Subject:
|
Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 28 Feb 2002 20:27:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
322 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> Please show me where I have EVER stated that I pay much heed at all to
> the Bible. I really would hardly consider myself a Christian either,
I thought you were always off to church and such...my mistake.
> And personally, in my opinion, no one who has "toys" or any other
> "luxury" wealth above the wealth that the majority of the people in the
> world have has any justification in taking such a position as you seem
> to be taking.
Why not? I am trying to suggest we give those under the thumb of the world
be given a clean slate. Anything they do from this moment forward can bring
them whatever wealth they can handle. Sadly, for most of these people the
problem is not just their debts, held individually and collectively; their
real problems are usually political. The guys with the guns and the drugs/
diamonds / gold / etc. are the people in charge. Actually, it's a lot like
the modern U.S.!
> Your LEGO collection is just a difference in magnitude,
> not a difference in kind from Bill Gate's wealth.
Well, that last part is preposterous on its face. I find it funny that you
can think it's true. Everyone stealing from Xerox Parc and getting wealthy
from the research of others doesn't make it right. Then again, this is a
question like "who should own Manhattan?" -- we might as well leave it to
the side for now.
Use simply means utility -- not necessarily the equivalent of the basic
necessaries to sustain a life as you might suggest -- I think life is more
than that; so I also include my books, my music, my art tools, my computer,
etc. Others might include other things, and I am happy to grant that
everyone has a right to the pleasures of their choosing. A vacation home
or two seems reasonable to me, and so do a lot of other things -- but
at some point, some people with very well-known names acquire more than
they can use in their own lifetime. Let's call this extravagant wealth.
I am not suggesting we take extravagant wealth away from the people
possessing it, what I am suggesting is that we largely remove them from
the game -- from further acquiring wealth on the backs of others by the
collection of exorbitant interest rates. That's all. In many, many, many
cases calling off a debt right now would simply mean that the creditor has
collected enough off a particular debt.
> In a later post you mention public works. Public works need to be able
> to use loans also. In order to build infrastructure, you need to be able
> to distribute the acquisition of the capital over the future life of the
> thing being built.
Again, I fail to see how the appropriate use of collected tax monies are
not sufficient for these projects. We are talking about a LOT of money.
> Take a young family, who has been in the workforce for just a few years.
> They would like to acquire a house.
Okay, let's. Let's say to make things easy they are going to acquire a
house worth $100K for 7 percent over 30 years. A handy mortgage
calculator I found online suggests that they will pay $665.30 a month,
for a total of $239,508. Making round numbers -- that's almost 140%
again the amount that they borrowed. Let's say that instead of taking
the house on time the same couple decides to save for it instead -- so
for now, they pocket the 10% down they intended to use to secure the
loan. Together they make $50K a year. By living frugally they are able
to save $15K a year. In 6 years, they can likely buy the house outright!
Now the above wouldn't work for you where I live, not with those specific
numbers, but the idea is similar. The desirability of one plan over the
other depends on one's priorities I guess.
Can you argue in favor of accepting the 30 year loan over the 6 year plan?
Did I miss any major points?
It seems to me that to argue in favor of the 30 loan is to argue in favor
of consumer debt -- a game in which those that die the deepest in debt win.
They lived well and didn't have to pay for it. In the real world, such
losses are spread amongst the living in various ways. I don't care for
this scheme very much.
Some of the rationales I can see in defense of the 140% profit from the
$100k loan over 30 years have to do with the risk over that LONG period of
time and the devaluation of the basic means of exchange -- specifically,
U.S. dollars. When the buying power of the dollar is always going slowly,
steadily downwards it might seem fair to collect HUGE sums of interest to
balance things out. 30 years down the road it might take twice as much
to buy the same thing one could previously purchase for the original
amount of the loan. But the REAL problem is the devaluation of the dollar
and not really a justification for the collection of a crazy rate of
compounded interest.
My means of defeating the devaluation of the dollar under our current
system is what is enumerated in the U.S. Constitution -- making only gold
and silver legal tender in payment of debt.
So, who owns Manhattan? Those that undestand how to make compound interest
work for them and against those that do not understand it. Stealing
the moments of a person's life by bleeding them for their wealth, usually
gained by them by exchanging labor and time for wages, is a kind of murder
in my book.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
| (...) <Snipped> (...) You are assuming housing costs would not fluctuate in the 6 years in study, right? I mean, by the time they reach 100k the house cost a tad more... and in the meanwhile, they may have been experiencing other possible (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
| (...) Yes, I do go to church on a regular basis. Of course some of my fellow congregants very vehemently deny they go to church. I happen to find that church is a pretty good description of what I go to on Sunday even though the beliefs of my (...) (22 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A hypothetical economics question...
|
| (...) Please show me where I have EVER stated that I pay much heed at all to the Bible. I really would hardly consider myself a Christian either, true, I do consider Jesus to be a "great man" (possibly even supernaturally great, but definitely NOT (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
33 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
