Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: beet1e on December 28, 2003, 09:12:28 AM
-
Picture the scene. Lazs is back in Britain, tracing his ancestral roots. He's headed up to Scotland in a boring rental car, and pulls over at Scotch Corner on the A1 to have lunch at at cafe. Lunch comes to £4.50 and Lazs pays with a £5 note. He's getting ready to pocket the change, but decides to leave the 50p piece as a tip. Why would that be then? Scroll down...
Guess Lazs doesn't like our new 50p coin. :lol
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/50p.jpg)
Hehe, Lazs - it will be 2004 soon enough - and you should come back to visit. :D:cool:
-
LOL...nope he wouldn't want any of those out of principle.
-
Good grief. Neither do I.
But then I didn't like the stupid 'ring of hands' 50p we had when we joined the common market either.
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-9/48257/20029211530-0-Swoop.gif)
-
Don't do it! We gave them the vote and have been regretting it ever since! ;)
Yes, honey ... I'm just kidding. No really. I know. It was a bad joke. Please stop hitting me.
-
That's an ugly coin......
-
we should all join the fight to end women's sufferage. its a good cause
really
wink
-
looks like our susan be anthony dollar/quarter... women can't even do money right.
lazs
-
beet1e,
How much did 50 pence buy before women got the vote? As much as 50 pounds now, right? :)
miko
-
Lazs! Thanks for taking this in the good humour in which it was intended. :);):cool:
Miko - difficult to say, as the currency was different back before women got the vote. (That finally happened in 1918 in the UK) British currency was completely revised in 1971. 50 pence is half of £1 - worth a lot more back then just as 50 cents in the US was worth a lot more back then.
-
For much the same reason - the creep of socialism. Giving woman vote was not the deciding step in that process but a major one - at least in magnitude. Almost as bad as extending franchise to all men.
That ment switching to democracy and Western civilisation was doomed when that happened.
Of course once all men received the right to vote, there could not have been a valid reason to formally exclude women.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
For much the same reason - the creep of socialism.
Miko. You're an intelligent guy, but sometimes what you spout is complete bollocks. Inflation isn't caused by women in government. :rolleyes: Inflation is caused by spending what you don't have, and then having to print the money to pay the debts. That's a very simple synopsis, BTW, but valid all the same. Germany had riproaring inflation in the years following WW1. Was that caused by women in government? Probably not.
-
Beet1e,
You are an intelligent guy but apparently sometimes you confise a pure product of your imagination with reality.
Never did I say a word about "women in government".
I said that inflation is caused by socialist government which in turn is caused by increase in democracy (so reveled by the founding fathers and all liberty-loving philosophers of the 19th century) and that was caused by expansion of franchise from 3-5% to the whole male population and ultimatley to women.
As I've said, the women voting were not deciding - because their voting just doubled the franchise compared to increasing it 10-20 times originally - but the harm done by a single average voting woman is greater than that by a single average voting man.
There are also (anti-)social implications of women voting separately from men that affect economics indirectly through decline of traditional institutions of society like marriage and parenthood.
As for your statement about inflation, that one cited by you is the dumbest explanation of all - and I've seen quite a few - certainly not reflecting the intelligence of a writer, so I'll just assume you've repeated what you've heard without giving it a thought.
Money is created (not necessarily printed) before it can be loaned and/or spent.
As for using newly-printed money to pay the debts, I've never heard of a private debtor receiving such funds nor of a modern western government ever reducing its debts, so such a scenario while possible and actually inevitable has not happened yet.
Regards,
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Money is created (not necessarily printed) before it can be loaned and/or spent.
Well I wish you'd come over here and explain that to the British Labour Government Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Gordon Brown. He doesn't know about this, and draws up spending plans without knowing where the money is going to come from to pay for those plans. Of course, his solution is always the same - higher taxes after the event.
The previous Labour Government (1974-1979) was even worse than the one we have now. They got into power on the promise of ending the three day week to which Britain had been subjected as a means to conserve fuel through the winter of 1973/74. Of course, the only way they could end the three day week was to buy off the National Union of Mineworkers, who were on strike in pursuit of a wage settlement in the order of 30%. Behind the miners stood an array of other workers, all wanting their wage settlements, of a similar magnitude. The railway workers got 28% in 1975, for example.
Well guess what? Britain simply didn't have the money to pay those wages. So it had to be printed/created/whatever. That, coupled with the fact of much more money in the economy chasing the available goods and the fact that the Labour Chancellor, Denis Healey, had had to raise the basic rate of income tax to a punitive 35% led to the highest rate of inflation Britain has ever known. In July 1975 it reached 30% when expressed as an annual rate. My salary increased by more than 50% in a year, but I was worse off - because I was paying much more tax as well as having to pay much more for goods and services.
So there you have it. I lived through that period and got to know all about inflation - and the spending that resulted from negative real interest rates.
But I agree - socialism is evil, and simply doesn't work. Very fortunately, our salvation was delivered in the form of a new Prime Minister in 1979, Margaret Thatcher, who inherited a legacy of 83% income tax (with a 15% surcharge on investment income) and turned all that around so that the top rate of tax was 40%, and abolished the investment income surcharge.
"New" Labour is now undoing all the good work that was done in the 1980s.
I'd better leave it there, as Dowding will be along to flame me. Straffo too.
The Reagan-Thatcher years formed the most glorious passage of 20th century British history. :D
-
beet1e: Well I wish you'd come over here and explain that to the British Labour Government Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Gordon Brown.
He most likely reads Keynes or his discisples. You see - according to them the more you save, the less wealthy you become, while consumption, borrowing and waste makes us all richer - the so called "Paradox of Thrift".
He is probably beyong redemption just like american an other western governments.
You see - even if he believed the right economics, the paindull remedy could cause him political trouble while pushing the problems into the future when he is retired is very beneficial for him.
As the same Keymes sais "In the long run we are all dead". Keynes is certainly dead and we are living is his "long run" but our politicians are rationally (for them) implementing the same philisophy.
Well guess what? Britain simply didn't have the money to pay those wages. So it had to be printed/created/whatever.
OK, I see - the government made itself liable for that amount - and then had to create it to pay it. I can see how that is similar to making a debt first. Not technically the same, but basically identical.
We are facing the same here in about 12-15 years when the entitlement bills come due - and you probably as well.
Very fortunately, our salvation was delivered...
The rate of downfall temporarily slowed down.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
As for using newly-printed money to pay the debts, I've never heard of a private debtor receiving such funds nor of a modern western government ever reducing its debts, so such a scenario while possible and actually inevitable has not happened yet.
Canada has reduced it's debt for a few years running now.
-
miko:
You are an intelligent guy but apparently sometimes you confise a pure product of your imagination with reality.
this seems rather similar to "im sorry but:" and to this i must reference you to here (http://maddox.xmission.org/c.cgi?u=boiling_blood)
Never did I say a word about "women in government".
but you did say something about woman and the vote
Money is created (not necessarily printed) before it can be loaned and/or spent.
hmm...it seems most governments dont know that yet...maybe you should write a letter and remind them
As for using newly-printed money to pay the debts, I've never heard of a private debtor receiving such funds nor of a modern western government ever reducing its debts, so such a scenario while possible and actually inevitable has not happened yet.
you'd better pay closer attention to the world around you if you think thats the case
-
to get back on track.... allowing women (and womenly men) the vote is to plunge into socialism and ruin...
it is like moving out but still letting your mom tell you what to do.
lazs
-
Thrawn: Canada has reduced it's debt for a few years running now.
Canada... Canada... Where did I see that chart... Here it is. Oh, baby!
(http://www.economist.com/images/20031122/CFN066.gif)
vorticon: but you did say something about woman and the vote
Which relates to the women in government not at all.
you'd better pay closer attention to the world around you if you think thats the case
There must be some section on that page about saying "I don't know sh@t but want to sound like I do and just keep it secret".
storch: There lies plenty of cause for revoking that obviously failed experiment.
That is one of the things that are totally impossible to revoke - even in theory. We would have to ride it through the downfall of the civilisation and see if we can prevent it on the next cycle.
miko
-
Yes, our debt is large, but that doesn't mean we aren't paying it down.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
to get back on track.... allowing women (and womenly men) the vote is to plunge into socialism and ruin...
it is like moving out but still letting your mom tell you what to do.
lazs
Laz, give me a big holiday hug you Studmuffin.:D
Miko, wasn't the majority of that Implicit debt a result of predicted healthcare costs for the baby boomers?
-
torque... say hi to your mom for me.
Ok... I what I want is to end womens suffrage and to not allow non property owners the right to vote. If you live in a rat hole little apartment in new york city I don't wan't you voting on my rights...
simple realy. I don't think the founders really meant for non property owners to vote.
lazs
-
Thrawn: Yes, our debt is large, but that doesn't mean we aren't paying it down.
No, it does not. But we wouldn't know it either way - especially when we are talking about so small numbers of repayment compared to huge and nebulous values of liabilities.
It's just it is impossible to know wheather your country is reducing liabilities or accumulating them. And even it is reducing them, whether that comes from the reduction in your assets (capital decumulation) or from current income. Just as it is impossible to know the value of a country's liabilities.
Outside of a market price system there is no economic calculation possible. Even private companies dealing with asset valuation - insurance, investment, etc. know very well that the present discounted value of the future assets or liabilities depends on the outside factors like actuarial changes and interest rate.
The governments just take those numbers out of their collective asses.
Torque: Miko, wasn't the majority of that Implicit debt a result of predicted healthcare costs for the baby boomers?
Mostly Social Security and Healthcare, yes. Those are the ones that economists can estimate even if the politicians wouldn't. Besides those reflected in the chart, there are many more - like FDIC insurance and Pension Benefit Guarantee.
When the american car manufacturers go bust, who will pick the tab on their underfunded pensions?
lazs2: I don't think the founders really meant for non property owners to vote.
I believe it was not as much real property (land and buildings) as wealth. After all a piece of property and a large bank account or shares in a company are easily convertible and impair on the owner the same degree of future-orientedness.
Anyway, it's not as much who is allowed to vote as what is subject to vote. If the redistributive taxation and regulation was recognised unconstitutional as it should be, there would not be a problem with the voting itself.
miko