[swave]

The price of ink for Kodak’s inkjet printers is only $10 for a black cartridge and $15 for a color ink cartridge. Still a lot for colored water, but much less than other companies.

[swave]

[quote=markmax33]

I thought one of the most educational points of the night was when Ron Paul described the difference between Crony Capitalism and real capitalism. I never thought of it this way but he was dead on. Companies that get rich from GOV bailouts, fed bailouts, sweetheart GOV contracts, etc are crony capitalism. Real capitalism is when Steve Jobs creates something unique for the market place and they love it. Real capitalism is when Starbucks started up from nothing, etc.[/quote]

Someone who made money by making the world a better place (cure cancer…) should definitely be treated differently from someone who made their money by cheating others or by crony capitalism.

The difficult question is (and there is always a difficult question) how is it decided which category someone is in. Or who gets to decide. There is always a huge grey area. Probably everyone is somewhere in the grey area. Just some are darker grey than others. Except for some in the financial industry. Many of them made all of their money without making society any better off.

[swave]

[quote]All great ideas. The only mainstream guy even attacking this issue is Dylan Ratigan and I think he deserves a ton of credit for it.[/quote]

Also Lawrence Lessig:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/lawrence-lessig-on-how-money-corrupts-congress-and-how-to-stop-it-20111005

[swave]

A company can always create and issue more stock. Then they have to find people to buy it. As with anything else, if it is priced properly, someone will buy it.

[swave]

I don’t understand your question. All of a company’s value is in stock. For Groupon, much of their stock is still owned by their founders. If a company wants to raise cash, they can always issue more stock and sell it to the public. This additional money will be added to the value of the company.

[swave]

[quote=markmax33][quote=swave][quote=markmax33][quote=swave]
Yes, 708 tons of gold were mined in the second quarter of this year, but 919 tons of gold were used in jewelry and electronics. The total amount of gold that has been mined is 165,000 tons. The amount available to back a currency is decreasing. [/quote]

The value of gold would go up and fewer people would use it in jewelery and the supply would increase. People would use some other precious metal. It would not be an issue.[/quote]

This would cause inflation for jewelry and electronic parts. Do you understand how exponential growth works? If the economy continues growing exponentially, demand for gold would grow exponentially. At some point in the not too distant future, we will run out. What then?[/quote]

Let’s put together a graph of population growth VS Gold supply VS money supply by the FED.

I GAURENTEE YOU THAT TWO OF THE LINES ARE FLAT AND ONE IS EXPONENTIAL. The FED’s printing will make the population growth look concave (saracasim, but it will look flat). All Ron Paul wants to do is legalize other currencies. Are you against that? He wouldn’t get rid of the FED overnight as you seem to fear. It would be clear from audits to the american people that it needs to be reformed. Do you think gold should be a legal currency? It’s not…Why not? Seems reasonable to me for competition.

Would you agree to a monetary system that only grew at the rate of population growth? That sounds rather reasonable based on your line of questioning? He has suggested that as part of a transition.[/quote]
We need to identify a system that works well with an economy that is not growing exponentially.
You would expect with increasing productivity, unemployment would increase if there is no growth in the economy. Neither the Fed nor the gold standard can deal with that problem.
The gold standard worked well for a while. The Fed also worked well for a while. But neither will work well for very long. The best solution that I have seen is described in this link:

Sacred Economics: Chapter 12, Negative-Interest Economics (Pt. 13)

[swave]

[quote=markmax33][quote=swave]
Yes, 708 tons of gold were mined in the second quarter of this year, but 919 tons of gold were used in jewelry and electronics. The total amount of gold that has been mined is 165,000 tons. The amount available to back a currency is decreasing. [/quote]

The value of gold would go up and fewer people would use it in jewelery and the supply would increase. People would use some other precious metal. It would not be an issue.[/quote]

This would cause inflation for jewelry and electronic parts. Do you understand how exponential growth works? If the economy continues growing exponentially, demand for gold would grow exponentially. At some point in the not too distant future, we will run out. What then?

[swave]

[quote=markmax33][quote=swave]It is great that Ron Paul is willing to tell us the truth. None of the other candidates are willing to do that. Unfortunately, he does not have the solution. If we go to a gold standard, the supply of money will be fixed. If the supply of money is fixed, the economy cannot expand. If the economy cannot expand, the unemployment rate will go up.
On the other hand, the economy cannot expand exponentially forever anyway. At some point, we will run out of resources.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/can-economic-growth-last/

The only realistic solution that I have seen is for the fed to accept deposits with a negative interest rate.

http://www.realitysandwich.com/sacred_economics_chapter_12%5B/quote%5D

This is incorrect. You can fix the money supply and some prices will drop, others will rise, but ironically the money supply wouldn’t be fixed. Gold is always being mined and the money supply will always be expanding on that standard. The point of the gold standard is the FIXED SUPPLY increase, not a fixed supply. Without that any currency gets out of control.[/quote]
Yes, 708 tons of gold were mined in the second quarter of this year, but 919 tons of gold were used in jewelry and electronics. The total amount of gold that has been mined is 165,000 tons. The amount available to back a currency is decreasing. A better commodity to use to back a currency is the environment. Clean water, clean air and undeveloped land.

I spend a lot of time swimming and surfing in the ocean. Ron Paul’s views do not encourage the maintenance of a clean ocean. I cannot afford to hire a lawyer to sue a company that has polluted the ocean.

[swave]

It is great that Ron Paul is willing to tell us the truth. None of the other candidates are willing to do that. Unfortunately, he does not have the solution. If we go to a gold standard, the supply of money will be fixed. If the supply of money is fixed, the economy cannot expand. If the economy cannot expand, the unemployment rate will go up.
On the other hand, the economy cannot expand exponentially forever anyway. At some point, we will run out of resources.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/can-economic-growth-last/

The only realistic solution that I have seen is for the fed to accept deposits with a negative interest rate.

Sacred Economics: Chapter 12, Negative-Interest Economics (Pt. 13)

[swave]

[quote=AN][quote=swave]Investing should be encouraged, but gambling should not be. A variable tax rate on capital gains would have this affect. From 99% tax rate on trades made in seconds or minutes to 0% on investments that last 50 years.[/quote]How many companies have been around for 50 years and how many have come and gone in less than 50 years? How many of those who survive actually beat the rate of inflation? For those who want to retire at 65, they would have to invest all their money they would retire with at 15. If they invest when they’re 40-50, which is usually one’s best earning year, you either have to pay HUGE taxes when you retire @65 or just pass it on to their heir (unless they live until 90-100 years old).[/quote]

Obviously, there would be other rates between these extremes. Perhaps 1% at 40 years, 2% at 30 years, 5% at 10 years, 10% at 5 years, 20% at 1 year, 30% at 6 months, 50% at 1 month and 70% at 1 week.

[swave]

[quote=AN][quote=swave]Investing should be encouraged, but gambling should not be. A variable tax rate on capital gains would have this affect. From 99% tax rate on trades made in seconds or minutes to 0% on investments that last 50 years.[/quote]How many companies have been around for 50 years and how many have come and gone in less than 50 years? How many of those who survive actually beat the rate of inflation? For those who want to retire at 65, they would have to invest all their money they would retire with at 15. If they invest when they’re 40-50, which is usually one’s best earning year, you either have to pay HUGE taxes when you retire @65 or just pass it on to their heir (unless they live until 90-100 years old).[/quote]

Obviously, there would be other rates between these extremes. Perhaps 1% at 40 years, 2% at 30 years, 5% at 10 years, 10% at 5 years, 20% at 1 year, 30% at 6 months, 50% at 1 month and 70% at 1 week.

[swave]

[quote=AN][quote=swave]Investing should be encouraged, but gambling should not be. A variable tax rate on capital gains would have this affect. From 99% tax rate on trades made in seconds or minutes to 0% on investments that last 50 years.[/quote]How many companies have been around for 50 years and how many have come and gone in less than 50 years? How many of those who survive actually beat the rate of inflation? For those who want to retire at 65, they would have to invest all their money they would retire with at 15. If they invest when they’re 40-50, which is usually one’s best earning year, you either have to pay HUGE taxes when you retire @65 or just pass it on to their heir (unless they live until 90-100 years old).[/quote]

Obviously, there would be other rates between these extremes. Perhaps 1% at 40 years, 2% at 30 years, 5% at 10 years, 10% at 5 years, 20% at 1 year, 30% at 6 months, 50% at 1 month and 70% at 1 week.

[swave]

[quote=AN][quote=swave]Investing should be encouraged, but gambling should not be. A variable tax rate on capital gains would have this affect. From 99% tax rate on trades made in seconds or minutes to 0% on investments that last 50 years.[/quote]How many companies have been around for 50 years and how many have come and gone in less than 50 years? How many of those who survive actually beat the rate of inflation? For those who want to retire at 65, they would have to invest all their money they would retire with at 15. If they invest when they’re 40-50, which is usually one’s best earning year, you either have to pay HUGE taxes when you retire @65 or just pass it on to their heir (unless they live until 90-100 years old).[/quote]

Obviously, there would be other rates between these extremes. Perhaps 1% at 40 years, 2% at 30 years, 5% at 10 years, 10% at 5 years, 20% at 1 year, 30% at 6 months, 50% at 1 month and 70% at 1 week.

[swave]

[quote=AN][quote=swave]Investing should be encouraged, but gambling should not be. A variable tax rate on capital gains would have this affect. From 99% tax rate on trades made in seconds or minutes to 0% on investments that last 50 years.[/quote]How many companies have been around for 50 years and how many have come and gone in less than 50 years? How many of those who survive actually beat the rate of inflation? For those who want to retire at 65, they would have to invest all their money they would retire with at 15. If they invest when they’re 40-50, which is usually one’s best earning year, you either have to pay HUGE taxes when you retire @65 or just pass it on to their heir (unless they live until 90-100 years old).[/quote]

Obviously, there would be other rates between these extremes. Perhaps 1% at 40 years, 2% at 30 years, 5% at 10 years, 10% at 5 years, 20% at 1 year, 30% at 6 months, 50% at 1 month and 70% at 1 week.

[swave]

[quote=jstoesz][quote=swave]Investing should be encouraged, but gambling should not be. A variable tax rate on capital gains would have this affect. From 99% tax rate on trades made in seconds or minutes to 0% on investments that last 50 years.[/quote]

I have thought about this very hard, but this strikes me as a solution which would result in severe market imbalances. Its ripe for unintended consequences. For example, arbitrage trading is something that has problems but also has a valid place in the market.[/quote]

I don’t think the market imbalances would be severe. Arbitrage trading would still occur. It would just be much less profitable, or occur over a longer time horizon. The winner shouldn’t be the person with the biggest computer. This is a huge waste of resources both in terms of expensive computers and smart people who might invent the next great product if they couldn’t make billions on Wall Street.

[Author]

Posts