Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re: Tipping point (Score 0) 517

Trade deficits are only 'not necessarily a bad thing' for those cases where trade deficits really mean *borrowing to invest*.

USA *borrows to consume*, thus in case of USA trade deficits are deadly, both figuratively *and* literally deadly. Figuratively because an economy dying is not really the same thing as a human dying, it's more like an inanimate process that is stopping. Literally because a dying economy leads to actual human poverty, suffering and death for a large number of reasons.

You are actually half way correct that so far trade deficits worked well for the USA because the foreigners did all that work that subsidised the USA consumer, who did not have to work to pay for all that consumption. This is possible (or was possible) because so far US dollar is still a so called 'reserve currency', though it is not backed by anything other than 'faith' and probably some military presence.

People expect things to continue the same way as what they have been accustomed to and they do not expect any serious changes to their lives over their life spans. However people are very often wrong about that, big changes happen, they happen often, they happen suddenly (especially for the uninitiated into the reality of what is happening around them).

What you call a 'sound economic policy' I call 'suicidal economic policy'. I know from your words here that you actually think that government intervention is 'sound economic policy', however it was government intervention that created the situation that required more government intervention. More government intervention further leads to a situation that requires even more government intervention.

If you paid attention to what history shows you would know that government intervention has an accumulative effect and it is self destructing. Pumping fake liquidity into an economy that needs to restructure the debts is the wrong thing, not the right thing. What happened 8 years ago did not prevent a depression, it assured it. 1929 recession was created by government policy, specifically by money printing by the Fed and by buying bad UK debt from France. It was a gigantic bailout that inflated the stock market bubble that eventually burst. Hoover and FDR turned a normal process of deleveraging and debt restructuring into a depression by pumping more liquidity into the system.

They even bought good farming products and ploughed the products into the ground to avoid prices from falling, that's government in action: the market restructures bad ideas and debts but also brings prices down, making it easier to survive the restructuring by the most vulnerable in the system. Government steps in and says: you cannot have that benefit, the prices will stay up and the bad decisions will not be allowed to clear, instead they will be kept around and made bigger by more inflation (money printing) and actual welfare redistribution to those business that failed.

This does not guarantee good outcomes, this ensures accumulating and multiplying of bad outcomes. This is the same thing that happened a number of times in the last (and this) century and it is coming to the point where the impact of the next crisis will no longer be manageable by these usual tools that the government has (and it's always just one tool, often disguised under different names), it is theft, it is money printing and theft of existing purchasing and saving power of those, who have savings.

If you understood any of this, you wouldn't have written the statements that you did. Not understanding all of this so far very likely means further misunderstanding on your part and this also may mean that the coming crisis will hit you in a way that you cannot comprehend.

Comment Re:A slap in the wrist (Score 0) 159

Not because of the amount, no, but as a general principle of the matter I think Bezos will pay attention and do something useful with that money. I know I would not hesitate to spend a few billion bucks in his place to destroy the current Canadian government and would ensure that my selection of people get elected. The problem with the governments is that they exist but since they do they need to be used for good, not for evil. Companies need to ensure that individual freedoms are upheld by the governments and this to me means that the governments (the collective) must not be able with the private property rights and this 1000000 dollar theft is just that.

Comment Re:Congratulations,your PC is now a governance dev (Score 0) 172

There was a story on /. not too far back about Linux on desktop and before that there was this story - an MS exec urging developers who use Linux to switch to Windows 10 and the idea was that supposedly Windows 10 provides a shell now that is as good as bash (supposedly).

I said it then and will say it again: bash is not the only thing that Linux provides me with. I've been exclusively on Linux for about 15 years now and bash is only a small part of it, and part of it is that the OS is not trying to spy on me like this.

Comment Re:Money (Score -1) 297

Oh, somebody who doesn't hate America, you are a true Patriot, a true America Lover. You know what is good for America, you know that inflation is good for America, because you are a true believer in the American dream of providing a social security net for everybody, and the evil 1% and the evil people with savings are the ones standing in between the paradise of 2% inflation and total chaos.

Now, that I am done with toxic sarcasm... People like me I don't know, I know myself. I know very well how money is created in this system. If you bothered to actually read my past comments or my journal you wouldn't be embarrassing yourself by saying things like that. I am too painfully aware how the money is created and how it *should* be created instead of how it is created.

You, on the other hand are a perfect example of somebody buying the propaganda hook, line and sinker. Including the complete and utter 'inflation is good' nonsense, the complete and utter nonsense on the 2% inflation is good. You are 100% oblivious on the history of the 2% number. Do you *KNOW* where that number originally came from? Do you *KNOW*? No you do not know. You do not know that the 2% number was named as a specific inflation ceiling in Australia many decades ago, so that that when inflation hit that number, the government would stop increasing the money supply and would promote deflationary policies. *YOU* do not know, you want to tell me what I understand or don't understand?

Did *YOU* know that inflation was measured completely differently when Nixon was in charge and that over the last 50 years the measurement system was adjusted to under-report the actual inflation by manufacturing a way to measure it that would show provide a much lower number, by removing items from inflation calculations that were used when Nixon introduced the wage and price controls, when inflation (as counted then) hit the 4% ceiling?

I don't believe you, or most anybody understands anything on this topic at all, not even close, not even the definition of the word, not in any meaningful way that puts us even on the same level, the same plane of understanding to intersect and to talk about it in a meaningful manner.

Great Depression was created by inflation, you don't understand that one bit. The late 30s recession was started by inflation, the Fed buying bad UK debt from France. The recession was the bursting of the stock market bubble created by the Fed and the Depression was *CREATED* by Hoover and FDR. They created it, they deepened and worsened it, and it didn't end up until the end of war allowed restructuring of the debts and massive cuts to taxes and to government spending.

Basically you and I cannot talk about this subject, because you are stuck deep in a swamp of complete and utter nonsense, propaganda and misinformation.

As to the government 'always' controlling the money supply, no it did not. The government did not control the supply of gold and silver. Mint is not control of supply of money, it was only in control of supply of minted coins. Coins are only a shape of money, not the money itself.

Quite frankly (to borrow your turn of phrase), there is nothing that you can bring to this discussion.

Slashdot Top Deals

Take everything in stride. Trample anyone who gets in your way.