prosperity
-
Posts
305 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by prosperity
-
-
Thanks for the encouragement John. You are right, I have not tried to market them... so who knows what the possibilities are.
However:
My time is worth about 20 bucks an hour at my day job. If I charged half that these boats will still be priced well out of the range of most people today. For example the runabout took about 3000 hours, plus materials costing $ 10,000. So at half my present wage that makes $ 40,000. For this amount of money a person could buy, off the lot, a larger, faster, more powerful and more useful fiberglass boat. That represents a premium for good looks that almost no one is willing to pay.
The canoe seats are indeed cane, and you are correct, after two years of moderate use, they are in need of repair already.
It looks very nice, and I'm not even what you would call a "boat admirer" if there is such a thing...
...who knows unless you try to sell them. There was a young man who was born, grew up, and went to school right here in Elmira (where I live) some years ago. He used to buy clothes in NYC and then alter them and sell them at local shops downtown. After a few business ventures he eventually made it big. You've probably heard of him, his name is Tommy Hilfiger.
-
Hedonism elevates sensory pleasure over everything else, including most prominently, your health. When sensory pleasure does not cause you harm, there is not only nothing wrong with it, it is a good thing.
I understand that as a starting point, however, at some point you need to be able to discover what is actually good for you and be able to determine benefit from harm. You can't simply base everything on whether it feels good and leave it at that. Otherwise, you have to be promoting recreational drug use.
-
I'd like to point out that sugar can lead to obesity and diabetes, starches are hardly better, salt can cause kidney problems and hypertension, fats can cause obesity and arterial disease, mammal flesh can cause digestive problems, fish can contain heavy metals. Caffein is poison. And none of this is a problem if these foods are consumed appropriately. The same applies to alcohol. We really need to put to rest the notion that Objectivism is some kind of puritanical Zen macrobiotic straight-edge cult.
I agree somewhat. All foods have tolerance levels. Even water can be dangerous. But I want to point out that none of this happens in a vacuum. I think an argument could be made that it is the combination of foods with lifestyle that will cause all of the things you mentioned.
For example, I think an argument can be made that fats can be good for you (even saturated fats help you metabolize certain vitamins that otherwise would simply pass through you), salt can help you retain water (which can be a good thing), animal flesh provides you with necessary zinc, protein and other nutrients...
...but combine fats and sugar, and you have a problem. Combine carbohydrates and lots of sodium and you have problems...etc.
Eating a good steak is highly pleasurable, and is one of the many values that can be pursued as part of an integrated choice "I decide to live". It is part of what makes life self-validating. If you don't like steak then for crying in the beer, don't eat it. If you don't find a good glass of wine enjoyable, please do not drink it. If you find yourself with a bad wine, please please do not drink it.I think I know what you're getting at, but to me it sounds hedonistic. You could make a case for nearly anything that you like or don't like doing, couldn't you?
-
It seems you could apply this argument to food as well.
"Why not try relaxing without ice cream?" Or "why not try eating dinner without dessert?"
My honest answer is this: if one wishes to occasionally enjoy some form a drug to relax, then why not? Now this assumes of course that the person has weighed the pros and cons, which includes the long term effects on both his/her physiological and psycological being.
This would mean the issue is still whether or not you can relax without the drugs. Personally, I find people who insist that "fun=drunkenness," and that they can't "cut loose" or have fun without being drunk to be morally repugnant in their regards to recreation, as well as mentally stiffled. However, if a person is capable of relaxing without the use of narcotics, then they shouldn't be condemed for indulging (safely) in their own selfish pleasure.
I think this is just rationalizing the use of drugs for relaxation. Your example uses the same purpose but different particulars (ice cream for relaxation?).
My honest answer is this: if one wishes to occasionally enjoy some form a drug to relax, then why not? Now this assumes of course that the person has weighed the pros and cons, which includes the long term effects on both his/her physiological and psycological being.I eat dinner without desert all the time.
But, if one is weighing the pros and cons, it seems that the cons of doing opiates would usually outweigh the benefits for most people seeking a long-term healthy lifestyle. In fact, I can't think of a single reason, assuming that purpose, that one would seek to do opiates as a form of recreation. A big "con" being the immunosuppressive nature of those drugs.
The fact that opiates are pain killers could logically lead you to the idea that recreational use of them would constitute an abuse of the drug (by your defense of the recreational use of opium, do you also defend those who take drugs in a manner other than what they are designed for? If so, how can you defend the use of opium for recreational use, but not Morphine? or Heroin? Those are opiates also.). Aside from that, I still maintain that it is a form of escapism. You don't need painkillers to "relax", ever. If you are doing it "just for fun", I think that you're ignoring the cons in favor of the "feel good" effect of those drugs.
That "feel good" effect that comes without a cause. When you relax without those drugs, the process is much different than just injecting a needle in your arm or taking a few puffs.
Lastly, I can eat deserts - especially if they are sugar free or "no sugar added" (provided they taste alright) - and not risk pulmonary edema, respiratory failure, or cardiac problems. Can't say the same thing about opiates.
I think just those alone would keep me from ever taking up those drugs as a form of recreation.
-
It's probably true about the resveratrol in wine; it's the people who insist it's the alcohol in the wine (or just say "wine" and want you to conclude it's the alcohol) that provides the benefit, that I am complaining about.
They'd be a lot less enthusiastic about a non-intoxicating way of getting the resveratrol. It's just an excuse to get the alcohol.
Perhaps...but I'm just as excited about grape juice
and I don't get intoxicated from the amount of wine I drink. -
I've always suspected that most people who bring up that "factoid" about wine are just looking for an excuse to drink. Worse, for some reason they are trying to persuade *me* that *I* should drink.
[edit--qualified a generalization]
haha...I've heard other people say that also as a reason to drink a bottle a day, but then I've known a few folks who just have a drink every day with dinner. The problem is that if you are doing that it could get expensive unless you are drinking from those boxes...but it's not always the greatest tasting wine. "Factoid" implies that it is somehow incorrect...is there something untrue about the resveratrol in wine?
I don't suppose anyone produces this supplement in a delicious, liquid form?Someone probably does...I'm a little skeptical sometimes though with supplements. Depending on what it is, it may not be absorbed in the same way that it would if you just ate (or drank) the food/beverage that naturally contains it...
...I don't know enough about resveretrol to say though.
-
I think someone else touched on this, but it could have something to do with alcohol being legal and the fact that doing drugs isn't worth the risk of going to jail.
Actually, I remember reading long ago that red wine (in moderation) was actually good for you. 9 times out of 10 if I do drink alcohol - and it's not very often - that's what I'm drinking (some type of wine).
The one time out of ten I might have a beer and very rarely liqueur.
I hold, as it's been said before, that if used moderately and in a purely recreational way (i.e., not escapism) then drug use can be moral. Whether or not you deem this to be worth the risk of jail time is your own judgement. I view, however, that doing so is not a rational risk and is instead a sign of a problem that one is willing to risk their own liberty and right to life for a few hours of pleasure.Also, a related question: is their any validity to certain chemical addictions (alcohol, for example) to be passed genetically, or is that simply a scapegoat for people who are addicted to cast the responsibility of their actions onto other people? I ask because I know that my family has had a long line of alcoholism, and if their is validty to this claim, then it also becomes logical (and not just a matter of personal taste) for me not to consume any alcohol or other chemical substances.
Seems like if you are smoking opiates with the intention of relaxing, that that's some kind of escapism. Why not relax without the drugs? Note your honest answer to that...
-
It is actually quite difficult to beat Google in a manner that is useful. As a simple experiment, we can get a few people pointing to ObjectivismOnline.net and see if it goes beyond it's position of between 7 through 9 on a search for "Objectivism", a position it has held for at least a few years.
Google does not merely use the number of links, but also assigns weights to each link. In addition, Google gives weight to content; with the domain-name appearing to play an important role. Finally, there are some who claim that there's a manual component.
There seems to be some set of people who are into the whole SEO thing, all cross-linking to each other for no rhyme or reason. I suspect some type of network-marketing scam is involved in many of them.
Well, from what I have read you are right it's not about number of links per se. It is mainly about what I've mentioned before which is relevancy of the site that is linking to yours, and relevancy of the content on your site, and inbound links. I suppose there are a few other things that factor in, but email the guy on the website in the previous post. He'll tell you how he did it and you can sort of reverse engineer it.
I thought it was pretty cool. You're not "gaming" the system, you are giving google exactly what they want. I think what is different about it is that you are not waiting around hoping that someone with a relevant site links to yours using anchor text keywords that you want to rank for.
-
Google's algorithms for search results are automatic. A combination of relevant content on the page and people linking to the content.
For example, most links around the web saying "Ayn Rand" or similar go to the ARI or wikipedia - and the ARI and wikipedia have lots of relevant content, so they are the first on the list.
Right, I'm surprised that more people haven't showed interest...
...from what I have learned, it's basically about relevant content and one way links. You already see this for certain keywords. There are, maybe 10 or 15 people that are all friends...and they all link to each other's site using anchor text keywords that they want to rank for, but they do it in such a way that everyone is getting one way links (as opposed to reciprocal links).
For example, if you google "how to make money online" (also google "how to make money), you'll see this guy's site makemoneyforbeginners.blogspot.com
Now he doesn't sell anything...though he could...but see who he is outranking for that term. He has a crappy looking blog and he outranks forbes.com for the term "how to make money". And that's a very competitive keyword. I've exchanged emails with him and a few of his friends...doing what he did isn't terribly difficult.
I'm sure the same thing could be done on other topics...like finance (for me), or environmentalism (I could probably venture a little into that myself), Global Warming, or any other keyword that you'd want an Objectivist site ranking up top. Lots of people use google every day.
...anyone see any potential there? Anybody?
-
"Cannot findeth server." The varlet doth hide! Verily he be a wiley wretch.
You'll have to do it the old fashioned way...it's at www.drhurd.com, you may have to type it in your browser. Or, get a new browser
Then it should be the second one down titled "Obama says we need to grow up. Really? "
-
I love this quick commentary by Dr. Hurd, and I thought that most of the people on this forum would like it also. It's such a relief to hear someone say it like it is:
http://doctorhurd.com/index.php/Hurd-on-th...-up-really.html
-
Not by frequency, by variability of payment amount. The biannual tax was an example of a fixed expense. Because it is biannual, and you typically budget on a monthly basis, your monthly budget would prorate the biannual amount into a monthly set-aside, to be paid in lump every six months. Because it is fixed, you can plan on an exact amount to set aside into savings every month to cover. If an expense is variable, you have to account for income to cover the average, as well as savings level to cover the the maximum payment.
Ideally, you would construct a budget based on categories of function (e.g., "household", "entertainment", "auto", "work-related", "paycheck", "royalties" etc), amount (fixed vs. variable), and frequency (e.g. "monthly", "bi-weekly", "annual", "occasional"). And possibly others, like "self"/"spouse" etc.
There are five things a budget should allow you to do:
Identify what you spend on and how much (including average/max/min per period),
Adjust ("what if?") how much you spend on what items and categories,
Correlate and coordinate your outflows to your cash inflows on a fixed (e.g., monthly) periodic basis,
Plan payments, savings levels and investments accordingly, and
Evaluate planned v. actual cash flow.
If you can't do all of these things, your budget is not doing its job.
Well, that makes sense - except I'm not sure I would go so far as to budget according to frequency. At this point, it does not seem that there is "one way" to simplify a budget, which is good to know I suppose.
So far I've been able to create a 12 month plan (it worked for the last 12 months) and focused mainly on "target income". In other words, I didn't really worry about how much was "going out the door" after the budget was made, I just worried about hitting "target income" for the month. It was fairly simple but was focused mainly on expenses, and left out explicit projections for savings and a few other items.
It worked fine for the most part but I ran into a few snags for example when gasoline and food prices jumped up unexpectedly...which is why I was hesitant to teach this approach to clients (thought there may be a solution that I hadn't thought of or missed for such unexpected instances - which may just be to accumulate savings specifically to offset budget deficits, but also didn't have an explanation for the process so I wasn't sure if what I was doing was "good in theory", I was sort of "flying blind" in that respect. The other side of this problem is that there may not be a solution because the spike was due to Government intervention and you can't really make bulletproof plans when there is a lack of certainty about how the world around you will operate).
...so it worked for me for the most part but I didn't have any credit card (or other) loans and very few variable expenses. Whether this would work for someone with a lot of variables, I'm not sure. I think that could probably be solved though by averaging the variables to come up with a fixed amount...provided you had savings to cover the highest possible/projected expense (like you alluded to).
-
Yes, "forced volunteerism." A contradiction in concept, an abomination to our founding principles.
...and yet how many times did he reference our founding fathers in his speech?
-
In terms of decision making, i.e. controlling where your money goes, this (discretionary vs. fixed) is probably the most essential characteristic.
In terms of planning out cash flows properly, you might also consider whether the expense is fixed by month or variable by month. A biannual property tax payment might be saved for (and hence planned for) well ahead of it's occurence for instance, otherwise you might risk in any period depleting your reserves. That would be as opposed to a monthly $75 cable bill which requires hardly any planning since you would expect to always cover it out of any cash inflows for the month.
So, as opposed to grouping by function, you are grouping by frequency? Why would you say that this is "essential" while function is not?
By the way, I'm not saying I disagree, I'm just interested in your reason.
-
I find it disturbing that Americans are so emotionally invested in any politician. Rather than living their lives and improving their own situations, much of the country seems to be looking for a helping handout. And, who cares that the handout is stolen from one of their fellow citizens? This is a new country, and the change isn't positive if you value freedom.
Yeah...I was just reading something interesting about this Obama phenomenon. Not only do these die hard supporters want to evade self-responsibility...they want to make other people just as dependent as they are regardless of what is in the best interest of that person.
...I guess that shouldn't come as a huge surprise...but it's very disappointing.
reason for edit: edit for clarity
-
Self-destruction is immoral. When getting high, on pot or whatever, becomes a person's top value as opposed to one's own life, he has surrendered his rational pursuit of goals to his emotional whims. Can't get much more non-Objectivist than that.
In response to RationalBiker's post- I agree. I don't think there are many people who try shooting heroin and just walk away from it with no difficulties. There might be a few exceptions, but that's my take on it.
I guess I was thinking in broad terms of whether or not the person's value system was such that drugs were deemed altruistic or egoistic. But if you were upholding your life as the standard of value, which I can't really see where you could avoid doing that (if only implicitly), I would have to agree about self-destructiveness being immoral.
I guess where the connection would have to be made is the realization or the acceptance that you cannot operate on the premise that you can "eat your cake before you have it".
-
I didn't watch it, but I bet I know what his message was. If he had one at all. blah blah blah altruism.
I didn't watch it either, but how are these things unique anymore? We pretty much know the spiel.
What is
about this whole situation is that talking to an Obama supporter is like talking to a brick wall. And even those who didn't vote for him seem like they are laying down for this guy. I'm annoyed at the very idea of his name nowadays. Every time I hear or read something that praises this man, I get emotional, and they're never good emotions.
His policies don't make sense, but that's not news to people frequenting these forums. What is annoying is that his supporters are demanding acceptance with whatever he does. That somehow he will do no wrong, and if the country is financially ruined it won't be his fault - and THAT is perhaps the most annoying part of this all. That he would be allowed to walk away smiling with a fat pension and his lust for power satisfied. That his policies make no sense, don't have to make sense, and need no explanation as to how they are in the best interest of Americans.
If you try to explain that there is no way his policies can work, you are marginalized/discounted. It feels like another Global Warming cult.
-
I think one thing that might have gotten Prosperity off track at the beginning of our conversation was that he was thinking that "1" was a particular, so that inputting the numbers into an equation was like reduction (going from the abstract to the particular one could point at). But actually, all numbers are abstractions, not particulars. After all, even "1" can refer to any number of different things that there are only one of: 1 dog, 1 cow, 1 apple, 1 skyscraper, 1 airplane, 1 inch, 1 dollar, etc. In finance, one is used to dealing in the units of the economy (i.e. dollars), so 1 means 1 dollar. But one has unspecified units of measurement, making it an abstraction, rather than a particular. It only becomes a particular if one talks about 1 something -- i.e. 1 dollar, and if one has a dollar on the table one could point to it, reducing the concept "one" to that dollar.
I think to do what you want to do, you would just need a matrix of clients and their particular payouts categorized (and subcategorized) and then line them up and add them up, so that at the bottom of the Excel sheet, one would have, in effect, Client1loan1loan2loan3 (client1loan) as a row (where client1loan=loan1+loan2+loan3), and in the column one would have client1loan, client2loan, client3loan (loan), where loan=client1loan+client2loan+client3loan.
So, as i understand the problem, and not being an expert at Excel at all, that seems like an easy way of doing it, so on a monthly basis (the loan amounts presumably wouldn't change much) and then at the bottom you would have the formula I showed above:
L + U + R = Pm (monthly payments)
To have it set up for a year, it would simply be:
12(L + U + R) = 12 Pm = Py
I don't know if you can actually do variables in Excel, or algebra, but you can do something like it.
The only difficulty for me would be learning to use Excel. I have done some minor tasks using Excel, but I don't use it for record keeping. What can I say? I have a checkbook and i pay my bills monthly, but I don't use any fancy software to do that
I don't know enough about financing, either, to answer why you need to break it down into subcategories for each client (loans, utilities, rents, etc.)
Thanks,
This would be for personal budgeting. Simplify my own, and then share that with clients.
The reason I was thinking in particulars was not the numbers, not the dollar amounts, but the individual expenses, like "water bill", "gas bill" "electric bill", and so on. I can point to those and say "by water bill, I mean this", but still...that water bill references a service being provided which implies all the pipes, electronics, back office people, etc that make that service possible.
As far as the algebra part, I understand what you are saying, but I think you are adding in some things that I was not considering. The purpose was just to develop a personal budget that was simpler than what I am used to using (and I think most people are using).
Something I see regularly is individuals using either MS Money (in simplistic terms), the envelope method, or they just balance their checkbook. In all these cases, they're dealing with every expense as a unique financial problem, always checking their account balance, not sure if they have enough money to pay this bill or that. In short, they're not really organized.
Now, I have a budget, but in the past, it was awfully complicated and I found myself spending a fair amount of time on it. I didn't mind too much, but there were other things I wanted to do besides starring at a computer screen and writing checks. So I started thinking about whether or not it could be simplified, still accomplish the essentials of a budget, and yet not take up more than a few minutes a month to "manage".
The devil is in the details though: what is combined into what. The guiding principle behind the grouping would be: the purpose of the person doing the grouping. For instance, grouping all loans into one major category may be useful for one purpose but pointless for another purpose.Could you elaborate on this a bit (bold)?
-
I don't think that some recreational drugs are really prone to "casual" use. For instance, I don't think I've ever heard of or seen a "casual" crack user or meth user. Obviously that doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist, but the evidence I have available to me at this point suggests that one time usage is typically enough to create a dependence / addiction.
Perhaps we are focusing too much on the drug itself instead of the underlying reason for using the drug. Why do people use drugs?
...for example, the only reason I've ever heard someone give - in essential terms now - for using pot is that it makes them "feel good". They're after the high. They're after an emotional response. But that emotional response is not to any particular achievement. The value becomes - intrinsically - the drug. They are after the high for the high's sake.
Could you say that doing drugs promotes an intrinsic value system? This may not mean much to the non-Objectivist, but the implications would be clear to one familiar with Rand.
Of course, I've known a few pot smokers who were essentially looking for the effect (feeling good) without the cause (achievement). In my view, while perhaps not immoral, it is self-destructive.
-
Like Greebo, I don't think I fully understand the question. From Thomas's post, I glean that question might be this:
is it useful to combine detailed categories of expense into a smaller number of broader categories?
In general, the answer is "yes", because it is easier to think about a smaller set of categories.
The devil is in the details though: what is combined into what. The guiding principle behind the grouping would be: the purpose of the person doing the grouping. For instance, grouping all loans into one major category may be useful for one purpose but pointless for another purpose.
I'll stop here, because I'm not sure if I'm addressing the right question.
Well...the purpose here is to simplify the process of budgeting and general money management. To deal with the fewest number of particulars as possible and to reduce the time commitment of paying bills and keeping track of income as possible. That was my initial goal.
-
I'm curious why you bother to make a budget at all if you aren't going to spend time on it determining where your money should be going. Are you really talking about a budget? Or just a spending report after the fact?
I ask because it is a household routine for us to, every week and every month, make sure we make every single dollar that leaves our house sit up and give an accounting of where it's going, before it goes - so what you're talking about seems more like something I would have done when my personal finances were well and truly out of control. I do not mean to imply yours are out of control, however - I'm just trying to understand the context you're operating from.
Oh on that line, we get e-bills from utilities, phone, etc. I go into my online bank account and click "pay now" on all of them, and am done (except for where I then record everything painstakingly in quicken).
I think I'm just not understanding the question...
Actually, it's quite the opposite. I have no idea where you would get the idea that this would be a tactic for someone "out of control". Yes, it is a budget, you make a 12 month plan in advance. So, rather than going back every month, you are attempting to make a decision about the next 12 months. It can be revised, though, like any plan, as new information comes to light.
That aside, I am trying to determine if this represents some type of concept-formation applied to finance, or if this even represents reduction. Basically, as I asked before...what is the process?
I'm still wrestling with the idea of whether it is necessary, though I I do have an overwhelming number of thoughts that would suggest that simplifying the budgeting process by looking at only a few items would be beneficial. Using excel, one could very easily - if one knew what they were doing - extract percentages for every group and this may make it easier to work towards one's goals - specifically, one's goals in terms of saving money.
-
Seems like you're making it more complicated. It's fine to group debt under one category, but since you have to do all the math for the payments either way, what benefit do you get from trying to reduce 4 debts into one category? You've added a layer, not simplified. After all, each loan has its own amount due, and you can't very well set a budget amount for all 4 in total without knowing the budget amount for each individual item.
Thanks,
I was trying to keep the logistics of payments out of this particular part, but it's really a matter of consolidating payments. I'm not suggesting that you ignore the payments altogether.
You do have to pay attention to them and there are several ways this can be done and it would simplify the process not complicate it. For example, with most banks, you have the option of online bill pay services. You can coordinate all of your loan payments for the same day each month. If you earn at least as much as you spend, you should be able to reorganize those payments.
The benefit is simplicity. Instead of managing 20 individual expenses, you only really need to look after a handful. The physical action of making those payments is a technological problem that is easily overcome with bill payment services, or credit cards that are paid in full every month (to remove the restriction of payment timing).
For example, let's say that you were to charge up all of your monthly bills on a credit card every month (or as many as you could) and then just paid the credit card bill. The amount of time you spend on daily/weekly/monthly finances is cut down to perhaps 5 minutes a month instead of maybe 1/2 hr a week writing checks and balancing your checkbook.
-
I am trying once again to simplify my own personal budget because I'm tired of dealing with each individual expense as a separate "problem", and so I have a few ideas (I'm also trying to finish this so that I can finally provide a good solution for my own clients). Actually, I've been at this for a few years and have come up with something of a solution, but I'm going back and finding that there are a few things that I don't know how to explain and that perhaps I am doing incorrectly. However, I'm getting hung up on the process and hitting a few roadblocks.
Example, and I am just using this as a hypothetical, let's say an individual has a number of expenses (you can fill in the dollar amounts for each particular, as it doesn't matter):
1) mortgage
2) credit card
3) water bill
4) gas and electric bill
5) personal loan
6) car loan
He sees several particulars that are similar, and groups them together so as to deal only with a smaller number of particulars:
1) mortgage
2) credit card
3) water bill
4) gas and electric bill
5) personal loan
6) car loan
Now his list looks like:
1) water bill
2) gas and electric
3) loans
The process continues until, conceptually, there are as few items to deal with as possible. Ordinarily, this looks like a process of reduction, however, the dollar amounts associated with the particulars do not go away. So, you have to add up all of the individual expenses and assign them to "loans" (after all they have to be paid, which I think makes this a quasi epistemological problem, and probably moreso a financial problem, but it's in this section of the forum because it might be epistemological - I don't know for sure).
For a moment, we are not dealing with the logistics of how to handle the particular expenses, making sure they are paid on time, etc., as I believe I have a solution for that...I'm just trying to figure out the process involved above.
So, the question is...what is the process involved here? Am I making improper associations for the purpose of budget simplification?
Thoughts? Ideas?
-
I thought the only medical syndrome that has been attached definitively to pot is amotivational syndrome, and that is after long time continuous use. As a person who smoked quite a bit of weed when he was a young teen (from age 12 to 16) I can honestly say that I have never experienced depression or a "psychotic state similar to schizophrenia".
I've also been much more screwed up from binging on alcohol than from pot.
Wow, I sound like a poster boy for what not to do with your life :?
Oh well, I haven't had a toke since I was about 17 and in spite of how it sounds I do not have to attend AA meetings
Part of the problem with pot today is that hydroponically grown stuff that is so common today is about 10 times stronger than the best natural stuff of my day. So I guess I'm saying that my first hand data is about 25 years out of date.
I've never smoked pot or done any sort of drugs (accept alcohol when I was a teenager, which I now regret) except those used for medical purposes (antibiotics, etc.)...so I honestly hadn't thought too much of it. The folks who used to smoke it in high school always told me there was nothing wrong with it...and even today, I know of a few people who smoke it and they insist that it is perfectly safe.
...so today I am reading this post...and just decided to google it, and found that it apparently can have a negative impact on reproductive organs, contribute to lung cancer, can exacerbate anxiety and depression, and is immunosuppressive (not surprising)...which can open up a whole 'nuther can of worms. This is aside from the obvious affects it has on your mind (altered perception, etc.)...
...what is a little surprising is that being immunosuppressive, why would doctors give it to AIDS and cancer patients? It could kill them even quicker...or are the patients just resigned to dying?
Inflation better than deflation?
in Economics
Posted · Edited by prosperity
What you can do is buy gold with some of your savings. Gold has traditionally been able to counteract inflation helping to preserve the value of your savings. It's a two-edged sword though, because your local grocery store likely only takes your currency so putting too much of your savings into gold could work against you (in the short -term) in deflationary times...but for very long-term horizons (10yrs plus) it's nice to be able to have a stable hedge like that.
Governments provide a huge question mark here too though...the uncertainty is what makes it nearly impossible to have a long time horizon in both precious metals (for fear of confiscation) and national currency (for fear of inflation). You are put in a position where you have to act on rational principles and then fight to preserve the value you created.
It worked fine in Canada and the U.S. when central banking was a minor issue. The few regulations that did exist prevented banks from having a clearing house (which would have solved the perceived "instability" of the banking system then).
A localized exception to the rule was the Suffolk system in Mass which really didn't suffer the same kinds of problems that other banks did in regards to an internal clearing and bank note exchange system. Also check into banking in general pre 1913. Every problem originated with the fact that State laws prohibited interstate branch banking and a clearing house system.
Banks did temporarily inflate their bank notes, but the system still worked great, and I think it was because any expansion of those bank notes was governed by supply and demand and was kept in check by reality. There was no arbitrary inflation. As a result, the value of money was relatively stable.