0
0

Saved By Landlord-Warden, only $7 more! ( was: ..rent increase)


 invite response                
2015 Jul 30, 4:11pm   35,828 views  73 comments

by John Bailo   ➕follow (0)   💰tip   ignore  

My building changed ownership again and in a couple of days I'm ready to get hit with another rent increase.

Do I suffer the slings and arrows, or end them?

Somedays I think I should just move into the cheapest place in the country.

Why wouldn't I live here, for example? As low as $268 for a 1-bed!

Arbours at Fort King Apartments 12838 Stately Oak St., Dade City, FL 33525

http://www.apartmentfinder.com/Florida/Dade-City-Apartments/Arbours-At-Fort-King-Apartments?refer=CRITEO&bk=88619&utm_source=criteo&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=lower+funnel

#housing

« First        Comments 63 - 73 of 73        Search these comments

63   tatupu70   2015 Aug 4, 2:38pm  

errc says

I'm interested to hear how you think that money (currency) enters the system.

Here's a quick primer explaining currency. Not sure if that's what you're asking.

http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed01.html

Obviously the Federal Reserve will buy bonds and other assets (at times) to inject money as well.

64   Reality   2015 Aug 4, 2:51pm  

tatupu70 says

No, the epithet was well placed. And the post had the content needed to show your errors. The government spends X. How do you determine which of that X is the "new" money.

The epithet was a good description of your own content. The new money is simply the government spending in excess of tax collection, and other money borrowed into existence via the fractional reserve system. The crucial difference between government borrowing vs. private sector borrowing is that government borrowing is borrowed via identity theft: future tax payers' identities are on the hook; this also applies to borrowing by institutions that are back-stopped by the government.

Welfare spending went up--so the welfare recipients are getting the "new" money? They're bidding up the stock prices?

The govenment bureaucrats on average making double the average private sector job receive much more money than the alleged welfare recipients. The fractional reserve banks receive interest payment on money created out of thin air. Both bid up stock prices.

This whole theory of yours is ridiculous anyway because you're talking about fiscal spending which the Federal Reserve has ZERO control over. Are you now saying it isn't the Fed causing the inflation?

FED is the enabler of government expansion and borrowing; the government is the reason why worthless pieces of paper and ledger entries created by the FED are worth anything: fiat money power. The two are the two sides of the same coin ripping off the American people.

Government contractors are in NYC and SF? Really? Please tell me more.

NYC is the location of the most government back-stopped big banks. SF is the location of technology bubble, which attracts much of the new money borrowed into existence.

65   tatupu70   2015 Aug 4, 4:45pm  

Reality says

The new money is simply the government spending in excess of tax collection, and other money borrowed into existence via the fractional reserve system. The crucial difference between government borrowing vs. private sector borrowing is that government borrowing is borrowed via identity theft: future tax payers' identities are on the hook; this also applies to borrowing by institutions that are back-stopped by the government.

Not really. The vast majority of it is simply borrowed. Not monetized. When I buy a government bond, no new money is created.

And, I'm curious--what institutions are backstopped by the government right now? This agreement is in writing, right?

Reality says

The govenment bureaucrats on average making double the average private sector job receive much more money than the alleged welfare recipients. The fractional reserve banks receive interest payment on money created out of thin air. Both bid up stock prices.

But you were talking specifically about "new" money. If the only part of the budget that increased is welfare, then only welfare recipients are getting "new" money, right?

Reality says

FED is the enabler of government expansion and borrowing; the government is the reason why worthless pieces of paper and ledger entries created by the FED are worth anything: fiat money power. The two are the two sides of the same coin ripping off the American people.

Actually, the US was free to borrow money before the existence of the Federal Reserve. It had a $75MM debt after the revolutionary war.

Reality says

NYC is the location of the most government back-stopped big banks. SF is the location of technology bubble, which attracts much of the new money borrowed into existence.

Excellent--can you show me the exact backstop agreement? When does the US government step in? Is it loans or equity?

Regardless, private banks aren't getting government paychecks so that theory is nonsense. And neither are technology companies in SF so that is nonsense as well. Like most of your postings.

66   Reality   2015 Aug 4, 5:09pm  

tatupu70 says

The new money is simply the government spending in excess of tax collection, and other money borrowed into existence via the fractional reserve system. The crucial difference between government borrowing vs. private sector borrowing is that government borrowing is borrowed via identity theft: future tax payers' identities are on the hook; this also applies to borrowing by institutions that are back-stopped by the government.

Not really. The vast majority of it is simply borrowed. Not monetized. When I buy a government bond, no new money is created.

Nonsense. When the FED buys government bond, the FED creates money out of thin air and enable the government to spend the money (perhaps already spent).

And, I'm curious--what institutions are backstopped by the government right now? This agreement is in writing, right?

In writing is quite unnecessary, so long as the money can be spent without being personally held responsible for paying it back. Fanny and Freddie were bailed out to the tune of hundreds of billions if not trillions despite not having written agreement for back-stopping; in fact, the writing was explicit that they were not backed up. LOL!

tatupu70 says

The govenment bureaucrats on average making double the average private sector job receive much more money than the alleged welfare recipients. The fractional reserve banks receive interest payment on money created out of thin air. Both bid up stock prices.

But you were talking specifically about "new" money. If the only part of the budget that increased is welfare, then only welfare recipients are getting "new" money, right?

No. Without new money constantly being created to finance the government, the bureaucrats would not be able to get raises every year; heck would probably face massive lay-off's and cut-backs. Their purchasing power is very much dependent on the constantly flow of new money financing the government (i.e. resources that could have been better allocated to capital improvement higher productivity and higher living standards.) Debt that can never be paid off.

tatupu70 says

FED is the enabler of government expansion and borrowing; the government is the reason why worthless pieces of paper and ledger entries created by the FED are worth anything: fiat money power. The two are the two sides of the same coin ripping off the American people.

Actually, the US was free to borrow money before the existence of the Federal Reserve. It had a $75MM debt after the revolutionary war.

Have you not heard of the expression "not worth a Continental"? Without the central bank holding the interest rate down, the government would have to borrow at much higher interest expense.

tatupu70 says

NYC is the location of the most government back-stopped big banks. SF is the location of technology bubble, which attracts much of the new money borrowed into existence.

Excellent--can you show me the exact backstop agreement? When does the US government step in? Is it loans or equity?

They are called Systemically Important Financial Institutions. It is an official list at the Treasury Department.

Regardless, private banks aren't getting government paychecks so that theory is nonsense.

Of course they are: the "systematically important financial institution" is able to borrow at the FED window at near-zero percent, then turn around and lend to the US government at around 2-3%. The institution is taking zero risk and has no capital tied up, yetfor every $100 Billion lent to the government, it is rippping $2-3Billion from taxpayers every year!

And neither are technology companies in SF so that is nonsense as well. Like most of your postings.

Technology companies in SF are where the gamblers are chasing higher returns with their low cost money. You are just too dumb to look beyond the silly propagandas; or perhaps you are paid to be a propagandist.

67   indigenous   2015 Aug 4, 7:45pm  

bob2356 says

and the average daily wage of $1.33 in 1912 will buy how much goods in 2015? Average wages across all industries were 400 a year in 1900 and 39000 a year 2010. On a six days a week the average daily wage was 1.33 in 1900. A pound of butter was .25 so you could buy 5 lbs of butter with a days wage. On a 5 day work week in 2010 the daily wage is 156.00. Butter is say 4.00 in 2010 and that's generous. So an average worker in 2010 could buy 40 lbs of butter with a days wage. These number hold for pretty much any food staple. Want to look at manufactured goods? Price of a bicycle in 1900 was16.00 or 12 days wages. Today a good bike is $300 or 2 days wages.

That would be isn't technology grand. That is the prime driving force behind what you indicate.

The inflation occurs in the margins, the inflation occurs ahead of the wage increases so that the investors are guaranteed returns from inflation. Yea the wages increase but not before the inflation occurs. Especially right now.Take a look at this graph since 2010

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-03/average-weekly-hours-law-large-numbers-and-april-618000-payroll-decline

68   bob2356   2015 Aug 4, 9:46pm  

indigenous says

That would be isn't technology grand. That is the prime driving force behind what you indicate.

The inflation occurs in the margins, the inflation occurs ahead of the wage increases so that the investors are guaranteed returns from inflation. Yea the wages increase but not before the inflation occurs. Especially right now.Take a look at this graph since 2010

Absolutely irrelevant to your assertion the dollar has lost 96% of it's purchasing power in the last 100 years. People can buy multiples of what they could buy 100 years ago for the same day of labor. The fact that technology mad it possible is also absolutely irrelevant. If the dollar lost 96% of it's purchasing power then people could only buy 4% of what they could 100 years ago for the same days labor. Money is a medium of exchange, nothing more or nothing less.

69   indigenous   2015 Aug 4, 10:11pm  

bob2356 says

If the dollar lost 96% of it's purchasing power then people could only buy 4% of what they could 100 years ago for the same days labor.

As usual you are missing the point.

The difference is in the margins, during which time the wages are not as valuable and the worker loses purchasing power. See the graph for the past 5 years.

Technology makes the purchasing power of the dollar go up which further masks the affects of inflation.

70   bob2356   2015 Aug 4, 10:38pm  

Reality says

Fiat paper money was first introduced in the far east around the 12th century! John Law tried to copy that in France some 600+ years later. Both led to massive bubbles and collapses, with numerous bubbles and collapses due to the fiat money plague ever since.

Actually the first paper money was introduced in the 7th century by the tang dynasty. Called flying cash because it could blow away. Not fiat money at all, it was more a receipt that could be redeemed. You are actually talking about the song dynasty which was the first to make extensive use of paper notes starting in 960. By the 1100's the government took over all the printing issuing the jiaozi.. Again not fiat money at all. The notes were backed. When the song dynasty fell to the mongols in 1279 the mongols printed paper notes called the chao that were not backed. That was the first fiat currency. The ming dynasty ousted the mongols in 1368 and continued to print until 1450 then stopped, silver became the money used in china until the 1800's. There were no massive bubbles and collapses during the mongol empire or the early ming empire.

John Law was fraud plain and simple, not fiat currency. He issued bank notes that were supposed to be backed but weren't.

Most of the bubbles and collapses in history happened in hard money societies, either paper money backed by hard currency or just hard currency. They were caused by credit speculation or plain old fraud, not fiat money. Tulips were speculation on futures contracts with a 2.5% down payment. South sea bubble was classic pump and dump stock fraud. the bus and panic of 1819 was also fraud since the bus never acquired the gold backing as required in their charter, etc., etc..

71   bob2356   2015 Aug 4, 10:49pm  

indigenous says

bob2356 says

If the dollar lost 96% of it's purchasing power then people could only buy 4% of what they could 100 years ago for the same days labor.

As usual you are missing the point.

The difference is in the margins, during which time the wages are not as valuable and the worker loses purchasing power. See the graph for the past 5 years.

Technology makes the purchasing power of the dollar go up which further masks the affects of inflation.

Irrelevant to your original statement. As usual you keep changing the point when you can't defend it. You said the dollar lost 96% of it's purchasing power in the last 100 years. Your simple minded no qualifications statement. Stay on track and defend that statement which is obviously absurd. Is the average person buying more or less of the same product for the same amount of labor as they were 100 years ago? The possible answers are more or less. Are they buying 96% less. The possible answers are yes or no.

72   indigenous   2015 Aug 5, 3:01am  

bob2356 says

Irrelevant to your original statement. As usual you keep changing the point when you can't defend it. You said the dollar lost 96% of it's purchasing power in the last 100 years. Your simple minded no qualifications statement. Stay on track and defend that statement which is obviously absurd. Is the average person buying more or less of the same product for the same amount of labor as they were 100 years ago? The possible answers are more or less. Are they buying 96% less. The possible answers are yes or no.

Nope, of course they do not have 4% of the buying power, that is NOT the point never was.

73   Reality   2015 Aug 5, 8:34am  

bob2356 says

Actually the first paper money was introduced in the 7th century by the tang dynasty. Called flying cash because it could blow away. Not fiat money at all, it was more a receipt that could be redeemed. You are actually talking about the song dynasty which was the first to make extensive use of paper notes starting in 960. By the 1100's the government took over all the printing issuing the jiaozi.. Again not fiat money at all. The notes were backed. When the song dynasty fell to the mongols in 1279 the mongols printed paper notes called the chao that were not backed. That was the first fiat currency. The ming dynasty ousted the mongols in 1368 and continued to print until 1450 then stopped, silver became the money used in china until the 1800's. There were no massive bubbles and collapses during the mongol empire or the early ming empire.

The "Flying Cash" of the Tang Dynasty was more like checks and bank drafts. The early Song privately issued paper notes had to be backed or faced bank-run's when such backing was in doubt. By the 12th century (we both agree on this, your "1100's" is my "12th century"), the Song government took over all the printing and issuing of Jiaozi. We agree so far. Why did it have to be government exclusive printing and issuing? For the same reason that the Federal Reserve was founded: politicians and banksters want a central bank for fiat money creation without the risk of bank runs exposing the under-backing/over-issue fraud: by transferring such risk to the public via government issued fiat currency. It took only a few years for massive inflation to take place after Song government started the fiat currency regime. "Monetary reforms," striking off multiple zero's off the number like Zimbabwe did a few years ago and Venezuela about to do soon, were frequent in late Song Dynasty, throughout Mongol Yuan Dynasty and early Ming Dynasty, every few years to a handful of decades. Ask yourself, why did Ming Dynasty give up the printing of paper money? The silver money was not a government choice, but the people's choice starting in private practice. In fact, initially Ming Dynasty waged wars on the coast against "Japanese pirates" that were shipping silver mined in Japan to China; the "Japanese pirates" were often Chinese merchants and bootleggers involved in the shipping of a money that was more readily acceptable to the Chinese public than government issued paper money was due to the latter's constant massive inflation . . . just like the USD became de facto currency in Zimbabwe when the Zim Dollar hyperinflated. By mid-Ming Dynasty, the government gave up on the enforcement against silver money, and stopped printing of paper money as paper money became literally worthless. That also explains why the Chinese silver money during Ming and Qing dynasties were lump metal of weight, not any officially denominated coins, despite the country having known coinage and saw widespread use of coins from about 300BC to 1000AD: the fiat moneys of late Song, Mongol and early Ming had so thoroughly discredited government issued money that even the Chinese population (despite their traditional faith in centralized government) figured out that the only thing the big centralized government can do to a lump of precious metal is making it worth less in the long run by debasing content in similar coins while keeping the same image on the outside.

The repeated massive / hyper- inflations in late Song, Mongol Yuan and early Ming dynasties of course produced economic bubbles and busts in the market place (price inflation does not hit all sectors at the same time; massive increase in money supply create bubbles in certain sectors). The Chinese court historians simply had more important things to write about, such as wars, conquests and mass slaughters (some accounts claim China lost more than half of its population during Mongol conquest and occupation, which lasted only some 80 years or so, a very short dynasty by Chinese standards). The most pernicious bubble during those 100-200 years was actually the government bubble: the fiat money essentially financed the Mongol conquest of not only most of Asia but also the Middleast and Eastern Europe, through the mobilization power of a fraudulent promise (the money/credit promise) that is more sophisticated than the 72-virgin martyrdom promise and the usual paradise/reincarnation promise. Fiat money has tremendous mobilization power during wars, able to reel in a somewhat sophisticated population not easily swayed by the 72-virgins. The Mongol use of it led to the biggest empire in term of land area, ever in human history . . . with unimaginable misery and strife for humanity. That was the most significant bubble from the Song-Mongol/Yuan-Ming fiat money episode, before the people of east asia rejected all paper money and all government minted money, embracing lump metal as money despite government violent enforcement against honest money.

bob2356 says

John Law was fraud plain and simple, not fiat currency. He issued bank notes that were supposed to be backed but weren't.

John Law was in charge of French government finances, and implementing those policies in the name of the French government. Yes, all governments are forms of fraud and con game to some degree. It is a fictiticious entity for a small group of people to defraud the gullible public.

Most of the bubbles and collapses in history happened in hard money societies, either paper money backed by hard currency or just hard currency. They were caused by credit speculation or plain old fraud, not fiat money. Tulips were speculation on futures contracts with a 2.5% down payment. South sea bubble was classic pump and dump stock fraud. the bus and panic of 1819 was also fraud since the bus never acquired the gold backing as required in their charter, etc., etc..

The bust and panic of 1819 was due to prior suspension of gold standard during the Napoleonic War. British central bank was set up to run gold standard during peace time, then suspend gold standard during major wars in order to mobilize societal resources. There had been massive monetary/credit expansion during the Napoleonic Wars. After Napoleon was captured for a second time and sent to the island of Helena in south Atlantic, the central bank had to contract money supply and return to normalcy. In the other instances, government sponsored credit speculation and fraud were/are by definition not hard money societies.

« First        Comments 63 - 73 of 73        Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions   gaiste