Anyone with any knowledge of our monetary systems will readily acknowledge that it works like a big ponzi scheme.
This is really the only way to manage a monetary system so it allows for economic growth.
We could say. "Let's go back to the Gold or Silver standard" but they have their own problems. United States was on a gold standard in the 1980s and I don't think we want to go there.
Anyone who has studied the history of Andrew Jackson should recall that the ongoing conflict between himself and Henry Clay during his three terms as president was about "Money Supply".
Neither Andrew Jackson nor anyone else had more than two terms as president except FDR, who took the US off the gold standard by stealing everyone's gold in 1933. (That's where the gold in Fort Knox came from.)
Besides, the US used a gold (and sometimes silver) standard most of the time before 1913, and in that time grew from thirteen largely agrarian colonies to the largest industrial economy in the world, so I can't understand why you say that "a big Ponzi scheme" is "really the only way to manage a monetary system so it allows for economic growth."
>...who took the US off the gold standard by stealing everyone's gold in 1933.
Yeah, right...(command-k Fort Knox)...Holy shit, you're right. He took everyone's gold and payed $20.67 an ounce, then printed dollars until gold cost 35 bucks an ounce. I'm dumbstruck...so blatant.
dgordon. When you grow from nothing to something 13 times doesn't mean too much. That argument is totally irrelevant.
There is no way we could have had the kind of growth we experienced post WWII if we had stayed on the gold or silver standard. The monetary system we use now is not perfect, it's just the best we have available.
But it's definitely broken. We need to fire some of the people who should have warned us about the crisis we are now in but didn't and then move on.
I feel very badly for those who have suffered unfairly, and this includes millions of innocents, but these things happen.
Growing all the way to the largest economy in the world is irrelevant? I don't follow. Nor did I say anything grew "thirteen times."
"There is no way we could have had the kind of growth we experienced post WWII if we had stayed on the gold or silver standard."
What's your evidence?
"The monetary system we use now is not perfect, it's just the best we have available."
Again, what's your evidence? Why is this system better than systems based on precious metals (the choice of most civilizations to use money) or systems that, while they use fiat currency, do not allow (in theory...) arbitrary creation of such currency?
"I feel very badly for those who have suffered unfairly, and this includes millions of innocents, but these things happen."
These things happen because the economic decisions of those who govern guarantee they will happen.
I don't get the connection between the article and global warming but have heard that Mr. O's transition team is discussing the possibility of starting a policy initiative that makes it against the law to be a "Global Warming Denier".
So here we are. It's 2010 and it's OK to make porn movie because that activity is protected by the first amendment.
But, boy, if you don't believe in "Human Caused Global Warming" and you haven't bought any of those Carbon Offsets..
Well, the constitution isn't going to be able to help you there. You just went too far over the line.
I'm a chemical engineer (MS) and after 17 years on the job I ultimately came to the conclusion that earning a degree in engineering is the functional equivalent of buying your way into slavery. Didn't meet any practicing engineers who disagreed with the analysis either.
Whenever I meet a bright young teenager who expresses an interest in entering the profession I do everything in my power to talk him or her out of it.
I'd say it's sort of like slavery, in that you work hard for rewards that are generally scantier than those that employ you, but there's a major difference in that you can quit whenever you like. For people like me who actually like solving hard problems, the drudgery is not as heavy as for those who should really be carpenters, financial advisors or whatever.
I think Chile is a better option. Much more capitalist oriented government. Income tax is at just over 40% though but there are lots of jobs, lots of activity, and the government is pro-immigration. Especially if you have technical skills.
Also Chile has huge Lithium deposits and could become Saudi Arabia of Lithium if these new electric cars work out. Get your citizenship early. Before everyone starts moving there.
After a year of Mr. O this country's entrepreneurs are probably going to be bailing out and the place could get real crowded.
I'm with wheels here. You're asking about opportunities in a South American country and then go and make a cheap dig that can't be addressed or refuted in the context of this forum without going wildly off topic.
While I understand that the political landscape of a country is an important consideration when making such a dramatic move, it would be a lot more civil to phrase your reasons for leaving in terms of policies and not in terms of vague grievances with a specific politician.
Perhaps travel to another country will give you the opportunity to experience other political environments, most of which are significantly different from the US, and give you a better understanding as to what makes for an effective government and why many people may be bothered by your unfounded allegations regarding the future of entrepreneurism in the US.
Meta: I downmodded you for calling the gparent a wackjob, and now that I've decided to reply, I can't undo it. It would be nice to have an undo for comment mods here, as reddit has.
Implying that entrepreneurs will leave the largest economy in the world en masse and head to a small, Latin American economy, just because a democrat got elected is, in fact, wackjobery, even to the point of making anything else said in the same comment of dubious credibility. Chile's economy isn't even 10% the size of California's.
I would restate the claim as "Obama will take actions that make the US economy much worse than it would have been without those actions (which is what people usually mean when they reference productive people fleeing a country)." If you agree that it can be restated that way, then it seems we have a real disagreement over whether Obama's stated plans will make things worse. This has nothing in particular to do with his being a Democrat.
Chile (or Argentina, or other South American countries) just happens to be under discussion in this thread; I would agree that if productive people start fleeing the US for economic reasons, only a relatively small percentage will flee to Chile or Argentina. That just didn't seem important to the real thrust of the comment, though.
Bear in mind taxes are also quite favorable. Entrepreneurs pay VAT taxes and that's about it; there no bullshit taxes on capital gains, either. And for what it's worth, if you don't have a citizenship, knowing you have the right to a fair trial if you're arrested is nice.
Oh my, we mustn't say bad things about the new messiah. You should look at the political compass web site sometime to see how different the US politicians actually are.
Obama is going to be like any other US president: optionally do some good things, not change some things and make some things worse. The biggest contribution he is likely to make is let us get back to not being embarrassed every time we see our president in the news (well, that and do something sensible about this infernal war).
No, you just must not say them here. Political discussions about the US president are inappropriate and off-topic for a thread about Argentina on a forum about 'Hacker News'.
Huh? He said entreprenuers are going to start fleeing the US and flocking to Chile because of Obama. That's just dumb. Your reaction is equally ... bewildering. I'd rather keep politics off of this site entirely because they have a tendancy to degenerate into knee-jerky stuff like that.
Fair enough, I guess I have too many people around me here in Europe that have much too high expectations to the point that I start seeing in more places then it is.
I agree about keeping away from politics, and now that you mention it, people flocking to Chile because of a change in president is a silly idea. People couldn't even get Richard Gear to leave after voting in W twice.
I am Chilean. I have thought of an Atlas Shrugged scenario in Chile, and Chile does have a lot of lithium, but...OK, I have no idea if the government is going to socialize what is currently Soquimich's ill-gotten concession, or if Obama is going to mess things up real bad, but I do know that getting a citizenship is a major pain in the ass. Major, major pain in the ass. An American I know lived here for twenty years, married a Chilean, and still had to do about three year's worth of bureaucratic bullshit to get a citizenship. That said, it's not that hard to immigrate or get a residency.
Now, if you want to chill out here for a while, sure, it's a great idea, but you have to keep a few things in mind. First, you're probably going to make more American friends than Chilean friends. Chileans often confuse Americans by telling them they'll do something sometime but never call and are very dodgy. It's not easy making friends. This is coming from the experiences of exchange students, teachers, and family friends that came to Chile for a while and found things to be somewhat different than they expected.
Then there's the flayte factor. [1] What I'm getting at is that there are quite a few people that aren't totally friendly to Americans or English speakers in general. They think they can take advantage of you. This should come as no surprise because I have yet to travel to a country where the default attitude towards Americans is friendly. Anyway. Taxis try to rip you off for sums that are not insignificant. People may try to steal from you. However, if you're 6' or above you're unlikely to get shit because people here are small compared to the first world. So yeah, a lot of reverse racism, and people sometimes have no class. OK, and customer service sucks. But it's not all bad.
Things are cheaper here, there are nice restaurants, cool neighborhoods, human rights, beaches, skiing, and so forth. So there are reasons to come, but for Americans, I recommend staying in the better parts of Santiago, turning off the trust instinct, going to malls, making friends in the international community, and going to a lot of restaurants and ski trips.
I know less about this, but the work environment is more chilled out than in US, but also somewhat more "Dilbert".
[1] So..."flayte" comes from someone who gets high. It's a corruption of the English "flight", as in Spanish someone who is high on weed can sometimes be referred to as "estar volado", literally "being flown".
Chile's definitely more capitalist. I'd say the thing it has going for it is that it's got better broadband too.
That said, it's also incredibly socially conservative. Much more so than Argentina and Uruguay. Chile just legalized divorce! Where as Argentina and Uruguay have gay civil unions and are on their way to towards full gay marriage. Divorce has been legal in Argentina and Uruguay for close to a century.
On the other hand, the geography around Buenos Aires and Montevideo is really boring, flat farm land. Chile, outside of Santiago is quite pretty.
If anybody wants help, i just am now going through incorporating a software company in Uruguay, and can explain he process. It's pretty straight forward if way underdocumented. Apparently it's much easier to do in Uruguay vs Argentina. Also there's a %100 exemption to all taxes (aside from payroll, and a fixed assets tax (%1 of value of buildings and cars)) if the company you have does offshore software / IT work.
If you're looking to enjoy the finer things in life, Chile is probably not the best place. Argentina, Peru, or Brazil would all probably be better picks.
This is really the only way to manage a monetary system so it allows for economic growth.
We could say. "Let's go back to the Gold or Silver standard" but they have their own problems. United States was on a gold standard in the 1980s and I don't think we want to go there.
Anyone who has studied the history of Andrew Jackson should recall that the ongoing conflict between himself and Henry Clay during his three terms as president was about "Money Supply".