Judge Orders Verizon Subscriber Identities Sealed 126
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In one of the mass 'John Doe' cases based on single BitTorrent downloads of films, Malibu Media v. Does 1-13, a pro se litigant made a motion to quash the subpoena. The Court granted a stay of the subpoena, pending its decision on the motion to quash. Unfortunately for John Doe, Verizon had turned over its subscribers' identities 5 days BEFORE the response was due, thus possibly mooting both the stay and the motion to quash. Fortunately for John Doe, the Judge wasn't too happy about this, ordered the information sealed, directed plaintiff's lawyers to destroy any copies, and ruled that they can't use the information unless and until the Court denies the motion to quash."
Verizon, the company that brought us DNS-hijacking (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't count because:
A) Done by rich people
B) Done by a company
We should start holding the heads of companies liable for their crimes when they use the company as an instrument.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we can just ship the executive staff off to a nice resort in the carribean.
Too easy. I wonder what the Russians are doing with the Gulag Archipelago these days. Solzhenitsyn wrote that great book, yet no-one hears about it any more. Has that been decommisioned? Surely, there's room in Lubyanka these days?
A Siberian winter should wake them up. Or kill 'em; whatever.
So what you're saying here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically what we've got is Verizon saying, "Oh goodie, we're so eager to ignore our user's privacy that we're going to jump right on mailing out their personal information to any third party who might be interested." Yeah, yeah, they have a court order, and obviously you have to comply with that, but you certainly don't have to go and do it early.
Ya, amazingly retarded (Score:5, Insightful)
But ISPs do shit like that all the time. If they get a subpoena for your info in a "John Doe" form what they are supposed to do is notify you so you can fight it, if you wish. While filing a "John Doe" suit is a common and valid legal strategy when you are going after someone but lack the ability to identify them directly yet, that doesn't mean it is automatic. It is also used as a fishing expedition, as seen in these cases, and in those cases courts may quash it.
Hence, your ISP tells you, and then if it isn't quashed (because you don't contest it or because a judge decides it is fine), they hand over the info.
The problem is many ISPs just don't give a fuck about their customers because they know they lack options.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They are, however, a bit more tangible than sky fairies.
Offtopic and flamebait.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People can be put in contempt of court, not companies.
That's why companies come with boards of directors. The CEO, or chairman of the board, or CTO should suffice nicely. Of course, the corporate lawyers ought to be on the hook too since they're advising the board.
Popcorn time.
Deadline (Score:2)
And you'll probably find that judges get increasingly cranky about that sort of thing as it shows a certain lack of respect for them.
Really? I thought court orders gave deadlines by which something had to be done not "it must be done on this day". Complying quickly with an order is a sign of respect rather than dragging your heels until the last possible minute. Still this is the law so judges can be arbitrary and unreasonable on a whim and common sense rarely seems to apply!
Re: (Score:2)
Complying quickly with an order is a sign of respect rather than dragging your heels until the last possible minute.
It was a subpoena, issued by an attorney, not a court order. Verizon was responding to a subpoena, not a court order. The only court order at the time was an order permitting the attorneys to serve subpoenas.
It is not a "sign of respect" to provide responses to a subpoena when a motion to quash the subpoena is pending; it is a "sign of contempt".
Re: (Score:2)
It is not a "sign of respect" to provide responses to a subpoena when a motion to quash the subpoena is pending; it is a "sign of contempt".
Why would they even know about the impending motion to quash? Are people who get served subpoenas now expected to follow the intimate details of the related court case and then make an educated guess as to whether or not they should be complying?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is many ISPs just don't give a fuck about their customers because they know they lack options.
This is pretty much all the answer anyone needs when trying to understand the behavior of any Telecom in this country. Somewhere along the lines customers (much like employees) stopped being considered assets and started being considered liabilities.
Re: (Score:2)
Somewhere along the lines customers (much like employees) stopped being considered assets and started being considered liabilities.
Or, simply ceased to be considered at all. Customers with problems that need to be dealt with (considered) are cost centers. Run away!
Re: (Score:3)
But ISPs do shit like that all the time. If they get a subpoena for your info in a "John Doe" form what they are supposed to do is notify you so you can fight it, if you wish. While filing a "John Doe" suit is a common and valid legal strategy when you are going after someone but lack the ability to identify them directly yet, that doesn't mean it is automatic. It is also used as a fishing expedition, as seen in these cases, and in those cases courts may quash it. Hence, your ISP tells you, and then if it isn't quashed (because you don't contest it or because a judge decides it is fine), they hand over the info.
In this case Verizon undoubtedly did notify the John Does that it would turn over the information on May 12th. The John Doe quite properly made the motion to quash well in advance of that date, back in April. Verizon had absolutely no business turning over the documents on May 7th. If I were the judge, I would be calling Verizon in on the carpet.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically what we've got is Verizon saying, "Oh goodie, we're so eager to ignore our user's privacy that we're going to jump right on mailing out their personal information to any third party who might be interested." Yeah, yeah, they have a court order, and obviously you have to comply with that, but you certainly don't have to go and do it early.
...particularly when you know there's a motion to quash pending
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps you could shed a little more light on things.
The average person sees a deadline as something you don't want to miss, but can be early on. So the typical response here is "Verizon was ordered to do by the 12th, they did 5 days early, what's the problem?".
Now, I've done a little digging around, and apparently the defendant normally has the right to submit a motion for the subpoena to be modified or quashed, if their motion is submitted prior to the returnable date of the subpoena. So how exactly does
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you could shed a little more light on things. The average person sees a deadline as something you don't want to miss, but can be early on. So the typical response here is "Verizon was ordered to do by the 12th, they did 5 days early, what's the problem?". Now, I've done a little digging around, and apparently the defendant normally has the right to submit a motion for the subpoena to be modified or quashed, if their motion is submitted prior to the returnable date of the subpoena. So how exactly does this work? Is there an unspoken, unwritten rule that you aren't supposed to deliver documents ordered by a subpoena prior to the subpoena's returnable date, to allow for it to be contested?
Certainly in this case yes, where (a) the information is private confidential information of the subscriber, (b) Verizon has notified the subscriber that the information will be turned over on May 12th in the absence of a motion to quash, and (c) there is a pending motion to quash.
And then the motion to quash was filed by a pro se litigant - not by Verizon. The subpoena ordered Verizon to provide the data and Verizon happily complied. So where did this John Doe pro se litigant come from?
He or she is one of the John Does. He was notified by Verizon of the subpoena, and of his right to make a motion to quash, which he did, in this case, exercise.
And why were they able to file a motion to quash?
Why not?
Was the John Doe implicated prior to the information being handed over? or after?
Prior to the information being turned over, he was notified b
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks, that makes more sense. If Verizon notified the Does that their information would be handed over and they were allowed to contest it until the 12th, Verizon had no business sending their information before the time to contest had passed.
Re: (Score:2)
So far.
uhhh (Score:1)
can someone translate story to Engrish prease?
Re:uhhh (Score:5, Informative)
here you go :
"In one of the mass 'John Doe' cases based on single BitTorrent downloads of films, Malibu Media v. Does 1-13, a pro se litigant made a motion to quash the subpoena. The Court granted a stay of the subpoena, pending its decision on the motion to quash. Unfortunately for John Doe, Verizon had turned over its subscribers' identities 5 days BEFORE the response was due, thus possibly mooting both the stay and the motion to quash. Fortunately for John Doe, the Judge wasn't too happy about this, ordered the information sealed, directed plaintiff's lawyers to destroy any copies, and ruled that they can't use the information unless and until the Court denies the motion to quash."
Re:uhhh (Score:5, Funny)
I think it's something like this:
Malibu Media: "These addresses belong to the people who pirated our stuff. We demand their identities!"
The Judge: "Not so fast! I still have to check if you are entitled to this information."
Verizon, nonetheless: "Here, have their identities."
The Judge: "Fuck, are you deaf or just stupid? I said they can't have this information yet! Delete that shit right now or I'll open a can of legal whoopass on you."
Re: (Score:2)
Re:uhhh (Score:5, Insightful)
Why can't journalists write more down-to-earth like this?
That's why I like reading Matt Taibbi's columns at Rolling Stone. He's the only person I've ever heard discussing technicalities around the financial crash of '08 in a manner that a normal, reasonably educated person could understand, and that's saying something, considering many of the matters being discusses are deliberately obfuscated in the financial world in order to hide the games they're playing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Says an AC.
Says another AC. Are you two a tag team?
I've enjoyed/appreciated what I've read of his stuff. As for making stuff up, I think they all may be guilty of that to some degree. Everyone comes to the party dragging some baggage. Does he report truth more than making stuff up? That's all you should be asking.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's something like this:
Malibu Media: "These addresses belong to the people who pirated our stuff. We demand their identities!"
The Judge: "Not so fast! I still have to check if you are entitled to this information."
Verizon, nonetheless: "Here, have their identities."
The Judge: "Fuck, are you deaf or just stupid? I said they can't have this information yet! Delete that shit right now or I'll open a can of legal whoopass on you."
Well said.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Transration to Engrish (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your response was hysterical. Unfortunately, it seems that the people with mod points didn't read carefully.
I suspect they've probably never heard of the word "Engrish." "Transration" should have been a dead giveaway.
You should have been modded "+5, Funny".
Agreed.
Instead you're at "-1". Bummer.
Now at zero, on his way back up. Come on, metamods.
And may I say, you're not one of the lawyers I want to see at the bottom of the ocean. Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:2)
So your post is now at "0", up from "-1"?
I'm grad.
And may I say that I don't want you to be at the bottom of the ocean, either, at least until it's your time
oh the hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)
The accuser's lackey hands over information, before the Court decides if it's appropriate to enter it into evidence. The Court decides it isn't (yet) appropriate, and orders all copies of the evidence destroyed.
IOW, the accuser is now accused of making a bunch of copies of something, without permission. They just got a taste of their own medicine, at the hands of an unhappy judge.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone was (accused of) making a bunch of copies of something, without permission.
Actually just a single copy of a single low budget movie
The accuser's lackey hands over information, before the Court decides if it's appropriate to enter it into evidence.
... if it's appropriate to turn it over
The Court decides it isn't (yet) appropriate, and orders all copies of the evidence destroyed.
IOW, the accuser is now accused of making a bunch of copies of something, without permission. They just got a taste of their own medicine, at the hands of an unhappy judge.
Time frame to comply (Score:1)
Verizon had a window of time for which to comply with a request. They turned over information early, but it was a request that the judge was aware was made, so I have to ask, why should he be mad or upset? In this case a corporation complied with a request and didn't cause a drawn out battle. The judge had ample opportunity to note his concerns up front and order Verizon to compile the info, but not to release it. He waited until just after Verizon complied.
I don't agree with Verizon's decision to hand
Re: (Score:2)
There was already a battle; all Verizon did was complicate it.
Re: (Score:2)
I was under the impression that we all knew that IP addresses mean shit when trying to identify a person....
Most of us do know that, but plaintiff's lawyers are hoping that the judges are among those who don't know.
huh? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If they were only downloading and not sharing how did they get caught?
It's based on a single BitTorrent download. I don't know the technology by which they claim to have identified the account.
Re: (Score:2)
If they were only downloading and not sharing how did they get caught?
A few million bucks change hands and Verizon hands over their logs. Or the user may have been bragging on torrentfreak, or he mentioned it to others on Spacebook, ...
Or maybe the MafiAA is hiring smart geeks.
Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually duplicating money would cause its value to drop, thus making everyone who isn't duplicating a little bit poorer.
Re: (Score:2)
And duplicating a good causes its perceived value and thus market value to drop.
Its a good analogy, actually.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually duplicating a song/movie/etc would cause its value to drop, thus making everyone who isn't duplicating a little less wealthy. If it was impossible to copy music files do you really think they'd be selling songs for 99c?
And more seriously, your "everyone" is too broad. People who owe more money than they have (which is almost everyone with a mortgage on their home) will be made richer by the value of money being reduced.
Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (Score:4, Informative)
A common misconception. Since money isn't tied to anything physical, there is no reason that more of it need lower the value. The current value is already arbitrary.
Wow, you've really skipped economics 101 haven't you...
The price of things is based on offer and demand. Suppose I offer to sell you a satsuma at $1 and you earn only $10 a day, I've priced it too high and you won't buy, so I'll lower my price until you and I agree that the price is okay for you and me (i.e. when you estimate the satsuma is worth whatever portion of your work I ask for it - your money, that is - and I estimate I can make a reasonable profit with your purchase).
Now suppose you photocopy a bunch of dollar bills: you come to be with $1000 in your pocket and buy my satsuma for $1 like it was nothing. What do you think I'm gonna do when I see you're so rich? I'll raise my price since I can make a bundle out of you and you don't care. So I'll sell my satsumas at, say, $20 a pop.
And if enough people photocopy dollar bills, everybody will rise their prices. Who's losing? Those who don't photocopy dollar bills. Suddenly, they can't afford my satsumas anymore. They've lost purchasing power. For them, their money has lost value.
Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, you've really skipped economics 101 haven't you...
Actually, the problem is that it's likely he *did* take college economics. The bullshit Progressive/Keynesian fairy tales they teach the kids in schools and colleges these days is ridiculous, especially when it comes to economics. The last thing they want is for anyone to actually understand how they and future generations are being screwed.
Strat
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
> Actually, the problem is that it's likely he *did* take college economics.
+25 Insightful, Informative and just plain "Yes." :)
Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (Score:5, Insightful)
As opposed to the laughable Laffer curve and the Supply side nut jobs that ran the economy off a cliff? There's nothing magicaly about Keynesian economics and it's not a fairy tale either. When nobody is spending money, somebody has to spent it or you never get anywhere.
As for future generations being screwed, when you compare the money spent by Keynes followers now with the much larger sum wasted on trickle down, I'll happily take Keynes, as at least it's done something positive for the economy, or have you forgotten what things were like before the stimulus?
If you don't believe in spontaneous wealth generation, then you sure as hell shouldn't like what the GOP keeps trying to dish up.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (Score:4, Informative)
All Taxes are regressive. The rich can always avoid some (most) taxes, while the poor cannot avoid any. The progressive liberals keep thinking that taxes on the wealthy hurt the wealthy, when they hurt those the wealthy employ.
Case in point, the "luxury" tax on new Yachts and the like. When the tax was engaged, the rich simply stopped buying those items, killing the industries targeted, and causing unemployment as companies laid off workers due to much lower demands for said Luxuries. The tax was quickly repealed when it diddn't raise anywhere near the amount of revenue it claimed, and the corresponding loss of revenue and unemployment benefits out weighed the revenue it did generate.
The problem is, the Laffer Curve is more than accurate, however we are just left guessing at where "maximum revenue" is generated. My thesis is that revenue is maxed out when people are willing to endure taxes for the things they want (not need), which is one of the reasons I'm fairly Libertarian on things like currently illicit pharmaceuticals. Legalize drugs, create jobs and industry in the process, tax (and regulate) the crap out of them, and use the revenue to fund government. At some point, the Laffer Curve kicks in, and people STOP doing drugs (good thing) and revenue starts to decline (see Cigarettes for example).
IF you do this for all products / services deemed "harmful" to society, but otherwise "victimless", such as Alcohol, Drugs, Porn and Prostitution, we'd have all the money to do all the things we want as a society. And taxes become "voluntary" for all, including the poor. You won't have to pay taxes if you don't want what is taxed.
Re: (Score:2)
All Taxes are regressive. The rich can always avoid some (most) taxes, while the poor cannot avoid any.
[cite needed] Taken to it's logical extreme your statement simply does not compute - especially when nutjobs are complaining about the fact that over 50% of the populace doesn't pay taxes [1]. Fact is, only flat dollar and flat percentage taxes are regressive. Progressive tax is progressive, unless you cap it (like FICA).
[1] http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/19/chart-of-the-week-nearly-half-of-all-americans-dont-pay-income-taxes/ [heritage.org]
Re: (Score:3)
The Laffer curve [wikipedia.org] is just a specific case of the mean value theorem [wikipedia.org] in Calculus, worded slightly differently. It is indisputably correct. The only question is if we're to the left or to the right of the maximum (or if the maximum lies at 100% taxation).
Unfortunately, because it's inconvenient for certain political ideologies, people have taken to disputing it for political reasons, not realizing they're simultaneously disputing Calculus when they do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, because it's inconvenient for certain political ideologies, people have taken to disputing it for political reasons, not realizing they're simultaneously disputing Calculus when they do so.
[sarcasm]
Oh, please! Calculus is *so* subjective! Only those terrorist teabaggers and the 1% would try to muddy the water with that "mean value theorem" scheme to rob the 99% !
Why do you hate poor black people?
[/sarcasm]
Strat :D
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, I did take economics (required undergrad general studies course) and it was mostly bullshit. You mention how retarded Keynesian theory is, the Keynes theory is plain laughable. Give a rich man money and he'll pocket it. Nobody hires out of altruism, they hire because they can sell more than they can produce. If they're producing more than they're selling, no amount of tax breaks is going to get them to hire anyone. Likewise, if he's selling more than he can produce, his taxes going up (likewise his
Re: (Score:2)
Not to put this more into political debate territory, but didn't Bush also give out the tax rebates to people who were in lower and middle classes, and was criticized for it, while you are saying that when Clinton did it, it was good?
Also, I thought that Congress determined the tax system and the President just approves or vetoes?
Re: (Score:2)
I sure didn't get any tax breaks, when the Bush tax "cuts" went into effect, my taxes went up. My taxes did go down under Clinton.
Re: (Score:1)
After the conquest of South America, prices in Spain skyrocketed due to the influx of gold and silver into the economy. Proving that it happens with fiat currencies, gold-based currencies or any unit of measure that used to account for value, you plebeian.
Re: (Score:2)
Basic supply/demand theory is entirely classical and neoclassical, based on the work of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, most definitely pre-Keynesian. Inflation due to money supply isn't a new concept.
After the conquest of South America, prices in Spain skyrocketed due to the influx of gold and silver into the economy. Proving that it happens with fiat currencies, gold-based currencies or any unit of measure that used to account for value, you plebeian.
I'm a "plebeian" why, precisely? You just basically agreed with the whole main thrust of my position in this entire macro-thread.
Did you reply to the wrong post?
Confused I am by your post, yes.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Now, thi
Re: (Score:2)
Won't work. If he's buying something from you for a buck, he's buying something from other people for a buck, too. Those other vendors are buying from your suppliers, increasing demand for the raw materials that you use to make your product. Some of those raw materials will be available in limited supply (either temporarily, such as food that takes time to grow, or permanently, such as mineral deposits)
Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (Score:5, Informative)
A common misconception. Since money isn't tied to anything physical, there is no reason that more of it need lower the value. The current value is already arbitrary. I will also point out that there are far more dollars in databases than we have currency, so we should be able to print quite a bit more without losing any real value at all; we would only be introducing a physical aspect to money that already exists.
I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong. This is disinformation. It never ceases to amaze me how few people have any idea how money actually works. Of course, the government is happy to encourage and promote this lack of understanding and misinformation, as it works to their advantage in effectively stealing wealth from everyone with very few even understanding why they're effectively poorer.
Money is a representation of value, either in services/labor or in goods, regardless of whether the money is tied to something like gold or not, as gold is also a representation of value in goods or services/labor.
Back in the old West, a $20 gold coin would buy you one of the finest suits made. Today, that same amount of gold still buys a fine suit. It's only the amount in dollars that's changed. The comparative actual values have not changed. Back in the 1940s when dimes had a specific amount of silver, a gallon of gas cost two dimes, today those same dimes (with that amount of silver) still buys a gallon of gas. The relative values haven't changed, just the amount of money to equal that relatively static value has increased.
Printing more money dilutes the value of the money, effectively robbing everyone of the value they exchanged either in goods or services/labor for the money they hold. This is why gold prices have rocketed recently. Gold has not gained in value, rather, the dollar used to buy it has lost value.
The Fed engaging in "quantitative easing" (printing/creating more money from thin air) has caused the value of the money to drop dramatically, thus requiring more money to purchase the same value in goods and services/labor. This effectively robs everyone holding that currency of the value of the goods or services/labor they exchanged for that money.
It's theft on a really grand scale with everyone holding US dollars as the victims.
Every time the Fed does another "quantitative easing", your salary/pay is effectively cut.
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
I think your analysis is overly simplistic. It's true that inflation reduces the values of our savings and wages, but it also reduces the value of the debt we owe to others. That's how the country avoids paying off previously accrued debt: by inflating it into irrelevance.
I have no credit so it doesn't help me. But it's not true that inflation is only a loss for people who hold dollars, if they also owe.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I think your analysis is overly simplistic. It's true that inflation reduces the values of our savings and wages, but it also reduces the value of the debt we owe to others. That's how the country avoids paying off previously accrued debt: by inflating it into irrelevance.
I have no credit so it doesn't help me. But it's not true that inflation is only a loss for people who hold dollars, if they also owe.
The problem here is that it only really works out to the advantage those holding absurdly-large and unrealistic (for the overwhelming majority of private citizens) amounts/ratios of debt to income in order to make up for the increases in the prices of everything else they purchase like food, energy, goods, and services. This does not work to the advantage of the vast majority of citizens.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
large amounts/ratios of debt to income
So, basically just the government.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, pretty much.
Strat
Not quite - investments (Score:2)
The problem here is that it only really works out to the advantage those holding absurdly-large and unrealistic (for the overwhelming majority of private citizens) amounts/ratios of debt to income...
Not entirely true. For a start it is an advantage to anyone with a mortgage on their house - so while a majority might not be affected I'd drop the "overwhelming" part. However inflation has one other "good" effect - it makes people spend and invest. The continuous drop in value means that, if you have a large amount of cash, you have a very strong motivation to either spend it on what you need or invest it in the economy somehow in order to preserve its value. This investment money is where businesses get
Re: (Score:1)
Not entirely true. For a start it is an advantage to anyone with a mortgage on their house
Only if the mortgage is enormous, *and* purchases of goods & services is extremely minimal. Otherwise, the increased cost of goods & services outweighs any savings on the mortgage.
Like, if you're a Slashdotter who has a large mortgage, yet still lives in his mom's basement.
The continuous drop in value means that, if you have a large amount of cash, you have a very strong motivation to either spend it on what you need or invest it in the economy somehow in order to preserve its value.
Or, do what many have done: Buy gold/silver.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Like, if you're a Slashdotter who has a large mortgage, yet still lives in his mom's basement.
I'm an inverse Slashdotter - my mum lives in my basement (but only for short periods when she visits!).
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I've heard stories about you "Dotslashers". :D
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
Printing more money dilutes the value of the money, effectively robbing everyone of the value they exchanged either in goods or services/labor for the money they hold. This is why gold prices have rocketed recently. Gold has not gained in value, rather, the dollar used to buy it has lost value.
The Fed engaging in "quantitative easing" (printing/creating more money from thin air) has caused the value of the money to drop dramatically, thus requiring more money to purchase the same value in goods and services/labor. This effectively robs everyone holding that currency of the value of the goods or services/labor they exchanged for that money.
It's theft on a really grand scale with everyone holding US dollars as the victims.
Every time the Fed does another "quantitative easing", your salary/pay is effectively cut.
Strat
You Ron Paul'ers types need to pay attention to the inflation charts. Even with "Quantitative Easing", inflation has been holding steady and staying low the last few years. Should have it gone up? By all accounts, yes, but it did not.
Plus, there should always be a little inflation, so asking for none or complaining there is any, shows lack econ understanding.
Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (Score:5, Informative)
In theory, there is no problem with 0 inflation. The problem is attaining it. The Federal Reserve has powers, but unlike the powers of congress and the president and the supreme court, it takes a long time to see the affect of any policy they put in place. The economy is a supertanker and the Fed is a little bow thruster. It is difficult to know precisely what effect Fed policies will have, and how long it will take to get there.
That being said, we need a small amount of inflation in order to keep up with other countries. Most other counties subscribe to the "small amount of inflation" theory. If we had 0 inflation, prices overseas would rise (purchasing power would decrease) but our currency would stay the same (ie, a very strong dollar). This would be great for American tourists traveling abroad, but the companies in the US that make things would have a hard time selling things overseas. Most Japanese companies that export are having a difficult time with this. The Yen was roughly 110 Yen/Dollar about 4 years ago and now it hovers around 80 Yen/Dollar. This is a substantial difference and since most big Japanese companies source things and do machining inside Japan (their costs are mostly fixed to the Yen) some are really struggling to sell abroad.
Re: (Score:2)
In theory, there is no problem with 0 inflation. The problem is attaining it.
I always thought a simple solution would be to tie currency valuation to sexual services. That way, when inflation goes through the roof, we're all already fucked.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, inflation and deflation happen at a macroeconomic level in ways that aren't fully understood. If there wasn't any "intentional" inflation, the value of money would be sometimes inflating, and sometimes deflating.
Say you live in this world. You take out a 20-year mortgage on your house, or a 3-year loan on a car or something. Stuff we'd like to encourage; people loaning money put it to better use than leaving it under the mattress and people being loaned money can control the timings of their purc
Re: (Score:1)
You Ron Paul'ers types
Who?
Even with "Quantitative Easing", inflation has been holding steady
I guess the fact that they changed the way the official inflation numbers are calculated precisely to hide the true inflation rate escaped your notice?
shows lack econ understanding.
Yes, your post demonstrates that in spades. Either that, or extreme partisanship.
Strat
Re: (Score:1)
Your understanding of economics is childish. Inflation is a part of a healthy economy, deal with it. I hate how partisan hacks scare the plebs with pseudo-economic crap like this.
Re: (Score:1)
I hate how partisan hacks scare the plebs with pseudo-economic crap like this.
Well, stop doing it. Hack.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Inflation requires not only the devaluation of money, but also a lack of hoarding. It isn't the quantity of money, but rather the quantity of money in active use that determines whether inflation or deflation occur. If quantitative easing injects money into a normally functioning economy, it creates inflation. If quantitative easing injects money into a collapsing economy at a rate equal to the rate at which people are pulling their money out o
Re: (Score:2)
Your asking Paulites to look at the facts? Really? If they had any idea of facts they wouldnt support such rubbish!
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the 1940s when dimes had a specific amount of silver, a gallon of gas cost two dimes, today those same dimes (with that amount of silver) still buys a gallon of gas.
Not to take away from your excellent comment, but gasoline was more like a dime a gallon in the '40s according to everyone I've known who was alive then. The lowest I ever paid for a gallon of gasoline was seventeen cents, around 1970 (there was a gas war). Even then, the normal price was about 25-30 cents. thirty years later the price q
Re: (Score:2)
Not to take away from your excellent comment, but gasoline was more like a dime a gallon in the '40s according to everyone I've known who was alive then. The lowest I ever paid for a gallon of gasoline was seventeen cents, around 1970 (there was a gas war). Even then, the normal price was about 25-30 cents. thirty years later the price quadrupled (I was paying $1.05 in 2000), six years later it had nearly quintupled and has gone down by a third since then.
Well, I'm 54, so I'm not old enough to know personally. Just from what my parents and older relatives told me, and so for the purposes of that post, I looked here:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2005/fcvt_fotw364.html [energy.gov]
It appears from the chart there that the retail price was right around 18 to 20 cents a gallon. Doing a Google search nets a number of results, however, from the totality of what I've been able to read and deduce from the various sources, it looked to me like 20 cents was a s
Re: (Score:2)
It helped the huge corporations, but it was a disadvantage to entrepreneurs with small and medium businesses, both in raw financial terms, and as a barrier to their ability to enter and compete in the market.
For many if not most, yes. The only way for a small business to grow was to increase sales, which isn't easy during a recession. About the only companies that could grow were, as you say, multinationals, and the occasional small firm that had export outlets.
Re: (Score:1)
The Fed engaging in "quantitative easing" (printing/creating more money from thin air) has caused the value of the money to drop dramatically, thus requiring more money to purchase the same value in goods and services/labor. This effectively robs everyone holding that currency of the value of the goods or services/labor they exchanged for that money.
It's theft on a really grand scale with everyone holding US dollars as the victims.
Every time the Fed does another "quantitative easing", your salary/pay is effectively cut.
Strat
The argument that the value of money is dropping is just false. I even took the time to make a graph!
A graph illustrating my point. [stlouisfed.org]
The graph begins in January of 2000 and runs until the present. All of the measures are indexed to Jan. 2000 as well and graphed as a monthly average. The dark bars indicate recessions. For those of you who are unaware, using an index makes it easier to compare different things over time. So if the index for the exchange rate is 100 in 2000, and 110 in 2001 then the exchange
Re: (Score:2)
The argument that the value of money is dropping is just false. I even took the time to make a graph!
I can make graphs as well to show anything I want. That graph means less than nothing. It doesn't mean you're using the correct/consistent formulas or that you're not including or excluding certain variables to obtain a result that backs your opinion, but NOT necessarily reality.
No matter how much you wave your hands or how many or how pretty your graphs are, it doesn't change one basic fact: If you print more money without adding any value either in goods or labor, the actual worth of a single unit of that
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, facts are wasted on this guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, facts are wasted on this guy.
Yeah, I get that feeling as well.
I must have pissed of somebody that had a fresh batch of mod points, though. LOL!
My last 10 or 15 posts across two or three of the recent past /. articles, all in a straight timeline from a couple posts back in this thread, were near-simultaneously modded down within a minute or two of each other.
I find it hilarious! I'm glad they wasted them all on me, and not some other poor, innocent poster that had the unmitigated gall to disagree with them. I contribute enough +4-+5 ins
Re: (Score:1)
It's like you're trying to disprove basic arithmetic.
With graphs.
Strat
Before anything else, this was funny. :-)
I can make graphs as well to show anything I want. That graph means less than nothing. It doesn't mean you're using the correct/consistent formulas or that you're not including or excluding certain variables to obtain a result that backs your opinion, but NOT necessarily reality.
A valid point. But by the same token just because that graph doesn't show what you want/expect doesn't mean it's worthless either. Some things -- the monetary base, the exchange rate are directly measurable. There isn't really a lot of wiggle room with calculation - although I'll grant you the actual arithmetic operations of trade-weighting makes me glad we have computers. But in the simplest case of say the exchange rate of US Dollars to U.K. Pounds is again direct
Re:Doesn't make a whole lot of sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Copying is not stealing
Indeed, if it were then there would have been no need for copyright or infringement thereof as formal and separate concepts in the law because the property laws would have covered it. The fact that "copyright" does NOT fall under property law and that the "promotion of the progress of useful arts and sciences" is mentioned specifically and separately in the US Constitution, apart from any language concerning property, underscores their separateness and distinctness. The term "intellectual property" was invented and promoted by those whose interests were served by erroneously conflating the concepts of property and copyright or patent law. Indeed, the term "intellectual property" ought not to be used when referring to these matters because it injects bias and error into any discussion of patent or copyright.
Re: (Score:2)