Verizon isnt any better. I tried the same method Ive been doing to lower my bills for the last 5 years and they told me to go ahead and cancel. No offer to stay. No promotional rates.
It's the elite 2 % squeezing everyone so that they can make more Billions. Screw em just cancel it altogether and Read....lol
I always vote at every election so that way I can have the right to tell people, "I told you so" when it doesn't work out since most people just vote for the sake of voting and don't research the issues and people up for election.
"I actually have rather more inclination toward the "money is a promise" point of view, than might have been obvious if you read just this one post. You might be interested in some of my other posts on inflation (I linked to one in the main post.)"
I'm with ya. I get really bothered by the' "sticky on the downside" argument regarding wages as a justification for inflation (referring to your other post). It seems a lot like they are saying something akin to, "In the case of deflation, regular people make way too much of what should be our money. We have to expand the money supply to correct this."
A buddy of mine has put together a little slideshow regarding inflation and the effects it has on economies and regular people. It might come off as a little sensational at first, but I think he is right on the money (er, I mean fiat currency) with it. It is at matt.com if you are interested in checking it out.
You're absolutely right that the Chinese workers got screwed out of the value of their labor. Much of the value accrued to Americans, who were able to buy more cheap crap with their overvalued dollars.
I actually have rather more inclination toward the "money is a promise" point of view, than might have been obvious if you read just this one post. You might be interested in some of my other posts on inflation (I linked to one in the main post.)
You might also be interested in my post Wage Slave, Debt Slave, which touches on some of the issues you're alluding to.
Oh yeah! I'm voting in the Sestak vs. Toomey race. Not to mention Dan "Tunnel to Nowhere" Onorato vs. Tom Corbett for PA State Governor. It's an interesting political year in PA!
I'm definitely voting in this election. For me it is not about political parties; California desperately needs to be reformed and I am voting for who I feel will do the better job. Also, I am NOT re-electing anyone who is currently in office because they've all had their turn and it's time to give someone else a chance to try something else--apparently what they're doing isn't working.
I plan to vote, and I encourage all voters to thoroughly research the candidates before going to the polls. Don't just rely on ads. Think for yourself!
"But shifting exchange rates turn out to be a very good way to adjust to economic realities. Imagine if China had not been manipulating the value of the yuan all this time. If its value had drifted up as the Chinese economy grew, many of the problems we're dealing with now would have been avoided. A lot of production would still have moved to China in search of cheap labor, but not as much, because the labor would have grown more expensive a bit more quickly. At the same time, Chinese workers would have been paid in a currency that was growing in value, increasing their access to foreign products. They probably wouldn't have imported a lot more, but they've have imported some more stuff from overseas, easing the trade surplus."
To me, it all comes down to a sense of justice and fairness that I admit may be outdated in modernity (or is this post-modernity, or post-post?).
The people of China have been working against a purposefully weakened yuan, and so, as you said, they have been unable to reap the rewards of their labor (access to imported goods, among other things). This made Chinese factory workers virtual servants of western consumers (I hesitate to use the word "slave" but I feel I almost could).
Speaking broadly, it seems like currency devaluation always hurts the lower echelons of society. Rich guys become richer guys. The lower casts are unable to save money or purchase goods in the same way they would be able to otherwise. I don't like the idea of the elites of our world being able to rob the workers without the workers ever knowing how it happened. Then again, I am one of those hard currency guys. :)
I'm concerned that if the excise tax is reduced or eliminated that the children of the wealthy won't experience the character building value of work. They'll just become shiftless and drink or take drugs all day. Let's protect them from themselves by raising the excise tax.
Absolutely I will vote. I always try to remember to vote especially in the local elections since so many of our family friends run for office (including my husband). I always feel it is a privilege and an honor to vote, I hate to miss out.
1. I should be worried about higher taxes on the rich because they'll piss off my boss? You're assuming my boss makes more than $250,000, which I must tell you is unlikely.
2. I should be worried about missing the Christmas party? You mean the Christmas party that's been cancelled for two years running because of the economy? Bzzt. "Perks" do no offset taxes. Try again.
3. First, spare me the Randian "We'll all go Galt" lite routine. Second, if people worked a little less, I don't think it would kill anyone. If a few doctors cut their hours, and there's still demand...then more people will move into the field.
4. This one just buried the needle on my BS detector, David. The rich already have plenty and to spare. They buy what they need, and what they want. The extra goes offshore and into tax shelters. You're not trying very hard here, unless just scaring the bejesus out of the ill-informed was the goal.
5. Yes, I'm sure wealthy Manhattanites are just *lining up* to get the hell outta Dodge, because there are so few reasons now to leave. Come off it.
6. My child will suffer if the deficit is not reduced and the debt paid down. That's simply going to *require* higher taxes.
I'm really surprised this post passed whatever WiseBread employs as a smell test, because it stinks of linkbait.
I've been watching this stuff happen for a long time now. I wasn't around when the government seized all the private gold back in 1933, but I do remember when Nixon closed the gold window in 1971—basically seizing all the public gold. (If he hadn't done so, all of our gold would have ended up in the hands of the French.)
Until 1971, foreign exchange rates were technically fixed—the dollar fixed to gold, all other currencies fixed to the dollar—although they did change from time to time. (Changes were a big deal.) After 1971, with the dollar fixed to nothing, it became steadily more difficult to maintain those parities. (Changes became steadily more common.)
In my mind, the transition was pretty much complete in 1981. In that year my economics professor in a Money and Banking course said, "floating exchange rates work." The transition from money-as-promise ($1 = 13.7 grains of gold) to money-as-price ($1 = whatever it buys in the market) was complete.
But you're right—a lot of people still feel like money is a promise. And that makes sense. Money ought to serve as a standard. It shouldn't make any more sense to devalue the dollar than it would make to devalue the yard or the gallon. (As of tomorrow, the gallon will be 121.65 fluid ounces....)
But shifting exchange rates turn out to be a very good way to adjust to economic realities. Imagine if China had not been manipulating the value of the yuan all this time. If its value had drifted up as the Chinese economy grew, many of the problems we're dealing with now would have been avoided. A lot of production would still have moved to China in search of cheap labor, but not as much, because the labor would have grown more expensive a bit more quickly. At the same time, Chinese workers would have been paid in a currency that was growing in value, increasing their access to foreign products. They probably wouldn't have imported a lot more, but they've have imported some more stuff from overseas, easing the trade surplus.
There'd still have been imbalances, but they'd be relatively minor—something that could be worked out. Instead, we've got this current mess.
I am a first-time voter for all elections. My husband pushed me into it.
Verizon isnt any better. I tried the same method Ive been doing to lower my bills for the last 5 years and they told me to go ahead and cancel. No offer to stay. No promotional rates.
It's the elite 2 % squeezing everyone so that they can make more Billions. Screw em just cancel it altogether and Read....lol
I always vote at every election so that way I can have the right to tell people, "I told you so" when it doesn't work out since most people just vote for the sake of voting and don't research the issues and people up for election.
"I actually have rather more inclination toward the "money is a promise" point of view, than might have been obvious if you read just this one post. You might be interested in some of my other posts on inflation (I linked to one in the main post.)"
I'm with ya. I get really bothered by the' "sticky on the downside" argument regarding wages as a justification for inflation (referring to your other post). It seems a lot like they are saying something akin to, "In the case of deflation, regular people make way too much of what should be our money. We have to expand the money supply to correct this."
A buddy of mine has put together a little slideshow regarding inflation and the effects it has on economies and regular people. It might come off as a little sensational at first, but I think he is right on the money (er, I mean fiat currency) with it. It is at matt.com if you are interested in checking it out.
How is 3% extra on earnings over $250k considered "high taxes"?
You're absolutely right that the Chinese workers got screwed out of the value of their labor. Much of the value accrued to Americans, who were able to buy more cheap crap with their overvalued dollars.
I actually have rather more inclination toward the "money is a promise" point of view, than might have been obvious if you read just this one post. You might be interested in some of my other posts on inflation (I linked to one in the main post.)
You might also be interested in my post Wage Slave, Debt Slave, which touches on some of the issues you're alluding to.
Oh yeah! I'm voting in the Sestak vs. Toomey race. Not to mention Dan "Tunnel to Nowhere" Onorato vs. Tom Corbett for PA State Governor. It's an interesting political year in PA!
I will definitely be voting
yes, I will vote
I'm definitely voting in this election. For me it is not about political parties; California desperately needs to be reformed and I am voting for who I feel will do the better job. Also, I am NOT re-electing anyone who is currently in office because they've all had their turn and it's time to give someone else a chance to try something else--apparently what they're doing isn't working.
I will definitely be casting my vote.
I will definitely be voting. I vote in every election.
I plan to vote, and I encourage all voters to thoroughly research the candidates before going to the polls. Don't just rely on ads. Think for yourself!
I'm definitely voting this year, although I seriously doubt my candidates will win. Oh well, at least they have MY support.
Wisebread-- double check your post scheduling software. I'm pretty sure you guys meant this article for April 1st.
I already voted by absentee ballot!
"But shifting exchange rates turn out to be a very good way to adjust to economic realities. Imagine if China had not been manipulating the value of the yuan all this time. If its value had drifted up as the Chinese economy grew, many of the problems we're dealing with now would have been avoided. A lot of production would still have moved to China in search of cheap labor, but not as much, because the labor would have grown more expensive a bit more quickly. At the same time, Chinese workers would have been paid in a currency that was growing in value, increasing their access to foreign products. They probably wouldn't have imported a lot more, but they've have imported some more stuff from overseas, easing the trade surplus."
To me, it all comes down to a sense of justice and fairness that I admit may be outdated in modernity (or is this post-modernity, or post-post?).
The people of China have been working against a purposefully weakened yuan, and so, as you said, they have been unable to reap the rewards of their labor (access to imported goods, among other things). This made Chinese factory workers virtual servants of western consumers (I hesitate to use the word "slave" but I feel I almost could).
Speaking broadly, it seems like currency devaluation always hurts the lower echelons of society. Rich guys become richer guys. The lower casts are unable to save money or purchase goods in the same way they would be able to otherwise. I don't like the idea of the elites of our world being able to rob the workers without the workers ever knowing how it happened. Then again, I am one of those hard currency guys. :)
Over the 40-some years I've been registered, I missed one primary when I was stationed overseas. I'll use early voting this year to reduce the lines.
Of course! I vote in every election.
I'm concerned that if the excise tax is reduced or eliminated that the children of the wealthy won't experience the character building value of work. They'll just become shiftless and drink or take drugs all day. Let's protect them from themselves by raising the excise tax.
Absolutely I will vote. I always try to remember to vote especially in the local elections since so many of our family friends run for office (including my husband). I always feel it is a privilege and an honor to vote, I hate to miss out.
Wait, wait, let me be sure I understand this:
1. I should be worried about higher taxes on the rich because they'll piss off my boss? You're assuming my boss makes more than $250,000, which I must tell you is unlikely.
2. I should be worried about missing the Christmas party? You mean the Christmas party that's been cancelled for two years running because of the economy? Bzzt. "Perks" do no offset taxes. Try again.
3. First, spare me the Randian "We'll all go Galt" lite routine. Second, if people worked a little less, I don't think it would kill anyone. If a few doctors cut their hours, and there's still demand...then more people will move into the field.
4. This one just buried the needle on my BS detector, David. The rich already have plenty and to spare. They buy what they need, and what they want. The extra goes offshore and into tax shelters. You're not trying very hard here, unless just scaring the bejesus out of the ill-informed was the goal.
5. Yes, I'm sure wealthy Manhattanites are just *lining up* to get the hell outta Dodge, because there are so few reasons now to leave. Come off it.
6. My child will suffer if the deficit is not reduced and the debt paid down. That's simply going to *require* higher taxes.
I'm really surprised this post passed whatever WiseBread employs as a smell test, because it stinks of linkbait.
I've been watching this stuff happen for a long time now. I wasn't around when the government seized all the private gold back in 1933, but I do remember when Nixon closed the gold window in 1971—basically seizing all the public gold. (If he hadn't done so, all of our gold would have ended up in the hands of the French.)
Until 1971, foreign exchange rates were technically fixed—the dollar fixed to gold, all other currencies fixed to the dollar—although they did change from time to time. (Changes were a big deal.) After 1971, with the dollar fixed to nothing, it became steadily more difficult to maintain those parities. (Changes became steadily more common.)
In my mind, the transition was pretty much complete in 1981. In that year my economics professor in a Money and Banking course said, "floating exchange rates work." The transition from money-as-promise ($1 = 13.7 grains of gold) to money-as-price ($1 = whatever it buys in the market) was complete.
But you're right—a lot of people still feel like money is a promise. And that makes sense. Money ought to serve as a standard. It shouldn't make any more sense to devalue the dollar than it would make to devalue the yard or the gallon. (As of tomorrow, the gallon will be 121.65 fluid ounces....)
But shifting exchange rates turn out to be a very good way to adjust to economic realities. Imagine if China had not been manipulating the value of the yuan all this time. If its value had drifted up as the Chinese economy grew, many of the problems we're dealing with now would have been avoided. A lot of production would still have moved to China in search of cheap labor, but not as much, because the labor would have grown more expensive a bit more quickly. At the same time, Chinese workers would have been paid in a currency that was growing in value, increasing their access to foreign products. They probably wouldn't have imported a lot more, but they've have imported some more stuff from overseas, easing the trade surplus.
There'd still have been imbalances, but they'd be relatively minor—something that could be worked out. Instead, we've got this current mess.
Nope. I don't know nearly enough to make an informed decision.
I already voted. That's the beauty of mail in ballots (of course, I would love to actually go to a polling place and vote once in my life).