points: 0

Dummies At Work

Wear your belt!

featured

by Mustang51PNA

submitted May 6th 2007

34 comments
what do you think? let everyone know!
tagged:
votes:
muchoworthynot muchoworthy
comments (34)
i live in a city full of these things.
10 years ago
New York ?
10 years ago
i think he means his house?
10 years ago
Damn dummies!
10 years ago
hah hah the dummy was checking out the jogging female dummies, uhm, ass or ass-equivalent
10 years ago
Can youblame him?that ass was fine!
10 years ago
I'd tap that.
10 years ago
Careful, I did and still have splinters.
10 years ago
if only
10 years ago
what..no carnage at the end ? whats the purpose of this video really?
10 years ago
the guy crashing wasnt enough for you?
10 years ago
If i was one of those dummies I would drive like a maniac all the time.
10 years ago
I imagine this was some kinda shitty seatbelt ad the ended with "if you don't buckle up, you're a dummy." Fucking liberal pansies always trying to tell me what to do.

Vote Ron Paul!
10 years ago
Except for the point about people not wearing seatbelts sucking up the taxpayers' money in medical bills and emergency services because they just manage to stay in a vegetative state when they arrive at hospital.

That guy sounds half-way decent except for the backed currency and anti-income tax ideas.
10 years ago
Yeah but in the US it's not public health care. Just insurance. So they could put a little checkbox on the form like "fuck off seatbelts" right below the "I smoke" and above the "I'm fat" boxes.
10 years ago
The backed currency and anti-income tax ideas are much of the reason why I like him!
10 years ago
Well it's a good idea not to elect him in the sense that you may as well do away with the whole idea of a sovereign state if you're going to tie your currency down and not directly tax people.
10 years ago
He advocates following the rules set out in the constitution. A tax on a person's income is unconstitutional, as is the debt-based 'legal tender'.

Most, if not all, of the income tax goes to pay interest on the debt. It's not debt owed to foreign government, it's the debt owed to the federal reserve. That debt must continue to increase in order to allow the economy to grow, but clearly the trend can't continue forever. It is a ponzi scheme, forced upon the public.
10 years ago
the seatbelt is the #1 safety feature installed in cars. it's your biggest saviour in a crash.
10 years ago
That's blashphemy. Jebus is my saviour.

I wear my seatbelt. But if I don't feel like it one day, it should be none of the cops fucking business.
10 years ago
And the last few hundred years has also shown the gold standard and other backed currencies to be inherently unstable. How is it going to be done right this time?

The debt might increase to let money supply trend upwards but so will everything else.

To me a slow erosion of nominal wealth over time looks more attractive than the devastating boom/bust cycle of a historically erratic backed currency.
10 years ago
The last few hundred years have also shown us the partial or collapse of several currencies backed by nothing. There are problems with either system. The gold backed currencies weren't all that bad until governments decided they needed to spend several times more than they had. I would love to be allowed to borrow a billion dollars right now for an indefinite amount of time, and pay a million a year in interest until I died.

I don't think the gold standard is the best way to go, but I think it is better than what we have now.

Either way, lawful currency in the US is gold and silver. And that's it. That never got changed. The only way to pay a debt is to use pre-1934 gold or silver coin. Using modern dollars simply discharges the debt (I owe you $5, he owes me $5 - so how about he owes you $5 and we leave me out of it.) Dr. Paul's hands are somewhat tied, since he's actually taking his oath to uphold the consitution seriously.
10 years ago
That's fine as long as you don't anticipate the eventual manipulation of whatever commodity you back your currency with. Bimetallism itself is hands-down just plain stupid since put briefly Gresham's Law will prevail.

Backing it also incurs an expense of actually needing to guard and maintain the asset(s) in safekeeping. A bond instead will pay you for holding it instead of money.

The current system works well at the moment because Gresham's law normally only works due to economic cycles or mismanagement of a country rather than how much of something people can dig out the ground or buy up and hoard. By the way I say "currently" because no system by definition has lasted forever.
10 years ago
egghead alert egghead alert! *WHOOP WHOOP WHOOP!*
10 years ago
i wish i was smarter ,then i could ignore long comments and just feel better about it
10 years ago
Wanko and Chairman!!! Dude, Fuck your currency talk. WE ARE ON MUCHOSUCKO!!! NOBODY CARES ABOUT THAT BULLSHIT!!!!
10 years ago
my english isn't bad, but i'd really need a dictionary and a pet scientist to translate all this..
10 years ago
Fine, no egghead shit, vote Ron Paul because he's not a sniveling jerk like the rest of the faggots running.

Ok, that's out of the way... The backing or not backing is not the real problem. The problem is that money does not exist until someone requests it's manufacture and agrees to pay back more then they borrowed. If I take a loan for $1000, that money only 'exists' based on my promise to pay $1000 + interest to the bank in the future. I agree to owe the bank $1100 dollars, and now there's $1000 fresh new dollars in the economy.

The ponzi scheme should be obvious here. Every loan requires more money than the principle to pay back, and the loans are where the money comes from. It's MLM. It's fucking Amway. It requires a constantly increasing money supply, which means a constantly growing economy and growing number of people and growing use of resources.

What is the line.... an economist is someone who beleives that things can keep increasing forever?

But things can't keep increasing forever. Already, the US has become a net importer of food. At the current level of consumption, the country needs more food than it produces. Does that not set off any WTF HAPPENED alarms? The economic bubble is always being inflated at the cost of the physical resources.

I feel an optimal solution would be a fiat currency, issued in appropriate amounts, and not debt-based way (as has been done successfully many times in the past.) However, this requires the government is in place to serve the people. This is certainly not the case. A backed currency (if enforced), prevents the government mismanagment and robbery that fucks us all.
10 years ago
A badass jew once wrote:

" In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation."

"The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves."

"This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard"

Greenspan is a smart guy.
10 years ago
So you're saying you want to go back to controlling the quantity?

Then the eternal question is how do you measure the money supply and how fast will you let that measure grow?

Sure when you look at it like Friedman first did there is this almost rock solid correlation between money supply and inflation. But that is no good day-to-day, year-on-year. The classic example is the rhetorical question of whether Christmas causes inflation in December or does inflation in December cause Christmas.

Quantity control is only seen favourably if you're wanting to correct large saving and investment shocks. Then you will eventually require interest rate management instead to fix the terrible shocks monetarism will cause to the supply and demand of money.

Controlling the money supply will also run into the few economic laws in existence which is Goodhart's Law. Once you try to control and observed statistical regularity, it will begin to behave erratically instead. The velocity will become inconsistent. As your Gerald Bouey once said, "we didn't abandon the aggregates, they abandoned us."
10 years ago
It's optimal in theory, it's <currently> impossible in practice.
10 years ago
We already measure and control the money supply (interest rates and the now-unpublished M3).

As for how fast that measure should grow... well, I know this goes against the holy commandments of economics... but maybe it shouldn't grow. Vary, yes, but not grow in the long term. Sustainable growth is not. It's a contradiction, a physical impossibility. It can't happen. Things in reality grow, then grow old and die. In the best case they grow steadily to perfection (some technologies have reached their theoretical limits, and won't contintue to improve.) We're already starting to peak on food, water, and oil. Food and gasoline being of more concern to americans, as that inflation rate of around 2% is a hell of a lot higher when they include these two items, which are perishable and essentially necessities.

For all the evironmentalists efforts to push conservation and renewable energy - I've so far made the biggest possible difference I can by simply not having a kid. There is no amount of conserving and recycling and driving around pussy cars that can come close to saving what one more human in the country would use. And that's what makes it such a joke. As long as we are depenedant on growth, there is no hope.
10 years ago
That's exactly my point. You have a set of different measures of money supply, they can all tell a different story.

For example, under Monetarism in the UK, M3 appeared far too loose as it was still growing whilst narrower measures were almost at a standstill. What they didn't pick up on for a long time was that the unexpected soaring velocity was due to very distressed businesses having to go into further debt in a desperate attempt to stay solvent.

Managing money supply via rates is different to hands on control of quantity. For a start you're not tying your hands and sticking to a number through thick and thin (over any time horizon). Secondly inflation is the actual target, the supply is simply the transmission.

What you are proposing what was only mildly flirted with 20-30 years ago and even that was not sustainable. You are running into Goodhart's Law. Money supply and inflation moving together is an observation over the very long run. In the long run we are all dead. Monetarism was perhaps a very, very effective weapon against stagflation but with our knowledge it currently ends there.
10 years ago
That's exactly my point. You have a set of different measures of money supply, they can all tell a different story.

For example, under Monetarism in the UK, M3 appeared far too loose as it was still growing whilst narrower measures were almost at a standstill. What they didn't pick up on for a long time was that the unexpected soaring velocity was due to very distressed businesses having to go into further debt in a desperate attempt to stay solvent.

Managing money supply via rates is different to hands on control of quantity. For a start you're not tying your hands and sticking to a number through thick and thin (over any time horizon). Secondly inflation is the actual target, the supply is simply the transmission.

What you are proposing what was only mildly flirted with 20-30 years ago and even that was not sustainable. You are running into Goodhart's Law. Money supply and inflation moving together is an observation over the very long run. In the long run we are all dead. Monetarism was perhaps a very, very effective weapon against stagflation but with our knowledge it currently ends there.
10 years ago
recover password