|
|
| Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos) (422846) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 18 of 26 |
||
|
| (521692) | |
Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos) |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Nov 23 10:59:01 2007, in response to Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos), posted by Orange Blossom Special on Fri Nov 23 10:30:01 2007. The Creation of Wealth *begins* at the hands of LABOR. Something of value is made. A Laborer is paid, goods are purchased.If I sit here on SubChat, I am producing NOTHING, and nothing is added to the economy. If on the other hand, I produce a web site for a customer, then I *have* produced something of value, and that value is added to the wealth of the country. It is not surprising, is it, that this wealth flows upwards. The money that was given to me for creating that web site is paid to the internet provider, to the software vendor, to the power company. That which I keep (as if *I* kept *any* money) is spent at the Hobby Shop to buy more subway trains. And *he* spends that money to operate his store, and to purchase goods from China. But *I* Have spent the money, and no longer have it, although my life is enriched by more subway trains. Without the "rich" who invested money in tools and dies, no subway trains could have been created for my layout, and I would be stuck running Athern BRC behind some old RS-1 locomotives. So God Bless the RICH, for they enrich all of us. ROAR |
|
|
| (521693) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED! |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Fri Nov 23 11:01:03 2007, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED!, posted by metropod on Fri Nov 23 10:40:11 2007. 1.no. this wasn't robery. nothing was taken. it was sreached, but you got it back. even though it was wrong, it was still a legel search.It was NOT a legal search if they did not have a WARRANT! 2.I really don't think the courts would compenstate you for deleated photos. They could - it has been established by courts that photographs are the property of the photographer and do have value. Deleting a photograph does constitute destruction of property. 3. most likly posibale (the good news). 4. You really need a spellchecker.... |
|
|
| (521695) | |
Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos) |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Nov 23 11:01:31 2007, in response to Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos), posted by Russ on Fri Nov 23 07:00:24 2007. Wrong. Money Supply is controlled by the Fed, and is finite.Wealth on the other hand is infinite, and it increases with every article that is produced, every service that is sold. ROAR |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (521697) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED! |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Nov 23 11:03:38 2007, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED!, posted by BMTLines on Fri Nov 23 11:01:03 2007. 4. You really need a spellchecker....I believe I told him that years ago. He doesn't appear to care :( |
|
|
| (521703) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED! |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Nov 23 11:17:32 2007, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED!, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Nov 23 10:45:46 2007. 1. People shouldn't give definitive legal advice without legal training.2. It's possible that destroyed photos could be compensated for, theoretically, at least. But the real question is what the practical likelihood of compensation is as informed by pertinent legal precedents. Answering that question isn't a matter of navel-gazing; it's to be informed by a few hours of research. ---- The topic is, alas, far too long for me to read in full, but the standard sort of legal tactic to combat the behavior complained seems to be a CIVIL lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, a federal statute which prohibits actors acting under color of state law from infringing one's federal rights, to which one would piggyback a claim for legal fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. 1988 in the event that the suit were successful. But please note that this is complicated stuff. (Lawyers are professionals, after all, and in limited supply). The federal right has to be clearly established. There's a question of whether to bring suit in state or federal court, and where specifically an experience lawyer senses an advantage. There's a further question of whether the actors allegedly acting unlawfully were supposed to know that there conduct was unlawful, i.e., whether or not the actors are entitled to "qualified immunity", which circles back to how well established the right violated, in context, is. Please note that these questions are not easy ones and that a seasoned lawyer might find even more questions to ask and answer, and that further, I don't presume that the government is going to just roll over, and finally, one needs to recognize whether he can prove his allegations in a Court, because sometimes one person's word doesn't cut it. Anyhow, these sorts of questions are properly directed toward someone that knows the relevant law inside and out. |
|
|
| (521704) | |
Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos) |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Nov 23 11:17:42 2007, in response to Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos), posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Nov 23 04:24:43 2007. 'the countries which have the richest people, also have the least poverty.'That is broadly true, but there are many exceptions, because distribution of wealth varies considerably. The USA has probably the largest number of very rich people in the world but it also has a great deal of abject poverty of near-Third World severity. India, has much grinding poverty but has a large and growing affluent class. New Zealand, by contrast, is not very affluent by First World standards, much less affluent than its neighbour Australia, but NZ has rather little poverty. Some European countries, especially in Scandinavia, are relatively egalitarian and have little dire poverty, though they are overall less prosperous than the USA. |
|
|
| (521706) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED! |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Nov 23 11:23:48 2007, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED!, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Nov 23 11:17:32 2007. Nicely written |
|
|
| (521711) | |
Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos) |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Nov 23 11:29:40 2007, in response to Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos), posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Nov 23 11:01:31 2007. Money Supply is controlled by the Fed, and is finite.It's definitely finite, but as Fed officials candidly concede, they regulate the money supply and its flow more than they control it; hence talk or contractionist or "tight" times contrasted with "loose" or expansionist times. The Fed has huge influence, but things don't always work out as the Fed wishes. |
|
|
| (521712) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED! |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Nov 23 11:36:04 2007, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED!, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Nov 23 11:17:32 2007. You're right, I should have said "illegal", not "criminal". |
|
|
| (521714) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED! |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Nov 23 11:41:45 2007, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED!, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Nov 23 11:23:48 2007. Thanks, a few typos here and there, but such is life on the internets!I'd follow it up by saying that traditionally the leaders in such litigation are often boutique practices, who do this type of litigation as their bread and butter. Probably the two leading outfits I've heard of in our area are the Brennan Center for Justice, and the Center for Constitutional Rights. One of the huge problems for NYCT seems to be that while its regulations are broadly speaking fine, no one on the beat seems to know anything about them! At that point, the regulations are just about useless, so I'm hopeful that NYCT and NYPD would simply circulate a memo or two, and even especially educate beat cops working the transit system what the rules actually are, and that the last thing the government needs to be hauled into the court for is something it's already agreed to abide by. |
|
|
| (521723) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED! |
|
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Fri Nov 23 11:53:27 2007, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED!, posted by BMTLines on Fri Nov 23 11:01:03 2007. A search does not need to have a warrant to be legal. There are clearly defined situations where a warrant is not necessary. That is why, for example, the bag search on the subway is legal even though the NYPD does not have a warrant (unless somebody searched has an outstanding warrant) to search that person's bag |
|
|
| (521728) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED! |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Nov 23 11:58:50 2007, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED!, posted by mtk52983 on Fri Nov 23 11:53:27 2007. But that subway bag search is a search you consent to. I'd think all searches you give your consent to are legal (unless maybe you were tricked into giving your consent). Nilet's case is one where he did not give his consent, IIRC. |
|
|
| (521732) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED! |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Nov 23 12:10:49 2007, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED!, posted by mtk52983 on Fri Nov 23 11:53:27 2007. A search does not need to have a warrant to be legal.Indeed. Correctly stated. There are clearly defined situations where a warrant is not necessary. Well, unfortunately, not always clear, although sometimes clear. More often in the hard cases, it's downright fuzzy. Search and seizure law as a whole is really quite fuzzy apart from a few clear markers. That is why, for example, the bag search on the subway is legal even though the NYPD does not have a warrant Right, that was a "suspicionless" search, since having "reasonable suspicion" of wrongdoing can be enough to stop and frisk a suspect. Suspicionless searches are performed pursuant to a jurisprudence called "special needs searches". In the NYCT searches appeal, I thought that judges kinda bent over, to use the colloquial term, given the context. The evidence put up by the government that the search program is effective against terrorist attacks was just plain illogical, and I doubt the judges themselves actually believed it. There's no way that the City showed it was nearly as effective at deterring terrorist attacks via its program as, say, to rattle off some of the other special needs examples, border searches turn up illegal immigrants and contraband, or airport searches prevent (when properly conducted) importation of especially dangerous weapons on to aircraft. It's one thing to uphold a program that's doing its job, it's another thing to uphold a program that's basically conceded woefully inadequate in doing the job it's supposed to do. But the panel in that case - all three Democrats, as I recall - wasn't about to call the City's bluff. I think that's too bad, really, because courts really should not uphold ineffectual search regimes. Anyway, I thought the trial didn't focus enough on the empirical aspects of the case and on the question of whether the search program was more good PR than good policework. |
|
|
| (521736) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED! |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Nov 23 12:16:32 2007, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED!, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Nov 23 12:10:49 2007. In the NYCT searches appeal, I thought that judges kinda bent over, to use the colloquial term, given the context. The evidence put up by the government that the search program is effective against terrorist attacks was just plain illogical, and I doubt the judges themselves actually believed it. There's no way that the City showed it was nearly as effective at deterring terrorist attacks via its program as, say, to rattle off some of the other special needs examples, border searches turn up illegal immigrants and contraband, or airport searches prevent (when properly conducted) importation of especially dangerous weapons on to aircraft. It's one thing to uphold a program that's doing its job, it's another thing to uphold a program that's basically conceded woefully inadequate in doing the job it's supposed to do. But the panel in that case - all three Democrats, as I recall - wasn't about to call the City's bluff. I think that's too bad, really, because courts really should not uphold ineffectual search regimes. Anyway, I thought the trial didn't focus enough on the empirical aspects of the case and on the question of whether the search program was more good PR than good policework.IAWTP! |
|
|
| (521737) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED! |
|
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Fri Nov 23 12:16:55 2007, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED!, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Nov 23 11:58:50 2007. Here is a non-exhaustive list of the exceptions to the warrant requirementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Exceptions_to_the_warrant_requirement |
|
|
| (521738) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED! |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Fri Nov 23 12:18:31 2007, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED!, posted by mtk52983 on Fri Nov 23 11:53:27 2007. This is taken from NOLO.com with respect to what circumstances the police can conduct searches without warrants:Consent searches. If the police ask your permission to search your home, purse, briefcase or other property, and you agree, the search is considered consensual, and they don't need a warrant. The police typically obtain a person's consent by threatening to detain her while they obtain the warrant. Searches that accompany an arrest. When a person is placed under arrest, the police may search the person and the immediate surroundings for weapons that might be used to harm the officer. If the person is taken to jail, the police may search to make sure that weapons or contraband are not brought into the jail. (This is called an inventory search.) Inventory searches also frequently involve a search of the arrested person's car (if it is being held by the police) and personal effects on the theory that the police need a precise record of the person's property to avoid claims of theft. Searches necessary to protect the safety of the public. The police don't need a warrant if they have a reasonable fear that their safety, or that of the public, is in imminent danger. For example, an officer who suspected a bomb-making operation while walking his beat might be justified in entering immediately and seizing the ingredients. And in the famous O.J. Simpson case, the police justified their entry onto O.J. Simpson's property on the grounds that they feared for the safety of other family members. Searches necessary to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence. A police officer does not need to obtain a warrant if she has observed illegal items (such as weapons or contraband) and believes that the items will disappear unless the officer takes prompt action. This exception arises most frequently when the police spot contraband or weapons in a car. Because cars are moved so frequently, the officer is justified in searching the entire vehicle, including the trunk, without obtaining a warrant. On the other hand, if the police learn about a marijuana-growing operation from a neighbor, they usually would need a warrant, as it is unlikely that the growing plants and other evidence of the operation will disappear quickly enough to justify a warrantless search. "Hot pursuit" searches. Police may enter private dwellings to search for criminals who are fleeing the scene of a crime. Unless consent is given, which in this case it appears NOT to have been the CONTENTS of a memory card do not fall under these categories. Therefore while the police may have been within their rights to determine that a camera existed they did not have the right to search its CONTENTS without a warrant. First of all - The contents of a memory card do not in any way pose an imminent threat to the public or to the officers. Secondly - the suspect was NOT under arrest. A bag search falls under the consent rule - again - they search the contents of the bag for weapons or contraband but cannot search the contents of memory cards, CD's, USB drives or anything similar they find inside. Regardless of whether the search was legal or not - deleting the photos was clearly ILLEGAL and INEXCUSABLE! The cops have no defense there - it was as if they searched the bag and decided to burn the money they found inside. |
|
|
| (521740) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED! |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Nov 23 12:22:58 2007, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED!, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Nov 23 11:58:50 2007. But that subway bag search is a search you consent to. I'd think all searches you give your consent to are legal (unless maybe you were tricked into giving your consent).The appeals court in that case took consent into account, even though it curiously cited one of its own cases about the early magnetometer searches at airports from the 1970s, a time of hijackings, in which the judge, the late James Oakes, speculated that hijackings were such a threat because the plane could be turned into a "weapon of mass destruction" against buildings and people on the ground. (Such that I laughed heartily when Condi Rice as NSA head said that the 9/11 hijackings couldn't possibly have been foreseen, when a judge - let alone the national intelligence apparatuses! - foresaw it a generation before). In the magnetometer case, consent did not enter into the equation at all, and the court there noted that if in order to have phone service one had to give consent to have the wires tapped at anytime, that's not legal, even though one doesn't actually need phone service to live. The magnetometer searches were upheld, but for the very good reason that they worked, I think. Anyway, the consent is not critical, since to uphold a special needs search, you don't need to have consent. |
|
|
| (521741) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED! |
|
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Fri Nov 23 12:23:08 2007, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED!, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Nov 23 12:10:49 2007. Regarding your last point I do agree that the Courts did give the NYPD a good deal of deference. I happen to know many of the people who were assigned the task of developing a policy that would be both effective and constitutional. The problem with measuring success in terms of terrorism is that if it does not happen you do not know if it was because of the program or because there would have been no attacks even if the program was not in place. As such, the Courts gave great latitude to the NYPD after it showed that this was probably the least intrusive search policy that would otherwise have passed constitutional muster |
|
|
| (521744) | |
Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos) |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Fri Nov 23 12:27:46 2007, in response to Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos), posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Nov 23 10:59:01 2007. The Creation of Wealth *begins* at the hands of LABORIn classical economics, the creation of wealth begins with an entrepreneurial decision to combine resources to produce goods and services. The four resources that are input are land, labor, capital and entrepreneurship. Capital is a man made good used to produce other goods. Money is not considered capital in classical economics, although today the terms are often considered synonymous. |
|
|
| (521745) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED! |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Nov 23 12:28:42 2007, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED!, posted by mtk52983 on Fri Nov 23 12:16:55 2007. Finally, a search is reasonable if the target without coercion consents to the search, even if the target is unaware and not told about their right to refuse to cooperate.That's why the subway bag search is legal. The issue is the legality of not being allowed onto the subway if you DON'T give your consent, right? |
|
|
| (521747) | |
Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos) |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Fri Nov 23 12:30:39 2007, in response to Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos), posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Nov 23 11:01:31 2007. M0, M1 and M2 measurements are finite in the short term, and infinite in the long term. |
|
|
| (521751) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED! |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Nov 23 12:39:08 2007, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED!, posted by mtk52983 on Fri Nov 23 12:23:08 2007. The problem with measuring success in terms of terrorism is that if it does not happen you do not know if it was because of the program or because there would have been no attacks even if the program was not in place.That's true, in that - mercifully! - we don't have a ton of data on which to go on. Still, we do know, e.g., how the surge of hijackings in the 1970s was stopped: everyone searched, air marshals, and even diplomacy with Cuba to not accept hijackers. So while comparison to the no-action alternative is very hard, I think that you could certainly have impartial experts come in and analyze various alternatives. As such, the Courts gave great latitude to the NYPD after it showed that this was probably the least intrusive search policy that would otherwise have passed constitutional muster It isn't, to be sure, very intrusive, all things considered, but it's also quite ineffective too. Consider, e.g., that terrorists could and do operate in teams, and one advance team can head down to scope out some station, and then call up or text message their bomber team the all-clear to proceed. So I think that intrusiveness has to be allowed insofar as a program is doing some useful work, up to a point. Picking the least intrusive search that doesn't do enough to stop attacks isn't very useful, although I fear it is politically convenient. |
|
|
| (521785) | |
Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos) |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Nov 23 14:12:33 2007, in response to Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos), posted by Fytton on Fri Nov 23 11:17:42 2007. Where *is* this "Abject Poverty"? Near Third World Levels.Not in this country, that's for sure! ROAR |
|
|
| (521787) | |
Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos) |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Nov 23 14:13:41 2007, in response to Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos), posted by trainsarefun on Fri Nov 23 11:29:40 2007. Yes. This is so. And much of this money is outside of our borders where we cannot control it.ROAR |
|
|
| (521791) | |
Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos) |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Fri Nov 23 14:25:25 2007, in response to Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos), posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Nov 23 14:12:33 2007. In the southern US you still have areas where people have no indoor plumbing. You can see the outhouses from the street. I'd say that's near third world level. |
|
|
| (521798) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED! |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Fri Nov 23 14:45:17 2007, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED!, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Nov 23 11:03:38 2007. 'He doesn't appear to care :( 'and if he did 'care' how would he 'appear'? from thin air? |
|
|
| (521806) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED! |
|
|
Posted by FLASH GORDON on Fri Nov 23 15:13:07 2007, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED!, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Nov 23 12:28:42 2007. Sounds like an open ended law and does that mean you consent to body cavity surches too.Another 9-11 and just throw the camaras in the trash can or your lawyer will have to see you in the base in Cuba. FLASH GORDON |
|
|
| (521812) | |
Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos) |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Fri Nov 23 15:29:22 2007, in response to Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos), posted by Easy on Fri Nov 23 14:25:25 2007. not to mention the homeless sleeping in doorways, city parks, subway hideouts.The excessively rich need to be restrained. When there are no poor then, they might have an 4xcuse for such displays of selfish lifestyle. |
|
|
| (521815) | |
Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos) |
|
|
Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Fri Nov 23 15:39:45 2007, in response to Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos), posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Nov 23 14:12:33 2007. I thought those Indian tribes up in North Dakota was on that level. |
|
|
| (521819) | |
Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos) |
|
|
Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Fri Nov 23 15:46:16 2007, in response to Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos), posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Nov 23 10:59:01 2007. That sounds like redistribution. You're talking about things that you get paid from someone else. Someone pays you make a website, or someone pays you to work on an assembly line.I don't think that's wealth creation. And I don't think you get rich from this(didn't I post this somewhere today?). OTOH, the rich guys, though not all of them, have gotten money from wealth creation right? I buy a stock, it goes up 300%, that money feels like magic. Land, houses, selling a corporation, etc. I'm not an econ major, but this has been my observation of the world. Or maybe you're discussing microeconomics that you gained wealth, whereas I'm talking about macroeconomics of the total value of a region or worlds worth which was just getting moved around. |
|
|
| (521837) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED! |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Fri Nov 23 16:53:46 2007, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED!, posted by metropod on Fri Nov 23 10:40:11 2007. It drives me nuts when a seemingly dead thread is resurrected. 4/29/07 to 11/23/07. Almost 7 months. PUHLEEZE! |
|
|
| (521840) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED! |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Fri Nov 23 17:08:30 2007, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED!, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Fri Nov 23 16:53:46 2007. It is a continuing story - He is posting updates - should he start a new thread every time? |
|
|
| (521858) | |
Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos) |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Fri Nov 23 18:23:14 2007, in response to Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos), posted by Russ on Fri Nov 23 12:30:39 2007. What is M0? |
|
|
| (521863) | |
Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos) |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Nov 23 18:41:21 2007, in response to Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos), posted by BIE on Fri Nov 23 18:23:14 2007. M0 is the money in terms of physical stuff on hand, so that would be the sum of currency and coin and deposits on hand in cash reserves at the Fed (in this country, specifically; for others, they have other central bank systems). I don't think that the Fed speaks of M0, however, except as incorporated in M1, M2, or M3. |
|
|
| (521864) | |
Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Nov 23 18:41:55 2007, in response to Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos), posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Nov 23 10:59:01 2007. You need to read more Bible and less Catechism. |
|
|
| (521865) | |
Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos) |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Fri Nov 23 18:42:04 2007, in response to Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos), posted by BIE on Fri Nov 23 18:23:14 2007. It is one of four ways to measure the money supply in the US.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply M0: The total of all physical currency, plus accounts at the central bank that can be exchanged for physical currency. M1: M0 - those portions of M0 held as reserves or vault cash + the amount in demand accounts ("checking" or "current" accounts). M2: M1 + most savings accounts, money market accounts, and small denomination time deposits (certificates of deposit of under $100,000). M3: M2 + all other CDs, deposits of eurodollars and repurchase agreements. |
|
|
| (521866) | |
Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos) |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Fri Nov 23 18:43:01 2007, in response to Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos), posted by trainsarefun on Fri Nov 23 18:41:21 2007. If I remember correctly, M1 is most commonly used. |
|
|
| (521867) | |
Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Nov 23 18:43:38 2007, in response to Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos), posted by Russ on Fri Nov 23 18:42:04 2007. The rest of the world trusted us a lot less once we stopped publishing the M3 figures. There's more to the M3 than what the government claims . . . |
|
|
| (521871) | |
Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos) |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Nov 23 18:51:01 2007, in response to Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos), posted by Russ on Fri Nov 23 18:43:01 2007. If I remember correctly, M1 is most commonly used.For good reason too, compared to M0, since if you're trying to figure out my money supply, why not consider my checking account? |
|
|
| (521878) | |
Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos) |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Fri Nov 23 19:06:01 2007, in response to Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos), posted by Olog-hai on Fri Nov 23 18:43:38 2007. I agree with you 100%. It really doesn't cost the fed that much money to keep that statistic available.While our trade debt-in and of itself - is not really that important, or government debt is. When the federal government runs a high debt, its supposed to have a negative macroeconomic effects. It hasn't. Why? Because our trade debt has placed a lot of US currency in the hands of foreign governments. What do they do with this money? They buy the US bonds that finance our debt. If foreign governments stop buying our bonds, we're royally screwed. I think that the trade debt/ national debt relationship is the real reason why M3 is no longer published, but I could be wrong. |
|
|
| (521880) | |
Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos) |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Nov 23 19:08:55 2007, in response to Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos), posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Nov 23 10:59:01 2007. It is not surprising, is it, that this wealth flows upwards. The money that was given to me for creating that web site is paid to the internet provider, to the software vendor, to the power company. That which I keep (as if *I* kept *any* money) is spent at the Hobby Shop to buy more subway trains. And *he* spends that money to operate his store, and to purchase goods from China. But *I* Have spent the money, and no longer have it, although my life is enriched by more subway trains.Where do you get the idea that wealth flows "upwards." You seem to take it as axiomatic that there are necessarily (that is to say, there must be and always will be) some individuals who have vastly more money than others. In your example, you give the money to the ISPs, software vendors, etc— but the only reason they have goods to give you or services to provide is through labor. The workers get paid for that, and they have money to spend elsewhere. Why, exactly, do you assume that the money you spend at the hobby shop must necessarily end up mostly in the hands of a small minority with a lot more money than everyone else? Without the "rich" who invested money in tools and dies, no subway trains could have been created for my layout, and I would be stuck running Athern BRC behind some old RS-1 locomotives. Again, why must the money be invested by a single individual who has more money than everyone else? And where, exactly, do you think he got that money? So God Bless the RICH, for they enrich all of us. Um, as long as you're bringing religion into this, the Bible has some choice words to say about rich people.... |
|
|
| (521885) | |
Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos) |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Fri Nov 23 19:21:11 2007, in response to Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos), posted by trainsarefun on Fri Nov 23 18:41:21 2007. Thanks. |
|
|
| (521887) | |
Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos) |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Fri Nov 23 19:22:42 2007, in response to Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos), posted by Russ on Fri Nov 23 18:42:04 2007. Thanks, I was familiar with the others. |
|
|
| (521897) | |
Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos) |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Fri Nov 23 19:55:15 2007, in response to Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos), posted by BIE on Fri Nov 23 19:22:42 2007. No problem |
|
|
| (521900) | |
Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos) |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Nov 23 20:00:03 2007, in response to Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos), posted by Jackson Park B Train on Fri Nov 23 15:29:22 2007. There *are* Shelters. There should be *better* shelters, safer, more humane, with dignity, and not putting people out in the day time.We *can* afford that. As for the rest, Stalin tried it but it did not work out so well. ROAR |
|
|
| (521903) | |
Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos) |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Nov 23 20:03:25 2007, in response to Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos), posted by Orange Blossom Special on Fri Nov 23 15:39:45 2007. There are Indian Tribes in North Dakota, but nobody there is in poverty. All have houses, TV sets, and food on the table. Most of the tribes are making good money now with their casinos. There is no need to be poor on the reservation.ROAR |
|
|
| (521912) | |
Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos) |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Fri Nov 23 20:15:32 2007, in response to Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos), posted by Jackson Park B Train on Fri Nov 23 15:29:22 2007. The excessively rich need to be restrained.How should they be restrained? |
|
|
| (521914) | |
Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Nov 23 20:17:21 2007, in response to Re: Economic Discussions (Derived from: FOIA For Photos), posted by Russ on Fri Nov 23 20:15:32 2007. He said the excessively rich, not the mere rich.Google Theodore Roosevelt. He had the right views of how to restrain avarice among the wealthy. |
|
|
| (521917) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED! |
|
|
Posted by metropod on Fri Nov 23 20:21:08 2007, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED!, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Fri Nov 23 16:53:46 2007. I didn't wake it up. don't comaplin to me. |
|
|
| (521931) | |
Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED! |
|
|
Posted by Bob Andersen on Fri Nov 23 20:40:22 2007, in response to Re: ROBBED BY A COP— PROPERTY DESTROYED!, posted by BMTLines on Fri Nov 23 17:08:30 2007. I think this is one case where even Terrapin might agree that a new thread would be appropriate :-) |
|
|
|
Page 18 of 26 |
||
