It's the old-school definition
Which you would not cite despite an explicit request...
the definition one uses to become or remain wealthy.
Citing definitions rarely makes one wealthy. Given your cavalier attitude towards the meanings of the very words you are using, I'm beginning to doubt the value of continuing the conversation...
Which means, that whoever earned those dollars lost some of their value. Where did it go
They had value only by convention and that convention changed.
When inflation rises, the interest rate for the best savings accounts will rise as well (ditto new CDs).
Whether you can still beat inflation or not, the point is, you are losing some of the wealth you had. The government, which spent the freshly-printed money before it loses value, gains gained what you lose — thus making it indistinguishable from tax. Whether that's good or bad, it is a form of taxation.
Your arguments make a case for it being a "good" form of taxation — you should stick to that and stop denying, that it is a tax...
I don't believe the president has direct control over the money supply
Well, he does not spend money either, but TFA still blames him for the future "binge" anyway...
Small amounts of inflation are NOT a "tax on wealth." I suppose you might consider it a "tax on money you hide under your mattress."
Wherever I keep it — under mattress, in a sock, or in a savings account — inflation (small or large) taxes it away.
But in the real world, mild inflation encourages people with wealth to get that money out from under their mattress
And even then I am not gaining as much from my investment, as I should've. But, yeah, taxes are often used to discourage some behaviors while encouraging others — a regrettable practice, which itself is a government overreach, I might add.
Unless you have a giant money bin full of enough to keep you going for the rest of your life already, you likely would do much WORSE in a deflationary economy than having mild 1-2% inflation with its supposed "tax."
All of this is irrelevant to my point. Which was, and remains: inflation eats away at savings.
The $100 earned today would buy me 25 cartons of milk. I can not consume so much, so I buy only one carton and save the money. Well, a week later, when I go to buy another carton, it costs slightly more — through no fault of my own, I've lost some of the honestly earned $100.
Deflation may be bad, but that only reinforces, what I said: the two reasons offered by TFA for BitCoin's future rise contradict each other.
Wealth is the ownership of the means of production
That's an interesting definition, could you cite, where you got it from? It seems wrong — as it totally ignores non-productive wealth, such as precious metals, Bitcoins, intellectual property, and currency. By your definition, an owner of, say, a shoe-repair shop is richer than a guy with a $10 mln bank-account...
If dollars have less value, the number of dollars needed to buy the means of production increases
Which means, that whoever earned those dollars lost some of their value. Where did it go — dollars aren't apples, they don't spoil? In a fiat-money situation, the government prints paper money — it gets to spend it first, before inflation diminishes it. When people lose wealth and government gains it — even if not all of it — how is it not tax?
Now, it is not tax on all forms of wealth, merely on savings held in dollars. You may think, you are earning by holding your monies in a saving account, but in reality you barely keep up with inflation — whatever profit you should be getting is taxed away from you. By inflation.
1st, don't be pedantic. We're talking about the general price range of a 3d printer.
There you go. And if you're going to be a twit about the last 99 dollars, consider that that's for the new model. The last model is cheaper because its the elder model and is quite able to do the job.
3rd, dust collection is something the user is supposed to manage with a dust buster. This is a hobbyist machine. That said, they have plans and attachments that provide that feature for very little if you want that.
4th, as to it being louder, it is not a 3d printer... it is a CNC machine. You want a quiet CNC machine? This complaint is autistic. The point is functionality. You want to make tiny plastic yoda heads? Do it. I was pointing out that CNC machines are able to make more useful things at the same price point and therefore are the correct path. Unless you want tiny plastic yoda heads. in which case, congrats... that is what you get.
All political boundaries are just lines on maps. What gives them meaning is that when you cross them there are consequences.
A line with no consequences is merely just a line as you say. But just as your neighbor would have a response if you decided to build on his property without permission... there are consequences for arbitrarily negating laws, precedent, and generally running roughshod over people.
Do it. You seem like a guy without a healthy respect for consequences.
Many of the wealth distinctions are the result of purchasing power parity adjustments that many people don't appear to understand.
People in various places get paid more but they often must pay more for everything almost in perfect proportion to how much more they are paid. Gasoline for example can cost 4 to 5 dollars in Los Angeles whilst costing 2 dollars or less in many other parts of the country. You'll find similar issues with home prices and various other things.
The net result is that the adjusted standard of living once you've factored for purchasing power is that there is frequently less of a distinction then you'd think.
What is more, discrepancies in funding is only relevant to the extent that funding is insufficient to meet local needs. In most cases... having factored for most variables... I'd love to see an argument for negating state powers, centralizing all state functions at the federal level, and justifying all of that on the basis of what can only be described as a collectivist redistributionist moral paradigm.
Look, I appreciate you mean well. But you're also presuming to rule people and tell them what they want. I'd respect your position a great deal more if you ASKED people what they want and accepted no for an answer. If you don't ask but rather TELL and don't listen to refusals... Then your position is ultimately tyranny disguised in patronizing paternalism.
Because justice should be different in New York than in Alaska? And yet both manage their police locally. Why have governors, state legislators, mayors, etc if you have no respect or regard for anything besides hyper centralized authority?
Education like many things has different challenges and objectives in different parts of the country because we have different economic realities etc. To presume you can manage all this from Washington DC is simply ignorance on your part.
Many things are managed locally. Education is one of them. Keep in mind that Washington DC, the city containing the geniuses you presume to put in charge of everyone's education has some of the worst schools in the country. Explain please where this organization gets the credibility to be taken seriously to manage the nation's education given that they demonstrably have failed to manage the education of the city under their nose?
Do not rise above your competence. If you can't even manage ONE city's education system, I have little patience listening to your opinions on how an entire country's education should be run.
Why have states at all if you want to argue to centralization of everything? Why have state governors, state legislators, mayors, locally elected police chiefs?
You ask for logic but you've not demonstrated that you understand the pros and cons of a federated system with limited autonomy. Given your obvious ignorance of a basic concept of US civics and your obvious arrogance... I am hesitant to waste my time with someone that is likely to not listen. Typically people that have retained that kind of arrogance and ignorance in the same skull are not especially reasonable. Just my experience.
Do you want to try again or did I figure you out off the bat?
One way or the other, only one of the two reasons proposed for BitCoin surge can be valid — it is an equivalent of a Climate Scientist "predicting", it may become hotter or colder in 10 years.
TFA and/or the submission are a blatant attempt to make money on BitCoint speculation, while blaming Trump for whatever he ends up causing: a drop or a rise in dollar's value.
"Scientist Victor Venema provides answers" is the link
If you saw fit to put Scott Adams' name in the title of your submission, your link should've pointed at his text, rather than at some unknown responding to it. You could've included the latter in the write-up as well, but Scott's post should've been there as prominently as his name is.
see based on your posting history
Seriously? Ad hominem? Your dishonesty has nothing to do with my posting history...
"Shovel ready" is a bit of a joke
What was not? "Cash for clunkers", perhaps?..
Driven by Trump's 'Spending Binge' and Dollar Rally
The two offered reasons seem to be mutually exclusive... Either we see inflation — as Trump's government prints money to finance the feared "binge" (which is oh so different from the wise Government Spending of the Obama era). Such printing may cause an inflation with dollar falling against other currencies — including BitCoin. In this case, BitCoin may, indeed, rise in value.
Or we see dollar "rally" — rise in value against other currencies, including BitCoin.
So, which is it?
When inflation rises the Federal Reserve may raise interest rates to bring it under control. This causes the dollar to appreciate because it would be seen as an attractive currency for foreign investors.
I don't think, a raising of rates ever reversed inflation in the history of Federal Reserve — it can only slow it down. They would not even seek to stop it, considering the value of 1-2% per year "normal" (that's a tax on wealth, BTW).
Though the submission claims to link to a piece by Scott Adams, it points to someone responding to Scott instead.
That is borderline dishonest. Down-modding the submission as "notthebest". The actual blog-entry by the Dilbert-creator is here.
All life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities. -- Dawkins