RoR: Forum

Michael:

I guess if it is value, then it is value, period. Even if it is delusional...

Here's another example, probably similar phenomena: Apple's marketing strategy. Buying an Apple anything gains the purchaser admission to a non-existing exclusive community of cool.

Reality: how exclusively cool can cool be, if all you need to do is buy an Apple something? But, believing it makes it so, at the same time that acting on that belief does not fulfill the itch, and the only possible remedy is to ... buy more Apple stuff. Lather, rinse, repeat. One of the most brilliant bits of marketing ever.

Even limping into an Apple Store with a busted Ipod is an act of shame. Twenty something, rolling his eyes. What did you do? You lost your key to the club. I'm not even sure why we let folks like you in. Nothing we can do, but sell you another key. Try not to break your key next time.

People want to belong, even to communities that don't exist. Lot's of bucks to be made scratching that itch.

Post 21

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 8:57am

Okay...

The above post #20, (regardless of the gist of the rest of this thread), has just climbed into my top 10 of favorites posts ever on this site.

Thank you, Fred.

(Though you forgot to mention the fact that Apple/Mac folks are the only people I know of who feel the need to advertise their "Macness" by placing Apple stickers on their vehicles.)

Seriously? Does anyone actually care about what computer someone chooses to use? Oh, wait...other Macsters do. It's hilarious. I actually laugh when I see them on the highway.

Disclaimer (so this thread doesn't get hijacked unnecessarily into a Mac vs. PC fight---we've seen many of those on here..):

Neither Fred's post, nor this one, makes any claims dissing the quality of Macintosh computers. He is discussing the advertising campaign of Apple, and I agree wholeheartedly.

If you use one, and you love it...great! I'm happy that you're pleased with your computer purchase. Really, I am.

If you put an Apple bumpersticker on your car....well, then, I guess I'll continue to laugh at you when I drive past. Sorry.

Post 22

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 9:21am

I have to agree... that buying products that are cool does not make the purchasers cool. Even as cool (easier to use, better designed, bugs free, etc., etc.) as the Apple products are (when compared to Microsoft) they have never been able to make me 'cool' . Of course, I only really care about the superior features.

Those Apple decals? Nobody knows what to do with them. I mean, the machines already carry the logo, so some people (like me) stick them on their car for fun. Only one person ever asked me about mine, but it was the original logo (multi-colored). Then I realized later they weren't wondering if I was a Mac fan, they were wondering if I was gay. The newer all white logo now adorns (and covers up) the old logo.

But I have to confess, I'm not a Mac fan... I'm a Mac snob. If you should ever pass me on the highway, you're entitled to LOL all you want. It's cool. : )

jt

Post 23

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 9:22am

Michael,

Thank you for the information...NORFED is indeed the group I was thinking of.

And when you refreshed my memory with the details of their case, I can see how they would seem quite a bit more irksome to the Federal Government than these people with their community currency. And how they knowingly violated laws that are on the books, deliberately thumbing their noses at the Government....

(Naturally, I was rooting for them. There was no way they could possibly get away with it, but still...they were...bold, weren't they? A Ron Paul coin, lol.)

I'm not hostile at all towards the idea of local currency. I think it's kinda neat, on many levels. (Fred)

I'm kind of with Fred on this one. I like it when people take the initiative to do something themselves, outside of the government controls. Michael, you said,

I do agree that there is a sense of "libertarianism" in these community currency efforts as they are creating their own money based on their own productive effort. (MEM)

I guess I choose to focus on that aspect of it.

:-)

Thanks again.

Post 24

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 9:58am

Those Apple decals? Nobody knows what to do with them. I mean, the machines already carry the logo, so some people (like me) stick them on their car for fun. Only one person ever asked me about mine, but it was the original logo (multi-colored). Then I realized later they weren't wondering if I was a Mac fan, they were wondering if I was gay. The newer all white logo now adorns (and covers up) the old logo. (Jay)

Funny story!

For the record:

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a fan (or snob) of a machine, service or brand that you find superior, Jay....I completely understand that.

It's just when you say "I put the sticker on my car for fun"...that's the part I don't get. Where's the fun? Who are you advertising to?

Computers are wonderful---I love my laptop (No...it's not a Mac---you can laugh at me now, if you like :-)

I take it everywhere I go. But to me it's still just an implement, an appliance...a tool that I use to get my computing done. And I would no more advertise my choice in laptops on my car than scrape off a Whirlpool tag off my refrigerator to announce to the world that I would never ever own a Maytag.
(Unless of course, Whirlpool paid me to do so...that's a different story.:- )
But that's just me.

Hell, if you told me that having a Mac sticker got you out of a traffic ticket once because the cop was a Macster, too, I'd cut you some slack. :-)

I'm going to trust that your reasons for advertising your Mac love are different than the reasons lots of other people do it (as described in Fred's post so well.)

(Which is why I asked these questions in all sincerity, and I'm not trying to give you a hard time...)

In fact, if I ever see you (personally) with your Mac sticker, I won't laugh. But only because it's you.

Post 25

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 11:01am

Erica:

You're absolutely correct, Apple's quality is fortunately very good, (except for those fragile though stylishly sleek connectors on the too delicate Ipod) but not the point.

DEC's quality was outstanding, hardware and O/S, and they couldn't market anything. If I wanted to put a sticker on my car declaring my allegiance to computing excellence, it would say DEC, not Apple or IBM, and the point of that is, it too would be a very worn and faded sticker and a long dead non-existing community.

My point was, preying on folks strong desire to belong to some perceived community -- even if it is an imagined community -- is a clever marketing scheme. It works.

I think there is some aspect to that in these local currencies. I'm not talking about the actual community -- there clearly is an actual community-- even if its citizens are using federal dollars.

I'm talking about the imagined local community that are somehow sticking it to the federal government by using these local currencies. The primary impact seems to be, taking it easy on federal currency used for local circulation, which has a federal cost associated with its maintenance.

It is purely symbolic secession, not factual secession. Nothing wrong with that, I am not being disparaging, I am trying to recognize it for what it is, in the world as it is.

Factual secession is much more painful.

regards,
Fred

Post 26

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 12:49pm

On the other hand, owning a genuine original VW Beetle does indeed put you in the 'cool' community... when had them [owned several over the years], it was an amazing experience seeing total strangers WAVE at me on the highway, or 'offer to trade' their vehicles for mine... and as for what to put on them - lol, ANYTHING would do, and did, and it still was 'cool'...

Post 27

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 3:26pm

Erica,

The truth is, most Apple/Mac users really are enthusiastic about the features and convenience they feel they get from their machines. You've probably read this in magazines too, that among computer manufacturers, Apple has consistently achieved the highest satisfaction rating from their customers. This may not hold up. As Apple continues to branch out into other product lines, it may be natural for quality to slip. For now, though, their software and equipment is just so much simpler, easier, and more elegant than their competition's, that seasoned Mac people (after years of being mocked even by DOS users) feel entitled to crow a little. : )

jt

PS: Sorry, didn't mean to hijack this thread!

Post 28

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 - 5:56pm

Ever see a common stock certificate, i.e, a fiduciary instrument for common stock? They say, "No par value."

... and yet they sell for much more ...

in fact, see here and here and here for people who pay hundreds of dollars for the common stock of defunct companies.
Here is an AIG certificate selling for 100 times its "market" value.
(I guess that definition depend on which market...)

What is "worth"? Is a thing worth

what it cost
what it will cost to replace it
what you can sell it for
what you would give up to keep it

I just bought a Macintosh. How come I did not get a sticker?

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 4/21, 5:57pm)

Post 29

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 7:02am

In the instance of local currencies, and in the context of the(what I claim is a mistaken)perception that using these local currencies achieves some effect on the federal government other than purely symbolic, I originally supposed 'what's the harm?' It's like blowing off steam. It's like taking a pop at one of those sand bottomed blow up clown punching bags.

POW! Take that, federal government. But, no 'ouch.' Zero. Nada. None. How does alternative currency with a fixed federal discounted exchange rate impact either personal or business taxation?

So, folks get a libertarian itch, and they claim to scratch some of that itch by harmlessly using local currency. Personal value, no harm. Except that...a libertarian, anti-concentrated federal power itch has been harmlessly scratched, with ... little or no consequence to the concentrated federal power structure.

In that light...shouldn't the advocates of a strong, concentrated federal power model be encouraging, maybe even subsidizing, or at least, cheering on the use of local currencies? There is an objective upside to the federal government, which incurs cost for maintaining federal currency. As far as I can figure out, that is the only actual consequence to the federal government; subsidy.

Post 30

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 10:16am

Have you heard of this: http://www.liberty-watch.com/volume03/issue08/coverstory.php

Use legit currency based on face value of gold and silver issued by us mint

Post 31

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 12:11pm

Kurt:

I'd never seen that. Thanks for linking that, it is a really interesting read.

The issue at stake was, were these guys guilty of criminal intent by doing what they were doing, right?

I have to re-read it again, but a separate issue is, were they able to continue doing what they were doing?

My first read of that was:

1] The IRS disallowed their interpretation, taxes were owed on market value.
2] The courts, via a jury trial, ruled that their interpretation was not a criminal act, just an indictment of a murky tax code...

No matter what, it really does illustrate how screwed up all these constructivist rules are. It's 'whack.'

Related personal 'whack' story; the IRS, under direction of the Dept of Labor, once audited my pension plans, to make sure I wasn't screwing over my employees. But...I don't have any employees. I'm an "S" corp, sole s/h and employee. But because of that, my plans are 'top heavy.' (???? It's just me...)

So, they were auditing 'me' to make sure I wasn't screwing over 'me' with my own pension plans.

That wasn't the 'real' reason, the 'real' reason at the time, mid-90's, was Al Gore's 'reinventing government' program. Every cabinet level department had to have a 'metric' to gauge how well they were serving taxpayers, and Shorty Reich in the DoL decided that the Department Of Labor's 'metric' was going to be the sum total dollar amount of small business pension plans that were ruled 'non-compliant' over some minor information return/5500 mistake, effectively able to run a small business out of business. If a plan was ruled 'non compliant', it all rolls into agressive penalties and interest, more than wiping out the plans, possibly going back years. This 'initiative' failed, because IRS field agents simply refused to be the bad guys, and just ignored most minor errors on 'information only' returns--in definace of their management. They were the ones who had to look some struggling small business guy in the eye and say, "you were supposed to file this 'information only return' on this date, not this date, because of this rule on P187 that your CPA didn't catch...", and being human beings, they knew this was all bogus, so they just refused to do it. It was called 'the IRS street revolt.'

The lefties, when they are in power, really have a hair up their butt over small business pension plans. So much so, that currently, Vanguard is punting on all of their prototype profit sharing and money purchase plans, they are just plain throwing up their hands and getting out of that business.

regards,
Fred

Post 32

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 12:17pm

Yes that is absurd - the law on that when I read it was pure communism - no joke - and it can apply to companies with employees - one person though is clearly absurdity - but even so, if you make more money than others at the company - even if they don't participate - and you reach a certain $ value you can't contribute more because you make it "top heavy" - it is pure, unadulturated communist thinking. I have read through the 401s and such and have decided they are too dangerous - there is too much in the law that could let them steal it - I have decided to stop participating - better to have the money, pay taxes, and put it safe in gold or silver.

Post 33

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 12:17pm

Fred, we are on the verge of the rightwing crypto thing again. There are more things to do in life than to fight the government. If you build a public swimming pool and plant some trees and charge a club fee and hire lifeguards, etc., etc., you are not fighting the US Department of the Interior. You are operating a swimming pool. Some people who happen to "have a libertarian bent" also take vitamins and other anti-oxidants, and yes, the FDA is a popular topic, but we would take the vitamins whether or not there were an FDA. The government has nothing to do with it. When I put on a Beethoven CD, it is not to strike back at NPR; it is to listen to Beethoven. A community currency is a community currency. Get over it.

Kurt, thanks for the link about Joel Hansen. (How are you holding up?)

Post 34

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 12:41pm

Kurt:

There's something I at first didn't understand about what they did, even on the face of it. But now I -think- I get it.

1] They were running a business, generating revenue.

2] They obtained an asset, coinage, at market value. They credited a federal dollar account, and debited an asset account...at what value? That would have to match, I'd guess market value.

3] They paid a (low) salary at face value, so low that it was below the reporting threshold. Their employees did not pay federal tax. When they paid that out of that coinage/asset account, they debited it what value? It seems like it would have to be the face value. There is some clear whackiness here, at some point, if they are buying the coinage at market value, but eventually crediting it at only face value. If that is the case, there is residual value in the asset account, but no asset...how is that residual value expensed? There must be some undisclosed accounting gymnastics in there...

4] But, if they were expensing payroll at face value, then ...as a business, they had a payroll expense, at the reduced face value. As a business, they then had unexpensed revenue, the difference would come down to their bottom line, and under any business model, the business is subject to higher taxation. So, this scheme moves taxation from employees to the business, right? But it avoids FICA and MEDI, including the so called employer half, which is really just payroll tax, so...bingo. That must be where this starts to really payoff...as long as the accounting gymnastics are worked out.

It's still really murky, but interesting. I can definitely see where your average jury would go "w.t.f.?" in the face of all this...

Post 35

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 12:46pm

Michael:

re; There are more things to do in life than to fight the government.

Indeed. And my argument has been, using local currencies is an exceedingly poor way to 'fight the(federal)government', when in fact, the only discernible impact is, using local currencies subsidizes the federal government.

Those with non-libertarian leanings 'not figthing the federal government' should be cheering on the use of local currencies.

I haven't seen any arguments which refute that.

regards,
Fred

Post 36

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 1:02pm

Kurt:

re; I have read through the 401s and such and have decided they are too dangerous - there is too much in the law that could let them steal it - I have decided to stop participating

You are right on target with that. Any assets in any 'regulated plan' are going to clearly be at political risk during the coming train wreck. Never mind what the law says today or yesterday, they can and have demonstrated their willingess to change the rules based on the political whim of the moment. Those regulated plans have pretty much been capital honey pots.

In the coming life boat war, they will be boiled down via the following simple rule, guaranteed: "If you have it, you don't need it. If you don't, then you do." It's 'the ant and the grasshopper' tale, and there are way more grasshoppers.

Politically, this is easy to predict, everytime the left gets into power, one of the first things that the DoL starts to do is salivate over regulated pension plans. The reason being, they represent one of the few remaining large 'net in the black' exposed asset pools in our economies. This was true in the 90's, during the CLinton admin, and it is freshly true in the Obama admin, practically the same cast of folks, only today, we are that much closer to the coming demographic train wreck.

The two parties of power have basically been jockeying for position in the coming train wreck, to stand in the rubble, point at the other party, and claim "They did it!"

A pox on both their houses...

regards,
Fred

Post 37

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 1:10pm

were they able to continue doing what they were doing?
....................

That was the first thing came to mind when the jury verdict came... what's the update on this?

Post 38

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 2:29pm

My anecdote above re: single employee pension plans is not the only example I can think of. For example, there are explicit 'rules' that are applicable to single employee pension plans regarding 'loans' to/from the plan, and so on.

For example, if I had employees in the plan other than me, or even, just a partner, I'd be allowed to borrow to/from the plan. Huh?

I could, for instance, borrow from my pension plans, then payoff my mortgage, then payback my pension plans, with interest; my 'mortgage' would be, paying back my pension plans. People do this all the time. And, why not? Why should anyone be sitting on an asset that collects interest, and another liability that is charging interest? Why shouldn't they be able to cancel one with part of the other, and 'pay interest and principal' back to their own pension asset? I can see where banks and other financial institutions may not like that, they'd prefer I 1] hand over my pension assets to them and 2] lend it back to me and 3] have me pay them interest for lending my own asset back to me. A good deal, if you can convince your crony friends on K-Street with the guns to enforce that model.

But...why am I, as a single self employed businessman, forced to do that, while others who also toil in the same economies are not?

Because I am a sole employee, single employer, I'm not allowed to do that. That, apparently, is a social crime, to be discouraged. Or, ridden. I haven't figured out which it is...

And, now, add back on the silly 'top heavy' rules absurdly applicable to single employee plans. Never mind what the payroll tax rules used to be. Or, how my health care benefits used to be taxed, until those rules changed. Currently, or ever, who used to pay tax on the value of their health care benefits other than the self employed? This might be coming back again, but...

Why?

Can someone explain to me the rationale behind having these uniquely punitive rules for self-employed, single employee small businesses?

Is it based on reason? Some rationale? Lack of political power/defense from the mob by self-employed small business folks? It can't simply be schadenfreud...can it?

I guess the tribe really can't bring itself to utter the phrase, "Dammit, if you can, you must hire folks. It's your obligation to provide jobs, if you can. If you are not taking advantage of others, riding the back of labor, sucking out their virtuous lifeblood, etc, then dammit, we want to give you incentives to be that dracula--by artificially penalizing you if you are not."

It's the function of the federal government to artificially penalize the self-employed in this nation? That comes as a bit of a shock. Let me explain 'human nature' to those who are confused; under that model, it is the natural response of those targeted to respond with their middle finger however they may, and as it turns out with thsi group of individuals, as they may is varied and diverse. It's in their nature.

I can understand providing incentives for 'behavior,' but I can't understand the rationale of applying artificial 'disincentives' for the behavior 'self-employed' ... unless the ultimate basis is, 'we herdists want to shepherd folks into utter dependency.'

That's a reason worth supporting? By whom? Towards what end? Utter dependency? On whom?

How is that going to work, exactly?

There's all kinds of personal value, there is all kinds of currency. After voting for Clark in the 80 election, I've spent the last 26 years of my adult working life as neither an employee nor an employer. It has been an enormously rewarding protest against our tribal nonsense, well worth dodging these silly irrational attempts to aim a fork at me. I've found it far more effective than using local currency.

When someone asks me what I do for a living, I sometimes respond 'as little as I can get away with to support the current tribal insanity.'

But, good luck with that. Howzit look to be working out? because Geithner didn't seem all that sure this morning...

Post 39

Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 1:45pm