Intelligence communities are closer friends with each other than their own people.
Since you have so much free time go find the list of people imprisoned by either country, executed by either country and killed either directly or indirectly by these countries. You’ll see what I’m saying.
They have a better chance of making money one way than another, that’s always what all of this is about. Money.
Intelligence communities are better friends with each other than their own people.
Our government didn’t have the ability to print money? What if going to war meant raising taxes?
We took the control of the money supply out of their hands and instead used free and open source software to create money and move it around?
Our economy wasn’t predicated on a target 2-3% inflation rate? What if you were not incentivized to spend your money because it’s just losing value every day you don’t spend it? How might our consumption/production patterns change? How might that impact sustainability?
The government couldn’t move money from the 99% to the 1% every time a bank needed to be bailed out? What if they didn’t print away all the value of money you earned? What if when the economy grew, the value of your money increased just as it would naturally if somebody wasn’t printing away the difference?
Small but steady inflation is good. The macroeconomic fear is that people will just hold onto their money in the form of raw currency. That’s bad. Currency is for a more convenient representation of value. I can’t compensate a roofer in computer code, so currency is a stand-in. But it also shouldn’t languish or else the economy stagnates. The world used to regularly experience zero inflation or deflation, which hurt the economy. As much as we’ve had some instability lately, things are nowhere near as bad as they could be.
Of course the flip side - hyperinflation - is also bad, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.
Good for who? Where does value move when your currency is reduced in value by an expansion in the supply? To regular people? No. Lower and middle class people are the ones who have the most cash, they have a higher ratio of cash to net worth than rich people who can put their money into assets. They have an emergency fund. They are saving up to become property owners.
Humanity survived and grew total economic output for millennia before inflationary paper currency came around. Inflationary paper currency is a relatively recent phenomenon. I’m not saying we should go back to the gold standard, but that ended in 1971. That’s pretty recent.
If you live in a hyperinflation environment, you will spend your money on anything because it’s better than holding onto that money and see it become worthless. It might seem silly to own 12 blenders, but buying yet another blender is a better investment than simply sitting on your money for a month in Turkey. At least a blender can blend and maybe be re-sold at a later date. That effect still happens in mildly inflationary economies: we are incentivized to buy goods and services we don’t need because the alternative is just slowly watching our money lose value. This is not a great incentive to have baked into our financial system when we live on a planet with finite resources.
On the other hand, if your money is expected to retain or gain value, somebody has to really convince you to part with it. Does that mean products are built to last? Built more repairable or sustainable? Perhaps. You will still buy things of course, everybody needs stuff, but at least the incentive is trending in the right direction instead of towards needless consumption.
He is putting that wealth to work by keeping it invested in his company instead of stuffing it under his mattress. That’s exactly how it’s supposed to work. That wealth is doing work for him and for the rest of the economy in the form of Amazon stock (setting aside various ethical qualms about Amazon). Stock is nothing more than an abstract representation of a slice of a company to allow for distributed ownership and for companies to raise capital. So instead of purchasing goods and services from a company, a shareholder provides raw capital to exchange for a slice of the company. That would make sense for a wealthier person who can only buy so many yachts and massages (goods and services), but it applies equally well to someone who is trying to sock some money away for retirement and have it grow over time.
I can tell you want would happen. The Collaps of Capitalims. Because Capitalism needs the State to protect it with police force, Military and Bailouts. Thats the only reason States exist. The Ruleing classes need to work together to keep the rest under controll and to legitamise themselfes with Laws. States are always a tool of one class to rule over the others. They will never change in that regard.
The funniest thing about NaNs is that they’re actually coded so you can see what caused it if you look at the binary. Only problem is; due to the nature of NaNs, that code is almost always going to resolve to “tried to perform arithmetic on a NaN”
There are also coded NaNs which are defined and sometimes useful, such as +/-INF, MAX, MIN (epsilon), and Imaginary
Wait I’m confused. You’re upset that somebody brought up a problem without a solution, and you’re upset about the idea of possible solutions to this problem.
Seems like you just don’t want to talk about this particular problem and have a traumatizing history of failing to convince people to not talk about it or the solutions.
I’m telling you I’m not upset, you just aren’t used to someone being direct and coarse. Anyone can list all the problems with the world and spend their life complaining about them. It’s just pointless unless you have ideas to help and I’ve upvoted those posters who did have ideas. Now go clean your vag out and stfu biotch ;)
Na, you are a whiny little bitch and you know it ;)
You can dish it, but you can’t take it. You could have simply denied my claim that you aren’t interested in talking about the problem/solutions. But instead your “direct” dumb ass played the “Who’s upset?” game.
I do appreciate the willingness to hear possible solutions problem though. I think your frustrations with what ifs are valid.
Sorry about getting uppity, but your initial post sounded a lot like the kind of people who want to cause more suffering in the world by denying these problems exist. You got to put those people in their place, you know.
That’s like saying Huckleberry Finn doesn’t exist. Just because it’s made-up doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It exists as a concept which billions of people understand.
The Sun’s position on the ecliptic at the vernal equinox is not a “concept”, it’s a physical reality, recognised by the International Astronomical Union.
And the astrology signs exist as a concept as recognized by thousands of years of human history dating back to Babylonia 2 BCE. Yes we understand that they’re likely completely bogus, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.
Disagree on the semantics. Physical realities are concepts as well. “Energy”, despite being an extremely useful physical measurement, is an abstract concept. “Physical realities” and “concepts” are not mutually exclusive nor antonymous words.
In this case, the Aries/vernal point is a concept used to define coordinate systems using physical measures from Earth.
I think it is pretty clear in the context of the joke that they weren’t saying the concept doesn’t exist they were saying the attributes of the concept doesn’t exist.
No, only ambiguous bones that could be anything and are interpreted to be dinosaurs by old earth creationists making you believe the earth is older than a millennium. Most bones are actually from giants, unicorns and centaurs depending on the color.
lemmy.ml
Hot