HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » The Magistrate » Journal
Page: 1

The Magistrate

Profile Information

Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 85,194

Journal Archives

I Agree, Sir: This Is 'Corporate Sovereignity', And It Is An Abomination

No investor has any right, repeat any right, to profit from an investment, and any claim he has is absolutely without foundation in law, custom, history, or even economic theory. Laws, regulations, possible changes in them, acts of governments and rulings of courts are simply some of the factors people must calculate and try and anticipate when investing, and if you gauge these wrongly you are supposed to lose your money! That is how the thing works, how it is supposed to work, how it always has worked.

"The trouble with our modern corporations is they have neither souls to be damned nor bodies to be kicked."
Posted by The Magistrate | Sat Oct 26, 2013, 11:26 AM (2 replies)

He Does Not Even Get The Standard Doctrine Of Inflation Right, Ma'am

The classic defined cause of inflation is 'too much money chasing too few goods'. In other words, if the amount of money in circulation increases more rapidly than the quantity of goods and services available to purchase, each unit of money must necessarily be able to purchase a lesser amount of goods and services. This can work in reverse, of course: if the supply of money increases more slowly than the quantity of goods and services, each unit of money must necessarily be able to purchase a greater quantity of goods. The former is as destructive as the latter, though in different ways. Inflation harms creditors, since the units of money in which a debt will be repaid will have less purchasing power; creditors protect themselves by lending only at higher rates of interest, which, by making money itself more expensive to acquire, insures that less of it will be used for productive investment, and so reduces the production of goods and availability of services. Deflation harms debtors, since they must repay debts with units of money worth more than those they borrowed, and the very units of money needed to repay are more scarce and hard to come by; debtors frequently cannot manage to repay under these conditions and must forfeit assets to creditors, which when widespread drives down the value of assets generally and places many of them idle, again reducing the production of goods and services.

Government is far from the only agency of increase for the supply of money; private extension of credit has exactly the same effect on the amount of money available as does government creation of debt. Government debt becomes a capital asset for those who hold it, just as does private debt ( in the form of various sorts of commercial paper ); the only difference is that generally private debt is more likely to be wiped out by default and bankruptcy than government debt. Without the capital assets provided by government bonds, and the liquid market for them, a very large proportion of economic activity would seize up; in effect, deflation would be imposed, by a reduction in the supply of money. In our present economy, a similar result would occur if credit cards were removed, and people required to pay cash for all purchases, and allowed to borrow only upon security of real property or specie; in effect, deflation would be imposed, by reduction in the supply of money. Like it or not, our entire economic system depends on lavish extension of credit and creation of money, and whether this is done by private or public agency makes no essential difference, though it remains still the case the government debt is a more secure asset than private debt, as a general case.
Posted by The Magistrate | Fri Oct 18, 2013, 01:05 PM (0 replies)

He Does Not Even Get The Standard Doctrine Of Inflation Right, Ma'am

The classic defined cause of inflation is 'too much money chasing too few goods'. In other words, if the amount of money in circulation increases more rapidly than the quantity of goods and services available to purchase, each unit of money must necessarily be able to purchase a lesser amount of goods and services. This can work in reverse, of course: if the supply of money increases more slowly than the quantity of goods and services, each unit of money must necessarily be able to purchase a greater quantity of goods. The former is as destructive as the latter, though in different ways. Inflation harms creditors, since the units of money in which a debt will be repaid will have less purchasing power; creditors protect themselves by lending only at higher rates of interest, which, by making money itself more expensive to acquire, insures that less of it will be used for productive investment, and so reduces the production of goods and availability of services. Deflation harms debtors, since they must repay debts with units of money worth more than those they borrowed, and the very units of money needed to repay are more scarce and hard to come by; debtors frequently cannot manage to repay under these conditions and must forfeit assets to creditors, which when widespread drives down the value of assets generally and places many of them idle, again reducing the production of goods and services.

Government is far from the only agency of increase for the supply of money; private extension of credit has exactly the same effect on the amount of money available as does government creation of debt. Government debt becomes a capital asset for those who hold it, just as does private debt ( in the form of various sorts of commercial paper ); the only difference is that generally private debt is more likely to be wiped out by default and bankruptcy than government debt. Without the capital assets provided by government bonds, and the liquid market for them, a very large proportion of economic activity would seize up; in effect, deflation would be imposed, by a reduction in the supply of money. In our present economy, a similar result would occur if credit cards were removed, and people required to pay cash for all purchases, and allowed to borrow only upon security of real property or specie; in effect, deflation would be imposed, by reduction in the supply of money. Like it or not, our entire economic system depends on lavish extension of credit and creation of money, and whether this is done by private or public agency makes no essential difference, though it remains still the case the government debt is a more secure asset than private debt, as a general case.
Posted by The Magistrate | Fri Oct 18, 2013, 01:05 PM (0 replies)

Hostage Takers And Extortionists Cannot Be Rewarded

No offer short of unconditional surrender by Congressional Republicans is acceptable.

They have to drop the gun and kick it over to the officer; they cannot just tuck it back into the waist-band and drape a shirt-tail over it.

The debt ceiling must be raised by an amount sufficient to ensure it is the next Congress which must vote to raise it, and the continuing resolution must be for the full fiscal year --- neither can have any condition attached.
Posted by The Magistrate | Fri Oct 11, 2013, 01:08 PM (35 replies)

The Right, Sir, Does Not Accept Elections They Lose Are Legitimate

They do not subscribe to the tenets of Democracy.

In their view, an election is simply a device by which their natural right to rule is given the trappings of an expression of the popular will of the citizenry. It is not by any means a thing which could possibly put into power by the popular will of the citizenry anyone other than themselves. Any election result which does not ratify their holding power must therefore, by definition, be illegitimate, and they will not and by their lights should not recognize it as binding. When such a thing does occur, they must do their best to continue functioning as the true rulers of the country they know themselves to be, until such time as an election with the proper result can be contrived....
Posted by The Magistrate | Fri Oct 4, 2013, 10:04 AM (2 replies)

The Right, Sir, Does Not Accept Elections They Lose Are Legitimate

They do not subscribe to the tenets of Democracy.

In their view, an election is simply a device by which their natural right to rule is given the trappings of an expression of the popular will of the citizenry. It is not by any means a thing which could possibly put into power by the popular will of the citizenry anyone other than themselves. Any election result which does not ratify their holding power must therefore, by definition, be illegitimate, and they will not and by their lights should not recognize it as binding. When such a thing does occur, they must do their best to continue functioning as the true rulers of the country they know themselves to be, until such time as an election with the proper result can be contrived....
Posted by The Magistrate | Fri Oct 4, 2013, 10:04 AM (2 replies)
Go to Page: 1