Random Guy

Lord Ratner's position treats money and government as separate from one another, he conceives of money strictly in commodity-money terms. Meanwhile, Nsplayr is arguing from an endogenous-money framework, where banks create money. This is the source of their disagreement. If we find ourselves analyzing the economy where we treat money like a commodity, its very similar to flying a jet with instruments that aren't connected, so the instrument readings don't relate to outside conditions. This is because the financial system behaves differently when money is a commodity (like gold) compared to bank ledger entries (pure credit). @Lord Ratner@nsplayr I'm asserting several premises below, I would be grateful for your participation, if you would either agree or disagree. I'm asserting: 1) Banks create new bank deposits when they issue a loan. 2) Banks create loans without first taking on deposits (pre-existing deposits are not 'collected and loaned out'). 3) Bank deposits exist solely on the respective bank's ledger. 4) Central Bank reserve deposits exist solely on the Central Bank ledger. 5) Central Bank reserve deposits are used by banks for settling transactions between banks. 6) Bank deposits cannot be moved from one bank ledger to another bank ledger, or transferred between banks. If you disagree, can you elaborate how your opinion differs?

No need to be so sensitive, or try to draw people into political circles that may not be relevant. If I ask it isn't obvious to me. What are the policies you don't like (that AOC supports) and which policies do you want instead? (1) and, Do you consider US democrats 'protesting' at times to be equivalent to 'Alex' shouting "U mah fav big booty latina!". It's tit-for-tat? (2)

I live in Europe. It's nice.

What is the political statement he's making?

Quite right. Its easy to lose our heads and devolve into confrontation. And we can easily right ourselves, and return to civility. We can and should right each other when we have lost our way, we all benefit from clear discourse.

What would be a good example of 'stating my ideological priors and foundational beliefs', so that I can best get you what you're looking for?

Correct, what is the point you made?

What do you think will happen?

Can you elaborate?

I'm actually a bit disappointed our discussion digressed into name calming, as it so frequently does. Anyway, feel free to carry on the discussion. Edit: for torque.

What would you prefer?

This is not a particularly good technique for spreading information that supports your argument. I'm happy to read opposing points of view. When you've identified which pieces best apply to your argument, let me know so I can read them. The intersection of economics and war is an underdeveloped space. War and violence finds its source in economic systems and phenomenon. No need to be coy with useful data if you have it. Share it.

As the Fed raises rates and begins to reduce the size of its balance sheet (sell assets it purchased, also referred to as 'Quantitative Tightening'), the total value of its assets will be less than its liabilities. In other words, the Federal Reserve will be insolvent. To offset this imbalance, it will begin to record a 'deferred asset', which will reflect the total value of the losses it records over time. Essentially, the Fed is recording its losses as an asset. Another way to think about this is the instruments on the Fed ledger themselves. The Fed purchased many US Treasuries during the COVID crisis, which pay a low rate of interest (~0%). The Fed itself must pay a rate on interest on its liabilities held by banks (Interest on reserves ~2%). As the Fed raises the rate it pays on reserve deposits, the income from its US Treasuries becomes less than the amount of new Reserve Deposits it creates for banks that hold existing reserve deposits. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/an-analysis-of-the-interest-rate-risk-of-the-federal-reserves-balance-sheet-part-2-20220715.htm

Which paper, preferably a specific paper? If you would like others to read and learn about a specific topic as it relates to an argument, it is best practice to provide a citation. For example, if I want you to learn about financial instability, I wouldn't say 'read Minky', as Minsky has a great deal of writing and that provides no useful starting point for you to learn those key concepts. Put in just a little bit more effort, please.

The EU does actually have 'technically' stricter abortion laws than nearly all US states. The comparison isn't 1:1, because there are situations where in the EU an abortion will be performed but in some US states it would not be performed. Again, Congress can at any time pass laws that people want, whether its about harassment or abortion. If people in the US want particular abortion laws, write and pass those laws. For the sake of argument, I voted for Trump. Given that context, why do you consider me a 'Leftist'? And, what is a 'Leftist', in your opinion? Honest questions. Again, I'm not a lawyer. Law folks can offer their professional opinions. But this is fair counter argument of sorts, because clearly words are not violence. If its not violence, not sexual harassment, not intimidation, not expressing political opinion or political speech, what is it? And do we want this type of discourse in our society? Is it helpful? Which work by Paul Collier, can you share a link? Again, if you are unwilling to enter into 'violence' territory, but you skirt along the edge of it, then you clearly are still in a 'discourse' phase, and the economic repercussions of violence outweigh the status quo. Northern Ireland may be a good case study here. I don't consider the 'your wife' as an emotional appeal. But, let's replace 'your wife' with 'any woman', or for that matter, 'anyone', or 'yourself'. If you are the subject of his statements, do you think to yourself 'Alex is expressing his political beliefs' and I ask you: what are the political beliefs he's expressing? Edit: condensed.

I'm an American, former pilot, live in Europe at the moment. Remember that ALL parties in the US are liberal. I get that you mean 'Democrats' when you use the word 'liberal' though. The logical check of 'your wife' is not an appeal to emotion, it is a check of the original premise that his statement's were political. If we change the political_affiliation variable and hold the sex variable constant, we can check to see how his statements relate to the recipient. This does not qualify as a 'whataboutism'. I think in this context you are misinterpreting my usage of the term 'violence'. 'Alex' has a political objective, and his actions qualify as sexual intimidation (my position). He hopes to achieve a political objective through sexual intimidation, which is a lesser form of violence. Discourse has clearly failed, 'Alex' is operating on the border of US law and is tentatively entering the realm of violence. Right? Why is he so tentatively entering the realm of violence? Edit: condensed.

Gotcha, mistook your post for BO sarcasm. Seems like a valid point. So, to sum up: if you are going to do it, do it properly. That means discourse should be educated and civil. And when discourse fails, violence should be well targeted against the appropriate political institutions. No fussing about with "Your my favorite big-booty latina!!" bullsh***.

Me right now: Which gives: 🤷‍♂️

These forms of violence, and the harassment we see in the video, have economic origins. Liberal economic systems are unstable, and when they break down, this is expressed very violently. This break down is inevitable. The fact that 'Alex', if that's his name, didn't assassinate the political figure in the video implies we still have a ways to go in terms of the economic system's cycle duration. Here's an example of how that behaviour we see if the video is treated in the UK: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/taking-action-about-discrimination/taking-action-about-harassment/ And in Germany: https://www.antidiskriminierungsstelle.de/SharedDocs/downloads/EN/publikationen/agg_wegweiser_engl_guide_to_the_general_equal_treatment_act.pdf?__blob=publicationFile UK Deutschland In Europe, 'Alex' would have been arrested for sexual harassment of a public official.

Are you a lawyer, because I am not. If you are, how is harassment treated at law currently in the US (DC) area? As a citizen I can say that if his behavior does not constitute harassment which affords legal consequences, I support Congress passing laws which would provide that outcome. Certainly I think replacing the political figure he's speaking to with our wives we can agree nothing he said is related to our wives' politics in any way, but rather is purely sexual in nature. Edit: I suppose as a society we should simply demand better discourse. We can communicate better than this, can we not? And if you pass beyond discourse to violence, then take up proper violence. But shouting sexually at someone as a form of soft-intimidation is an unnecessary middle ground we shouldn't dwell in. Talk properly or fight I say.

Well, in the context of my statement about sexual harassment, if the woman in the face of the [police] official was saying: "Look at his sexy booty, look at that fat booty. Your my favorite big-ass Latino." It would 1) yes, still be considered sexual harassment, and 2) the non-symmetric dynamic between men and women might lead the male officer to 'not really care about it'. He didn't go to her home, he went to her work, and sexually harassed her at work. Meanwhile, calling someone dumb (incompetent) is surely valid political discourse of a very low level. An official pursuing poor policy due to incompetence, for example. Right?

I remember them firing them off at Kandyland as well. Always made me wonder what we were actually shooting at. Probably the producer's EBITDA margin.

I guess we have to ask ourselves if there is a difference between a protest and sexual harassment? And if sexual harassment, construed as protest, is protected under the first amendment, what other types of behaviour can protesters engage in, along the lines of that video? Because it seemed like he wasn't actually protesting anything in particular? Or was the clip I saw too short, and his political argument was made earlier in the video? -------------- EDIT: To put it another way, if someone did that to your wife, for example, would you think that person was protesting your wife's politics?

People can express counterfactuals and develop contrarian takes. Its ok to discuss what could be, or what might be, or state some assumptions and develop an argument based on those assumptions. Russia's tactics make alot more sense given a narrative of 'self-defense', compared to 'imperial intent'. Why leave the power on? Why ignore leadership targets? Why let the oil flow? It all seems very odd. Imagine going into Iraq without striking any critical targets ahead of time. Zelensky is within striking distance, broadcasting from known locations, but they don't strike. Doesn't make much sense.

Video arguing the US provocated the conflict in Ukraine by pushing NATO membership. Not familiar with the author.