No credit? You can own a car!

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Auto-Lending-Last-Week-Tonight-with-John-Oliver

Auto Lending: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

I have never heard of a case where simple indigence, or inability to "manage one's own financial affairs" was enough to remove their firearms....indeed, not managing one's financial affairs doesn't seem to be what the law intends or specifically says. Managing one's "affairs" is not the same as being good with money. Maybe it's been misused that way, but not that I've heard of, and that's not the kind of thing the NRA usually keeps quiet about. Lacking the mental capacity to contract or manage one's own affairs is completely different from being unable to pay your bills, and seems to require a mental evaluation to prove you aren't even lucid enough to hire someone to manage them for you. That is FAR from just being poor, it's being mental to the point where you can't even tell that you're poor or ask for help managing your finances....and I agree, if you are that far from lucid, you should not have deadly weapons of any kind.


OK, as I said, training makes ACCIDENTAL MISUSE of firearms LESS likely, not impossible, but more important, it lends credence to any charges because ignorance can't be an excuse for misuse if you've been trained.

I also don't know stats on accidental discharge, accidental misuse, intentional misuse, and intentional (but improper) discharge. I must think that improperly securing the weapon is one of the major root causes of accidents, because then completely untrained people (usually kids, but not always) get hold of them and misuse them.

If he left because of his conscience, doesn't that lend some credence to his claims? I mean, if he disagreed with what was happening out there and stayed anyway, he'd definitely have no integrity.

This isn't the 1900s - if a person objects we don't instantly assume cowardice or questionable integrity. We can forgive people knee-deep in the shit for calling him a few names over it, but we can't be so glib about it in a debate or on here. Or maybe you didn't mean that and you can clarify why his integrity is questionable.

I don't know if it is or isn't, but in the debate above it was clearly an attempt to discredit the person rather than the argument; he literally discredited the person because he was losing the argument.

I love how Norton gets all his guests completely blitzed beforehand. Really lends itself to the comedy.

You know, normally I hate those farty exhausts, but making them out of brass DOES lend a certain 'je ne sais quois" to it.

Apologies, I got carried away... wall of text incoming.

@RedSky

I agree, monetary policy at low rates has very little to offer in terms of economic stimulus. Then again, the focus almost solely on monetary policy is part of the problem. Fiscal policy can have a massive impact, both directly (government purchases of goods and services) and indirectly (increase in automatic stabilizers). But for that you either need to be in control of your central bank, so that you can engage in Overt Monetary Financing ("printing" money). Or you need the blessing of the private banks, which is particularly true for a Vollgeld system.

The budget is the core of a parliamentary democracy, and to be at the whim of the folks at Deutsche Bank, HSBC or Credit Suisse -- no, thank you very much. We saw how that played out in Greece.

Anyway, the central bank can do miraculous things: if it provides funds to the democratically elected body in charge of the budget, aka parliament/the government. Trying to "motivate" the private banks to stock up on cheap reserves to stimulate lending is just a sign of ideology.

The great Michal Kalecki, in his essay The Political Aspects of Full Employment, summarized the general issue of government spending quite clearly. The industrial leaders stand in opposition to government spending aimed at full employment for three distinct reasons: a) dislike of government interference in the problem of employment as such; b) dislike of the direction of government spending (public investment and subsidizing consumption); c) dislike of the social and political changes resulting from the maintenance of full employment.

I'd say control over your currency is too great a tool to leave it in the hands of unelected managers. Clement Attlee knew very well why he had to nationalize the Bank of England in '46.

Back to the issue of inflation, I'd like to make two points. First, how big a role should inflation really play when talking policy. Second, what's the influence of a central bank on inflation.

Where does it come from, this focus on inflation. People usually talk about government spending when discussing inflation. Private spending is rarely brought up, even though it can be just as inflationary. So let's ignore private spending for a moment and talk purely government spending: should a deficit/surplus not be judged primarily by how well it helps us achieve our macroeconomic goals? Or more clearly, why should we sacrifice full employment or our general welfare on the altar of inflation? Yes, that's over the top. But so is the angst of inflation.

I'd say let's stick with Abba Lerner's concept of functional finance and judge deficits/surpluses purely by how well they help us achieve our macroeconomic goals. Besides, the US has run massive deficits during the GFC, so much in fact, that a great number of monetarists saw hyperinflation just around the corner. Still waiting for it. Same for Japan. Massive deficits... and deflation.

As long as spending, both private and government, doesn't push the economy beyond its limits (full employment, real resources, production capacity), out-of-control inflation just doesn't materialize. Plus, suppressing inflation is actually one thing central banks can do quite well. Unlike causing inflation, which both Japan and the EU are showcases off. Draghi can dance naked on the table, monetary policy (QE, mainly) won't push inflation upwards.

Which brings me to the second point: what's inflation, what's the cause of inflation, how can central banks manipulate it.

CPI is often used as a measure of inflation, but I prefer the GDP deflator. CPI doesn't account for externalities that you cannot influence, whatever you do. Prime case: the price of oil. Monetary policy of the Bank of Sweden has no influence on the price of oil. The GDP inflator, however, accounts for every economic activity within your currency zone -- much more useful.

General theory says, this measure of inflation goes up when demand surpasses supply. And vice versa. The primary factor of demand is domestic purchasing power, therefore wages. If you suppress wages, you suppress inflation. If you push wages, you push inflation. More specifically, you can see a direct correlation between unit labour costs and the GDP deflator in every country at any time. Here's a general graph for multiple countries, and the St. Louis FED provides a beauty for the US.

That's why it's easy for central banks to combat inflation, but almost impossible to fight deflation.

@radx

I tend to see controlling the quantity of money along with the interest rate as a valid way for central banks to influence the economy when necessary but I admit in or after crises they are generally almost useless. Economics being a social science is always going to be notoriously unreliable in both prediction and in isolation the causes of a prior event, some would say almost useless.

Controlling purely the interest rates on overnight bank deposits for banks at the central bank (what setting the rate is, as opposed to the commonly held belief that the central bank dictates lending and borrowing rates) is if anything of little impact. These rates can be at 0% and if banks consider economic prospects poor, that will not cause them to lend any further.

Such was the case in the US in the immediate years after '08. i would argue the only action to have real economic impact was the buying up of distressed mortgage securities by the Fed. The parts of QE1, 2 that involved injecting money into the banks basically just led to them investing in low risk securities and earning interest (effectively just sitting on it) because they were not willing to risk lending it.

While I'm not a big fan of ceding authority to a largely independent organisation, I have to admit that since central banks have become independent, inflation in those countries has become a thing of the past. Now granted they get things wrong (e.g. Greenspan inflating the '08 bubble) but their main advantages is being willing to take measures that cause short term pain but long term gain. I don't think any elected politician would have been willing to take the measures Volcker did to curb inflation for example. In fact, while he was at the Fed, Reagan's government effectively inflated the Savings and Loans bubble.

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.

@radx

I think you misunderstand the Swiss referendum. It's about preventing banks from creating money through fractional lending, it doesn't restrict the central bank. Typically banks will take in deposits and lend a portion out (keeping a % as a capital buffer), that money then filters through the system and some of if returns as deposits, and the process repeats (hence the term fractional banking).

In effect banks are creating money through lending out more money than otherwise exists. It also means they lend out far in excess of the deposits they have, creating high leverage and meaning even a small level of default can lead to them eating through their capital and insolvency (see US in 2008). The referendum seems to be about effectively preventing fractional lending.

No idea what effect it would have in a country like Switzerland. The country is an exception as it has a relatively small economy but is seen globally as a safe haven currency meaning every time there is a crisis you see the CHF appreciate rapidly (similar to the USD). Naturally that tends to wreck havoc with the economy and exports since the currency value no longer reflects the real economy and is why the central bank has taken various measures to discourage it in the past.

The Jews were not fleeing anything but fear in the 30s...or came too late and missed the cutoff.

So, the Jews that fled in the 30s weren't legitimately fleeing anything but fear, and the Jews that fled after the 30s weren't legitimate because they waited until too late. Gotcha.

Perhaps you came closer to summarizing your position earlier:
Perhaps if those Jews were still in Europe fighting against the Nazis, they wouldn't have made it out of Germany.

Historically, there is a zero percent chance that more Jewish fighters in Europe could've kept the Nazi's from making it out of Germany. Worse, the ambiguity of your sentence also suggests that maybe your suggesting that if the Jews had stayed in Europe fighting, it was them that wouldn't have made it out of Germany, which would be quite correct.

You are making it very difficult to interpret your view in any kind of positive light. Despite the fact that one of the greatest genocides in history was about to hit them and their children, you insist that Jews fleeing in 30s were fleeing "nothing but fear". More over, you seem adamant in defending the notion that as the holocaust survivors landed in Palestine and were being looked after by existing Jewish Palestinians, it is they and they alone that were the aggressors in Palestine. It is well established history that BOTH Arab and Jewish Palestinians treated each other equally poorly through the 30s and 40s. More over, the Jewish Palestinians remained the minority. I'm inclined to lend a bit of understanding to an aggressive response from holocaust survivors yet again facing repression and saying NO! Doubly so when upon accepting a 2 state solution, all the surrounding nations of the middle east jointly declared war upon them with the declared intent of driving the Jews into the sea. It was only 2 years prior that the whole of Europe was controlled by Nazis trying to do the same thing. What can be realistically expected of the Jewish refugees in Palestine? Fighting kept them alive, in Palestine and I find it hard to fathom an alternate history were laying down arms would've seen any Jews still alive in the area,

Reading the reddit thread, i became more and more convinced, almost certain that it was true.

Now i'm back here, i feel less sure. Does the colour scheme of reddit lend itself to conspiracy theories, or is it just being surrounded by other gullible people?

I've been waiting for someone to lend legitimacy to the myth that flash is, in fact, dead and/or dying. If Brin and Page can't do it, maybe Strong Bad can.

How do they determine the start state for these? Obviously they have to be randomised, otherwise you're just performing a mechanical reaction, rather than solving a puzzle.

I wonder if you can happen to get a "lucky" state, that lends itself to being solved quickly?

Either way... very impressive.

Congratulations! Your video, Making sure your pressure washer is ready for lending, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 1 Badge!