Occupy Wall Street/occupy Federal Reserve

[Velokid1]

If it makes you feel any better, just imagine a world where the currency problems were fixed and yet we would all be still left dealing with all the standard and unavoidable challenges brought on by our human bodies, hearts and minds. I have a feeling the guy who is happy now would be happy then. And the guy who's disgruntled and dissatisfied with life now would also still be so.

[BellePlaine]

Maybe, but I think that we are talking about real important problems which need to be acknowledged and addressed. I don't think that the protesters are generally unhappy and disgruntled. At least I hope not, otherwise who would take them/us seriously?

[Velokid1]

Sorry- I broadened the conversation without warning. I meant the guy who is happy now, in general, and the guy who is disgruntled now, in general. Not the guy who is happy with the bullshit banking situation and the guy who is disgruntled with it.

I am in the fight too, I was just having a moment where I realized that whether the economy is good or bad, whether the evil folks are running things or not, whether it rains tomorrow or doesn't... happy people tend to be happy regardless and bummer people like myself tend to be bummers.

I took a left turn without signaling. My bad.

[ruckman101]

Two more lefts make a right Velo.

Now there's a veer.


neal

[Velokid1]

I'm on it!

[BellePlaine]

I think that a lot of people don't want to be bothered. Due to the shear "volume" of information it can be overwhelming. I don't think that you are a bummer person, Velo. I don't know how a sane person can be "happy" with the way things are going system-wise though.

It's an interesting video that dingo posted. I'm attracted to it because it seems to make good sense of the way this system works. I don't see how it (the system) could be changed to favor the 99% (or 100% actually) without doing away with fiat.

[dingo]

" The real problem we have here is that there is this deadly embrace between the Federal reserve, Wall Street and Congress. Congress desperately wants to spend more than it takes in in taxes, because it is supporting the myth that the economy is OK and not totally collapsing. You have the Wall Street banks that are anxious to earn their vig so that they can pay their bonuses, and then you have the Federal Reserve which is the handmaiden that is enabling both those things along with the offshoring and the disasterous trade imbalance. And all three of these parties are kind of locked together holding hands saying lalalala...and what you end up with at the end of the day is... selling a bunch of trash to people claiming that its perfectly good paper...."


karl denninger

[Amskeptic]

happy people tend to be happy regardless and bummer people like myself tend to be bummers.

I am a happy person to my own great confusion, and I enjoy being passionately pissed-off at this not-at-all-rational increasing inequity.

Spent two hours yesterday conversing with a perfect stranger in Georgia, who might be visiting this site (hey, introduce yourself), about the economic challenges and the responsible parties to our pressing problems. Enjoyable conversation about topics that are a pain in the heart.
Colin
(so I had finally precipitated the floating disasters down to a pretty solid little lump of "campaign finance reform is the key", and I read this morning that the Republicans are trying to cut off public funding of presidential elections all together)

[Velokid1]

I am a happy person to my own...

Sounds a little like a refutation but it demonstrates my point precisely.

[Amskeptic]

I am a happy person to my own...

Sounds a little like a refutation but it demonstrates my point precisely.

Sure. There have been great human beings who dragged through life as miserably as can be. Lincoln was saddled with "melancholia". Do you suppose in today's world of comfort and convenience, that Lincoln's "life coach" or therapist would have drugged him?

I do have terrible moods and hopeless despair and rail at God frequently, but good grief, look at the weather cams sometimes displayed on the Weather Channel that are all speeded up and suppose that that our moods are no different. I can ride out a six day bleakstorm OK.
Some moods are Seattle and some are Phoenix, but it rains in both places and it is sunny in both places, and both places have loyal adherents all of whom have to get up in the morning and make their day.
Colin

[Velokid1]

I would like to think that if Lincoln's depression were mild enough that he were able to function at an acceptable level (and considering his accomplishments, we see that was the case), then he would make the wise choice to forgo anti-depressant drug therapy, as I have. Happiness doesn't come easy for everyone and it is never pervasive in life, no matter what Nancy PermaPositive wants the people in adjoining cubicles to believe. If happiness is within your grasp without drugs, then taking them seems like a risky and perhaps lazy way of going about it. I would like to think of Lincoln as someone willing to work for something, including his own intermittent happiness.

I tore through Lincoln's Melancholy in just a couple days.

[Amskeptic]

Happiness doesn't come easy for everyone and it is never pervasive in life,

... and it is no goal. People who *seek* happiness, I don't know but it appears to me, seem to go into a very subtle split, where their true spirits have to hide behind a public circus act, it looks unreal, I do not trust it.

What the hell is so wonderful about happiness that you have to search for it and splat it all over your mug at the Christmas party, and fake it up for your kids who sense damn well that something is not real and may change at any instant?

I have played with kids when I was dispirited and exhausted, and it was great! to be a bad date with Barbie, and sometimes it made us laugh pretty hard too, "Barbie, I want to go home."
"You can't, I am driving. I will give you a cookie."

Have any of us been given good permission to enjoy our sad moods? I fricken demand it in my universe. I can be sad, quiet (no, really), tired, and polite. That is the rule, enjoy your moods and be polite about it.
Colin

[BellePlaine]

It's an interesting video that dingo posted. I'm attracted to it because it seems to make good sense of the way this system works. I don't see how it (the system) could be changed to favor the 99% (or 100% actually) without doing away with fiat.

Bear with me, please, because I’m having a new revelation. I bring it up to test the logic only, not to change anyone’s mind but my own. I used to believe that the FIAT system is unfair to the savers because the VOLUME of money increases without the VALUE of money increasing. We can smash a one-pound bag of potato chips and get more chips but it’s still just one pound. I find this unfair, or kind of a tax, on savings. I think that FIAT makes credit artificially easy to obtain which then could lead to predatory lending, crushing credit card debt, and inflated prices on stuff.

I’m now realizing that FIAT is worse than just an attack of value of money, it’s also unfair to the 99% and those that don’t/can’t save. The reason is that those entities that get to circulate newly created money into the system get to do so without inflation. Their spending buys them more because the value of money has not been diluted, yet. They are given big potato chips, however by the time the 99% get to spend this new money, the supply has been diluted, the costs of goods are inflated, and the potato chip is smaller.

This screen shot is from dingo’s video. It shows who gets to spend the new money first and it’s is the source my new realization.



Back at the start of the Occupy movement, you’d see protesters protesting the Fed but I haven’t heard any noise about it lately. Is this still a general concern for the Occupiers, or just the Ron Paul followers? Is my logic sound?

[BellePlaine]

I’ll play the Devil’s Advocate with myself: FIAT isn’t that bad.

• It allows us to keep the tax rates low(er) and still fund large projects such as wars, entitlements, and bailouts.
• Sure, it can create speculative bubbles from time-to-time, but mostly it can smooth out natural business cycles.
• It allows us to keep our wages from going down, but it doesn’t always keep up with inflation.
• Governments are able to prime a stalling economy by flooding it with cash which then creates demand for goods/services which then creates jobs and sustains the demand.

GOLD STANDARD is bad.

• Recessions happen as markets adjust to balance out supply and demand.
• There is only so much gold to be had, the prices of stuff (like the investment in your house) would fall.
• Interest rates would be higher and it would be harder to borrow, although more rewarding to save.
• Governments would have to raise unpopular taxes to fund large projects.

Request for your opinion: Which is better for the 99%, FIAT or GOLD? Your thoughts? I promise to listen and not to knee-jerk a response to whatever you say. I'm trying to understand the logic and long-term benefit/sustainability of the FIAT system.

Am I over blowing the advantage that the orginal money holder has, (the 1%) when newly created money is spent before inflation? Does this not increase the deficit between the rich and middle class?

[Lanval]

I’ll play the Devil’s Advocate with myself: FIAT isn’t that bad.

• It allows us to keep the tax rates low(er) and still fund large projects such as wars, entitlements, and bailouts.
• Sure, it can create speculative bubbles from time-to-time, but mostly it can smooth out natural business cycles.
• It allows us to keep our wages from going down, but it doesn’t always keep up with inflation.
• Governments are able to prime a stalling economy by flooding it with cash which then creates demand for goods/services which then creates jobs and sustains the demand.

GOLD STANDARD is bad.

• Recessions happen as markets adjust to balance out supply and demand.
• There is only so much gold to be had, the prices of stuff (like the investment in your house) would fall.
• Interest rates would be higher and it would be harder to borrow, although more rewarding to save.
• Governments would have to raise unpopular taxes to fund large projects.

Request for your opinion: Which is better for the 99%, FIAT or GOLD? Your thoughts? I promise to listen and not to knee-jerk a response to whatever you say. I'm trying to understand the logic and long-term benefit/sustainability of the FIAT system.

Am I over blowing the advantage that the orginal money holder has, (the 1%) when newly created money is spent before inflation? Does this not increase the deficit between the rich and middle class?

Historically, the gold standard has been held by the 1%; inflation is the saviour of the debtor, or so the free soil party would have had us believe. In effect, as the value of a given unit (dollar) goes down, the number of units per item (actual good, let's say a bushel of wheat) goes up. This means that in an inflationary model (decrease in value of units) you can borrow 10 dollars, but pay it back for less than ten dollars (loan is in fixed unit price, doesn't change according to the number of items it can buy). Thus you could borrow a bunch of money to buy a farm, and wait for inflation to enable you to pay back the loan at a value below what you actually borrowed, though still the same in the technical (numerical) sense.

I don't know if a system of inflation is "sustainable" as a system, but there's a reason we don't have half-pennies anymore. Inflation is a given over time, as long as the number of consumers stays equal to, or greater than, the amount of items (products, food, whatever people want to consume) consumed by people. Since population has been going up steadily since at least the 16th century, inflation is the outcome.

Generally the Gold standard is best if you already have a lot of gold (i.e. you are wealthy), since that maintains your wealth with a high degree of stability.

Best,

Michael L