But he’s good for the economy!
/S
But he’s good for the economy!
/S
I was coming to post the same. Those fucking clickers were so stupid and overpriced, all so my biochem professor could poll the class AND grade everyone on their results. Results to questions about material that was JUST taught in the same lesson. Good thing everyone benefits equally from lecture, right? Fuck that guy.
That’s pretty much what they did anyhow, just with way more steps.
Have you installed it on an NES yet? Because that kinda happened: https://www.tomshardware.com/software/linux/you-can-sort-of-run-linux-on-an-nes-demo-shows-a-unix-like-os-running-completely-on-the-nes
Holy shit. I get it! That’s a great explanation and I really appreciate your taking the time to type it all out. I’m glad we don’t have Lemmy medallions to award but, if we did, I’d give you one. I now see how a 100% reserve requirement, i.e., all deposits completely backed in cash, would entirely change banking.
The only thing that feels weird to me is the virtual money the bank creates doesn’t seem go away once it’s paid back. For example, if a mini bank only had $1000 and lent $900 with a 10% reserve, they’d end up with $1900 once the loan is repaid (ignoring interest). Or does the $900 they lent create a -$900 for the bank that is cancelled through repayment?
I’ve been thinking about it and it still doesn’t make sense. I’m a scientist, not an economist, so it’s wildly out of my wheelhouse. Would you mind pointing me in the right direction?
Here’s where I’m hung up. Let’s assume a 10% fractional reserve and, for the sake of simplicity, just one bank and a dramatically simplified deposit/loan scenario, just to minimize the number of hypothetical people and transactions.
Person A deposits $1000. Bank lends $900 to person A which is sent to Person B.
Person B deposits $900. Bank lends $810 to person B which is sent to Person C.
Person C deposits $810. Bank lends $729 to person C which is sent to Person D.
Person D deposits $729. Bank lends $656 to person D which is sent to Person E.
Let’s stop there. So we have one initial deposit of $1000, which has resulted in an additional $2,493 in deposits ($3,493 in total) and $3,095 in loans. The bank is now receiving payments, plus interest, on over 3x the amount of actual money it was actually given. To me, it seems like the bank is figuratively “printing money” and gaining interest on it. Nothing I’ve read on fractional reserve lending has suggested this is incorrect.
Halp!
I learned to pick locks in my youth. I absolutely have picked my way into places and things to fuck with friends and family, but I always tell them. At some point.
One of my favorites was getting into my friend’s garden shed and turning everything upside down, then a few weeks later rearranging everything so it was a mirror image of how it was previously.
I’m always surprised how few people know about this. The banks are literally gaining interest on money they never had. It should be illegal.
I suppose they’re using the term troll to refer to a person engaging in behavior calculated to evoke a desired response while evading detection as doing such. It was actually used similarly in at least one academic paper back in the nineties: “Identity and deception in the virtual community”, by Judith S. Donath.
I was also surprised, then I read how this is based on two studies, one four and and the other six years old. Now it makes sense: this was during the good old days!
Does it look purple to you too?
Shamelessly purloined from YouTube:
The Legend of Zelda: The Missing Link
I appreciate the intent but this is just what happens when you put yourself out on the Internet. Hell, on an old account I made a post about how to use a waffle sandwich maker with cheddar biscuit mix and it was 10% downvoted. I think it’s some combination of valid (if unstated) criticism, accidental downvotes, and some people just being assholes.
I don’t care, I’m just trying to provide what I think is useful information. If people have a problem but don’t speak up about it, I can’t do anything so I’m not going to worry about it. As another poster mentioned below, they’re welcome to a full refund. I’ll even triple it. Triple refund!
I’m on blahaj so I don’t see downvotes. I’m guessing people who (incorrectly) think my statement of the details of the law is my support for it.
I just respond with a hearty “yeeearghhhh!” and continue the conversation. The coworkers that know get it, the rest think I’m a lunatic.
I’m so sorry. I’ve been in a similar situation and I know how it just makes you feel gutted. I’m glad you’re free of someone like that, though.
Agreed. The only time I was suspended was because I filed a charge back for an incomplete, buggy game that was sold as finished. It took so long to even get running that I was just over the refund time limit and they refused to make an exception. There was some verbiage about being banned if I continued to do charge backs. I just stopped using Steam.
That’s what we did. We were told the negative criteria were frequent driving, night driving, and all the driving BS you’d expect - hard stops, fast corners, etc. The company used a phone app, so we only installed it on my phone, had it disabled most of the time, and enabled it once or twice a week for a painfully slow drive to the grocery store just around the corner.
We had an amazing score which resulted in… No discount! We actually paid more. We got some bullshit low percentage off which was simultaneously offset by a mid-year rate increase. They claimed they had to reevaluate our rates any time they added a discount. Total bullshit.
Good point. I’m curious how the total amount of energy and resources utilized to grow, harvest, and char algae compares to direct CO2 removal. Ultimately, I just want something that works without generating another issue.
Don’t kink shame, some people just enjoy being raw dogged by the web.