Sub-prime Blowout Recordings
Con Man Exodus Recordings
Super Nano Thermite Recordings
Eugenics Assassin Recordings
Sub-prime Blowout Recordings ReverbNation
Unfluoridated Recordings
Rick Reuben Recordings
Friday, July 30, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
Higher Learning
A public conditioned through their television sets evolves into the docile, gullible, and ignorant population that the ruling class wants. They need soldiers, they need consumers, and first and foremost, they need people who are predictable. They have stated their ambition to mold humans into cattle for centuries, they have poured money into scientific tools that allow them to tinker with humans biologically and psychologically, they fund an extravagance of decadent and corrosive pop culture no matter what economic conditions are dominant. They are very upfront about engineering society to serve their needs. There should be no surprises.
Corporations give you what you need when it helps them control you, but they make you pay for what you need to control them. And that is why we have a costly profit-based higher education system.
Corporations give you what you need when it helps them control you, but they make you pay for what you need to control them. And that is why we have a costly profit-based higher education system.
Free College?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-leopold/stop-student-loan-sharkin_b_505460.html
There is no political will for free higher education because the corporations that own America don't even want to pay the wage demands of Americans with high school diplomas. They can fill jobs that require advanced education with workers overseas who will cost them less per hour than a less-educated American.
Why are we still pretending in 2010 that corporations have it in their interest to lift up the educational level and earnings power of Americans, and would tolerate extra taxes to make that happen? They have spent the last forty years pursuing any other option they can find to replace Americans who hold strong earnings power. I think a trend has been established. Now that globalization has opened up numerous avenues to these replacement options for corporations, they will predictably put Americans on even tighter rations, and do more to starve the root system of American earnings, the education system.
There is no political will for free higher education because the corporations that own America don't even want to pay the wage demands of Americans with high school diplomas. They can fill jobs that require advanced education with workers overseas who will cost them less per hour than a less-educated American.
Why are we still pretending in 2010 that corporations have it in their interest to lift up the educational level and earnings power of Americans, and would tolerate extra taxes to make that happen? They have spent the last forty years pursuing any other option they can find to replace Americans who hold strong earnings power. I think a trend has been established. Now that globalization has opened up numerous avenues to these replacement options for corporations, they will predictably put Americans on even tighter rations, and do more to starve the root system of American earnings, the education system.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Coconuts
Commodity money rides on communal agreement. Four castaways on a deserted island can form a commodity money system. Say the four castaways each claim a one quarter sector of the island for their own. One is a good gardener, one is a good fisherman, one is a good coconut picker, one is a good builder of thatch huts.
They need a commodity money so the fisherman doesn't have to carry his fish to the coconut picker when he wants coconuts. So instead, the fisherman carries a stick to see the coconut man. He takes four coconuts and the coconut man carves four notches in the stick. When the coconut man desires fish a month later, he carries his stick with the four notches back to the beach, hands it over, receives four fish in return.
Commodity money just has to be honest. The people on the island did not need to dig up gold to have a money system, just communal agreement. Fiat money fails not just because it is not directly convertible back into a real asset by the bank that issues it, but it also fails because its supply can be arbitrarily expanded outside the view of those using it for commerce, so the only people who can accurately fix its value are the counterfeiters of it.
They need a commodity money so the fisherman doesn't have to carry his fish to the coconut picker when he wants coconuts. So instead, the fisherman carries a stick to see the coconut man. He takes four coconuts and the coconut man carves four notches in the stick. When the coconut man desires fish a month later, he carries his stick with the four notches back to the beach, hands it over, receives four fish in return.
Commodity money just has to be honest. The people on the island did not need to dig up gold to have a money system, just communal agreement. Fiat money fails not just because it is not directly convertible back into a real asset by the bank that issues it, but it also fails because its supply can be arbitrarily expanded outside the view of those using it for commerce, so the only people who can accurately fix its value are the counterfeiters of it.
Clock
Commodities are not magic. Commodities are what we all want. Commodity money does not require 'magical powers' to cast a spell on users- that's fiat money, which has no intrinsic value of its own, but is magically accepted in payments for labor and goods despite being toilet paper.
The public doesn't have to acquire enormous amounts of gold to build a paper money system on top if it. 100 oz's of gold could form the basis of 10,000,000 pieces of convertible paper wealth. The known ratio of paper to gold adjusts the value of the paper and therefore the prices of everything in the economy denominated in the paper. There is no limit to how much liquidity ( in paper ) you can add to the system, because whenever you add, the ratio of paper to gold changes, and the prices adjust.
Think of it like a clock. You only need one accurate clock for a town of one million to set their watches by. The day is 24 hours no matter the number of people telling time by the one clock. The foundation of the paper money supply is like the clock, the 'known quantity'. The same quantity of gold 'sets the time' no matter if a paper money system for 1,000 or 1,000,000 is built on top of it. It is all about ratios of paper to gold which then set prices.
The public doesn't have to acquire enormous amounts of gold to build a paper money system on top if it. 100 oz's of gold could form the basis of 10,000,000 pieces of convertible paper wealth. The known ratio of paper to gold adjusts the value of the paper and therefore the prices of everything in the economy denominated in the paper. There is no limit to how much liquidity ( in paper ) you can add to the system, because whenever you add, the ratio of paper to gold changes, and the prices adjust.
Think of it like a clock. You only need one accurate clock for a town of one million to set their watches by. The day is 24 hours no matter the number of people telling time by the one clock. The foundation of the paper money supply is like the clock, the 'known quantity'. The same quantity of gold 'sets the time' no matter if a paper money system for 1,000 or 1,000,000 is built on top of it. It is all about ratios of paper to gold which then set prices.
Consumption
“>>"Isn't that what a depression is...a dramatic contraction of money and credit?"
Recessions today can be caused by numerous external or internal drivers like wars, bad trade policies, bad tax policies, population demographics, etc. but if we're talking about the role of money in recessions, then recessions under a credit money system are reactions to credit gluts offered to progressively higher risk customers. This causes price and wage distortions that warp the equation of supply and demand, as well as pooling of excess liquidity into speculative bubbles that further distort prices ( see housing bubble ).
Consumption cannot be increased exponentially forever and forever no matter how much fiat you pump into the system. People have a limited stomach for goods and services and when they're full, they're full. At a certain point, true demand is satisfied and you end up with a supply overhang. Inventories back up, production slows, demand for new credit stalls, bad debt heads for default, and the system attempts to recede to equilibrium. These are the boom and bust cycles that are so predictable when the elastic money supply is stretched beyond its safe limits.
Credit contraction can be a cause of a recession but it can also be a signal that the preceding credit expansion has overheated the economy and rest is required.
Overconsumption and underconsumption are less likely when prices are allowed to adjust without manipulation, as they are in a sound money system.
Fi At
All that needs to be done is to eliminate legal tender laws and taxes on market selected monies. Since we have several thousand years of history showing that Gold and Silver are typically selected as money, we should start by eliminating taxes on them. What this means is that when gold and silver hold value, they should not be punished by the taxman.
For example- once legal tender laws are repealed, precious metals will benefit, when measured in the receding quality of the Federal Reserve note that is being rejected as a medium of exchange.
If you are a farmer and you pay your bricklayer neighbor 100 ounces of silver in July for a brick wall when silver is $18 an oz. ( when measured in FRN's ) and then the silver has appreciated to $25 an ounce in FRN's by April when tax time comes, then the bricklayer cannot have the change in the FRN price of silver counted against him as a capital gain on his taxes, because that punishes him for choosing a stable commodity as a medium of exchange over the inferior FRN. If there is a push for a different medium of exchange, it should be treated in the same fashion.
For example- once legal tender laws are repealed, precious metals will benefit, when measured in the receding quality of the Federal Reserve note that is being rejected as a medium of exchange.
If you are a farmer and you pay your bricklayer neighbor 100 ounces of silver in July for a brick wall when silver is $18 an oz. ( when measured in FRN's ) and then the silver has appreciated to $25 an ounce in FRN's by April when tax time comes, then the bricklayer cannot have the change in the FRN price of silver counted against him as a capital gain on his taxes, because that punishes him for choosing a stable commodity as a medium of exchange over the inferior FRN. If there is a push for a different medium of exchange, it should be treated in the same fashion.
Fi at
Absent price controls, the market sets the price for shoes regardless of which monetary supply you use. The price is a calculation of costs ( raw materials, labor, distribution ) plus profits, and at every stage, the cost is impacted by the quality of the money in use.
You will have more price stability under a commodity money system, because the money's value will be a derivation of a known finite asset's ( or basket of assets ) value, rather than a derivation of something nobody knows- like America's ability to pay interest into perpetuity.
The reason why bread that was 50 cents a loaf not that long ago is now $3 a loaf is not because it became 6X more expensive in real terms to process wheat into a loaf on the market shelf- that price is a direct result of currency depreciation under a fiat system.
Whether you have a private central bank running a fiat money system or the government running a fiat money system, you have a counterfeiter in control of your money supply. If you like price instability caused by factors outside of the supply and demand for a product, go with a fiat money system- you'll get all the price instability you could ever ask for, thanks to the temptation to manipulate the money supply..
You will have more price stability under a commodity money system, because the money's value will be a derivation of a known finite asset's ( or basket of assets ) value, rather than a derivation of something nobody knows- like America's ability to pay interest into perpetuity.
The reason why bread that was 50 cents a loaf not that long ago is now $3 a loaf is not because it became 6X more expensive in real terms to process wheat into a loaf on the market shelf- that price is a direct result of currency depreciation under a fiat system.
Whether you have a private central bank running a fiat money system or the government running a fiat money system, you have a counterfeiter in control of your money supply. If you like price instability caused by factors outside of the supply and demand for a product, go with a fiat money system- you'll get all the price instability you could ever ask for, thanks to the temptation to manipulate the money supply..
FiatFiatFiat Fiat Fiat
“>>"China would receive greenbacks, they might object to their loss of leverage over our government
FiatFiatfiatFiat
“>>"You want a commodity backed money supply...how do you set the value of the commodity?"
You don't set the value of the commodity, the commodity sets its own price- the price of the commodity is determined by 'supply of the commodity' x 'demand for the commodity' x 'the quantity of money in circulation ( which determines the value of each individual unit of money )'. When the money supply is stabilized ( because it is recognizable as a representation of the tangible assets that underwrite it ), then the price is formulated from the three variables listed in the equation above.
What causes huge shifts in prices ( like in housing currently ) is the instability of the money supply. Houses don't go from 200K to 500K and then back to 200K in the course of ten years because the supply and demand for houses changed that radically- the price rose and fell sharply because the third variable ( the money supply, born of credit ) was manipulated. Those homes were not worth double at the peak of the bubble, they experienced a doubling in price- and price is not value. Price is value that has been modified by the value of the currency the price is denominated in.
FiatFiat Fiat
>>"I'm not sure about 100% reserve...
as it doesn't allow for easy growth..."
I think that's where we differ. What you see as 'easy growth', I see as 'easy spending'. You see 'easy expansion' of money supplies as essential to growth, and I see easy expansions of money supplies as damaging to sustainable growth.
I only consider growth to be legitimate if it comes from a reinvestment of earned/saved assets back into new production. The fiat system allows for growth to be enticed, with money loaned or printed into the system. It's the idea that 'if you dangle a fatter rabbit on a stick in front of the same pack of dogs, the dogs will run faster after the fatter rabbit ( the bigger money supply )'.
100% reserve cannot impact what I call legitimate growth that is derived from the reintroduction of profits/savings into the economy, but it does curtail easy spending over budget in the hopes of enticing growth. If you want to inject money backed by nothing into the economy ( as we do now ) in the hopes of stimulating production that will chase after the additional money, then forcing money to be created out of wealth that precedes it eliminates that demand-side stimulus crutch
FiatFiat
“>>"You still haven't told me what you would like to see in place of fiat money....Or how you prevent a total economic collapse if you switch to a commodity backed currency."
Why would switching to commodity money destroy the economy? The existing supply of commodities is not changed by the conversion of money from fiat to commodity-backed, and the commodity-backed money is superior because it regains its ability to store value.
Currently, fiat money is a fiction. It is alleged to serve as a stand-in for genuine wealth, but it only survives on trust and the government decree that demands it be considered legal tender. If people were given the choice between fiat and a money that held a claim on tangible assets, they would choose the second every time. That is why issuers of fiat outlaw competing forms of legal tender backed by a commodity- because the superior money will drive the weak fiat out of use.
Fiat
“>>"There is no commodity in the world than could underwrite the amount of M3"
Of course there is. If the money is required to pursue the goods, then there are sufficient goods to back the money. It's a two-way equation. Sound commodity-backed money is always convertible forward into goods for purchase and always convertible backwards into a tangible asset when it is held as savings. This is balance.
It is impossible for the demand for units of money to exceed the quantity of commodities and labor it is needed to purchase. There is no need to 'grow the stock' of money to keep pace with the demand for money in commerce. It is the prices that adjust up or down to reflect the ratio of money to goods.
To make a very rough example- if the money supply of a town is 100 dollars, then a dollar might be enough to buy a house, a dime a car, and a penny enough to buy food for a year. It is the prices that are elastic. The quantity of money does not need to be elastic.
100% reserve banking is entirely possible and is the only sound money, but the bankers' propaganda says it is impossible because without their freedom to create fiat or fractional reserve loans to make new revenue ( interest ) streams, the profits of banking are sharply curtailed.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Terminus
The potential terminus point for this fable of what happens when a snake begins his last meal by starting at his own tail could be interesting, especially if the Fed becomes the final resting place for a majority of foreign-owned Treasuries that are not rolled over. We could see most of the Treasuries in existence classified as liabilities on the books of the Treasury simultaneously classified as assets on the balance sheet of the bank empowered to auction them, the Fed.
The bonds could not have any value at that point, because the only way the Treasury could redeem its liabilities would be to borrow from the Fed- technically making the Fed responsible for reconstituting the Treasuries it is counting as assets.
I guess that's the point where they come to seize the collateral and wave bye bye to the fiat dollar. And that's exactly the terminus this centrifuge of funny money is pointing to.
The bonds could not have any value at that point, because the only way the Treasury could redeem its liabilities would be to borrow from the Fed- technically making the Fed responsible for reconstituting the Treasuries it is counting as assets.
I guess that's the point where they come to seize the collateral and wave bye bye to the fiat dollar. And that's exactly the terminus this centrifuge of funny money is pointing to.
Rollout
The 'recovery' is a product rollout campaign, it's marketed just like a car. The process builds in stages. At the beginning, they're just rubbing two sticks together to make a fire, hoping to create a buzz of positive feeling towards a product, which will then turn into a fire that casts a glow that will attract other moths.
It's natural for people to want a recovery, so it's not that hard to transition people from the 'wanting' state of mind to the 'belief in the recovery' state of mind- the architects of the marketing campaign are telling people to see something that they are hoping to see anyway. People who believe in a God will see signs of God's handiwork everywhere in their daily lives. People who think that UFO's exist will, predictably, be more receptive to reports of UFO's ( I'm not saying anything either way about God or UFO's here, just describing how wants intersect with beliefs ).
There's also a substantial amount of peer pressure at work- pessimists will be characterized as somehow 'anti-American' or 'anti-capitalism' ( which is funny, because we have statism, not capitalism ). Analysts who turn a more pessimistic eye to the economy will be treated more harshly by the dominant media . They'll be described as 'prophets of doom' as though they are scary monsters who have come to terrify us.
Basically- if reality contradicts with the message, dispense with reality and guard the message.
It's natural for people to want a recovery, so it's not that hard to transition people from the 'wanting' state of mind to the 'belief in the recovery' state of mind- the architects of the marketing campaign are telling people to see something that they are hoping to see anyway. People who believe in a God will see signs of God's handiwork everywhere in their daily lives. People who think that UFO's exist will, predictably, be more receptive to reports of UFO's ( I'm not saying anything either way about God or UFO's here, just describing how wants intersect with beliefs ).
There's also a substantial amount of peer pressure at work- pessimists will be characterized as somehow 'anti-American' or 'anti-capitalism' ( which is funny, because we have statism, not capitalism ). Analysts who turn a more pessimistic eye to the economy will be treated more harshly by the dominant media . They'll be described as 'prophets of doom' as though they are scary monsters who have come to terrify us.
Basically- if reality contradicts with the message, dispense with reality and guard the message.
Corporo-statism
fascism is the appropriate term for the corporate/state hybrid, but when people hear you refer to fascism, many seem to think you're making a specific analogy to Nazi Germany. There needs to be a better term that identifies 'corporo-statism' that avoids that, because the reluctance to identify 'corporo-statism' as fascism ( because of the reluctance to compare our system to the Nazi's ) definitely works in the favor of the corporo-statists.
In the aftermath of any designed economic contraction/ harvesting of wealth engineered by the most monopolist
If people like choosing saviors that don't exist to rescue us from completely misidentified problems, then they should choose big government to save them from the free market. Just ignore the fact that the free market is dead and government only grows to serve the needs of its owners, the corporations.
In the aftermath of any designed economic contraction/ harvesting of wealth engineered by the most monopolist
If people like choosing saviors that don't exist to rescue us from completely misidentified problems, then they should choose big government to save them from the free market. Just ignore the fact that the free market is dead and government only grows to serve the needs of its owners, the corporations.
Siphon
The speculative markets siphon capital away from the legitimate economy, where it is used to amass leverage against weaker competitors. It's an armory and a munitions depot for corporate raiders, just like you wrote.
Imagine two publicly traded companies, both in the business of making widgets. Now imagine that majority ownership of one of those two widget companies is obtained through purchase of a majority of their shares by a huge business conglomerate. Then imagine what might happen next- the huge conglomerate can use its considerable stockpile of funds to short the stock of the widget company it didn't buy, and use other funds to bid up the share price of the widget company that it bought. The market reacts to this by piling on, and soon other big institutional investors and hedge funds are jumping in on the widget company with the rising share price and shorting the independent widget company- maybe even using naked shorts.
This is an example of how the speculative markets can destroy business rather than grow business, by culling the market through leverage against share prices to reduce competition- which corporate conglomerates hate. The best widget maker may not win- if the share price is the barometer of your widget company's health and that share price is in a rigged game, you are going to be squeezed out of the widget business.
Imagine two publicly traded companies, both in the business of making widgets. Now imagine that majority ownership of one of those two widget companies is obtained through purchase of a majority of their shares by a huge business conglomerate. Then imagine what might happen next- the huge conglomerate can use its considerable stockpile of funds to short the stock of the widget company it didn't buy, and use other funds to bid up the share price of the widget company that it bought. The market reacts to this by piling on, and soon other big institutional investors and hedge funds are jumping in on the widget company with the rising share price and shorting the independent widget company- maybe even using naked shorts.
This is an example of how the speculative markets can destroy business rather than grow business, by culling the market through leverage against share prices to reduce competition- which corporate conglomerates hate. The best widget maker may not win- if the share price is the barometer of your widget company's health and that share price is in a rigged game, you are going to be squeezed out of the widget business.
Supervision
I think the way that you envision the equity markets is kind of rare, but it should be the dominant view- some would say that the markets discipline businesses to perform efficiently, because they are constantly observed by investors and pressured to meet expectations, but to expect Wall Street to only be in reactive mode to business conditions completely overlooks human nature. Wall St. does not just react to a moving market, Wall St. changes the currents of the river and the boats adapt.
The 'supervision' of investors generates an environment where companies act to satisfy the short-term profit goals of their investors, and this may totally sabotage their chance of having a sound long-term business plan that is good for their workers. People argue, 'But Wall Street just seeks profitable companies and buys their stocks', but that doesn't cover it- Wall Street sets expectations for companies and then companies try to hit those marks. Wall Street forces changes in business philosophy- companies that would normally not are outsourcing their labor force or cutting worker pensions or cutting their product quality, to hit short term expectations.
The 'supervision' of investors generates an environment where companies act to satisfy the short-term profit goals of their investors, and this may totally sabotage their chance of having a sound long-term business plan that is good for their workers. People argue, 'But Wall Street just seeks profitable companies and buys their stocks', but that doesn't cover it- Wall Street sets expectations for companies and then companies try to hit those marks. Wall Street forces changes in business philosophy- companies that would normally not are outsourcing their labor force or cutting worker pensions or cutting their product quality, to hit short term expectations.
Silly Putty
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-sham-recovery_b_497439.html
"they can't really determine their own potential losses."
Nor can they admit them even if they determine them. They call them losses when they beg for bailouts, they call them assets when they make their financial reports. Most they call neither liability or asset- they just pretend they don't exist, or that they 'can only be valued at some future date'. Which will never arrive.
Their books are made of silly putty.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Commerce
>>"Gold is just a commodity, like oil, and like oil it's value is subject to constant fluctuation relative to money."
The value of the commodity is determined by its own supply and the demand for it. The fluctuation you refer to is not fluctuation in value but fluctuation in prices, which are nominal values. The money itself is fluctuating in value relative to its own quantity, not to the quantity of gold..
Every day, commodities like gold and oil establish a new price for the dollar, because they are of finite quantity and the fiat dollar is not. The dollar does not change the value of the gold; rather, the value of the dollar is always measured by how much gold or oil it can purchase.
Mouse
I can't believe there are still people insisting that a rescue of 'too big to fail' banks & AIG prevented a collapse of the whole economy. The collateral damage from their demise would have been incredibly minor if there was any political will to contain it properly. The reluctance to let bad banks fail was all about politics and not about logistics. The failure would have been a blessed purge of these tumors, and would have affected the narrow sliver of society that owns shares in these banks and little else.
The very narrow usefulness of these banks to the economy is proven by what we see in the aftermath of the bailout- boom times for the narrow Wall St. financial sector, and a continuing depression everywhere else. These banks do not carry the economy on their backs- we carry them!
Other lending institutions ( that played within the rules ) could have instantly filled in the market share of these zombie banks, because banks *produce nothing*. It's just digits on computer screens.
Availability of credit to the general public could have been rapidly restored in the wake of the failure of these overgrown casino banks. It would be the simplest task in the world for the Treasury to spread new money all around the country to all healthy remaining banks. Couple of clicks of the mouse and you're done. If the Fed balks, shut them down, too.
The very narrow usefulness of these banks to the economy is proven by what we see in the aftermath of the bailout- boom times for the narrow Wall St. financial sector, and a continuing depression everywhere else. These banks do not carry the economy on their backs- we carry them!
Other lending institutions ( that played within the rules ) could have instantly filled in the market share of these zombie banks, because banks *produce nothing*. It's just digits on computer screens.
Availability of credit to the general public could have been rapidly restored in the wake of the failure of these overgrown casino banks. It would be the simplest task in the world for the Treasury to spread new money all around the country to all healthy remaining banks. Couple of clicks of the mouse and you're done. If the Fed balks, shut them down, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
If all outstanding debt held by our creditors in the form of treasuries and all FRN's held as savings were converted into new fiat, then everyone would lose, because every real asset would reprice higher following the conversion. It would be a forced devaluation of the currency.
It's actually very similar to what FDR did with gold. FDR confiscated gold and paid $21 in FRN's per ounce for it- post conversion, gold went right to $35 an ounce. The Federal Reserve Note experienced a forced devaluation, which was borne by those who saved in real assets like gold in the hopes of escaping just such a devaluation.
If existing FRN's in the hands of US savers were returned to them as new Greenbacks, each unit of the new money would have less buying power than each FRN they held previously, because the new Greenback would belong to a currency pool swollen by the retirement of securities through the same issue of new money.