Moonlapse

Red...

As far as I understand, the only stock investments worth having are those that pay cash dividends. Thoughts?

I'm sure that sort of thing can happen, but I don't know the current specific limitations on the creation of shares. I'm not quite into that topic yet. You can't prevent people from finding new ways to commit fraud so anything can happen, what matters is the consequences. What I mean is, when you centralize the control of anything, then that centralized control becomes a handle and anyone that can get a hold of that handle, by whatever means, has the control. For instance, the FDA provides a convenient handle for pharmaceutical corporations, its just a matter of finding a way to get a hold of it.

In a free market economy the government's job is to punish fraud and violations of property and individual rights. I understand this has to do with how fraud and rights are defined, but I'd say that Gould's actions were certainly fraudulent. However, if the government's role extends deeply into the market, then the potential for corruption runs just as deep.

Yeah, the London Fix and New York Spot are generally the benchmark of gold value.

AKA, fractional reserve banking.

Global Warming: Risks and Consequences This is footage of a Reason conference discussing the merits/disadvantages of the different policies currently being considered. I apologize to any statists.

The American credit junkie is getting another fix of monetary smack just in time for the elections!!! My answer is precious metals and non-dollar denominated investments.

Congress is passing an economic stimulus package that may put some 'free' money in your pocket, what will you do with it? You can select multiple options.

Magic mushroom dress!

From historical observation, when control of fiat money is in the hands of politicians and bankers, the temptation to create money from nothing has always been irresistible. Show me an exception, and I'll consider otherwise. I'm not sure I want to know...

I'm not talking about adapting afterwards, theoretically probable statistics are misleading at best. Exactly. We can't predict how it will turn out, but we do know that if things significantly warm up one definite effect would be a rise in sea level. There may be extreme weather such as flooding or drought, hot or cold. Adaptation to these things would require improvements to infrastructure which are by themselves beneficial regardless of anything else. One thing I'm absolutely convinced of after studying economics is that if governments restrict energy usage to the extent required to reverse or even cap CO2 production, it will surely result in economic ruin. In fact, I think we are headed that direction anyways, but thats besides the point. Recent economically damaging energy policies had almost no effect on CO2 output. Much alternative energy technology is already being developed because it is profitable. Letting this process proceed without economic burden will be the most efficient way to reduce consumption of fossil fuels and prevent human suffering.

I have similar struggles, here's some things to consider: Are you eating right and drinking enough water? Do you get sufficient and consistent sleep? Do you vigorously exercise on a regular basis? Do you do yoga/meditate/completely relax? Have you tried taking St. John's Wort? Do you spend time outdoors? Your body's condition can have a huge effect on your mind. If you can fulfill the above I guarantee you will feel better, but its a difficult challenge to do all those things. Also, spending a lot of time in front of a computer can really drag my mood down.

(psst, Neil was being sarcastic) Here's a few questions. Assume that global average temperature will rise several degrees C over the next century. Which is more practical: adapting to predicted changes, or trying to control the temperature indirectly by reducing energy usage? Considering the failure of past and current supranational CO2 controls, how could we possibly reverse or even significantly reduce CO2 output without crushing economies worldwide? Would adaptation or CO2 control prevent the most human suffering?

But remember that we were accommodating a huge influx of immigrants. We had excellent GDP growth and slightly dropping prices at the same time. If the currency had been inflated, it would have taken a horrible toll on the poorest people by devaluing any savings and driving up prices. Inflating currency benefits those who get their hands on the newly created money first, the bankers. By the time it makes its way into the economy the cost in terms of value has been socialized to the people who get their hands on it last. Any savings they have are devalued and anything they want to buy is more expensive. The point is, those people would have been poor regardless. Many came to America with practically nothing. Inflation would have made them poorer. Despite the fact that they were poor, their standards of living grew considerably.

A population boom of that magnitude is hard to overstate, considering that most of the country was undeveloped. What do you think would happen if in 1865 a central bank with fiat policy was created? Towards the end of the century, US dollars were appreciating and prices were decreasing. Would it have been better if dollars depreciated and prices rose?

I paid $7.59 for a 4-pack. Oh, WOW! I knew there was something about that artwork I liked! I checked out the site, and now I've got to go buy The Joke's Over. Thanks, Moon! -- Nephele You're welcome!

Ahhh, don't get me started. I'll sum it up: more Federal control = more expensive with less quality. Period. The more the Department of Education tries to fix the problems they create with well intended bureaucracy, the worse the problems get. The cultural problems pointed out are catalyzing consequences, not the source of the problem. If parental and local guidance overpowers the effects of schooling bureaucracy, the kid will turn out OK. http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?automo...p;showentry=976

Should be a good, freely available introductory course on the Principate. http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details...esid=1906978539 There is also an Ancient Mediterranean World course from last semester: http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details...esid=1906978476

Yeah, Ralph Steadman is a weirdo! http://www.ralphsteadman.com/

http://www.flyingdogales.com/beer-horn-dog.asp I'm thoroughly enjoying this one. It's malty and sweet, the 10+% alcohol makes me warm inside.

How does a person have energy without cocaine? Interest rates would be naturally low since prices would tend to deflate instead of inflate and gold production, without intervention, would sufficiently accommodate market demand for money. Any gold overproduction would automatically make mining less profitable and reduce supply. There would be a much higher rate of saving and investing, capital would tend to be used toward its most efficient ends rather than being destructively squandered, trusting in fiat bailouts. It's not as if credit would disappear, it would be allocated more wisely. Once upon a time people saved up and earned interest in order to consume in the future instead of borrowing and paying interest at the expense of future consumption in order to consume now. We haven't had a real correction in many decades, if you are comparing the deflationary panics in the 19th century to the inflationary downturns we've had more recently. Can I trade the next decade for a typical 19th century panic, please? That's why any form of debasement or fraudulent expansion should be outlawed, and politicians should not be able to get their foot in the door on this matter. Indeed, our republican experiment was something new, and our 19th century monetary system, while flawed, accommodated an unbelievable amount of immigration and some of the most impressive gains in the standard of lower class living ever seen, simultaneously. Despite the unavoidable social turmoil, I seriously doubt any other system could have accomplished the same. Consider how long gold has been used and its particular usefulness as currency, and consider the times in history when debasement was most limited, and consider the short lifespan of fiat monetary systems.

"Do you think that gold could support the above?" What specifically are you referring to? "Would our economy be what it is if not for a fiat currency?" No. I think it would be far more stable and sustainable in the long term. Market corrections would be fast and short. Our GDP wouldn't be 70% credit driven consumption and we wouldn't be on the verge of stagflation. The government would be limited to a realistic budget. Your retirement funds would retain value over time. I think you are referring to the years 1979/80. Gold prices increased during the 70's after the dollar became completely fiat. Gold price was driven up as a reaction to the huge inflation and political turmoil of those years, until Volker forced a corrective recession with high short term interest rates and individuals and banks sold off much of their gold. Oil prices, along with most other commodities, spiked at the same time. Gold is not a good way to make a profit, its a way to preserve purchasing power because its the most ideal natural means of exchange, as proven by thousands of years of human history.

Of Human Bondage by W. Somerset Maugham has struck me as one of the best that I've ever read, though if you can't relate to the story, it must be horribly boring.

You're welcome!