I actually thought he was white in the beginning. Maybe you have to be American.

I wonder what people from other countries think of UK regional dialects. I think I probably judge people more by how they sound than by the colour of their skin; I wish I could hear them as a foreigner would, presumably without all the attached bias. On the other hand my accent is good currency almost everywhere...

Really? WE sponsored a VIOLENT coup? So you take the purely Russian viewpoint.
Wiki-
After the breakup of the Soviet Union, Ukraine endured years of corruption, mismanagement, lack of economic growth, currency devaluation, and problems in securing funding from public markets.[38][39] Successive Ukrainian governments in the 2000s sought a closer relationship with the European Union (EU).[40][41] One of the measures meant to achieve this was an association agreement with the European Union, which would have provided Ukraine with funds in return for liberalising reforms. President Yanukovych announced his intention to sign the agreement, but ultimately refused to do so at the last minute. This sparked a wave of protests called the "Euromaidan" movement. During these protests Yanukovych signed a treaty and multibillion-dollar loan with Russia. The Ukrainian security forces cracked down on the protesters, further inflaming the situation and resulting in a series of violent clashes in the streets of Kiev. As tensions rose, Yanukovych fled to Russia and did not return.[44]

Russia refused to recognize the new interim government, calling the overthrow of Yanukovych a coup d'état, and began a military intervention in Ukraine. The newly appointed interim government of Ukraine signed the EU association agreement and agreed to reform the country's judiciary and political systems, as well as its financial and economic policies. The International Monetary Fund pledged more than $18 billion in loans contingent on Ukraine's adopting those reforms. The revolution was followed by pro-Russian unrest in some south-eastern regions, a standoff with Russia regarding the annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol, and a war between the Ukrainian government and Russia-backed separatists in the Donbass.



The thing to remember about Crimea is it WASN'T PART OF RUSSIA, so no it didn't hold Russia's only black sea port not ice blocked in winter, it held a Ukrainian port Russia LEASED for use by it's black sea fleet from the Ukraine.
It's utter bullshit that Russia found a democratic way to invade and annex Crimea, they militarily invaded, seized and dissolved the democratically elected government by force, created and installed a new pro Russian sham government, then IT signed fake illegal treaties with Russia in violation of international laws and multiple binding treaties.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation

Russian masked troops invade and occupy key Crimean locations, including airports and military bases, following Putin's orders.[2][3]
The head of Ukrainian Navy, Admiral Berezovsky, defects, followed later by half of the Ukrainian military stationed in the region.[4][5][6]
Russian forces seize the Supreme Council (Crimean parliament). The Council of Ministers of Crimea is dissolved and a new pro-Russian Prime Minister installed.[7][8]
The new Supreme Council declares the Republic of Crimea to be an independent, self-governing entity, then holds a referendum on the status of Crimea on 16 March, which results in a majority vote to join the Russian Federation.[9]
Treaty signed between the Republic of Crimea and the Russian Federation at the Kremlin on 18 March to formally initiate Crimea's accession to the Russian Federation.[10]
The Ukrainian Armed Forces are evicted from their bases on 19 March by Crimean protesters and Russian troops. Ukraine subsequently announces the withdrawal of its forces from Crimea.[11]
Russia suspended from G8.[12]
International sanctions introduced on Russia.

You sound distinctly Soviet or ridiculously ignorant in your misrepresentation of the situation. They militarily attacked, invaded, and seized their neighbor, so not a bit restrained, they were not invited in by the government and welcomed....or would you insist they are also exceptionally restrained for not attacking and retaking Anchorage Alaska, their only non winter ice bound port in North America, a port clearly more strategically important than Sebastopol and just as Russian?

Disagree. Gold (or more specifically currency) has a huge number of advantages over barter, as shown with the second guy.

Barter has problems of divisibility, relative worth, storage, transport, etc... all of which are solved by a common currency.

Crypto has some advantages over traditional currency, but right now they're outweighed by the disadvantages such as instability (as mentioned by @notarobot), lack of trust, slow transaction speeds and frankly appalling levels of energy usage.

Blockchain might eventually become the future, but Bitcoin is basically dead because of these problems.

*related=https://videosift.com/video/Why-Bitcoin-Is-Not-Working

The problem with bitcoin is it being treated like a commodity instead of a currency.

Some very rich people pulled a pump and dump---over the course of several months mind you---and a lot of the 'liitle folks' got burned in the hype.

Funny, but a tangible item is much easier to market.

It's only been in recent human history that we have decided to accept currency sources that are technically not backed by a physical equivalent and. Even then, until bitcoin and other recent crypto-currencies started appearing, we required the force of a large body behind it like a government.

At least with items like gold and silver, people knew that it was an unknown new item that had limitless potential. Imagine a person coming up to you ages ago and saying, "I've filled an empty mine with rocks, but every 1000th rock is blue. I am the only one that can allow access to the mine, so I can manage the rarity of the blue rocks. What I want you, and the other people to do, is treat these blue rocks as valid trade items." I can almost guarantee that you, or anyone for that matter, would say that you would do that only if that person speaking to you guaranteed to make the blue rocks redeemable for valid currency from him at your discretion.

That is one of the problems many have with crypto-currency, the guarantee factor of being able to convert to a more recognized form of monetary unit. It's changing now, but it is still going to be a rough road since the only true guarantee at the moment is that multiple places are starting to recognize it as currency. It could be amazing, but it also has massive potential to financially cripple a lot of people if they trade goods/services for it and it flops.

This Bloomberg article was in today's local paper:

The Criminal Underworld Is Dropping Bitcoin for Another Currency
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-02/criminal-underworld-is-dropping-bitcoin-for-another-currency

I don't think brussel sprouts are food, but I won't be campaigning to stop other people eating them if they want to.

They must think gay marriage devalues the currency, that their marriage will somehow be less sacred because other people have a different idea what it means. As if straight people haven't been fucking it up enough already.

Also, does anybody else find it strange that gay marriage seems to be entirely about men most of the time. Why is that?

ps. Can straight people get a civil partnership now please.

Two interesting articles on the nature of fiat currencies today.

First, Stephanie Kelton has an op-ed in the NYT titled How We Think About the Deficit Is Mostly Wrong.

Second, J.D. Alt notes that Italy is dipping its feet into MMT territory.

15:05-15:30: you tell Mr and Mrs Front-Porch that your loonie of 1871 cannot be compared to your loonie of 2013 (year of this interview). You went off the gold standard in '33, you abandoned the peg in '70, and your currency has been free-floating ever since. Yes, the ratio of debt to GDP has some importance, but so does the nature of your currency. Just look at Greece and Japan, where the former uses a foreign currency and the latter uses its own, sovereign, free-floating currency.

Pay back the national debt -- have you thought that through?

First, the Bank of Canada is the monopolist currency issuer for the loonie, so explain to me in detail just how the issuer of the currency is supposed to borrow the currency from someone else? If you're the issuer of the currency, you spend it into existence, and use taxation as a means to create demand for your currency, and to free resources for the government to acquire, because you can only ever buy what is for sale.

Second, every government bond is someone else's asset. An interest-bearing asset. A very safe asset, in the case of Canada, the US, the UK, Japan, etc. "Paying back the debt" means putting a bullet into just about every pension fund in the world that doesn't rely exlusively on private equity or other sorts of volatile toilet paper.

There's a distributional issue with these bonds (they are concentrated in the hands of the non-working class, aka the rich), no doubt about it. But most of the other issues are strictly political, not economical.

What if the interest rate rises 1%? The central bank can lower the interest rate to whatever it damn well pleases, because nobody can ever outbid the currency issuer in its own currency. Remember, the central banks were the banks of the treasuries. The whole notion of an independent central bank was introduced to stop these pesky leftists from spending resources on plebs. That's why central banks were often removed from democratic control and handed over to conservative bankers. If the Treasury wants an interest rate of 2% on its bonds, it tells its central bank to buy any excess that haven't been auctioned off at this rate. End of story.

What if the market stops buying government bonds? Then the central bank buys the whole lot. However, government bonds are safe assets, and regulations demand a certain percentage of safe assets in certain portfolios, so there is always demand for the bonds. Just look at the German Bundesanleihen. You get negative real rates on 10 year bonds, and they are still in very high demand. It's a safe asset in a world of shitty private equity vaporware.

But, but.... inflation! Right, the hyperinflation of 2006 is still right around the corner. Just like Japan hasn't been stuck near deflation for two decades, and all the QE by the BoE and the ECB has thrown both the UK and the Eurozone into double-digit inflation territory. Not! None of these economies are running near maximum capacity/full employment, and very little actual spending (the scary, scary "fiscal policy") has been done.

But I'm going off track here, so.... yeah, you can pay back your public debt. Just be very aware of what exactly that entails.

As for the poster-child Latvia: >10% of the population left the country.

Here's a different poster-child instead, with the hindsight of another 4 years of austerity in Europe after this interview: Portugal. The Portuguese government told Master of Coin Schäube to take a hike, and they are now in better shape than the countries who just keep on slashing.

On a different note: Marx was wrong about the proletariat. Treating them like shit doesn't make them rebellious, it makes them lethargic. Otherwise goons like Mario Rajoy would have had their comeuppance by now.

PS: Blyth's book on Austerity is an absolute must-read for anyone interested in its history or its current effects in particularly the Eurozone.

ECB Research Bulletin:

In an economy with its own fiat currency, the monetary authority and the fiscal authority can ensure that public debt denominated in the national fiat currency is non-defaultable, i.e. maturing government bonds are convertible into currency at par. With this arrangement in place, fiscal policy can focus on business cycle stabilisation when monetary policy hits the lower bound constraint. However, the fiscal authorities of the euro area countries have given up the ability to issue non-defaultable debt. As a consequence, effective macroeconomic stabilisation has been difficult to achieve.

Translation:
- all members of the eurozone effectively use a foreign currency
- they can default, because they do not and cannot issue debt in their currency
- fiscal policy has thus been completely neutered

Ergo, national parliaments have a significantly smaller policy space compared to countries with their own currency. Our parliaments intentionally surrender power to unelected technocrats, even control of the national budget, which is the primary power available to any parliament anywhere.

"Sorry, lad. We cannot pay for healthcare/pension/infrastructure/education/wages/X, we have to maintain a balanced budget to appease the market." Yet it is still illegal to call for the guillotine...

Meanwhile, Japan doesn't give a fuck. The BoJ has been vacuuming up outstanding debt like there's no tomorrow. It currently holds in excess of 40% of all government debt, effectively canceling it. It's just book-keeping. The Treasury issues the debt, the CB buys the debt. Both are part of the consolidated government sector, ergo no debt. "Hyperinflation!", they scream. Can you hear them? Except Japan has been fighting deflation for two decades, with no end in sight.

Yet the inflation-hawks are still treated as persons of authority. Flat-earthers, the lot of 'em.

And my country wants the rest of Europe to sign on to the most moronic law in German history: the "Schuldenbremse", which makes running a deficit illegal at the constitutional level (except for undefined "emergencies"). They are either a) brainwashed, b) idiots, or c) straight up evil. And I'm not sure which one I prefer.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Sounds good, but I'd rather hear them do this live in a fire escape stairwell. Authenticity is the new currency.

You claimed he provides proof....he did nothing of the sort, he just misrepresented other opinion articles.

Voted down because it's bullshit lies/propaganda with no evidence, much less proof, already publicly denied by the FBI, who would have been the ones doing the wire taping and are firmly in Trump's camp.
Fair and balanced means no lies allowed....that might preclude you ever posting again....don't push that idea, it doesn't help you.

There's plenty of evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, mostly coming directly from Trump, but all admitted after the fact when the evidence became public (but lied about until that evidence was released, repeatedly). The continuing lies and distractions, like this one, are pretty good evidence too, and are proof that they are hiding something. Proof can only come from the FBI, and Trump is quickly making enemies of the director that helped hand him the presidency, so it may surface soon.

Edit: my mistake. The proof was when Trump publicly asked Putin to hack Clinton, and a week later she was hacked by Russians. Even if they hadn't done as he requested, the request itself is attempted collusion, irrefutable and undeniable.

No, releasing proof that the president colluded with a foreign power would absolutely not be subversive....neither was Manning or Snowden IMO. Whistleblowers are supposed to be exempt by law.

I agree, let's see it. That's up to Trump and his administration. They have the proof, pissed off congressmen and women don't.

False stories like this, now admitted lie, made up by a rabblerouser with zero evidence, just his own misinterpretation of other people's work, and spread knowingly by liars like you. When the left is presented with proof their suspicions are wrong, they tend to move on...but not the liars on the right.....birthers is all I need say, but it's FAR from the only example I can produce. Truth doesn't have a side, no matter how hard you wish it did, but lies and fantasy are the currency of this administration.

This is what's meant by "fake news". Totally made up bullshit designed to distract. Trump's ties to Russia are documented and admitted (sometimes...Trump can't keep his story straight). In 2014 he was bragging about his ongoing great personal friendship with Putin and their numerous recent personal meetings....now he claims to barely know Putin and that they haven't spoken for over 10 years....which is it?

@enoch

No, are you are saying when you get to the far fringes of beliefs that ideas and beliefs get more... "far fringe-ish"? Tell me that isn't true! lol

I identify as a Conservative. I'm no bible thumping, gun wielding, racist lunatic though the media and liberals spew that far fringe as the "norm". Oddly enough, other than my acceptance of the idea of there being a God and that my rights come from Him and NOT Government, my beliefs have very little to do with religion.

And I doubt every Democrat is a anti-God, rioting, anti-white racist either. Although I do believe that currently the fringe left of the Democrat part is much more in power than the more moderate Democrats. In fact, I dare say the current Republican party is more like the old Democrat party of 20 years ago and the Conservatives like myself were left pretty much without a party at all.

And at the core, what is my personal belief? My belief is that big government is BAD for a free people. Smaller, more localized Government is better for a free people.

I see the US Constitution as a great guide toward what I would like the Government/State relationship to be. We should be 50 quasi-nations, loosely bound together by a common defense, common currency, and inter-state laws. Other than that, the Federal Government should be staying out of the way of the States.

Let California and New York embrace partial-birth abortions and let Texas ban abortions except in cases of life/death or whatever other reason they see as being reasonable. I don't care, I just don't want it in the hands of the Federal Government . There is no NEED for most of the crap we deal with every day to be a NATIONAL issue...