It’s pretty simple: freedom from market competition.
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-politicians-and-the-very-rich-benefit-the-most-in-a-socialist-society
It’s pretty simple: freedom from market competition.
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-politicians-and-the-very-rich-benefit-the-most-in-a-socialist-society
Telling people that the redistributive spigot will be brought to an end, and then creating opinion through repetition, by intent, is not going to make people confident. The question is, why do we want their confidence. Who negotiates better? USA, China, Russia?
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-26 03:06:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/945490964013043713
Reply addressees: @conradhackett
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/942642961833226240
IN REPLY TO:
@conradhackett
No confidence in Trump
🇲🇽Mexico 93%
🇪🇸Spain 92%
🇸🇪Sweden 90%
🇩🇪Germany 87%
🇹🇷Turkey 82%
🇬🇧UK 75%
🇨🇦Canada 75%
🇦🇺Australia 70% https://t.co/9O2jGJENoq
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/942642961833226240
The web was libertarian while it housed the technorati. Now that it is another mass-media with 50% of the advertising dollars concentrated in two companies, we have repetition of the past:literate church, the industrial state, and the electronic private sector: MONOPOLIES. Lying.
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-24 13:32:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/944923766831960065
Reply addressees: @plevy
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/944783727414185984
IN REPLY TO:
@plevy
Media and cultural evolution 📱 https://t.co/POideG59FR
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/944783727414185984
Explanation of consensus seems right. More so since ’09. I think monetary has been settled. And Karl Smith was right. The remaining debate is only over what capital we gain and lose outside of production. ie: civ, culture, norms, genes. But it’s a forbidden subject – since 1945.
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-24 01:21:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/944739891786731520
Reply addressees: @petergklein
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/944447480741154817
IN REPLY TO:
@petergklein
The rise and fall of debate in economics journals. The figure is informative, though I don’t agree with the particular explanation given in this 2014 blog post. https://t.co/1UhxhQp0aa https://t.co/HR9J4gdqfJ
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/944447480741154817
it is the only 100% guaranteed means of financial independence, and not having to work for someone ‘dumber’ than you are. 😉
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-there-such-a-high-degree-of-fascination-among-todays-youngsters-to-becoming-an-entrepreneur
ALL ABOUT MONEY: WHAT IS MONEY, GOOD MONEY, TOLERABLE MONEY, BAD MONEY, AND WHAT IS NOT MONEY.
(DRAFT: it’s getting too late to finish, and I’ve been sick for the past few days, so Ill finish this – as promised – later or tomorrow)
The main functions of money are distinguished as:
– A Store of Time.
… If I could educate people on just one idea, it would bet that our only existential commodity is time, and we are no wealthier than cave men, but through a continuously expanding division of labor due to property, money, prices, and contract, we produce more per moment of working life than ever before. So we are not wealthier than in the past, we have merley made everything vastly cheaper.
Hard money is the result of saved time. Credit money is the result of anticipated savings of time. Fiat money is the result of gambling that in the aggregate will will save time.
And so credit, and fiat money are only so valuable as there is opportunity to save time. This single idea is the basis of all of economics. Yet it is virtually unknown, and ever more rarely understood.
– A Store of Value (Purchasing power) – with stability of value (Purchasing power) within dependent production cycles.
– A Medium of Exchange – thereby satisfying the problem of “coincidence of wants”, and increasing the velocity of trade, by decreasing the friction (cost) of finding opportunities for trade, and performing that trade. Mediums of exchange save time.
– A Source of Liquidity – A commodity of continuous demand.
( … )
– A Provisioner of Prices.
( … )
– A Unit of Account;
( … )
– A Standard of Deferred Payment – debt, credit, interest,
( … )
– A Scope of Utility – “Range” – A commodity of demand sufficient for imputation for production cycles
( … )
To fulfill those functions, money must possess the following properties:
– Cognizable: its value must be easily identified.
…. Stamping ‘coins’ serves as a ‘trademark’.
…. Protecting that trademark serves to protect its value
…. Trademarking is … increasingly inordinately expensive.
( … )
– Unitary (‘countable’) by object, weight, volume – (and now index.)
( … )
– Fungible: its individual units must be capable of mutual substitution (i.e., interchangeability).
( … )
– Durable: able to withstand repeated use.
( … )
– Portable: easily carried and transported in relation to their purchasing power.
( … )
MONEY AND IT’S SUBSTITUTES (DEPENDENCIES)
( … )
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-20 20:29:00 UTC
I don’t know why I can’t get this across. BTC isn’t money and can’t be money but as a store of value the more money there is invested the less opportunity for manipulation and the greater the defense against inflation. So while it can’t be money, it sure can provide a medium of exchange, and if we are very, very lucky, a store of value. However, it is far too easy to see states taking it over (yes), and it is far too easy to see states heavily regulate it as a means of preventing money laundering. (that’s why banks may avoid it). But as a ‘common man’s store of value’ it has potential assuming volatility can be constrained by volume. The basic problem with gold is that there literally isn’t enough of it, and it’s too easy to manipulate the price.
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-20 17:45:00 UTC