Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (170322)	4/8/2021 3:58:26 PM
From: sense	1 Recommendation Recommended By Maurice Winn Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217789

Quite simple. You did not pay taxes on the earnings that you are moving out of the country (not fully anyways). Until you do, that money is leased not owned. Pay your taxes and you can take them wherever you want. Except that's completely wrong... The assumption "you did not pay taxes" is obviously wrong... as the $ in the account... had to have been taxed at least once already just to get there ? All that scheme accomplishes, in theory, is to "allow" me to transfer the money around until its gone... All it might be expected to accomplish in reality... is to ensure everything grinds to a halt... except for those transactions conducted outside the system... so the black market is the only functional part of the economy left... So, before I show up for work in Panama... the company fails and I get a job in the U.K., so I transfer the money from Panama to set up a new bank account in the U.K., and get taxed again ? It also, obviously, fails to address the problem that the intermediaries ARE the problem... giving them power not only over my transfers of funds... but the collection of the state's taxes... seems a pretty bad idea, to me. I will agree that complexity needs to be eliminated... So, let's just limit it to a tax on the CREATION of money... and NOT create new obstacles that limit its transfers... and thus reduce the velocity of the money we do have ? I'm just fine with reducing the velocity in the creation of new money... but reducing economic activity directly by slowing the rate of exchange seems pretty self defeating... All is still just pounding drums and dancing around the fire... beating around the bush... in trying to avoid the primary questions... about how much we (don't) need them and how much power intermediaries should have... and "how much government" should be allowed to exist... along with which few roles it has are legitimate and which are not... And, of course, the economy is no different than anything else... first, they create the problems... then require more "support" to enable fixing them... when what we need is for them to stop creating problems...

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (170322)	4/8/2021 4:22:30 PM
From: sense	2 Recommendations Recommended By dvdw© Maurice Winn Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217789

Until you do, that money is leased not owned. The first answer is... bullshit. The second, in a stretch... then I'd rather not have your money, as it lacks value... more given there are other forms of money I can own without first signing a contract saying you own me... as is inherently true when you say you own all the money and just "allow" others to use it... entirely at your own discretion. That's the debate, of course, that led to the well known rallying cry, "give me liberty, or give me universal basic income". You could easily enough make the argument that Thomas Paine's unedited version is the debate going on now... less "internal" to the dollar system than outside of it... where Iran and Russia have rather different ideas than Jamie Dimon might on whether the first answer or the second is the more correct. Which is not to say that Iran and Russia are any less involved in scamming their own people through fiat currency frauds... its only saying they want the exclusive right to defraud their people without anyone else enabled in acting in obstructing them in the effort. It's only about a phony nationalistic fervor generated to ensure applauding crowds foster enslavement by homegrown tyrants instead of others... The opposite argument is that of the crypto crowd... who would rather opt out of money that has any "hooks" of that sort... whether enabled by sovereigns or by bankers... or by the bankers intended replacements in newer and more servile intermediaries that provide vastly more information about you... to help a more digitally savvy generation of tyrants better control the population through more tightly controlled oversight and management of the $ flows... And, then, the Balkanization of interests begins again... as Twitter has no problem manipulating the flow of news or free speech to "manage opinion"... are clear in wanting you to surrender $ and control to government... but only because they intend that to be them... leading to unsustainable hypocrisy emerging... to which they, like those before them, are completely blind... /no end to the sarcasm...