This entry was posted on Friday, July 31st, 2009 at 13:34 and is filed under Hat Talk, Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
It’s worth as much as you can buy with it, so I’m not sure what eight people without any money has to do with the question. Why don’t you ask whatever question you are trying to imply.
Haha! Well adjusted for inflation, $100 USD by itself is worth squat compared to pre-Central Bank days. Maybe the purchasing equivalent of $5 or less when compared to 1910 dollars. And certainly depending on where you live, how many bills you pay, how many mouths to feed, and what kind of habits you inherited back when the economy “seemed” better, that $100 probably won’t last the week.
But in the context of this chart, the imagery does kinda remind me of the recent Wall Street “Bailouts” that stipulate that the economy will be saved by taking money from everyone else (excepting the military and economic aid to shady international allies) and handing it to key megacorporations in peril from their own stupidity. Almost like the 200x incarnation of Trickle Down economics; but just like that bit of craziness, this too is NOT economic insanity contrary to what most reasonable people would think. I personally view it as very ingenious and professionally-devised… looting. ^______^
That being said then, the $100 USD above (or a conservative $100,000,000,000 in our real-world example) is only worth as much as the holder is willing to put back. If you invest enough back (through direct investment or purchases) to generate the creation of REAL jobs (preferably manufacturing, there’s already too many damn service-level jobs), then you’ll get the economy to prosper. But if you scram out of the country with those bag-fulls of money (a la looting), then there might as well be no money at all.
For any semblance of economic health in the latter scenario, you’d either have to bribe the media to paint an artificially-rosy picture of the economy, or you’d have to get creative with the notion of economic slavery. And as the former USSR would tell you, both can only go so far before the population snaps.
All the rest of the people will do is barter and some other form of valuation will come forward. One that each person has value in to be able to trade.
If all money is in one set of hands, then there might as well be no money at all.
Hehe… well honestly I don’t think there really can be a set answer with this kind of question. They could better,… everyone can always barter,… prisons are a great place if you want to see real commodity “currency” in action.
But like with Windows users, I suspect there are too many people with a preset notion of what is “money” (and an over-dependence on a super-entity to define it) that will never get used to the concept of something as primal to us as barter and trade, in much the same way as you have people fighting tooth and nail to defend themselves against free-as-in-speech software.
These are the people most likely to wallow in anguish, indebt themselves impulsively into poverty, and accept any kind of draconian legislation as long as it sounds like it will protect them. Ironically, they’d also be chronic complainers of the status quo, despite the fact that they’re very inactivity is what causes their anguish to begin with.
Those that do choose to help themselves and establish an alternate barter system, be it through trade of local goods or services or the use of time-based or commodity-based currency, are most likely to uphold the founding principles of the US. And precisely because of that, the legislative looters of the day will do everything in their power to make their lives as uncomfortable as possible, so as to set an example for those who choose freedom over complacency.
H.R. 875, or for the matter the frequent raids on the makers of the Liberty Dollar, are some such examples. Or even better yet, the history of Central/South America and the Caribbean in the past 50-60 years.
the more people with $100. I can align with my objectives, the more my $100. (and theirs is worth )
It’s worth as much as you can buy with it, so I’m not sure what eight people without any money has to do with the question. Why don’t you ask whatever question you are trying to imply.
Because that would get you to think.
Haha! Well adjusted for inflation, $100 USD by itself is worth squat compared to pre-Central Bank days. Maybe the purchasing equivalent of $5 or less when compared to 1910 dollars. And certainly depending on where you live, how many bills you pay, how many mouths to feed, and what kind of habits you inherited back when the economy “seemed” better, that $100 probably won’t last the week.
But in the context of this chart, the imagery does kinda remind me of the recent Wall Street “Bailouts” that stipulate that the economy will be saved by taking money from everyone else (excepting the military and economic aid to shady international allies) and handing it to key megacorporations in peril from their own stupidity. Almost like the 200x incarnation of Trickle Down economics; but just like that bit of craziness, this too is NOT economic insanity contrary to what most reasonable people would think. I personally view it as very ingenious and professionally-devised… looting. ^______^
That being said then, the $100 USD above (or a conservative $100,000,000,000 in our real-world example) is only worth as much as the holder is willing to put back. If you invest enough back (through direct investment or purchases) to generate the creation of REAL jobs (preferably manufacturing, there’s already too many damn service-level jobs), then you’ll get the economy to prosper. But if you scram out of the country with those bag-fulls of money (a la looting), then there might as well be no money at all.
For any semblance of economic health in the latter scenario, you’d either have to bribe the media to paint an artificially-rosy picture of the economy, or you’d have to get creative with the notion of economic slavery. And as the former USSR would tell you, both can only go so far before the population snaps.
>> then there might as well be no money at all.
For some reason I thought you’d get the answer.
All the rest of the people will do is barter and some other form of valuation will come forward. One that each person has value in to be able to trade.
If all money is in one set of hands, then there might as well be no money at all.
Hehe… well honestly I don’t think there really can be a set answer with this kind of question. They could better,… everyone can always barter,… prisons are a great place if you want to see real commodity “currency” in action.
But like with Windows users, I suspect there are too many people with a preset notion of what is “money” (and an over-dependence on a super-entity to define it) that will never get used to the concept of something as primal to us as barter and trade, in much the same way as you have people fighting tooth and nail to defend themselves against free-as-in-speech software.
These are the people most likely to wallow in anguish, indebt themselves impulsively into poverty, and accept any kind of draconian legislation as long as it sounds like it will protect them. Ironically, they’d also be chronic complainers of the status quo, despite the fact that they’re very inactivity is what causes their anguish to begin with.
Those that do choose to help themselves and establish an alternate barter system, be it through trade of local goods or services or the use of time-based or commodity-based currency, are most likely to uphold the founding principles of the US. And precisely because of that, the legislative looters of the day will do everything in their power to make their lives as uncomfortable as possible, so as to set an example for those who choose freedom over complacency.
H.R. 875, or for the matter the frequent raids on the makers of the Liberty Dollar, are some such examples. Or even better yet, the history of Central/South America and the Caribbean in the past 50-60 years.