The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
I am sick and tired of people sitting around and complaining about other people's wealth. Without the billionaires we would not have Walmart, Staples, operating systems, or even condoms that do not break unless they are improperly worn or heated. There are so many benefits to not sitting around on your ass all day maybe you should takE THE POKER OUT YOUR ASS because it's probably going to catch fire at some point.
Money in the bank is not out of circulation. The bank loans that money out. Same argument with stocks. If anything the money supply would go down if you count the money in banks.
1. Banks can lend out more than they have on hand, thus increasing the money in circulation.
2. In a situation like I described (100% tax), less liquid capital (stocks, bonds, etc.) is converted into fully liquid money. This is where the majority of the increase in effective money supply would come in.
I'm not entirely sure how this would work - particularly, if there's enough money available to convert ALL of the stocks and bonds and such into money; probably not, so the US Gov't would have to do something to make it possible, quite possibly including printing money. Either way, however, it would certainly increase the total money supply.
<Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.
Originally posted by Wiglaf
I am sick and tired of people sitting around and complaining about other people's wealth. Without the billionaires we would not have Walmart, Staples, operating systems, or even condoms that do not break unless they are improperly worn or heated. There are so many benefits to not sitting around on your ass all day maybe you should takE THE POKER OUT YOUR ASS because it's probably going to catch fire at some point.
Not only is that total non-sense, but that has nothing to do with my issue.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Originally posted by Arrian
A more interesting number would be the number of said billionares who are "self made" billionares. Cut anyone who inherited more than X dollars out of the list. Recompute.
-Arrian
Presumably the definition of that would be people who have made 1 billion more than the interest on their inheritance.
"You're the biggest user of hindsight that I've ever known. Your favorite team, in any sport, is the one that just won. If you were a woman, you'd likely be a slut." - Slowwhand, to Imran
Originally posted by snoopy369
1. Banks can lend out more than they have on hand, thus increasing the money in circulation.
Exactly, but they have reserve requirements, and sometimes they even exceed their reserve requirements. But if they loose deposits they are going to loan out less money, otherwise they will not be able to meet their reserve requirements.
2. In a situation like I described (100% tax), less liquid capital (stocks, bonds, etc.) is converted into fully liquid money.
This is where the majority of the increase in effective money supply would come in.
Money is created by banks. You are talking about money transfers. No money is created. In fact as I stated previously some money would be destroyed, specifically asset values.
I'm not entirely sure how this would work - particularly, if there's enough money available to convert ALL of the stocks and bonds and such into money; probably not, so the US Gov't would have to do something to make it possible, quite possibly including printing money. Either way, however, it would certainly increase the total money supply.
This is all wrong. The government would not have to print money. They only do that to expand the money supply, and there would be no reason to do that.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Exactly, but they have reserve requirements, and sometimes they even exceed their reserve requirements. But if they loose deposits they are going to loan out less money, otherwise they will not be able to meet their reserve requirements.
That's certainly possible, but I'd expect them not to lose significant deposits - how many people keep over $5m on deposit, compared to how much money would be involved? The far majority of the >$5m would come from capital, not already held cash deposits.
Money is created by banks. You are talking about money transfers. No money is created. In fact as I stated previously some money would be destroyed, specifically asset values.
Non liquid capital and less liquid capital (houses, stocks, etc.) being converted into money absolutely would increase the effective money supply. Sure the value would decrease some (due to the lack of available money), but I doubt it would decrease to zero...
This is all wrong. The government would not have to print money. They only do that to expand the money supply, and there would be no reason to do that.
If the government wanted to tax everyone's holdings >$5m, and there wasn't enough money available to convert all of those holdings to cash, one easy solution is to put more money out there such that it can be done. There are other solutions out there, but the basic math is:
Holdings over $5m in the US: $12 trillion (randomly chosen number)
M2 Money Supply in US: $7.5 trillion give or take a bit
Add in the fact that a good portion of that supply is held by poor people <$5m, and you have a $5t or so difference that either will be made up by:
1. US printing money
2. Banks increasing loans
3. Devaluation of holdings
I don't think it's in the US's best interests to allow (3) to occur, as it would decrease the effective benefit of the tax by around 50%. The optimal solution is such that inflation is minimized and the tax benefit is maximized; you print money, or allow bank reserve percentages to drop, or do something else to allow more money to exist such that you can redistribute it.
<Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.
Originally posted by snoopy369
Among other things, you can't convert "$10" to "Dinner" directly; someone has to actually *grow* the food (or raise it or whatever). Feeding the starving in Africa is a much more difficult task than simply handing out checks on the street corner.
Lack of food is not the problem. Most of America's food goes to feed animals. A huge portion gets destroyed in order to protect produce prices. A very small amount of the food produced in the U.S. goes directly to feeding human beings. Production is not the problem. The problem is distribution.
In capitalism, you only get food if you can buy food, and so for people outside the market (subsistence farmers and hearders), drought, flood, and war means famine. They don't have the money to purchase food when hard time come, food that is being fed to cows in America or burned to keep prices up.
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...
I wonder what the inflation rate would be if the US government took a tax of 100% on capital holding over $5m, and handed a check to every citizen (children included) for ($tax)/(300m) or whatever the current population is. 40%? 45%?
I didn't think you meant that the govt would take the assets themselves as tax payment. I thought you meant that they would take cash payment for the tax. But even if you meant that they would take the assets, what are they going to do with the assets?
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Originally posted by snoopy369
If the government wanted to tax everyone's holdings >$5m, and there wasn't enough money available to convert all of those holdings to cash, one easy solution is to put more money out there such that it can be done. There are other solutions out there, but the basic math is:
I see what you are saying now, but you've just taken it to an extreme to where there isn't enough money in banks for the tax (maybe).
That really doesn't prove your point though, but because it's the increase in the money supply that causes the inflation not the transfer of money.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Come on b etor, what you really want is really old and ugly so they die sooner. Its not like you can't live off pool boys for the 5-10 years until he crokes.
"The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.
and complaining about other people's wealth. Without the billionaires we would not have Walmart, Staples, operating systems, or even condoms that do not break unless they are improperly worn or heated. There are so many benefits to not sitting around on your ass all day maybe you should takE THE POKER OUT YOUR ASS because it's probably going to catch fire at some point.
Money is created by banks. You are talking about money transfers. No money is created. In fact as I stated previously some money would be destroyed, specifically asset values. 
Tweet
Comment