Investing now to live from dividends in 4 years

[bytemaster]

Government spending is taxation, period.   
> Government spending directly correlates either with taxation or with debt or both.

It benefits the bankers immediately when they can buy things for free (get something for nothing).  The usually buy real wealth producing assets.   
> A bank takes the risk of not being paid back when lending money. In the long term, if that risk would not be taken away by bail out guarantees lending money is a market with a normal profit expectation. In the current form you are right though. 

When the do this everyone else is immediately priced out.  Their dollars no longer purchase what they use to (nothing for something). 

No need to wait until the too big to bail failures for the people to be hurt.

The issue with banks is the mismatch in maturity, not the lending money into existence.   They create an "IOU on DEMAND" in exchange for an "IOU in 30 years" which is the root of the fraud.   The bank is immediately insolvent.   Given 2 people and a bank... person A borrows $100K from the bank on a 30 year note... the bank creates an IOU on DEMAND which is then given to person B who goes to the bank and attempts to redeem the IOU... bam, instant default and clear fraud and theft.   The bank is put into bankruptcy court and the assets of the bank are transferred to person B (the only creditor) who now has an IOU in 30 years from person A collateralized by the house that person B no longer owns. 

If what is really backing the IOU from the bank is the IOU from person A, then what value did the bank bring to the transaction?   The bank took no risk, because in the event of bankruptcy they have none of their own assets on the line. 

[santaclause102]

Government spending is taxation, period.   
> Government spending directly correlates either with taxation or with debt or both.

It benefits the bankers immediately when they can buy things for free (get something for nothing).  The usually buy real wealth producing assets.   
> A bank takes the risk of not being paid back when lending money. In the long term, if that risk would not be taken away by bail out guarantees lending money is a market with a normal profit expectation. In the current form you are right though. 

When the do this everyone else is immediately priced out.  Their dollars no longer purchase what they use to (nothing for something). 

No need to wait until the too big to bail failures for the people to be hurt. 

[bytemaster]

Government spending is taxation, period.   

It benefits the bankers immediately when they can buy things for free (get something for nothing).  The usually buy real wealth producing assets.   

When the do this everyone else is immediately priced out.  Their dollars no longer purchase what they use to (nothing for something). 

No need to wait until the too big to bail failures for the people to be hurt. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[santaclause102]

Very simple rule, every time someone gets something for nothing, someone else gets nothing for something.  This is redistribution.   When the bankers create new money they get something for nothing, which means that somewhere someone is getting nothing for something. 

This only works out in favor of the banker long term when a bank(er) is too big to fail and is bailed out buy society (the tax payers). Too big to fail is ether dumb or would (if not bailed out) show that there is already too much debt in the system - debt between banks (just aksing myself if there is a structural difference to the debt governments and private individuals have). Solution would be to either educate people better to be more cautious which bank they entrust their money to or cut the fractional reserve system (mostly).

Second inflation causes misallocation of resources and economic miscalculation by business men.  This leads to destruction of wealth and losses in society which reduces the number of goods and services available and thus makes things more expensive for the poor.   

Agree that too high (edited) inflation is not good for economic prosperity in general.


Massive inflation normally happens when governments accumulate to much debt und start increasing the money supply.
This government debt can be tackled by higher taxes (which mostly effect the middle and lower class; the super rich don't have an income, they have interest they get on there capital and find ways to not pay taxes as much as the average guy),  economic growth and therefore higher tax income and by lowering government spending. Economic growth can not be achieved that easily when you have to save money as a government. But you can cut government spending and raise taxes which both hurts the middle class and the poor.
The other option is inflation or a debt cut (same effect) which more hurts the rich and less the poor (not not at all) because the above measures can be avoided.
The cycle of any capitalistic society, that always repeats itself, is that capital gets more and more centralized over time which in return means that debt grows equally with those that are not super rich. This debt is held by governments and by private individuals. From time to time the debt of the masses gets to big (to big in the sense of not being able to pay it back by higher taxes, cutting government spending, working harder/economic growth). The interest rates eat up all these efforts. Then inflation of some kind is inevitable and makes the field more leveled again and takes away the burden of the poor and average tax payer to work to serve the interest on the debt that the government holds for them as a whole or which they hold as private individuals. So inflation has a redistribution effect because the debt the masses have with the super rich is mostly gone.

Too tired to draw the conclusions for crypto currencies / bitshares.... Tomorrow again...


 

[bytemaster]

I would disagree on that as the (really) poor don't have ANY savings. Most people on this planet buy food with the majority of what they earn or plant their foods themselves. Inflation would be good for them as it redistributes the money (in relative terms) that others made from capital intensive investments. But on the other side inflation makes economies inefficient which is bad for anyone again... 

While inflation is certainly redistributive, this does not mean that it redistributes to the (really) poor.  Even if it did, once that happens inflation will immediately turn against them until they're back to zero again.  In any economy with non-zero friction and barrier to entry for serious investment, inflation will tend to redistribute from those struggling to overcome the barrier to those already well above it.  The better solution is to work to reduce economic friction and barriers to entry, as well as redistribution, not to try to redraw the lines so redistribution works in your favor.

I don't understand how inflation has re-distributive properties, can you please explain how this happens? The only redistribution that I am aware of is governments taxing their working population, then redistributing it based on income or ability to produce. The only way to end poverty that I am aware of is through education which leads to economic development. Sound money can have a huge impact on poverty, because money is needed to create an environment that is conducive to development. As far as poverty is concerned education and knowledge is the only way out. IMO

Very simple rule, every time someone gets something for nothing, someone else gets nothing for something.  This is redistribution.   When the bankers create new money they get something for nothing, which means that somewhere someone is getting nothing for something.   

Some might argue that this only affects people with savings and thus doesn't affect the 'poor', but the reality is that this affects anyone who is owed money and the poor earn a paycheck that is fixed in terms of dollars and rarely adjusts as fast as inflation.

Second inflation causes misallocation of resources and economic miscalculation by business men.  This leads to destruction of wealth and losses in society which reduces the number of goods and services available and thus makes things more expensive for the poor.   

[thazel72]

I would disagree on that as the (really) poor don't have ANY savings. Most people on this planet buy food with the majority of what they earn or plant their foods themselves. Inflation would be good for them as it redistributes the money (in relative terms) that others made from capital intensive investments. But on the other side inflation makes economies inefficient which is bad for anyone again... 

While inflation is certainly redistributive, this does not mean that it redistributes to the (really) poor.  Even if it did, once that happens inflation will immediately turn against them until they're back to zero again.  In any economy with non-zero friction and barrier to entry for serious investment, inflation will tend to redistribute from those struggling to overcome the barrier to those already well above it.  The better solution is to work to reduce economic friction and barriers to entry, as well as redistribution, not to try to redraw the lines so redistribution works in your favor.

I don't understand how inflation has re-distributive properties, can you please explain how this happens? The only redistribution that I am aware of is governments taxing their working population, then redistributing it based on income or ability to produce. The only way to end poverty that I am aware of is through education which leads to economic development. Sound money can have a huge impact on poverty, because money is needed to create an environment that is conducive to development. As far as poverty is concerned education and knowledge is the only way out. IMO

[Troglodactyl]

I would disagree on that as the (really) poor don't have ANY savings. Most people on this planet buy food with the majority of what they earn or plant their foods themselves. Inflation would be good for them as it redistributes the money (in relative terms) that others made from capital intensive investments. But on the other side inflation makes economies inefficient which is bad for anyone again... 

While inflation is certainly redistributive, this does not mean that it redistributes to the (really) poor.  Even if it did, once that happens inflation will immediately turn against them until they're back to zero again.  In any economy with non-zero friction and barrier to entry for serious investment, inflation will tend to redistribute from those struggling to overcome the barrier to those already well above it.  The better solution is to work to reduce economic friction and barriers to entry, as well as redistribution, not to try to redraw the lines so redistribution works in your favor.

[santaclause102]

Thank you, for now I plan to buy as many PTS/AGS as possible whenever I get paid my salary. This would be around $200 per month.

A little bit about me:

I left school and did not make any education because of psychological reasons. I never got paid more than $10 per hour and I am in my thirties. The stress of insecurity/ poverty is what I hope to overcome buy contributing to this movement.

One idea I would like to let you know:

I was thinking a lot about how to end poverty. My idea was, that if the banks, phone companies and others would give every person a mobile phone with a money app that always has at least $1 on it, it could work.

Participants of the network agree to get a certain percentage of their income automatically withdrawn by the program, which sends the small amounts to accounts that have less than $1. I always think about it as green lights (more than $1), and red lights (less than $1).

The program will make that all the lights are green and the people can go and buy some rice or anything else. It would withdraw it from so many people that the individual would not feel the missing money.

With the technology you are developing, it might be possible to make such a system. I hope.

We end poverty by giving the little guy an opportunity to save in non-inflationary currency that earns real interest.

I would disagree on that as the (really) poor don't have ANY savings. Most people on this planet buy food with the majority of what they earn or plant their foods themselves. Inflation would be good for them as it redistributes the money (in relative terms) that others made from capital intensive investments. But on the other side inflation makes economies inefficient which is bad for anyone again... 

edit: I meant to extreme inflation isnt god for an economy...

[bytemaster]

Thank you, for now I plan to buy as many PTS/AGS as possible whenever I get paid my salary. This would be around $200 per month.

A little bit about me:

I left school and did not make any education because of psychological reasons. I never got paid more than $10 per hour and I am in my thirties. The stress of insecurity/ poverty is what I hope to overcome buy contributing to this movement.

One idea I would like to let you know:

I was thinking a lot about how to end poverty. My idea was, that if the banks, phone companies and others would give every person a mobile phone with a money app that always has at least $1 on it, it could work.

Participants of the network agree to get a certain percentage of their income automatically withdrawn by the program, which sends the small amounts to accounts that have less than $1. I always think about it as green lights (more than $1), and red lights (less than $1).

The program will make that all the lights are green and the people can go and buy some rice or anything else. It would withdraw it from so many people that the individual would not feel the missing money.

With the technology you are developing, it might be possible to make such a system. I hope.

We end poverty by giving the little guy an opportunity to save in non-inflationary currency that earns real interest. 

[38PTSWarrior]

Thank you, for now I plan to buy as many PTS/AGS as possible whenever I get paid my salary. This would be around $200 per month.

A little bit about me:

I left school and did not make any education because of psychological reasons. I never got paid more than $10 per hour and I am in my thirties. The stress of insecurity/ poverty is what I hope to overcome buy contributing to this movement.

One idea I would like to let you know:

I was thinking a lot about how to end poverty. My idea was, that if the banks, phone companies and others would give every person a mobile phone with a money app that always has at least $1 on it, it could work.

Participants of the network agree to get a certain percentage of their income automatically withdrawn by the program, which sends the small amounts to accounts that have less than $1. I always think about it as green lights (more than $1), and red lights (less than $1).

The program will make that all the lights are green and the people can go and buy some rice or anything else. It would withdraw it from so many people that the individual would not feel the missing money.

With the technology you are developing, it might be possible to make such a system. I hope.

[bytemaster]

I like this question as I was wondering the same thing, can anyone give the OP a guesstimate?

BitBTC will pay 5% return, so will BitUSD. 

BitShares will attempt to earn at least 5% dividend but that is subject to transaction demand.

BitShares should appreciate by more than 5% per year.

[mint chocolate chip]

I like this question as I was wondering the same thing, can anyone give the OP a guesstimate?

[5chdn]

i can sell you some thousends PTS if you want to invest big.

[ripplexiaoshan]

BTS is not ready yet, so there is no dividend now. After BTS is released, the dividends is dependent on the total transaction fees. So it's really hard to tell how many PTS do you need to get $1000 monthly income

[38PTSWarrior]

I would like to invest some money today, so in 3-4 years I could live from the dividends. 
How many PTS or Angelshares would that be? I would need around $1000 monthly income then

I already bought 38 PTS and some AngelShares but would invest more. Thank you!