I know breasts drop a bit when the bra comes off, but it’s a bit much to legislate against them dragging on the …

Oh!

How banks lend money isn’t controversial. How governments spend and collect money isn’t controversial. Those are just points of fact. The controversial part is the government being able to spend before it has tax levels which “support” the spending. That’s what I meant. MMT says that’s an available choice. That’s all.

Many mainstream economists will say that unchecked spending is reckless and you risk hyperinflation. Now we’re in to policy choices though. Regardless, if you spend without worrying about the other side of the equation (tax) they’d be right. However, that’s a strawman argument because that’s not what is being said.

I’ll be honest, I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument against MMT, and I’ve looked. I started off sceptical, but I now think it’s a useful framing tool. Every counter I’ve seen doesn’t address what it actually states, rather what they imagine it states (normally unchecked spending). If anyone has seen a good factual argument against MMT I’d be interested.

So these ideas are the basis of modern monetary theory (MMT) i.e. the theory of modern money, not that it’s a modern theory of money. There’s nothing very controversial here, in that the “theory” is just a description of how things work when you have a fiat currency. The controversial parts are what you do in your fiscal policy once you think about things this way.

Stephanie Kelton is a vocal proponent of this style of framing. She’s been an economic advisor to Bernie Sanders and is the author of “The Deficit Myth” which explains these concepts. She also gave a TED talk on the concepts.

Richard Murphy is a UK proponent who writes a blog and has a YouTube channel where he explains the concepts.

There are others, but these two are a good way in. Searching for them, and also the the phrase “Modern Monetary Theory” should get you lots of talks, interviews and articles on both sides of the arguments.

“All the money” assumes there’s a finite amount of money. There isn’t. In a fiat currency, like the Dollar, Euro or Sterling, banks create money when they lend, and the money disappears again when the loan is repaid. This is what a banking license gives you; The ability to make loans without having the existing money to back them.

Government spends by telling it’s bank (The Federal Reserve, ECB or BoE) to lend money for the things it wants to buy. Taxes then repay that debt and the money doesn’t exist anymore.

In an economy where huge amounts of wealth is horded, there’s a problem of liquidity. All of that wealth is idle. It’s not circulating and there becomes a danger of economic collapse. Therefore more money has to enter the system, either through government spending or commercial banks making loans.

Horded money is also money that isn’t going back to banks to repay the lending. So the amount of money in existence goes up, driving the value of that money down. This is inflation. One dollar can no longer buy as much as it used to as it’s value has gone down.

So, billionaires cause:

• Large amounts of commercial debt to inject replacement money into the economy. That is, personal debt or corporate debt.
• Inflation caused by that cash injection

Sound familiar?

Now a government could choose to raise its spending so that it injects the required money into its economy, rather commercial banks doing it. The advantage of that is that they can balance that with raised taxes, so inflation doesn’t get out of control. They can also choose who to tax and protect areas of the economy.

Most governments don’t see it this way, arguing that they can only spend what they take in taxes (The “government spending is like a household budget” argument). This has been false ever since they all came off the gold standard. They can spend what they want and they can tax what they want. The difference will drive inflation, so has to be kept reasonable, but if they don’t spend enough the commercial banks take over and will absolutely drive inflation.

Oh they did lie, but not about America. They lied about Iran.

So chop-sticks are “Oneks”

Name of another similar tool, prefixed with the language it was rewritten in.

A response I gave elsewhere in this thread.

This authority will provide you with tokens indicating you are 18+ (or whatever age verfication you may need) These tokens are stored locally, and contain no identifying information other than a simple “is this guy 18+?”

So they’re reusable? One token can be used for multiple age checks, right?

If not, then think about what that means.

1. The token gets sent back to the authority for revocation.
2. The token is authorised by the central authority as still valid.
3. The token is uniquely identifiable
4. The central authority knows who it issued each token for
5. The central authority knows who has asked it the verify age.

Sure, the company you’re purchasing from may have no new information, but the central authority now has everything it needs to know:

• How often you buy tobacco, alcohol or medications
• What discussion boards you are a member of
• Have you purchased anything age restricted from any store (e.g. propane from a DIY store)

Your step 4 will make the token reusable, or at least reusable within a time frame. If a token can only be used once there has to be some information flow back to a central approval authority.

They already know how often you do all the things you have to be over a certain age to do?

This authority will provide you with tokens indicating you are 18+ (or whatever age verfication you may need) These tokens are stored locally, and contain no identifying information other than a simple “is this guy 18+?”

So they’re reusable? One token can be used for multiple age checks, right?

If not, then think about what that means.

1. The token gets sent back to the authority for revocation.
2. The token is authorised by the central authority as still valid.
3. The token is uniquely identifiable
4. The central authority knows who it issued each token for
5. The central authority knows who has asked it the verify age.

Sure, the company you’re purchasing from may have no new information, but the central authority now has everything it needs to know:

• How often you buy tobacco, alcohol or medications
• What discussion boards you are a member of
• Have you purchased anything age restricted from any store (e.g. propane from a DIY store)

…and they don’t do it unless you look like you might be underage.

It’s started something on a terminal. It is assuming it’s vim, but it’s not operating like vim. I’m questioning it’s assumption. If it had fired up nano, for example, sending vim key sequences isn’t going to work. Seeing as it seems to be doing stuff with git too, it may not have started this editor explicitly. It will be using whatever git is configured to use.

Fortunately it doesn’t contain RAM or flash storage or a GPU, so you may not need to go to humiliation levels of money.

I think it might not be vim.

The Eagles called it Hotel California.

Which aren’t a thing.

Two step siblings have no legal relation as far as I’m aware. It’s just two people who’s parents have married. There’s nothing stopping them having their own relationship.

If you’re concerned about non consensual events, that’s just plain old sexual abuse and rape. That’s completely different.

It cheap to make. The “story” is simple but explains why these two people live in the same house without it being incest.

fictional scenarios of incest relations

Not incest. Step relations are not blood relations. The parents marry and combine their existing families.

I think I would question the reverse. I don’t think I could get my work done if I had to use something else. Maybe MacOS would work…maybe.