this thread. In short, we are a credit economy. The debt is the money; the money is the debt. The money is a promise to pay, an IOU, and is neither secure, nor controvertible into any definite amount of goods or services. It's totally elastic.

I understand that. I've been saying these things.

I'm just also saying that foreign or domestic entities can take this so-called "monopoly" money and turn it into something real, like land or a business, and then OWN that REAL thing. When the situation turns really bad, there will be just such a rush of entities trying to get something, anything, real for the IOU's.

And right now, they can and do represent real worth. That situation could change in a hurry, but nonetheless, that's the way it is at this moment in time, Jan 22, 3:39 PM EST.

 

[js]

OMG, so much craziness being thrown about in this topic....some of it may be technically accurate, but as you saw in world markets today, the US economy is at the center of the world's economy, and all interconnected in very intricate manners.

It's not just "technically" accurate. I think it's accurate, period. The US is one of the economies at the center of the worlds economy, but not the only one, and soon not even the most important one.

Many of these conversations remind me of a good friend who at best, described himself as a survivalist. Back in the late 1980's and early 1990's he had a 5,000 gallon diesel oil storage tank put into his back yard, then an elaborate underground survival bunker stocked with many tons of dehydrated and canned foods. In addition, he began liquidating his holdings and accumulating gold and silver coins, firearms and other bizarre habits. He died 2 years ago still defending his ridiculous actions.

I don't think this has any bearing on people's (some of them anyway) desire for a more stable and faithful currency--one that can't be expanded or contracted or used to institute instant and unavoidable taxation and theft of value. You don't have to be a survivalist odd-ball to see that our current economic policies and situations are untenable and ill-advised.

The world has way too much investment and dependency on many aspects of the US global position. It is obvious there is no other place for any of the world's powers to go as an alternative to US investments and markets. You don't see a world reaction like we saw today when France or Argentina's economy gets in trouble.

If you think this means that our economy can't crash, I totally disagree. In fact, as I have explained, it will be the very reason for the crash, as foreign investors realize (1) that no, the US economy isn't the best place to put their money, and (2) they'd better get something of value for their USD before the dollar becomes worthless.

Once this correction and financial bloodbath satisfies all the "nervious nellies," naysayers, doom and gloomers, get ready to buy stock. There is no other game in town. There are always cycles, and they are mostly created or exaggerated by "crowd panic theory." No one wants to be the last person in a theater after some idiot yells "fire."

Again, for those who have extra money set aside, you are about to have a very rare investment opportunity...and it's not in gold or gold stocks.

The rare opportunity of the last five or six years WAS gold and gold stocks, actually, and gold still is, I believe, a good value as it is still undervalued.

But yes, at some point stocks will become a good value, assuming that there is any currency system left standing to allow for such transactions to take place. *weak laugh*

We really haven't been in a "cycle". We've really been in a downward spiral, like a sky diver with a fouled parachute, and at some point the ground is going to smack us in the face. That's my take on the situation, for whatever that's worth (not much).

 

[PEU]

Am I in a depressive mood? maybe, read today news, its a black Monday for stock markets worldwide. I'm really intrigued about what will happen tomorrow when US markets reopen...
Pablo

Well it seems, it wasn't me after an emergency FED rate cut of 3/4 of a point, the markets are still on the red, even worst, after the bell when more companies posted results the decline was even more notorious...

A rate cut this deep, IMHO sends many alarming messages, the most obvious one is: things aren't going great.

Take for example one of the tech sector poster childs: Apple, it sunk about 15% (at the time of this post) after they posted record profits... talk about confidence... and it took the entire tech sector even more in the red.

I won't even start giving examples of the finance sector, they are writing down tens of billions like I write down lost pocket change, its so common these days that nobody seems to be alarmed by these HUGE numbers... :shakehead

With only 3.5 points left to cut, I wonder what the FED is going to do if the markets keep sinking. It seems rate cuts are not enough.

I hope for the best, I really do.
My country (and the world) suffers in this kind of crisis, remember the Tequila effect, the Asian financial crisis, the Russian default and the list goes on...


Pablo

 

[jtr1962]

thesurefire,

jtr believes that the purpose of government and social institutions is to make people better, whether they like it or not.

And, if I remember correctly, he has theoretically designed an ideal society in his mind.

Am I remembering that correctly, jtr? :devil:

Not true at all. Most of what I wrote has to do with why I felt suburbanization and the dismantling of our once wonderful passenger rail transportation system, a lot of which was done at the hands of government, was a huge economic and social mistake. And it seems ironically that what you wrote about government making people "better", whether they liked it or not, actually had some part in this. All you need do is read about Robert Moses and the way he literally rammed his highway projects down the throats of New Yorkers who neither benefited by them nor wanted them. Thankfully he was stopped before he built his dream-an expressway which divided Manhattan in half. However, his expressways ruined a lot of once viable neighborhoods just so those rich enough to afford cars could get to the suburbs a few minutes faster. Or so that was the plan. In reality his roads eventually became parking lots for 12 hours a day, spewing pollution into cities while doing nothing at all for them.

In essence, choices on ways to get around and where to live were removed. A lot of it wasn't market driven, either. It used to be that you could get to many parts of the country without a car. You could also take a car if you chose to. Nowadays the car is probably the sole means of transport for 95% of the population, even in places where others forms of transport would be viable. You can't even buy a car which is powered by something other than an internal combustion engine, putting the public at the mercy of a highly volatile commodity. Believe me, putting all your transportion eggs in one basket is not good on many levels. Neither is putting a lot of your investment into one way of living.

In case I seem pissed at all this, it's because I am. I like living in the city. I've been told by so many apparently brainwashed by the media people that I should "move out of that cesspool". A few of my teachers in college were dumbfounded when the words "I'm not relocating" came out of my mouth. They just couldn't comprehend why I wouldn't love loving in a place where everything was geared to the effin automobile. It actually bothered one of my teachers when I took my bike a few miles to his house for a get together with him and some students instead of hitching a ride with one of the people who drove. This is how pervasive the push by government and media for suburbia over cities has been. Just show them only one way, and soon all other ways seem wrong, or strange. If it wasn't so disgusting it might actually be funny, sort of like a comedic version of the Stepford wives. To this day I still remember Mayor Koch talking about "the sterile suburbs", and me shaking my head in complete agreement.

A Brave New World indeed and the ideal dream of many a utopian architect.

I have an even better idea! Why don't we just transfer everyone's brain onto the internet and then just dispense with all these pesky bodies and have robots maintain the infrastructure needed to keep the internet and the virtual world going.

Horrible idea. I'm all for ways to extend the lives of our bodies but only for those who want to do so. If a person wants to age and die naturally, well, that's a choice which they should be free to make, as illogical as I personally see it. I guess if a person wants to live in a virtual world then they should be free to also, but never forced to.

Anything so bad about androids doing the menial chores of society instead of illegal immigrants? Either way it seems Americans don't want to be bothered doing the dirty work. At least the robots avoid the problems the illegal immigrants create. And nothing at all wrong with getting rid of the need for money if we can completely automate the manufacture of everything. Think about it. A nice system of making goods and then recycling used ones would be great. It would be a closed loop so you wouldn't continually be raping the planet to provide a higher standard of living. And here again, if someone for whatever incomprehensible reason wants to live in a society where you actually manually perform all your chores free of machines, nobody is stopping them. We have the Amish today who live like it was 1800. It doesn't bother me that they do, nor would I even dream of forcing them to live as we do. I want more choices, including the choice to live forever, without having to be bothered with pesky things like earning money to pay for things. I want all my time free to do what I want. Maybe that's spending 200 years building a nice train layout, then the next 2000 exploring the solar system, etc. Nothing more human than giving people more choices. Isn't that what we're supposed to be about? It seems with what we have now a choice won't exist unless somebody can acquire money or power or both providing it. I personally think that's disgusting.

BTW, I think the rate cut was a collosal mistake. They're in essense trading a shorter recession now for a much deeper one down the road. They're also severely hurting those investors who are in fixed interest products.

 

[MarNav1]

Hey js, maybe with your take and mine we can buy a cup of coffee. We could watch the Wizard (Federal reserve) of Oz while we drink it eh?

 

[js]

Not true at all. Most of what I wrote has to do with why I felt suburbanization and the dismantling of our once wonderful passenger rail transportation system, a lot of which was done at the hands of government, was a huge economic and social mistake. And it seems ironically that what you wrote about government making people "better", whether they liked it or not, actually had some part in this. . . .

The irony was intentional! I meant my post to cut both ways. I wasn't being serious, though, more just having some fun (a bit at your expense--but to make up for it, also a bit in your defense).

The misunderstanding is my fault, though, and the post was largely gratuitous for my own fun and amusement.

hehe. Sorry, jtr.

In essence, choices . . . were removed.

Almost never a good thing. I totally agree.

In case I seem pissed at all this, it's because I am. I like living in the city. I've been told by so many apparently brainwashed by the media people that I should "move out of that cesspool". A few of my teachers in college were dumbfounded when the words "I'm not relocating" came out of my mouth. They just couldn't comprehend why I wouldn't love loving in a place where everything was geared to the effin automobile. It actually bothered one of my teachers when I took my bike a few miles to his house for a get together with him and some students instead of hitching a ride with one of the people who drove. This is how pervasive the push by government and media for suburbia over cities has been. Just show them only one way, and soon all other ways seem wrong, or strange. If it wasn't so disgusting it might actually be funny, sort of like a comedic version of the Stepford wives. To this day I still remember Mayor Koch talking about "the sterile suburbs", and me shaking my head in complete agreement.

I totally understand, jtr. In fact, I was the one who told you not to sell your house, and to stay in the city where you liked to be. The city needs a bunch of people like you who LOVE it, and not a bunch of people who commute in every day, complaining every second of the way, hating it, but going there every day nonetheless.

. . . I'm all for ways to extend the lives of our bodies but only for those who want to do so. If a person wants to age and die naturally, well, that's a choice which they should be free to make, as illogical as I personally see it. I guess if a person wants to live in a virtual world then they should be free to also, but never forced to.

Glad to hear it.

Anything so bad about androids doing the menial chores of society instead of illegal immigrants? Either way it seems Americans don't want to be bothered doing the dirty work. At least the robots avoid the problems the illegal immigrants create.

This was my point: Americans don't want to be bothered doing the dirty work. And there will always be dirty work. Always. But it doesn't have to be "dirty" just like the city doesn't have to be a "cesspool".

And nothing at all wrong with getting rid of the need for money if we can completely automate the manufacture of everything. Think about it.

I've thought about it a great deal, and I totally disagree with you. There would be many things wrong with getting rid of money--which I suppose is slightly different than getting rid of the need for money. But still. I have thought about it, and NO, I don't endorse this idea.

A nice system of making goods and then recycling used ones would be great. It would be a closed loop so you wouldn't continually be raping the planet to provide a higher standard of living.

This is a separate issue from the one of getting rid of money.

BTW, I think the rate cut was a collosal mistake. They're in essense trading a shorter recession now for a much deeper one down the road. They're also severely hurting those investors who are in fixed interest products.

They're aware of these things, jtr; they're just desperate.

 

[js]

Well it seems, it wasn't me after an emergency FED rate cut of 3/4 of a point, the markets are still on the red, even worst, after the bell when more companies posted results the decline was even more notorious...

A rate cut this deep, IMHO sends many alarming messages, the most obvious one is: things aren't going great.

. . .

Indeed. The 75 basis point cut was the single largest cut in quite some time--larger than the one after 9/11, and larger (or equal to?) than the one after the last "black Monday" in 1987. It points to a SERIOUS CRISIS.

Funny. I was listening to NPR on the way home and the news guy was talking about a "surprise" Fed rate cut, and I was like "surprise? WTF? It wasn't a surprise!" Of course the magnitude of the cut was maybe surprising to some, but the fact that there was a cut was totally predictable.

And on the way into work today, an economist being interviewed about the global effect of all this basically said that it would end up meaning that the US was no longer the most important economy in the worlds economy. Guess I wasn't so terribly off base in suggesting that exact thing earlier.

 

[js]

Hey js, maybe with your take and mine we can buy a cup of coffee. We could watch the Wizard (Federal reserve) of Oz while we drink it eh?

Can you buy something of real worth (cup of coffee) with monopoly money? With only a promise to pay? :thinking:

Well, I mean, I guess if we can GET a cup of joe with this funny money, I'm all for it. Just in case I'll bring along some REAL money (silver dollar from back when money was real) and see if we could get a cup or two of joe with it. The ironic thing is that they probably wouldn't know what to do with it, and probably would only value it as equal to one FRN.

That will change, of course.

 

[MarNav1]

It's an almost unbelievable story isn't it? And there are other factors that go into the reason why you can acquire something with no way to pay for it. But I'm not going there number 1 because my post would need to be 50-100 pages long to explain why and number 2 nobody will believe me anyway. I only exposed part of the story against my better judgement to see if anybody is paying attention, but Americans don't like the truth much. I have tried to expose the scam in other places too, nobody is home and nobody reads history anymore. I'll say no more. Don't bother with the silver, you may as well hand them a rock.

 

[js]

MARNAV1,

My favorite irony of this whole situation is that Andrew Jackson is the President who appears on the 20 dollar bill. Andrew-freaking-Jackson. On the most widely circulated FRN bill. He is definitely rolling over in his grave.