As always, my views are just a layman's perspective with no claims to expertise.

@RedSky

You correctly point out the intent of the reform, to stop fractional banking which they diagnosed as a primary driver of volatility within the financial sector. They want to revert back to a system where the banks were intermediaries the way you described it: deposit leads to loan, in this case at a maximum ratio of 1:1, no leveraging.

Unlike the current system where bank deposits are mostly created by banks themselves -- the act of lending creates deposits. In fact, deposits are liabilities of the banks, not assets. Reserves are assets, but they are only traded between entities with accounts at the central bank. And, in normal times, are provided quite freely by the central bank in exchange for other assets.

Anyway, "Vollgeld" places the ability to create money exclusively in the hands of the central bank. Controlling the amount of money in circulation was a concept most central banks were eager to drop during the '90s, since it never worked. Demand for credit is volatile, central control is inflexible, even if they could somehow quanfity the need for it ex ante -- which they can't. Hell, they can't even do it ex post. You can't quantify the need for additional money beyond what's already in circulation if the central bank's action set the conditions for a dynamic development in the first place. You can't know in advance what increases in production need to be financed, you can't know how demand for liquidity evolves over time. The quantity theory of money was buried for a reason, it ignores reality.

Anyway, I applaud the proponents of Vollgeld for pointing out the dysfunctionalities of our fractional reserve system as well as how questionable it is, ethically, to hand over so much power to a small cabal of financial elites. In fact, I'm quite ecstatic to hear them point out that a nation with a sovereign, free-floating currency does not need to finance deficits through banks -- how very MMT of them. Go OMF!

But their proposed solutions are a fallback to "the market will stabilise itself if left alone, a completely independant central bank will keep the quantity of money in circulation at just the right amount". This hands-off approach resulted in absolute devastation whenever it was applied. They want to turn the state into a regular economic subject that has to adapt to the amount of money currently in circulation. It's (the illusion of) control by technocrats, where you get to disguise policies against the masses as "economic neccessities". Basically the German Eurozone on steroids.

As for the absolute independence of the central bank: you are right, that is not strictly part of the Swiss Vollgeld initiative. But it's what almost every proponent of Vollgeld within the German-speaking circles argues for, including major drivers behind the initiative. Can't let politicians have control over our central bank or else they'll abuse it for populist policies.

They are true believers in technocrat solutions, completely seperate from democratic control.

PS: I cut down my ranting to a minimum of MMT arguments, given that many people see it as just a different sort of voodoo economics.

Edit: Elizabeth Warren's 21st Century Glass Steagal Act strikes me as a rather promising way to solve a great number of problems with the financial industry without going back into the realm of monetarism.

Italy:
Renzi is creating the conditons for a new bubble? Through deficit spending on... what? Unless they start building highways in the middle of nowhere like they did in Spain, I don't see any form of bubble coming out of deficit spending in Italy. The country's been in a major recession for quite some time now, with no light at the end of the tunnel and a massive shortfall in private spending. But meaningful deficit spending requires Renzi to tell Germany and the Eurogroup to pound sand -- not sure his balls have descended far enough for that just yet.

Referendum in Switzerland:
"Vollgeld". That's the German term for what the initiators of this referendum are aiming for: 100% reserve banking. It's monetarism in disguise, and they are adament to not be called monetarists. But that's what it is. Pure old-fashioned monetarism. Even if you don't give a jar of cold piss about all these fancy economic terms and theories, let me ask you this: the currency you use is quite an important part of all your daily life, isn't it? So why would anyone in his or her right mind remove it entirely from democratic control (even constitutionally)?
If you want to get into the economic nightmares of it, here are a few bullet points:
- no Overt Monetary Financing (printing money for deficit spending) means no lender of last resort and complete dependence on the market, S&P can tell you to fuck off and die as they did with PIIGS
- notion that the "right amount of money in circulation" will enable the market to keep itself in balance -- as if that ever worked
- notion that a bunch of technocrats can empirically determine this very amount in regular intervalls
- central bank is supposed to maintain price stability, nothing else -- single mandate, works beautifully for the ECB, at least if you like 25% unemployment
- concept is founded in the notion that the financial economy is the source of (almost) all problems of the "real" economy, thereby completely ignoring the fact that decades of wage suppression have simply killed widescale purchasing power of the masses, aka demand

Visegrad nations:
From a German perspective, they are walking on thin ice as it is. The conflict with Russia never had much support of the public to begin with, but even the establishment is becoming more divided on this issue. Given the authoritarian policies put in place in Poland recently and the utter refusal to take in their share of refugees, support might fade even more. If the Visegrad governments then decide to push for further conflict with Russia, Brussels and Berlin might tell them, very discreetly, to pipe the fuck down.

Turkey:
Wildcard. He mentioned how they will mess with Syria, the Kurds and Russia, but forgot to mention the conflict between Turkey and the EU. As of now, it seems as if Brussels is ready to pay Ankara in hard cash if they keep refugees away from Greece. Very similar to the deal with Morocco vis-a-vis the Spanish enclave. As long as they die out of sight, all is good for Brussels.

I would add France as a point of interest:
They recently announced that the state of emergency will be extended until ISIS is beaten. In other words, it'll be permanent, just like the Patriot Act in the US. A lof of attention has been given to the authoritarian shift of politics in Poland, all the while ignoring the equally disturbing shift in France. Those emergency measures basically suspend the rule of law in favour of a covert police state. Add the economic situation (abysmal), the Socialist President who avoids socialist policies, and the still ongoing rise of Front National... well, you get the picture.

Regarding the EU, I'll say this: between the refugee crisis (border controls, domestic problems, etc) and the economic crisis, they finally managed to convince me that this whole thing might come apart at the seams after all. Not this year, though, even if the Brits decide to distance themselves from this rotten creation.

The first point I think we can safely disagree on without needing to dig further. We can both think of examples of very irrational, angry feminists and we can both think of examples of rational and grounded feminists. I am sorry that your experience tends mostly toward the first, whereas mine tends mostly toward the second; so many people that I know personally or that I see in media are happy to call themselves feminist that to me it's starting to mean absolutely nothing.

Masters and associate masters (nicholas and his wife, respectively) have some kind of non-teaching support role in relation to the campus and the student body. They're not deans, but more sort of community and relations managers. Without excusing the rudeness in the video, I think it would a whole different principle if these were, for example, students shouting down a professor in one of their classes (which I'm sure has also happened). The master's role is different.

"The point being, you said white men don't need protection because they can just shrug it off or, to quote..." They don't need as much protection from inflammatory comments, but they need job protection, protection against threats, protection against libel, protection against violence, etc., like anybody else. What we see in the video is a PR guy (public relations between the university and the student body) being caught up in a PR shit storm. He's not getting this shit because he's male but because he's the face of student relations. His wife got a lot of shit as well. I don't think he deserves getting shouted down by anybody, but my point is that this isn't the same as a feminist making a generic blog post about how all men are shitty people; it's a specific shit storm playing out around racism at Yale, his role and his wife's role as responsible for student relations, and about what students believe they are entitled to from the school staff. It's a very specific, very different situation, where the students thought they had a right to expect something from him which maybe wasn't part of his role. (I would bet a reasonably large amount of money that he's more PC than you or I would ever care to be).

Finally, I don't know what you are asking if I would "say to a man who has been raped by a woman" Would I say to them that they should ignore shitty feminist blogs about how men are shit? Absolutely. Somebody who has suffered sexual violence should stay far away from that kind of toxic bullshit. But maybe that isn't the scenario you're presenting - let me mirror it and see if I understand what kind of scenario you want me to consider: if a friend of mine has been robbed by a black man, and then dismisses all black civil rights activists as criminals and thugs, would I try to argue with him? I hope I would, though it would be difficult as hell.

If I knew a man who had been raped by a woman, I would try to support him in getting through that, and not blame all feminists. If I knew a woman who had been raped by a man, I would try to support her in getting through that, and not blame all men's rights activists. Does that make sense? I hope it does.

I think we've just about reached the "agree to disagree" point. Perhaps the best we can hope for is that the other person keeps any of the truth the other said in their mind and mull it over. Thanks for the chat.

I agree that inhumane is a silly word. "Inhumane" acts are often acts only perpetrated by humans.

I dislike the argument about the fact that farm animals would go extinct if we didn't keep systematically breeding and killing them. So what? Then let them go extinct. I personally think it's morally accetable to let an animal go extinct naturally -- especially if the alternative is to perpetually keep them un-extinct just to, essentially, torture them for our pleasure. I do, however, agree with your later comment that it would be a clusterfuck to figure out what to do with the ones that do currently exist. Easiest solution: keep eating them but don't breed them. Unfortunate human consequence: meat would become expensive. Also, during the time that we eat off the rest of them, those workers could train for another (hopefully) less miserable job. I can't believe many, regardless of how they rationalize it, can enjoy killing something before its time.

I'm fully aware of how the slave comparison is a bit off the edge (I even said so), but it's a hyperbole for the purpose of making a point: it is immoral to treat any animal to pain and suffering -- regardless of how you treat any other one of them. One mercy killing does not absolve you of another horrific one.

I am not saying that animals are not always treated poorly and without thought for their comfort. I am just saying that they are not allowed into the safe moral haven that handicapped humans are let into. If we mercy killed even one handicapped person, there would be an uproar that deafened the world. A mercy killing. Imagine if they did any of the (even "humane") things they do to animals to a handicapped person. It would be morally disallowed to an extreme degree. I don't know why animals don't get the same treatment.

Again, when you bring anything up about "evolution", I roll my eyes. We're humans with supposed free will. We're supposed to be above that, right?

If every vegan food you ate was inedible and made you sick than either your cook does not know how to cook, it was gluten-free, or there was something horribly wrong with the food. Fresh fruit? Beans? Peanut butter? Nuts? Berries? Greens? Carrots? B12 supplements? They made you sick? Something you ate was horribly wrong.

Your Olympic athlete statement is just factually incorrect. I would think you'd google that before stating something as fact.

And agaiun. "Evolution". Yeah, that happened already. Let's move on.

Stop making me feel bad about my cats! I already confessed guilt! :-P I actually do spend a ridiculous amount of money so that the food is better than just crap. I'm lucky enough to be wealthy enough to do it and I am extremely thankful for that. And! The amount of wealth that cat videos have garnered for advertisers is hardly unproductive.

And my partner and I are also on board about not having kids. She and I both think they're the worst thing you could ever do to the planet, animals, or people. Utopia got it right.

There are far better qualified and knowledgeable people on here (@radx) who could explain that, but i'll try and explain why the video isn't bullshit.

Let's say the government spends a certain amount of money to build a road. That money goes a lot further than you think it does.
- whoever you pay to build it pays taxes on what they earn
- same for whoever you buy the materials/machinery from
- the road will probably be used by individuals and businesses spending money, so you've made that easier for them
- businesses stay afloat and keep trading, people's skills/training are not lost as they become unemployed
- saved yourself a whole bunch of money you would have had to spend in unemployment welfare

Because governments are not like people, they CAN spend money they don't have, to buy things that save them money! It's a simplistic analysis of a road and i'm no road building expert, but the term is "fiscal multiplication" and is used by governments to evaluate an investment. Governments are not like households, they can borrow £1.00 and get £2.00 back from it or more. For example over here in Britain there is a significant housing shortage, and one way of resolving that is by borrowing to invest in affordable & social housing. I think it was suggested that for every £1 spent on house building generates £2.50 back into the economy.

America is a sovereign nation that issues its own floating currency. Greece was not. There is no chance whatsoever of America, UK, Japan etc. becoming like Greece. Anyone saying that's possible is either scaremongering or heard it from someone who was.

I'm not saying the money has been spent or invested correctly, corruption and cronyism is rife in western politics. But that's an argument against government corruption rather than one against investment and debt. This isn't the first time we've tried austerity, it also isn't the highest debt-GDP ratio has been either for the US or the UK. The lessons of history have been you can't cut your way to prosperity, you have to invest towards it. That's the weight of economic thought right now afaik.

It depends...social security, about 1937, medicare, more like 65, public schools, that depends on what you want to call different systems, but in North America it started in 1647
https://www.raceforward.org/research/reports/historical-timeline-public-education-us
The road bit is a PERFECT example of how, even if you don't directly use a service, you benefit from others using it....just like EVERY OTHER SERVICE MENTIONED.
Because we don't deny medical services to those without money, it's a question of do you pay less beforehand or more later, because either way you pay.
Because uneducated children cost society FAR more than educating them does, standing on your myopic moral high ground demanding 'personal parental responsibility' is a self defeating stance demanding people 'give' more than some have to give with no option for the children of the poor. (That said, I can get behind the 'public schools being free only for the poor' plan I think Jefferson had, as long as those schools are on par with private one's)
I explained clearly why even those average numbers are misleading.
Again, is that purchasing power per dollar, per person, or what?
OK, 'middle class' is not the average American. How about give the average American salary instead of cherry picking a rapidly shrinking sub-group that makes your point?
We all pay through the nose...it's just about when and how. You pay for the indigent by paying higher insurance and medical bills...it would be FAR cheaper to simply pay for their medical care in the first place (as in single payer health care). That saves the 10-25% that insurance companies take as profit on day one, and saves on overall medical care cost per person by properly taking care of people instead of waiting until there's an expensive emergency to pay for. (and makes a much healthier, so happier society as a whole)
The fact is that they are happy with their system. It does not make them all 'perfectly equal', there are rich and poor in Norway...or do you not believe that? People DO get ahead in Norway, probably more so than the average person in America who has seen their financial/social status in life, purchasing power, benefits, opportunities, and security go backwards over the last 40 years, unlike Norway.
No, I think the entire 'identical to everyone else' thing is something in YOUR head, not theirs, and not reality.
Don't have disposable income?!? In Norway, not the US?!?! You've GOT to be kidding. Let's ask someone who lives there...@BicycleRepairMan , is there only one social class in Norway, all equal, all making the same amount of money, all poor and destitute with no disposable income?
Well, the American system certainly disagrees with you. Those that put the most effort into their jobs usually make FAR less than those that put little effort into taking advantage of the opportunities available to them, but not to others. Those that make more in our society almost NEVER do it with manual labor, the hardest work to do. They also rarely do 2 or 3 full time jobs, as many poor must do. It's simply not true that working harder gets you advancement in the US, opportunity and connections get you advancement.
I do agree, giving medals for average/expected performance is ridiculous, but that rarely happens in business.

Pharma reps also often have a spending quota. You read that write, they HAVE to spend a certain amount of money on dinners etc each month.

They don't care if you are even a doctor in a specialty that could write for their drug.

@entr0py

The premise is not off at all. Starbucks simply skipped all the moving around steps and located in the "middle of the beach" where the existing coffee shop already was, because (it is likely) that is the best spot in the market.

Starbucks, or any business, does not open to "drive them out of business" they open a store to sell their goods and make a profit.

As someone who has worked with several retailers in very aggressive market sectors (pizza, fast casual, etc) I can tell you that the two vital components to any successful retailer/restaurant are 1) Good location 2) Good Operations. A good location means your customer will see you and get to you. Good operations means once they are there they will be served well.

More often then not when we start working with a new client we look at their competition not because we want to "drive them out of business", but because they have already looked at and evaluated the market. We then evaluate their locations and see if that is still the correct location or not. Markets shift for a variety of reasons - housing growth, retail expansion, major retailers relocating, etc.

"It's easier to steal someone else's customer base than try to create your own." Really? I find this to be the silliest argument. There is a limited amount of money people are going to spend on a product. Lets say a town will spend $1000 a day on coffee. If you open another coffee shop they are not going to spend an additional thousand. The $1000 is just going to be divided up. Maybe there is a slight increase because of access, but by and large people are only going to spend so much. Furthermore, people are creatures of habit. They are actually more likely to continue to go where they have been going unless you offer something better. That better might be a combination of easier access, faster service, a nicer interior, cheaper prices, or better product.

In the city I work in there are several grocery chains expanding and opening new stores. Does that mean people are spending more on groceries? No. What has happened is the grocer with the weakest operations closed. Those locations (over 30) have since been taken over by a variety of both national chains and local independent grocers (all who have better operations). This competition has meant better prices and service for customers.

I buy my coffee a block from my house (and I usually just buy the beans they roast on site) from a local shop. It doesn't bother me in the slightest that other people choose to go to the Starbucks up the street. The coffee I buy is better and I pay a premium for it.

Edit: One last thought - Among the many competitive advantages corporate users have is that they can operate at a loss or lower profit than many "local" stores. That being said the same is not quite as true from franchisee business owners (who have different advantages, hopefully).

Onto a secondary topic, it includes the "media frenzy" and the contract clauses that force players, coaches, and others to appear before the media... Plus the media in general, when it comes to the Superbowl (but, this has to do with our country; or at the least certain segments and populations of our country). But, really it's about the general stupidity and levels we have turned this ONE event into!

Only a few interviews are worth looking at typically and they tend to be AFTER a game, not before it (as that amounts to "what ifs", "probably might", "we sure can try", and "if I win, I'll go to 'insert Measleland or another place here' with my wife/kid/family/parrot"). I absolutely hate the fourteen hour pre-game show that the NFL and the channel hosting this *thing* that apparently people watch, that is quite like a: "super-fabulous-orgasmic-serotonin ovulating-dopamine excreting-heroine junkie nerve conduction transfer-fourteen people high at a rave experimenting in an orgy with all the holes and toys available"... OK, so maybe that is a bit too far, but still...! It really is the most "grandiose" setups for a game, that doesn't need such a grandiose setup.

The should just make it a damned national holiday already--everyone already stays home or is basically forced to, since one half of their family is probably glued to the TV for quite awhile.. Although I know we always "had" these interviews on the TV, but we never really listened to them, because they bring out 40 people who essentially ALL say the same thing (the only difference is if it is a different team and or if they are extremely religious--they will then tell you how their team will win, "...no matter what...", and then if they are religious proceed to randomly give you the, "God is on our side...", mantra...which always made me laugh--literally, out-loud).

Then they cut back to the ex-coach's and arm-chair quarterbacks who have been given a one day opportunity to tell the world what they think, and how he game will go (and it never does).

Needless to say, I HATE, with a passion, the "pre-game show" (which didn't exist in it's ridiculous form for a VERY longtime until the late 80's and early 90's). I'd rather them move all of their prime-time TV shows that will not be shown that night, due to the game, to that period of the day and let us watch that instead before the game (then they can give us a modest 45-30 minute pre-game; not this 5-hour marathon of ads and marketing, with a bunch of talking faces trying as hard as they can to make a name for themselves in that time-span).

Only people like "Beast Mode" can save that time allotment and make it worthwhile (if you think it is "entertaining", you REALLY need to stay away a bit from Football, and I'm saying that as a concerned friend...)--because right now, although a lot of people flip their TV over to the channel with it on...it is a massive waste of money and time--that somehow generates massive amounts of money (talk about "very careful" and "orchestrated" money setups and schemes; but luckily they have idiotic companies paying them gigantic sums of money for their commercials to air...even before the game comes on...). And, I wish people wouldn't just flip over to it, to have it on in the background (as most of the time I've noticed, whether it's a game at my house, someone else's OR an actual Superbowl party--no one watches that crap, it just sits on that channel...making them "think" they are getting ratings, but they actually aren't. It's kind of like saying that people go to Tailgate parties to park cars and see how neat the cement is...

The NFL Media Policy officially states: “Players must be available to the media following every game and regularly during the practice week as required under league rules. Star players, or other players with unusually heavy media demands, must be available to the media that regularly cover their teams at least once during the practice week in addition to their required post-game media availability.”

Marshawn Lynch signed the contract. These type of policies is one of the reasons why the NFLs brand and Marshawn Lynch (all players) make the ridiculous amounts of money they do. I personally understand his being uncomfortable with these interviews but i don't see anyone being at fault here.

- If he doesn't want to talk to then he won't. That's his choice.
- If the NFL fine him, they have the right, if hes not fulfilling his contracted obligations.
- It's sports writers job to interview players. It's not their fault he's acting the way he is. They have a job to do sanctioned and wanted by the NFL.

Also is this considered talking to the media and did he face a fine for it?
I thought he was fined for not showing up in one particular situation. I'm under the impression he gets away with doing this (the video) type of thing without penalty.

Even then. Take a selection of equivalently priced film and digital cameras (adjusted for inflation) and give them to a range of photographers.

I'd bet large amounts of money that aside from the very top tier photographers using top tier SLRs, digital will beat film every day.

Salt
Pepper
Sear both sides and into a 500 degree oven to finish.

If I am paying top dollar for good steak, I want STEAK flavor. If I am buying shoddy cuts, 'then' I will season the hell out of them to cover it up. Sorry, but this stuff is unnecessary unless you are trying to feed jaded people searching for ways to spend large amounts of money.

> in futile wars against concepts.

If you are referring to America, that's just the glossy cover they print for the wars. In reality it's to let the defense industry corporations continue to get huge amounts of money.

There already are reasonable restrictions.

(I can't really ask to be exempt from laws that don't even exist. But I can ask for those new laws to not be written.)

Consider this.
Maybe /you/ are not special.
Maybe /you/ are not in this world to do with other people's lives how /you/ see fit.
Maybe /you/ should take the very advice you would give to violent offenders, and just leave people in peace.


Yes, this country has clusterfuckish problems.
But guns are not the cause.

We have a very high percentage of uneducated people. For example, my high school, in one of the nicest areas of the entire country, with the super easy U.S. curriculum, with the super relaxed and curved U.S. grading policy, 30% of kids that entered never graduated. And that's one of the better examples in the country.

The problem isn't even the education system. It's cultural. Kids show up to socialize, and smart kids get made fun of. Often they have no parental pressure to perform either. No amount of money can fix that kind of schooling, because it's not a schooling problem.

They don't just miss out on an education that helps them obtain gainful employment. The concepts of empathy and solidarity are essentially omitted.

There is a proverbial horde out there, many under strong financial pressures. Having the same consumer impulses that most people here have, they resort to augmenting their incomes with questionable activities.

The median *individual* income in the U.S. is around 26k / year. Half the population makes less than that... The cheapest unassisted rent in my area is ~800/month. Go to new york, and you could be paying 1600/month each with 3 other people for a rat hole. After water, electricity, food, fuel, you'd be wiped out. Any emergency (broken down car, medical expenses, whatever), and you are in the hole.

The nice areas you see on TV are a minority. Most of the country is a po-dunk shit hole, full of people that get desperate the moment things go bad. Which leads to restricted activities, and that tends to lead to violent encounters.

We have a very high percentage of arrested/jailed people.
When you're arrested, even if not convicted, you're not acceptable by a large proportion of jobs. The police even call your employer right away to let them know you've been arrested. You are essentially marked.

Like I said, 1 in 18 men are in the system. That's a LOT of people. Other than those on parole, they aren't working. Those that are working aren't making much money (on account of the undereducation and arrest record), and will likely be back in the system.

BTW, more than half of them are in jail for an activity that never even involved another person.
Most are there for harmless stuff.

Once these people do get out of jail, if they weren't already under financial pressure, they likely now are, and will stand a good chance at reinforcing the problem population.

(eg. Person with their life more or less in order goes to jail for having a bag of drugs, then they get out, can't get a job, and they need to resort to sketchy crap to make ends meet. Maybe get into violence, but often just return to jail.)

But, it's not by accident. Our jails are for-profit, with people in government making money from the jailing industry. Either by campaign contributions, lobbying, or by having financial stake in the companies.

The most self-serving thing the government can do, is keep the problem going, and tell people that they should rely on the government to fix it by getting tough. Then the govies make money on the jailing side, and they reinforce their public mandate.

The jailing companies themselves put inmates to work making cheap goods (ever bought a t-shirt that was made in the U.S.? It was probably inmate labor.), and then 'charge the inmates rent', effectively paying them a penny a day. Modern slavery.

All along the way, the taxpayers are paying the bills, and it's just a giant trough to feed from.

I hope you can imagine why I'm averse to making more ways to jail people that aren't being a problem.

It's also why I'm inclined to make drugs legal (pretty much try Portugal's approach). So as to bring that trade into the light, and end the gangster turf wars (which are a high proportion of the gun violence).

A lot of this could be fixed long-term by social engineering, using media to elevate the prestige of education and productivity. But we know that that is not going to happen when there is no money to be made on it.

-scheherazade

No, the only thing the death penalty guarantees is that you will spend ridiculous amounts of money.

It is much more expensive to execute a prisoner than it is to incarcerate them.

Unless, of course, you do away with all that pesky "due process" nonsense and just shoot the bastards on the spot. That seems like a great solution, especially since no-one on death row has ever been exonerated and certainly not proven innocent after they were executed....