Bruddah IZ
DA
Dragnet
Essential Economics for Politicians
- Thread starter Bruddah IZ
- Start date
-
- Tags
- finance too
Nope. “Book him, Danno.”
Russian lenders.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Hukilau!!
Bruddah IZ
DA
Real Asset holders
They are if they own POTUS.
Look who owns who......
Cough up some MORE Democratic Taxes you dipshit.
Wait til the " New " boss, same as the " OLD " boss starts
raising the taxes here in California to fill up the MASSIVE
Pension hole that BOTH have sucked up and promised to
TRY and fill....Who owns Who uninformed " Messy " Financial !
The Unions OWNED Gov Jerry Brown ( YES OWNED, LOCK STOCK and BARREL ! )
And
The Unions OWN Gov Gavin Newsom ( YES THEY OWN HIM, LOCK STOCK and BARREL ! )
Who Owns President Trump ?
Oh Puhlease tell the Forum......It ain't Russia, so WHO IS IT ?
Really now....do YOU have Proof.
You don't think the previous administration didn't vet DJT when they
had TOTAL Control of the IRS......Think about that !
This whole thing is a distraction because THEY lost !
And they KNEW they were going to loose, why else would they have
instituted a Criminal operation like we have witnessed since Jan 20, 2017.....
The Coup is right there in front of you and every other American, people like
YOU either are ignoring it or are COMPLICIT with it....Nothing else.
“The whole system is rigged”—-said the winner Donald Trump
Let’s see the tax returns.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Hence the Dragnet.
So the dragnet is to find the people rigging the system? Then why does Trump always call it a hoax and a witch hunt if he’s the one who told everyone the system is rigged?
Bruddah IZ
DA
You mean the riggers of the dragnet are trying to catch themselves?
Bruddah IZ
DA
I, Interest Rate
Interest rates simply reflect the truth; and it is a very sad day when telling the truth can foster such ill will.
Monday, December 31, 2018
https://fee.org/articles/i-interest-rate/
To expand banks’ ability to engage in this monetary inflation, the government created a central bank. At first, this central bank merely backstopped the rest of the banks under the same gold standard. But eventually, the exchangeability for gold was eliminated, making the name “Federal Reserve Note” an absurdity because a piece of paper that cannot be exchanged for anything specific is no longer a “note” in financial terms. But it solved the problem of loaning the same dollar out to a borrower while making it simultaneously available for withdrawal to the depositor. Since neither could exchange it for any specific tangible item, both borrower and depositor could merrily go on pretending this arrangement was viable.
They say ignorance is bliss, although you all participate in this fraud knowingly today. So, it is more a case of believing what you want to believe.
Interest rates simply reflect the truth; and it is a very sad day when telling the truth can foster such ill will.
Monday, December 31, 2018
https://fee.org/articles/i-interest-rate/
To expand banks’ ability to engage in this monetary inflation, the government created a central bank. At first, this central bank merely backstopped the rest of the banks under the same gold standard. But eventually, the exchangeability for gold was eliminated, making the name “Federal Reserve Note” an absurdity because a piece of paper that cannot be exchanged for anything specific is no longer a “note” in financial terms. But it solved the problem of loaning the same dollar out to a borrower while making it simultaneously available for withdrawal to the depositor. Since neither could exchange it for any specific tangible item, both borrower and depositor could merrily go on pretending this arrangement was viable.
They say ignorance is bliss, although you all participate in this fraud knowingly today. So, it is more a case of believing what you want to believe.
Bruddah IZ
DA
As you may have surmised, I am the rate of interest, the price difference between present goods and future goods. Now, many economists mistakenly identify me merely as the price of borrowing money over time, but that is only one of the many messages I carry. I also represent the price spread in the various stages of production, where capitalists purchase present goods in the form of factors of production in the hopes of selling what is produced by those factors for a higher price than what they spent. I am also this difference in price.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Because this price of borrowing is above zero, there are some who consider my existence alone as evil. They say I’m a party to a crime they call “usury,” which is a very strange concept. When everyone is acting honestly, money is a scarce commodity, so any loan by Person A to Person B requires a sacrifice on the part of A. Person A must forego consumption in the present in order to lend to B.
It is no different than if A were saving for a new car or some other expensive item for himself. He must forego eating out as much, or buying new clothes, or going on vacation this year in order to put aside money to buy the expensive item next year.
By loaning money to B, A is allowing B to skip this sacrifice and purchase the expensive item now. It seems a very peculiar notion that A should forego spending his own money on himself only to let B use it for free when needed. How did this obligation to serve B free of charge come about? Aren’t all men created equal?
It is no different than if A were saving for a new car or some other expensive item for himself. He must forego eating out as much, or buying new clothes, or going on vacation this year in order to put aside money to buy the expensive item next year.
By loaning money to B, A is allowing B to skip this sacrifice and purchase the expensive item now. It seems a very peculiar notion that A should forego spending his own money on himself only to let B use it for free when needed. How did this obligation to serve B free of charge come about? Aren’t all men created equal?
Bruddah IZ
DA
Why California’s 1% Dip in Homelessness Is No "Success Story"
If my friends on the left see this as an example of success, I’d hate to see their definition of failure.
Monday, December 31, 2018
https://fee.org/articles/why-california-s-1-dip-in-homelessness-is-no-success-story/
And they got their wish. Check out the ostensibly good news in a story from the San Fransisco Chronicle:
Investing billions of dollars in affordable housing and homeless programs in recent years has apparently put the brakes on what had been a surge in California’s homeless population, causing it to dip by 1 percent this year, a federal report released Monday showed. …The report put California’s homeless population this year at 129,972, a drop of 1,560 in the number of people on the streets in 2017. …“I think San Francisco has shown that when targeted investments are made, we see reductions in homelessness here,” [Jeff Kositsky, head of the city’s Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing], said. He pointed out that family, youth and chronic veterans homelessness dropped in the city’s last full count — although the number of chronically homeless people went up.
Maybe I’m not in the Christmas spirit, but I don’t see this as a feel-good story.
Are we really supposed to celebrate the fact that the government spent “billions of dollars,” and the net effect is that the homeless population dropped just 1 percent?
The story doesn’t contain enough details for precise measurements, but even if we assume “billions” is merely $2 billion, then it cost taxpayers close to $1.3 million to get one person off the street. For that amount of money, taxpayers could have bought each of them a mansion!
If my friends on the left see this as an example of success, I’d hate to see their definition of failure.
Monday, December 31, 2018
https://fee.org/articles/why-california-s-1-dip-in-homelessness-is-no-success-story/
And they got their wish. Check out the ostensibly good news in a story from the San Fransisco Chronicle:
Investing billions of dollars in affordable housing and homeless programs in recent years has apparently put the brakes on what had been a surge in California’s homeless population, causing it to dip by 1 percent this year, a federal report released Monday showed. …The report put California’s homeless population this year at 129,972, a drop of 1,560 in the number of people on the streets in 2017. …“I think San Francisco has shown that when targeted investments are made, we see reductions in homelessness here,” [Jeff Kositsky, head of the city’s Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing], said. He pointed out that family, youth and chronic veterans homelessness dropped in the city’s last full count — although the number of chronically homeless people went up.
Maybe I’m not in the Christmas spirit, but I don’t see this as a feel-good story.
Are we really supposed to celebrate the fact that the government spent “billions of dollars,” and the net effect is that the homeless population dropped just 1 percent?
The story doesn’t contain enough details for precise measurements, but even if we assume “billions” is merely $2 billion, then it cost taxpayers close to $1.3 million to get one person off the street. For that amount of money, taxpayers could have bought each of them a mansion!
Sheriff Joe
DA
I really don't count on the government to give us numbers to 1% accuracy.
Multi Sport
DA
Hey loser boy... my family has probably made more money in Real Estate last year then you will in your entire life. If you think buying and selling single family homes is gonna make you rich then you are the biggest fool on the forum. Just because someone dupped you with his infomercial at 2 AM doesn't make you smart it makes you naive.
Lots, and I do mean lots, of people lose money in Real Estate every day. The difference is the people who lose hundreds of thousands have hundreds of millions to fall back on. You sound like you have two investment properties and want to act as though your Donald Trump. Stick to soccer talk Mr. Fake.