discussion comment
15 years ago
Hi Dougster,
Sometimes the game changes radically. Computers are a good example. The youngster next door was complaining to me that he was bored. How the hell can he be bored with the internet at his finger tips? It, for me, is like heaven. And, I think government deserves a bunch of the credit.
Fusion is another game changer, if it comes.
Genetic engineering? Give people an extra 40 years of healthy productive life and perhaps raising the retirement age wouldn't even be an issue. Health in a pill bottle? I don't know maybe there are miracle drugs on the way to cure the ravages of old age. Again, the fiscal picture would change radically.
On CNN, years back I saw the most amazing tech piece. They showed a single small bulb brightly light a huge warehouse thru the use of tiny strategically placed mirrors you really couldn't see. It went from pitch black to like day light instantly. A relative of mine, was yapping fraud, fraud, fraud. Believing there was no way no how for such a technology to become available or even exist. It was too good. The quality of light was too good. The lack of energy consumption was too good. The size was too good. The environmental friendliness was too good. Never heard about the miracle light again, but it definitely seemed too good. Some pea brains would be concerned the revolutionary tech would slash jobs as if that was a negative. LOL---And-So-Sad.
discussion comment
15 years ago
That applies to one's hardware as well.
discussion comment
15 years ago
"SS payments goes on a spending spree now"
Some people may argue that, that spending spree is actually an investment in the future e.g. bullet trains, pharmaceuticals, genetic engineering, robotics, fusion, education, etc. HELL, some may even argue butchering people in foreign lands is an investment in the future.
discussion comment
15 years ago
Hi Dougster,
I could be wrong, but I don't think they're actually treasuries (maybe at one time, they were). I think they're special government IOUs.
Well, getting the money should be doable. More importantly what will the money purchase? That is where tech and planning ahead become so important. Imagine cheap robots that can care very well for the elderly. Maybe even robot assisted surgery so even nurses can do so of the easy routine to cutting and sewing.
discussion comment
15 years ago
Hmmm . . . and here I thought some super sexy slut stripper was using his account after wearing him out. :) Hey, that could be what happened. :) Strippers have used my computer. Perhaps they even posted on TUSCL. Mainly I was just afraid they'd download viruses by accident despite their confident assurances and my protection software.
discussion comment
15 years ago
Hi chandler,
Actually that ain't the way it works at Angels. The other dancers have and the management has a real problem with dancers choosing who they will or won't dance for.
Now under the old Angels, dancers were free to decline dances for ANY reason. That was their right. Just as a business was free to refuse service for ANY reason.
Anyway, I think there is a good argument to be made for forcing dancers to accept all customers (I don't subscribe to that argument, btw). One prissy asshole dancer can destroy the super slut rep the dancers and club work so hard to cultivate. A single dancer picking and choosing not only hurts the rejected customer, but then other customers may become fearful of rejection---many of these poor souls are true losers when it comes to women. :( There is a culture at Angels. A culture of acceptance and total sluttiness.
Once when a dancer openly refused my request for a dance, it was like all hell broke loose from her fellow dancers----it was impossible for me to believe that they even noticed or would even care. After all, didn't a dancer like any woman have a right to say no? And, why were they watching like hawks? I learned that the other dancers did care. And, cared BIG TIME. They didn't want a bitchy or prudish dancer giving them a bad rep. They viewed dancing as a matter of teamwork. You don't like a customer? Suck it up. You ain't marrying the clown---you're hopefully taking his money and giving him a good time.
discussion comment
15 years ago
Hi TUSCL_Brother,
That is very nice of you. :)
Usually, I'm made aware by watching them dance for other customers. Sometimes, I can see they're unhappy to be asked and eager to leave.
Gambling dancer gave some super sensual dances and worse she had exactly the look that I wanted. Not happy to be asked at all. Eager to leave. Dancing about 3 feet or more away from me. Sort of crazy that I ended up knowing her for so many years and spending so much time with her. She was giving me all these "clues" and was thinking this old man just don't get it. I got her message loud and clear and would ordinarily back off very quickly-----But. She was exceptionally hot. It was like a gift from God. Yes, hotties would randomly appear at times at Angels back then, but she was actually enjoying herself with her dancer buddies and the young customers. Also, she was more than a hottie. She was like WOW!!! :) Her sensual dances were exactly what I craved and then it all gets ripped to pieces. This dancer definitely doesn't want anything to do with me and had almost told me to get lost (reading her body/mind language)---she figured better just give a worthless dance and he'll be gone soon enough. Just a little less hot and she'd have gotten her wish.
Funny how the game sometimes works out. She was supposed to stop by today and didn't. Somehow, I didn't think she would show (she is surprisingly good at being punctual and keeping appointments). It wouldn't surprise me if she showed tomorrow or next week, but then again perhaps not.
discussion comment
15 years ago
"Rarely, I have cut the dance short myself, because of facts as body odor or just plain immediate disappointment."
I'd feel depressed doing that even when the dancer deserves it. Generally, they probably prefer your approach, however. I'll say with a very bad dance the minutes seem to take forever.
discussion comment
15 years ago
There are all manner of reasons such as hygiene, attire, age, race, attractiveness, party time. Considering the stench at Angels from cigarette smoke it seems like hygiene wouldn't be an issue, but you never know.
Gambling dancer has told me the reason she tried to get rid of me initially (about 7 years ago) over at Angels is because I was poor, old, and white. Furthermore, she wasn't looking to make money at Angels, but rather party with men and women of her own group (I didn't find that out until years later and just viewed her as a $5 ho.) She was very surprised that I wasn't angry or disgusted by the bad dances and viewed my behaviour as very unusual.
Years later she decides that because she doesn't view my money as worthwhile (too bottom tier), she doesn't see why she should accept it. It doesn't make any sense to her. Time spent with me, costs her money. :(
discussion comment
15 years ago
"Also, if you think that the SS trust fund is just "paper", then you should feel the same way about all that money that's in your wallet right now, . . . "
Doesn't seem like the same game at all. The short term risks of the "paper" appear far less risky than the long term risks. The U.S. government might be a major giant for the next 10 years, but do the trends say the same for the next 20 years? Specifically of concern is the large number of elderly compared to workers. Perhaps this isn't a real problem. Or, perhaps technology will solve it and or illegal immigrants. But, yes viewing long term paper with contempt because of a looming whirlwind while at the same time cherishing short term paper seems completely reasonable and logical.
If there is 1 elderly non-working Social Security beneficiary for each worker in 2020, then is that a real concern making the U.S. full faith and credit basically turds in bowl? How about 1 elderly non-working Social Security beneficiary for 1/3 of a worker? Is that a concern or is full faith and credit to be repeated endlessly like a mantra from a dollar commune regardless of demographic changes?
Who knows . . . perhaps the aging of the U.S. population will turn out to be a snoozer and all the elderly will be taken care of. Or, maybe they will cause a sudden systemic collapse. Don't worry the U.S. full faith and credit will print money, but it might not buy the figurative cup of coffee i.e. hyperinflation.
discussion comment
15 years ago
"due to a horrible 'conservative' monetary policy"
President Bush's policies for a weak U.S. dollar was conservative monetary policy? I guess President Regan's policies for a strong U.S. dollar was also a conservative monetary policy?
What is sort of amusing is the large numbers of educated and intelligent people who think that a weak currency is ideal----morally and fiscally. They believe the U.S. shipping goods to China for example is better than the U.S. receiving goods from China. Normally, the thinking seems to center around JOBS as if that is the end all be all. Oh, how lucky those sweat shop laborers are. :) So, yes if JOBS are all important then the government should force everyone to take huge pay cuts via repeated currency devaluations . . .
discussion comment
15 years ago
Bring back "stripperchick." :)
discussion comment
15 years ago
"the full faith & credit of the USA that is"
LOL! Yep, the full faith & credit of the USA means an endless supply of new dollars. Praise be the lord for the USA's willingness to create money and with full faith & credit to boot! I loathe it when a government cranks out currency with full faithlessness & creditlessness. Don't these A-hole nations understand people want full faith & credit!?
A lot more pertinent, imo, is that the U.S. currency declares proudly in God We Trust. Damn, that is even stronger than the full faith & credit protections. God it seems backs the U.S. dollar. Praise God. God is Great. The only thing missing from this fiat currency is a declaration of unalienable rights or how about a soldier proudly waving a U.S.A flag. :)
discussion comment
15 years ago
I had the thought some time back that the printing press/creating new money can actually LOWER prices. That is correct more dollars may in some cases actually be deflationary.
To understand why is to see the printing press/creating new money as a means of achieving volume. Volume that allows for economy of scale as well as research and development leading to better and cheaper. Seem like a "free lunch"? Hardly so. There are real costs to the printing press model of economic development and ideally the "common sense" road won't be taken. Rather, the absurd should be pondered. Absurd like more money equals lower prices. Absurd like higher prices may be preferred by the typical consumer. Absurd like giving bucket loads of currency to impoverished peoples may be in our economic self-interest. Absurd like China may knowingly wish to subsidize a high standard of living for U.S. citizens.
Oh well, I'm pretty much out of absurds. I had high hopes for Freakonomics, but while worth reading, imo, it didn't deliver enough freakiness/absurdness. :)
discussion comment
15 years ago
Well, my reply was sincere. :) I get a kick out of people who are a 100% sure they know the deal.
Dealt with a nitwit a couple of weeks ago who knew that US Postal Money Orders are fraudulent. He "learned" this from his brother after I'd already mailed him the money orders. So his brother emails me this profanity laced missive with the welcome threat that he is taking the US Postal Money Orders directly to the local police station. And, he dared me to call him! What a pea brain. So, yeah I called him. Surprisingly, he didn't have nearly the balls or venom when speaking with me directly over the phone.
He had "learned" via Craigslist that all US Postal Money Orders are fraudulent and therefore I had to be a fraud. He claimed the Postal Service couldn't tell the different between worthless money orders and good ones. What about the police, I asked, are they also incompetents? Oh no he yelped, the police are going to put me in jail. Excellent, I replied, please just take 'em directly to your local police so you can be a big hero and protect those who aren't as knowledgeable as yourself. Turned out he didn't even have the balls to go to the police----instead, he had his brother refuse delivery as the safest course of action.
I've learned over and over that just because it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck sure hell don't mean it is a duck. :) It is easy for me to accept with a grain of salt the most stupidiest stories imaginable. The typical joe or jane knows these stupidiest stories must be fakes as if being suspect is the same as being fake.
Anyway, after that experience I too feel all US Postal Money Orders are fraudulent. :) Yep, I already felt very weak. Yapping with him just added a few more nails to my coffin and now I don't even feel like answering the phone or speaking. It just took a lot more out of me physically than I realized.
Gambling dancer is supposed to be stopping by tomorrow. She still is refusing to sell services and I haven't given her any money in about a year? I asked her if she needed money and her reply was that my broke ass can't do nothing for her financially. She just be taking pity on an old man who is too stupid to accept free sex. :( Oh well, with "friends" like that I don't need enemies . . . maybe she'll put the final nails in the coffin. :)
discussion comment
15 years ago
"oil was $1.63/bbl in 1946. In 1998 it was $11.91/bbl."
The $11.91, I wonder how much of that price reflected government imposed costs like taxes and regulations and lawsuits etc. compared to how much was attributable to money creation. There is also the consideration of optimum pricing that may dictate selling for more than a true free market would require. Thus, wealthier customers might also be more important to determining the final selling price than all the new dollars.
To not run the money creation machine is normally, imo, the dumb position because mere lack of liquidity can keep factories idle and workers without the means to care for themselves and their families. When some talking head would mention the bugaboo of deflation, I could only laugh and think call out the military to do some productive work and start dropping some serious cash from the skies. :)
discussion comment
15 years ago
"Not the way it works in economics, jablake. Perhaps, though, SC do not fall under normal economic 'rules'."
I hope you don't believe that an economic downturn equals lower prices. It might or it might not. A smart businessman looks at his customer base first and foremost. It matters diddly squat if the economy is in complete collapse.
I'm sure you've heard of the term "stagflation."
"stagâ‹…flaâ‹…tion
  /stægˈfleɪʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [stag-fley-shuhn] Show IPA
–noun
an inflationary period accompanied by rising unemployment and lack of growth in consumer demand and business activity.
Origin:
1965–70; b. stagnation and inflation"
The stagflation period wasn't just stripclubs being stupid or other businessmen being stupid. It was about survival. In those dark days you could try and cut prices and your reward (depending on your customer makeup) may very well equal going out of business. Some smarty pants clearly saw that and pulled the trigger on raising prices sometimes drastically. I had very slow customers try an "educate" me about the economics of book selling. Their absurd idea was that lower prices equaled more sales-----that nonsense was tried and failed big time. Price hikes worked beautiful thanks to wealth inequality. Not saying that discount pricing can't be the right solution---some times that is the highly intelligent move. Depends on different considerations. I lost the poor customers forever. So what? With government making ever greater financial demands the poor customer's needs were a joke. Get the government out and suddenly those same poor customers may be worth doing business with. :)
discussion comment
15 years ago
that a normal person wouldn't even want in their home.
discussion comment
15 years ago
I think the reason it tends to ignore the demand for products is that the typical person will spend more than they make. Thus, a dollar printed and distributed is a dollar spent. However, there is only so much food, clothes, cars, homes, etc. that a super wealthy person can consume. Before long the money needs to spent on $500,000 ash trays e.g. Donald Trump or $50 million dollar paintings that a normal person would even want in their home.
The excess of dollars has a very beneficial effect (depending on your values) in that it acts as a lure for people to created new "real" goods and services.
The justification, besides the confidence game, in selling treasuries would be to pull excess dollars from circulation. In this economy there is a need to pull dollars? :) Anyway, the government just spits those dollars back into the economy so so much for pulling excess dollars from circulation. The "fools" that buy 'em? My guess would be that China is well aware of the printing press as well as the risk of an uncompensated taking by the U.S. government, but is more interested in productive working relations between nations. Besides the technical know how of consumer manufacturing may inadvertently extend to helpful or critic military applications. Sorta of amusing how eager China is to work for us on the extreme cheap. :)
discussion comment
15 years ago
Fine. Take the worthless dollars and invest overseas. What are the Austrailians going to do with these worthless dollars? Hide 'em under their beds? Use 'em as their currency? Buy US products?
Gee, the US government was printing, printing, printing since WWII . . . and oil was $1.63/bbl in 1946. In 1998 it was $11.91/bbl. Whoop tee doo! From WWII to 1998 the U.S. just suffered so massively due to all the dollar printing. LOL! It is relative. The price could be $500/bbl and it could still be dirt cheap in relative terms.
Yes, the U.S. government can survive and may even flourish if oil prices rocket to the moon. Depends on technology and government policy. Liquid coal may be the knew holy grail. Or, perhaps the US government will get real smart and direct funding towards fusion i.e. free energy.
OK, dump 'em on the market---that doesn't change a thing. The Federal Reserve buys 'em at will using its power to create new money and presto here you go China, a bunch of freshly created bank credits. Now be a good child and toddle along. It ain't a free market and ain't been for some time. The government is King.
The U.S. government could slash the number of dollars in circulation and it is possible crude oil could still surge thru the roof----depending on the supply situation and how quickly alternative energies could be brought on line.
discussion comment
15 years ago
People will stop buying treasures. Fine, let's accept that premise and what will people do with their dollars? I mean if they don't invest in treasures is there any chance the private sector might benefit from an inflow of investment dollars. Will people blow those non-treasury invested dollars on lap dances or new cars or maybe a few mansions?
Maybe people will buy gold and silver? The U.S. government has criminalized the private ownership of gold in the past (until 1972?) and if necessary will do so again. So if people don't want to be criminals they'll turn in their gold and accept the dollars at whatever exchange the government demands.
Basically and this can be extremely difficult for people to understand----the U.S. government doesn't need to run up debt or borrow money. The U.S. government can create as much new money as its heart desires. The problem isn't money, but one of keeping people in line. It is good for people and other countries to be "invested" in the U.S. government. So what if your investment can be repaid essentially with bank credits . . . that just means fewer trees need to be wasted. :)
China holds 2 trillion in "invested" dollars and wants 'em by tomorrow morning? No problem. Here are your computer credits, now run along and be a good child. A good child will comprehend that it benefits no one to crash the world economic system---that could lead to war. Remember how nutty the U.S. government responded to the killing of 3,000 Americans? Can you imagine the fall out if China decided to engage in "economic terrorism"? Anyway, China is a little more mature than that---better to try and work together unless there is reason to believe that China is interested in war mongering. :)
discussion comment
15 years ago
They publish numbers. And, you expect me to trust those numbers? :)
Sorry, it is a game to make it appear there is a need for people to buy treasuries.
As far as devaluing the dollar, President Bush was repeatedly yapping that America wants and needs a cheap i.e. devalued dollar in order that foreigners will buy our garbage. In fact, President Obama was complaining that China is purposefully devaluing its own currency. Believe it or not some economists believe devaluing currency is a brilliant idea because then you can export more garbage i.e. we could be like China. :)
No. Look at how much the money supply has increased and must increase and it should become fairly apparent that massive amounts of new money can be issued without a corresponding massive increases in inflation. Gee whiz, let's imagine big bad China actually said NO!!! China will no longer buy garbage US treasuries. Yes, some people would have you believe the wheels would fall off. However, the Federal Reserve can easily buy all those treasuries by creating money with the computer. Will anyone notice the difference in who is buying? What will China do with all its garbage U.S. dollars? Hide 'em under their bed? Buy oil? Buy American products? Buy land or businesses? Gee, maybe China could buy some GM shares. :)
Here is an example. The Social Security trust fund holds "assets" in the form of government IOUs. These wonderful "assets" will require ultimately that the U.S. government create new money, raise taxes, default, and or change the terms of repayment. Anyway despite these supposed "assets" digging a deeper and deeper hole as more are accumulated there is unbelievably calls from time to time to raise taxes to purchase more of this pure garbage----in order to make Social Security strong. Really how brain dead can people be to believe this? Do you believe that Social Security accumulating these "assets" makes it strong? (Please remember the Supreme Court has ruled Congress doesn't have to honor it contracts---the issue was whether Congress had to pay in gold or was free to print money---of course, printing money ruled the day in a 5-4 opinion. :) )
discussion comment
15 years ago
The government doesn't need anyone to buy treasuries. That is the whole point. The government can and does create money with the computer and printing press all day long----on a massive scale. It has to be that way in order to pay the interest. You're familiar with the power of compounding interest? Well, somebody better be creating dollars or depression here we come.
Yes, the auction. So impressive. Makes it look like creating money out of thin air is actually some market exercise. Totally non-free market. Totally a scam. A necessary scam. Just as the government can give away trillions it can create trillions to pay for whatever it desires. If the government so desires, it can create program after program to lend or give away money as it sees fit.
In fact, part of this scam according to CNN is when the Federal Reserve (the bankers with muscle) start buying up this garbage i.e. US treasuries. The important thing is for the government to keep the cattle working and obedient. The government doesn't need US dollars from China. China doesn't need US dollars except to try and placate the beast----the Chinese ship goodies and perhaps the beast won't be so blood thirsty.
discussion comment
15 years ago
About 10 years or more ago I was watching these U.S. senators bloviating about the need for revenue and taxes to pay for the all future Social Security benefits that were coming due. One senator pointed out the obvious. The revenue is irrelevant to paying Social Security benefits. The government could legislate whatever money needs to be created---it is a joke and has been for a long time. The real challenge isn't about dollars. It is about preparing for what types and goods and services and elderly population needs. Means diddley squat if each senior gets a $5,000 monthly check, if that check can't buy needed services like medical care. So if you're a legislator do you worry about a commodity that can be created endlessly? Or, do you worry about seeing that there are enough doctors and nursing homes in 20 years?
Illegal immigrants are bad? Perhaps. Depends on what needs they can fill and at what price. You need people to dress, bathe, and otherwise care for an exploding elderly population. These illegals can come in quite handy. :)
The other senators----totally mum. Not allowed to talk about how the government actually has an endless supply of dollars. Surprised that the one senator forgot that you don't talk about the obvious----might scare the cattle.
discussion comment
15 years ago
Those treasuries can be nationalizes or frozen fairly fast. The US government dictates the interest rates---it ain't a free market and hasn't been for a long time. The biggest joke is the US government paying interest on money it has essentially created out of thin air. Since it is phony, I guess it makes little difference if the U.S. just prints (actually it is just computer credits)it with or without interest in tow.
China is trading real goods for paper. Just as GM went from almost a $100 a share to basically nothing those treasuries China holds need not be worth even a single grain of rice. Any nut job can declare China is supporting "terrorism" or not honoring U.S. intellectual property or proliferating nukes, and presto a new enemy for America. It is a beautiful formula. China needs to be afraid. Very afraid.