Lately he's been sounding a bit like the 'shart...

Jack Jones wrote:

BearBones wrote: Haven't read this thread thoroughly, and may have asked this before. But why ever own a neg yielding bond when you can own cash?

If someone will pay you more for that bond than you paid for it.

Okay, but why would anyone ever buy one?

Vegans, vegetarians, paleos, sushi lovers, brisket lovers (kudos to Desert) all vs. each other, cigar smokers vs. the evil tobacco folks, NASCAR lovers vs. the ballet lovers.  The lists are endless and I did not even get to the Pollock jokes, Aggie jokes, strong armed posturing by nations, Christia...

MediumTex wrote:

Reub wrote: Oh, it's now being spread by sex so is that a problem for anyone here?

I think that anyone who is having sex with mosquitos should be ashamed of themselves.

You're just a mean old social conservative!!

Also, as I think PS pointed out, much of Bernie's crazy would be neutralized by Congress.  But particularly in terms of things like foreign intervention, he'd have his way.

Assuming he doesn't just do an end-around around Congress, of course.

As I recall, it was because the RINO establishment was roundly rejected by the voters.  I don't think there's anything strange about it at all.

Long bonds are for deflation.  If you hold a promise for $x in the future, and those dollars are worth more and more, then that promise is worth more.

But "revenue neutrality" only matters if deficits/debts matter, right? Otherwise, who cares?  We could implement all of B. Sanders' ideas without raising tax revenue one dime, and just borrow what we need. There are plenty of reasons to be against government action in whatever area.  It's...

Well someone's got to ask the obvious follow-up question... If the idea that revolutions in an anarcho-capitalist society is absurd because there are no examples, isn't the idea of a stable anarcho-capitalist society absurd as well?  Because there are none of these either. I believe that was tech's...

I think I can help, Moda...  I don't think that's the real Donald Trump.  It's @realfakeDonaldTrump.

I'm really pretty sure that's not how it works.  W-M hires just enough people to cover the demand they have, they don't consider cashiers "revenue bringers".  And, it's only if they have or anticipate having increased demand that they hire more people. That could be true, but it's not gen...

Sure, they could. But if it's high enough to eliminate poverty, it would be high enough that a number of people might easily choose not to work and just live on the dividend. I don't have a problem with that.  If the citizens' dividend is that big, then so be it. Then, what happens to our productiv...

Again, most jobs don't really work that way. Most employees don't "bring in revenue", they just do their jobs.  The revenue comes from other things, like customer demand.  It's true that if your revenue isn't larger than your expenses, then your business is in trouble.  And it's true that...

If a citizen's dividend would be high enough to accomplish it's objective, it would probably be high enough that it could discourage working. Anybody who wanted extra money could go out and earn it without penalty.  That's what's missing from need-based programs. Sure, they could. But if it's high ...

I'm saying that the notion of "value delivered to employers" is generally not a good way to look at it.  Unless you're working on an assembly line where you can count exactly how many widgets somebody puts together (or some analogous job), it's not really how most jobs work.  Most jobs ju...

jafs wrote: If a citizen's dividend would be high enough to accomplish it's objective, it would probably be high enough that it could discourage working.

Anybody who wanted extra money could go out and earn it without penalty.  That's what's missing from need-based programs.

A citizen's dividend is something worth seriously looking into.  Assuming it comes at the benefit of dropping a LOT of regulations and programs, such as minimum wage, welfare, etc, AND assuming it could be worked out who's a citizen, then it solves the poverty problem without creating a lot of dist...

It's a basic human dignity thing for me, that's all. That's how I define "worth" in this case - a human being willing to work full-time deserves to get paid enough to support themselves (modestly, not extravagantly). As I said, what are the alternatives?  Sadism or government assistance. ...

"asinine" is both profane and insulting. There's no way it's profane.  Donkeys are asinine, cows are bovine, pigs are porcine, etc. Insulting, maybe, but I didn't say YOU were asinine, just that one remark you made was "pretty asinine".  That is, attempting to tell employers wha...

I say that anybody working a full-time job is "worth" enough to live on. I say that's pretty asinine.  As an employer, if I would have to pay more to an employee than the value he brings in, then I simply won't hire him.  We've now found the objective value for how much an employee is wor...

A citizen's dividend is something worth seriously looking into.  Assuming it comes at the benefit of dropping a LOT of regulations and programs, such as minimum wage, welfare, etc, AND assuming it could be worked out who's a citizen, then it solves the poverty problem without creating a lot of disto...

jafs, all you'll succeed in doing is preventing people from being hired at all.  Why should I hire somebody if I have to pay more than he's worth?  You'll eliminate the entire class of entry-level jobs, which teach teenagers and others how to work, and also teach them that they probably don't want t...

EDV comprises zero-coupon LTTs.  I think the maturity is also a bit longer that TLT.  That all adds up to more volatility.

jafs wrote:The government can't actually "print money" like that, actually.

Why not?

Not only that, PS, but they could issue a handful of trillion dollar bills or coins and put them in a vault.  Voila!  The debt is paid off.

I think that pretty well illustrates how much of an illusion all this is.