uneverno
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3234781
nah, it is an argument I've heard about 1 million times from different sources. sorry, I had about 101 degree fever when I was posting last night, I was a little more sarcastic than usual last night. It is true, you're spending money that you're gonna tax from the poor children of our future.
lol - I was just pokin at ya
What I have against Fractional Reserve banking is that it is, by design, inflationary. That, in and of itself, is not so much a danger while the economy is in a state of growth, assuming the money supply is properly managed.
The trouble is, it becomes extremely tricky to manage if there is ever a crisis of faith in fiat currency.
So, the solution to the very near collapse we just had was to bail the banks out by borrowing money from the self same people who helped create the crisis. I'm not sure that's an any more viable long term solution than floating the currency was.
http:///forum/post/3234781
nah, it is an argument I've heard about 1 million times from different sources. sorry, I had about 101 degree fever when I was posting last night, I was a little more sarcastic than usual last night. It is true, you're spending money that you're gonna tax from the poor children of our future.
lol - I was just pokin at ya
What I have against Fractional Reserve banking is that it is, by design, inflationary. That, in and of itself, is not so much a danger while the economy is in a state of growth, assuming the money supply is properly managed.
The trouble is, it becomes extremely tricky to manage if there is ever a crisis of faith in fiat currency.
So, the solution to the very near collapse we just had was to bail the banks out by borrowing money from the self same people who helped create the crisis. I'm not sure that's an any more viable long term solution than floating the currency was.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3235625
lol - I was just pokin at ya
What I have against Fractional Reserve banking is that it is, by design, inflationary. That, in and of itself, is not so much a danger while the economy is in a state of growth, assuming the money supply is properly managed.
The trouble is, it becomes extremely tricky to manage if there is ever a crisis of faith in fiat currency.
So, the solution to the very near collapse we just had was to bail the banks out by borrowing money from the self same people who helped create the crisis. I'm not sure that's an any more viable long term solution than floating the currency was.
But it installing faith once again is VERY doable. Brazil is an excellect example of this.
A fractional reserve is a HUGE reason for the standard of living we have today...
http:///forum/post/3235625
lol - I was just pokin at ya
What I have against Fractional Reserve banking is that it is, by design, inflationary. That, in and of itself, is not so much a danger while the economy is in a state of growth, assuming the money supply is properly managed.
The trouble is, it becomes extremely tricky to manage if there is ever a crisis of faith in fiat currency.
So, the solution to the very near collapse we just had was to bail the banks out by borrowing money from the self same people who helped create the crisis. I'm not sure that's an any more viable long term solution than floating the currency was.
But it installing faith once again is VERY doable. Brazil is an excellect example of this.
A fractional reserve is a HUGE reason for the standard of living we have today...
uneverno
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3235740
But it installing faith once again is VERY doable. Brazil is an excellect example of this.
And Argentina is an example of an abject failure. Both (Brazil and Argentina) tried to solve their 1990's currency crises by tying the Cruzeiro and Peso (respectively) at 1:1 to the dollar. In the former case it worked, in the latter it didn't.
Same w/ the Euro. They tied to the dollar at 1:1 to begin with, but let it float. At first it sank to almost .7 Dollars:1 Euro, but now we sit at 1.3x:1 and it's been as high as 1.5x:1. 30-50% is a helluva swing - especially when ignoring the initial downturn and the respective economic growth rates, Europe having been largely static for most of the last decade, while we were growing. Are the "Socialist" central bankers onto something we "Capitalists" are missing?
A fractional reserve is a HUGE reason for the standard of living we have today...
Which standard of living I would argue is as fictional, fragile and situationally relevant as the fiat currency it's based upon is.
http:///forum/post/3235740
But it installing faith once again is VERY doable. Brazil is an excellect example of this.
And Argentina is an example of an abject failure. Both (Brazil and Argentina) tried to solve their 1990's currency crises by tying the Cruzeiro and Peso (respectively) at 1:1 to the dollar. In the former case it worked, in the latter it didn't.
Same w/ the Euro. They tied to the dollar at 1:1 to begin with, but let it float. At first it sank to almost .7 Dollars:1 Euro, but now we sit at 1.3x:1 and it's been as high as 1.5x:1. 30-50% is a helluva swing - especially when ignoring the initial downturn and the respective economic growth rates, Europe having been largely static for most of the last decade, while we were growing. Are the "Socialist" central bankers onto something we "Capitalists" are missing?
A fractional reserve is a HUGE reason for the standard of living we have today...
Which standard of living I would argue is as fictional, fragile and situationally relevant as the fiat currency it's based upon is.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3235755
And Argentina is an example of an abject failure. Both tried to solve their 1990's currency crises by tying the Cruzeiro and Peso (respectively) at 1:1 to the dollar. In the former case it worked, in the latter it didn't.
Well, that isn't very accurate, but it had very little to do with them issuing Real (they went through about 7 different currency launches, for lack of a better word) other than them saying this is a new starting point. But them not being rediculously expansionary in their monitary policy. Heck they were really worried about dollarization (pride will get you to do stupid stuff) so they'd issue indexed notes that you could hold their currency in. So you could go in and buy these indexed notes, in the morning for 100 reals, then turn around whenever you needed reals for something go back and get what that 100 reals were plus inflation. (I guess they had a money printing machine in back), because at several points they were experiencing 1000%+ annual inflation... They were doing other stuff like price controls, and all sorts of other government controls to control costs. And well that just fueled it...
The reality is they just reissued their Real again, significantly reduced alot of the artificial influences on pricing, stopped issuing those indexed notes, just kind of left it alone. And over the next few years they went from 1200%+ inflation down to the low teens and eventually below that.
It is really a GREAT case study in support of the Friedman model.
It does help that they had the resources (in an economic way so land and labor although in this case capital came internationally for the most part) to develope industry. So once they had a responsible system in place monitarily industry moved in and that helped with the civil turmoil that came with needing wheelbarrows of money for a loaf of bread. Then they found craploads of oil.
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3235755
Same w/ the Euro. They tied to the dollar at 1:1 to begin with, but let it float. At first it sank to almost .7 Dollars:1 Euro, but now we sit at 1.3x:1 and it's been as high as 1.5x:1. Are the "Socialist" central bankers onto something we "Capitalists" are missing?
I still don't get why this number gets people in such a tizzy. What difference does it make if a Euro is valued 1.3 to 1. It is still just a number. (remember your 2+2 means can mean different things argument) apply that here.
People like to say they're money is worth more for some reason. And they see 1 whether it be a peso or a dollar and they just instictively try to equate that somehow, but you can't. I also think that people equate a weaker currency with a weaker economy. Like Mexico because their exchange rate is somewhere around 11 pesos per dollar. But Lets take the Japanese yen for a second. Remember in the 80's? They were gonna take over the world. But their yen was around 200 -250 yen per dollar. It is kind of likes feet and meters. I might like saying I'm 6 foot 2. It isn't nearly as fun to say I'm 1.8 something meters tall. But in reality it means nothing.
It is the changes that you need to watch. Because that is what effects stuff.
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3235755
Which standard of living I would argue is as fictional, fragile and situationally relevant as the fiat currency it's based upon is.
well that kind of depends if the individual or business is managing his debt properly. If the government would get out of the business of risk absorbsion. This would correct much more quickly than it currently does...
http:///forum/post/3235755
And Argentina is an example of an abject failure. Both tried to solve their 1990's currency crises by tying the Cruzeiro and Peso (respectively) at 1:1 to the dollar. In the former case it worked, in the latter it didn't.
Well, that isn't very accurate, but it had very little to do with them issuing Real (they went through about 7 different currency launches, for lack of a better word) other than them saying this is a new starting point. But them not being rediculously expansionary in their monitary policy. Heck they were really worried about dollarization (pride will get you to do stupid stuff) so they'd issue indexed notes that you could hold their currency in. So you could go in and buy these indexed notes, in the morning for 100 reals, then turn around whenever you needed reals for something go back and get what that 100 reals were plus inflation. (I guess they had a money printing machine in back), because at several points they were experiencing 1000%+ annual inflation... They were doing other stuff like price controls, and all sorts of other government controls to control costs. And well that just fueled it...
The reality is they just reissued their Real again, significantly reduced alot of the artificial influences on pricing, stopped issuing those indexed notes, just kind of left it alone. And over the next few years they went from 1200%+ inflation down to the low teens and eventually below that.
It is really a GREAT case study in support of the Friedman model.
It does help that they had the resources (in an economic way so land and labor although in this case capital came internationally for the most part) to develope industry. So once they had a responsible system in place monitarily industry moved in and that helped with the civil turmoil that came with needing wheelbarrows of money for a loaf of bread. Then they found craploads of oil.
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3235755
Same w/ the Euro. They tied to the dollar at 1:1 to begin with, but let it float. At first it sank to almost .7 Dollars:1 Euro, but now we sit at 1.3x:1 and it's been as high as 1.5x:1. Are the "Socialist" central bankers onto something we "Capitalists" are missing?
I still don't get why this number gets people in such a tizzy. What difference does it make if a Euro is valued 1.3 to 1. It is still just a number. (remember your 2+2 means can mean different things argument) apply that here.
People like to say they're money is worth more for some reason. And they see 1 whether it be a peso or a dollar and they just instictively try to equate that somehow, but you can't. I also think that people equate a weaker currency with a weaker economy. Like Mexico because their exchange rate is somewhere around 11 pesos per dollar. But Lets take the Japanese yen for a second. Remember in the 80's? They were gonna take over the world. But their yen was around 200 -250 yen per dollar. It is kind of likes feet and meters. I might like saying I'm 6 foot 2. It isn't nearly as fun to say I'm 1.8 something meters tall. But in reality it means nothing.
It is the changes that you need to watch. Because that is what effects stuff.
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3235755
Which standard of living I would argue is as fictional, fragile and situationally relevant as the fiat currency it's based upon is.
well that kind of depends if the individual or business is managing his debt properly. If the government would get out of the business of risk absorbsion. This would correct much more quickly than it currently does...
uneverno
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3235794
Well, that isn't very accurate, but it had very little to do with them issuing Real (they went through about 7 different currency launches, for lack of a better word) other than them saying this is a new starting point. But them not being rediculously expansionary in their monitary policy. Heck they were really worried about dollarization (pride will get you to do stupid stuff) so they'd issue indexed notes that you could hold their currency in. So you could go in and buy these indexed notes, in the morning for 100 reals, then turn around whenever you needed reals for something go back and get what that 100 reals were plus inflation. (I guess they had a money printing machine in back), because at several points they were experiencing 1000%+ annual inflation... They were doing other stuff like price controls, and all sorts of other government controls to control costs. And well that just fueled it...
The reality is they just reissued their Real again, significantly reduced alot of the artificial influences on pricing, stopped issuing those indexed notes, just kind of left it alone. And over the next few years they went from 1200%+ inflation down to the low teens and eventually below that.
It is really a GREAT case study in support of the Friedman model.
It does help that they had the resources (in an economic way so land and labor although in this case capital came internationally for the most part) to develope industry. So once they had a responsible system in place monitarily industry moved in and that helped with the civil turmoil that came with needing wheelbarrows of money for a loaf of bread. Then they found craploads of oil.
I still don't get why this number gets people in such a tizzy. What difference does it make if a Euro is valued 1.3 to 1. It is still just a number. (remember your 2+2 means can mean different things argument) apply that here.
People like to say they're money is worth more for some reason. And they see 1 whether it be a peso or a dollar and they just instictively try to equate that somehow, but you can't. I also think that people equate a weaker currency with a weaker economy. Like Mexico because their exchange rate is somewhere around 11 pesos per dollar. But Lets take the Japanese yen for a second. Remember in the 80's? They were gonna take over the world. But their yen was around 200 -250 yen per dollar. It is kind of likes feet and meters. I might like saying I'm 6 foot 2. It isn't nearly as fun to say I'm 1.8 something meters tall. But in reality it means nothing.
It is the changes that you need to watch. Because that is what effects stuff.
Those two statements seem diametrically opposed to me. On one hand you're saying all that the relative value required was a revaluation of the currency, and on the other you're saying don't get hung up on that value because it's just a number.
On some level, the 2+2 argument can be applied. It depends though, on whether you consider economics to be a reductionist or relativistic science. Divisions of it can be either, but just like in physics, the limitations of a particular sub-discipline prevent it from being both as a whole. While both realities can, quite counter-intuitively, co-exist, they are not interchangeable.
There is a level of testability that makes it difficult to declare economics anything other than mathematical theory as well. The "scientific method" requires proof of theory that the science of economics cannot be made to demonstrate.
well that kind of depends if the individual or business is managing his debt properly. If the government would get out of the business of risk absorbsion. This would correct much more quickly than it currently does...
And much more violently.
http:///forum/post/3235794
Well, that isn't very accurate, but it had very little to do with them issuing Real (they went through about 7 different currency launches, for lack of a better word) other than them saying this is a new starting point. But them not being rediculously expansionary in their monitary policy. Heck they were really worried about dollarization (pride will get you to do stupid stuff) so they'd issue indexed notes that you could hold their currency in. So you could go in and buy these indexed notes, in the morning for 100 reals, then turn around whenever you needed reals for something go back and get what that 100 reals were plus inflation. (I guess they had a money printing machine in back), because at several points they were experiencing 1000%+ annual inflation... They were doing other stuff like price controls, and all sorts of other government controls to control costs. And well that just fueled it...
The reality is they just reissued their Real again, significantly reduced alot of the artificial influences on pricing, stopped issuing those indexed notes, just kind of left it alone. And over the next few years they went from 1200%+ inflation down to the low teens and eventually below that.
It is really a GREAT case study in support of the Friedman model.
It does help that they had the resources (in an economic way so land and labor although in this case capital came internationally for the most part) to develope industry. So once they had a responsible system in place monitarily industry moved in and that helped with the civil turmoil that came with needing wheelbarrows of money for a loaf of bread. Then they found craploads of oil.
I still don't get why this number gets people in such a tizzy. What difference does it make if a Euro is valued 1.3 to 1. It is still just a number. (remember your 2+2 means can mean different things argument) apply that here.
People like to say they're money is worth more for some reason. And they see 1 whether it be a peso or a dollar and they just instictively try to equate that somehow, but you can't. I also think that people equate a weaker currency with a weaker economy. Like Mexico because their exchange rate is somewhere around 11 pesos per dollar. But Lets take the Japanese yen for a second. Remember in the 80's? They were gonna take over the world. But their yen was around 200 -250 yen per dollar. It is kind of likes feet and meters. I might like saying I'm 6 foot 2. It isn't nearly as fun to say I'm 1.8 something meters tall. But in reality it means nothing.
It is the changes that you need to watch. Because that is what effects stuff.
Those two statements seem diametrically opposed to me. On one hand you're saying all that the relative value required was a revaluation of the currency, and on the other you're saying don't get hung up on that value because it's just a number.
On some level, the 2+2 argument can be applied. It depends though, on whether you consider economics to be a reductionist or relativistic science. Divisions of it can be either, but just like in physics, the limitations of a particular sub-discipline prevent it from being both as a whole. While both realities can, quite counter-intuitively, co-exist, they are not interchangeable.
There is a level of testability that makes it difficult to declare economics anything other than mathematical theory as well. The "scientific method" requires proof of theory that the science of economics cannot be made to demonstrate.
well that kind of depends if the individual or business is managing his debt properly. If the government would get out of the business of risk absorbsion. This would correct much more quickly than it currently does...
And much more violently.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3235801
Those two statements seem diametrically opposed to me. On one hand you're saying that the relative value required a revaluation of the currency, and on the other you're saying don't get hung up on that value because it's just a number.
And much more violently.
nope, it is the percentage change that required a reissued currency. Although there are some practical implications, (like the turkeys that you hear wanting to phase out the penny.) I don't want to have to rent a truck to fit all my dollars in it to take to the store and buy bread... After all the whole point of money is for ease in transactions... Because bartering is VERY inefficient...
http:///forum/post/3235801
Those two statements seem diametrically opposed to me. On one hand you're saying that the relative value required a revaluation of the currency, and on the other you're saying don't get hung up on that value because it's just a number.
And much more violently.
nope, it is the percentage change that required a reissued currency. Although there are some practical implications, (like the turkeys that you hear wanting to phase out the penny.) I don't want to have to rent a truck to fit all my dollars in it to take to the store and buy bread... After all the whole point of money is for ease in transactions... Because bartering is VERY inefficient...
uneverno
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3235808
nope, it is the percentage change that required a reissued currency. Although there are some practical implications, (like the turkeys that you hear wanting to phase out the penny.) I don't want to have to rent a truck to fit all my dollars in it to take to the store and buy bread...
I agree there, but that's outta my hands, as, it would seem, the hands of those who print it. The oposite problem is still a potential as well in that commodities have to be devalued because nobody can afford them. That, it seems to me, is also part of the problem we're currently trying to stave off. Some product prices, e.g. steel, copper and health insurance, are rising at greater than the rate of inflation and others, such as rent, real estate and cars, are falling. We're facing something similar, yet substantially different, than the stagflation we faced under Nixon -> Carter.
After all the whole point of money is for ease in transactions... Because bartering is VERY inefficient...
Now we're getting to the heart of the matter. Inefficient for whom - the profit makers or the profit takers?
At some point or another Fractional Reserve banking is a shell game and, as history has repeatedly borne out - from the card table in a Brooklyn alley to the smoke filled room of the De' Medicis - it will inevitably be called as such and the house of cards will fall down...
http:///forum/post/3235808
nope, it is the percentage change that required a reissued currency. Although there are some practical implications, (like the turkeys that you hear wanting to phase out the penny.) I don't want to have to rent a truck to fit all my dollars in it to take to the store and buy bread...
I agree there, but that's outta my hands, as, it would seem, the hands of those who print it. The oposite problem is still a potential as well in that commodities have to be devalued because nobody can afford them. That, it seems to me, is also part of the problem we're currently trying to stave off. Some product prices, e.g. steel, copper and health insurance, are rising at greater than the rate of inflation and others, such as rent, real estate and cars, are falling. We're facing something similar, yet substantially different, than the stagflation we faced under Nixon -> Carter.
After all the whole point of money is for ease in transactions... Because bartering is VERY inefficient...
Now we're getting to the heart of the matter. Inefficient for whom - the profit makers or the profit takers?
At some point or another Fractional Reserve banking is a shell game and, as history has repeatedly borne out - from the card table in a Brooklyn alley to the smoke filled room of the De' Medicis - it will inevitably be called as such and the house of cards will fall down...
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3235814
Now we're getting to the heart of the matter. Inefficient for whom - the profit makers or the profit takers?
At some point or another Fractional Reserve banking is a shell game and, as history has repeatedly borne out - from the card table in a Brooklyn alley to the smoke filled room of the De' Medicis - it will inevitably be called as such and the house of cards will fall down...
For you. Say you want to to the grocery store and buy30 items. You'll have to have something they want. There is no cash. (and going to a gold standard you'll have this happen because there won't be much currency floating around) Maybe cleaning supplies, or groceries you've grown or produced. Are you going to want to do that with EVERYTHING you buy?
Then on a larger scale, since finding a seller that has what you want and wants what you have, is going to be much more difficult. You'll see a slow down in our economy that way too. Meaning a lot of people out of work....
http:///forum/post/3235814
Now we're getting to the heart of the matter. Inefficient for whom - the profit makers or the profit takers?
At some point or another Fractional Reserve banking is a shell game and, as history has repeatedly borne out - from the card table in a Brooklyn alley to the smoke filled room of the De' Medicis - it will inevitably be called as such and the house of cards will fall down...
For you. Say you want to to the grocery store and buy30 items. You'll have to have something they want. There is no cash. (and going to a gold standard you'll have this happen because there won't be much currency floating around) Maybe cleaning supplies, or groceries you've grown or produced. Are you going to want to do that with EVERYTHING you buy?
Then on a larger scale, since finding a seller that has what you want and wants what you have, is going to be much more difficult. You'll see a slow down in our economy that way too. Meaning a lot of people out of work....
fishtaco
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3235808
nope, it is the percentage change that required a reissued currency. Although there are some practical implications, (like the turkeys that you hear wanting to phase out the penny.) I don't want to have to rent a truck to fit all my dollars in it to take to the store and buy bread... After all the whole point of money is for ease in transactions... Because bartering is VERY inefficient...
Bartering might be inefficient and not reasonable for large populations, but with the unemployment rate and economy in my rural county I have seen a huge increase in it. I have been bartering for a couple years and must say I enjoy it because I get to know my neighbors better and I like the handshake deal and long term trust it builds and the best thing is every time you barter, you have COMPLETELY cut government out of your life which is a rare luxury
Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3235808
nope, it is the percentage change that required a reissued currency. Although there are some practical implications, (like the turkeys that you hear wanting to phase out the penny.) I don't want to have to rent a truck to fit all my dollars in it to take to the store and buy bread... After all the whole point of money is for ease in transactions... Because bartering is VERY inefficient...
Bartering might be inefficient and not reasonable for large populations, but with the unemployment rate and economy in my rural county I have seen a huge increase in it. I have been bartering for a couple years and must say I enjoy it because I get to know my neighbors better and I like the handshake deal and long term trust it builds and the best thing is every time you barter, you have COMPLETELY cut government out of your life which is a rare luxury
Fishtaco
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3235934
Bartering might be inefficient and not reasonable for large populations, but with the unemployment rate and economy in my rural county I have seen a huge increase in it. I have been bartering for a couple years and must say I enjoy it because I get to know my neighbors better and I like the handshake deal and long term trust it builds and the best thing is every time you barter, you have COMPLETELY cut government out of your life which is a rare luxury
Fishtaco
I'm all for some horse tradin. It is fun. But not practical for a large economy.
http:///forum/post/3235934
Bartering might be inefficient and not reasonable for large populations, but with the unemployment rate and economy in my rural county I have seen a huge increase in it. I have been bartering for a couple years and must say I enjoy it because I get to know my neighbors better and I like the handshake deal and long term trust it builds and the best thing is every time you barter, you have COMPLETELY cut government out of your life which is a rare luxury
Fishtaco
I'm all for some horse tradin. It is fun. But not practical for a large economy.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3235946
I'm all for some horse tradin. It is fun. But not practical for a large economy.
Or a modern one for that matter. who do you barter with for electricity, natural gas, water, build a home....
http:///forum/post/3235946
I'm all for some horse tradin. It is fun. But not practical for a large economy.
Or a modern one for that matter. who do you barter with for electricity, natural gas, water, build a home....
reefraff
Active Member
As long as we are on the subject of economics
Memo
Dear Employees:
As the CEO of this organization, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barrack Obama is our President and that our taxes and government fees will increase in a BIG way.
To compensate for these increases, our prices would have to increase by about 10%. But since we cannot increase our prices right now due to the dismal state of the economy, we will have to lay off sixty of our employees instead.
This has really been bothering me since I believe we are family here and I didn't know how to choose who would have to go.
So, this is what I did. I walked through our parking lots and found sixty 'Obama' bumper stickers on our employees' cars and have decided these folks will be the ones to let go. I can't think of a more fair way to approach this problem. They voted for change… I gave it to them.
I will see the rest of you at the annual company picnic.
THE BOSS
Memo
Dear Employees:
As the CEO of this organization, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barrack Obama is our President and that our taxes and government fees will increase in a BIG way.
To compensate for these increases, our prices would have to increase by about 10%. But since we cannot increase our prices right now due to the dismal state of the economy, we will have to lay off sixty of our employees instead.
This has really been bothering me since I believe we are family here and I didn't know how to choose who would have to go.
So, this is what I did. I walked through our parking lots and found sixty 'Obama' bumper stickers on our employees' cars and have decided these folks will be the ones to let go. I can't think of a more fair way to approach this problem. They voted for change… I gave it to them.
I will see the rest of you at the annual company picnic.
THE BOSS
fishtaco
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3235951
Or a modern one for that matter. who do you barter with for electricity, natural gas, water, build a home....
Petrol-based products no, but it is not that hard to go off the grid, I have well water and have already bartered with a friend who is a contractor to have two editions built onto my home and garage and that turned out really well for both of us. Not off the grid yet, but that will be my next big expense in the next few years. Nothing Darth is more satisfying than "Stickin it to the Man".
Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3235951
Or a modern one for that matter. who do you barter with for electricity, natural gas, water, build a home....
Petrol-based products no, but it is not that hard to go off the grid, I have well water and have already bartered with a friend who is a contractor to have two editions built onto my home and garage and that turned out really well for both of us. Not off the grid yet, but that will be my next big expense in the next few years. Nothing Darth is more satisfying than "Stickin it to the Man".
Fishtaco
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3236003
Petrol-based products no, but it is not that hard to go off the grid, I have well water and have already bartered with a friend who is a contractor to have two editions built onto my home and garage and that turned out really well for both of us. Not off the grid yet, but that will be my next big expense in the next few years. Nothing Darth is more satisfying than "Stickin it to the Man".
Fishtaco
Can't have a well built in city limits. And the 30,000 dollars worth in barter for solar panels I could not barter for. Natural gas is the only thing I could remove and barter for a pellet stove...but still have to buy pellets..
http:///forum/post/3236003
Petrol-based products no, but it is not that hard to go off the grid, I have well water and have already bartered with a friend who is a contractor to have two editions built onto my home and garage and that turned out really well for both of us. Not off the grid yet, but that will be my next big expense in the next few years. Nothing Darth is more satisfying than "Stickin it to the Man".
Fishtaco
Can't have a well built in city limits. And the 30,000 dollars worth in barter for solar panels I could not barter for. Natural gas is the only thing I could remove and barter for a pellet stove...but still have to buy pellets..
fishtaco
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3236011
Can't have a well built in city limits. And the 30,000 dollars worth in barter for solar panels I could not barter for. Natural gas is the only thing I could remove and barter for a pellet stove...but still have to buy pellets..
To be fair I was just talking about outright purchase of solar and wind, one time expense kind of deal and then you are not dependent on others for your electrical. 30 thousand is about the same as the price I have seen for solar and that is why I am holding out for a few years. Give it a couple of years and solar systems for homes are going to be plug and play and cost way less.
Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3236011
Can't have a well built in city limits. And the 30,000 dollars worth in barter for solar panels I could not barter for. Natural gas is the only thing I could remove and barter for a pellet stove...but still have to buy pellets..
To be fair I was just talking about outright purchase of solar and wind, one time expense kind of deal and then you are not dependent on others for your electrical. 30 thousand is about the same as the price I have seen for solar and that is why I am holding out for a few years. Give it a couple of years and solar systems for homes are going to be plug and play and cost way less.
Fishtaco