than3

Legal isn't my forte, and I'm not a lawyer either, but it seems like overreach to me.

Specifically, say the circumstance involves someone else paying his legal fees. They are going after him for collecting, so they are already done investigating, he has an account with the law firm, but the checks that pay that account may not necessarily be paid by him.

So they'll be going after whoever helped him as though they were him. Granted its a bit of a leap and I'm not read in on the details of this particular case but it seems like this is a end-run shortcut to get around providing notice, or quashing overreach towards whoever might choose to help someone who owes outstanding taxes (for whatever reason, i.e. family?).

They'll simply make a claim against the account that paid for him even if he has no interest in that account, and it can't be quashed because no notice, and no standing without notice. That's a pretty broad overreach.

Works for me too. Nice to see some judges have integrity.

I guess I'll have to come back to this when I'm fresh as it is getting late here. I still don't see how I"m arguing against the solution but I'll re-examine later.

> Bagehot

I will, and thank you for the suggestion. I'm always on the lookout for books/essays/authors I haven't read. I'll add this to my reading list.

It seems often the further I go back the more applicable and less byzantine discussed subjects are.

I've gotten more out of books from 50-100 years ago then college textbooks ever provided for subjects that were around back then.

> This has literally never happened in the US over the last 100 years.

You know what's also literally never happened in America.

Converting a fractional to a non-fractional reserve banking system under the nose of the general public.

They set reserve requirements to 0% in 2020 and adopted Basel III which itself is fundamentally flawed counting market capitalization exposure as capital reserves in lieu of deposit reserves with asset valuations based upon varying weighted complex formulas with less reporting, also comingling potentially third-party issued debt as a reserve asset paving the way for Ponzi.

Fun fact also, asset valuations/reporting requirements for bonds have also been fixed and are no longer market-based if the bank elects to hold the bonds to maturity, at least according to everything that I've read.

Sure sounds as sensational as climate change and ice shelf's the size of Rhode Island breaking off. Except, its not a movie and this actually happened, were you paying attention and noticed or is this news to you? Check out the FDIC website if you don't believe me.

Bank of International Settlements has a detailed rundown on Basel III, quite a technical dive but well worth it.

Now it lets me respond... anyway, I ran into a character cap earlier on my edit or the time ran out.

Regarding your Assets minus liabilities that's not strictly true. Its my understanding that bond assets are considered statically valued and not at market value when they have elected to hold it to maturity, I'm sure those aren't the only asset classes with alternate valuations/reporting.

See my edit in my last post addressing double-entry accounting, and how its not relevant to the discussion since the fraud and counterparty risk I'm talking about occurs outside the boundaries of double-entry accounting.

You seem to have mistaken the context.

Issued debt is not counted as reserve, its considered leverage and a liability, as a result you cannot issue more debt to increase your reserve. The ratio of reserve to issued debt must be below or equal to the set rate.

When you count debt as reserve unintentionally you have exponential debt being issued exceeding the ratio which ultimately collapses in the form of a Ponzi as environment and conditions change. Any ponzi eventually has a deleveraging, this often occurs when clearing any company whose assets have been collateralized potentially multiple times. The payout has already been made at origination, the value of the loan asset with backed secured collateral suddenly becomes 1/X depending on the number of X times it was loaned against; in reality it always was but the bankers didn't know it. The same asset is claimed in its entirety among X number of loan originators in clearing bankruptcy/receivership.

At the individual level people who invest in a Ponzi take losses. Risk of investing.

At the primary bank level, this is a systemic risk, bailout provided by FDIC/Fed is unwound as all aggregate fraud is unwound over time as inflation for troubled assets. Creating these plausible unforeseeable situations is incentivized.

It creates perverse incentives which is why bailout has been a recurring issue at least once every decade since the 70s. Concentrated banking means so big it will certainly fail.

When that inevitably happens, everyone holding USD or working for USD pays without their consent or knowledge via inflation. That is upsetting especially when it is easily foreseeable.

I'm not upset that it isn't gold backed. I simply do not believe it is a good idea to enable foreseeable fraud that will go undetected until its too late and encourage it to keep happening.

The risk by far outweighs any potential benefit. I'm all to aware what happens when hyper-inflation occurs. Ray Dalio wrote some nice case studies on those if you haven't already reviewed ("Bridegwater/Ray Dalio - Big Debt Crises").

In my opinion, most modern finance and economics training which I've seen is absolute garbage and encourages you to look at everything in isolation, or a very narrow context without providing fundamentals or limitations of the models they encourage. I've studied them, they just aren't very useful.

How can both parties be right while being completely wrong pretty much sums up isolation in complex interconnected systems. Many of the basic assumptions that are held true fail under some pretty simple situations involving corruption, control, coercion, and deceit.

If you can find vintage books on the subject they are much better and absolute gold mines (circa 1950s-1967) in comparison.

The point is they can't do it to all their clients.

Government can.

The bar for proving intent is very high. Its why most defamation suits fail.

> A public institution has to...

No, they don't have to do anything. Look at California. Specifically EDD and FTB. There are plenty of horror stories you can Google.

Thanks. I loved the thread its spot on about replicator technology.

> Has nothing to do with bank capital requirements in general.

We'll have to disagree. The moment the framework allowed market exposure in lieu of a capital reserve (in whole or part) it became inseparably linked as it impacts the basis of the capital reserve asset potentially misclassifying the asset as reserve instead of debt.

> This is the definition of fractional reserve.

It is the definition so long as all debt and reserve are segmented correctly into debt and reserve. The moment you have obfuscation such as multiple separate levels of collateralization or leverage being misclassified as assets; this definition fails, and the only time you'd find out about it given current frameworks is in a deleveraging (after the money is suddenly gone).

You have the same exact characteristics in a ponzi scheme.

I'm aware you think this is a simple double-entry accounting misunderstanding. Its not. The moment assets change hands between a third party it becomes an exponential expansion issue with regards to fraud. Double-entry accounting is limited to within a single organization. Boundaries are where things slip past, that and footnotes. Unfortunately its not letting me respond to your latest response so here's an example.

You (Bank A) loan out 9 parts per 1 of reserves. That's a 9x expansion. The person you loaned 9 out to goes to multiple banks, secures the loans with the same 9$ it just received multiple times (fraudulently, we'll say 9x), he/she receives 81 dollars back. Then they take those 81 dollars in deposits into their bank account at bank A. That 81 dollars is counted as reserves. The bank loans out 723 more dollars. You see where this is going?

Eventually this fails, but not before a large chunk that which was created out of thin air simply ceases to exist (when this is discovered as being the equivalent of a naked contract). The main problem is, the person doing this has the control because only they know what's going on.

The point is, market exposure provides the attack surface to allow this, the capitalization is an aggregate that counts as reserves which impacts what you can loan out, because debt/leverage is commingled with its asset value indeterminably and it changes with the whims of the market where many bad actors play, this previous example is possible right up until a precipitating event. When something is possible but bad, particularly in finance and banking, and there are profit incentives, this will happen as it has many times before only on a grander scale with more systemic risk. Imagine a top 4 bank with this exposure doing a Madoff through an intermediary via the stock market. Who is left holding the bag. Payouts from FDIC/Fed don't come out of thin air, the value is unwound in inflation as all fraud in aggregate are at the upper levels of the banking system. The game is bail-out.

Regarding gold, take a close look at the COMEX, its never been independently audited. Compare the eligible contracts vs. Registered. What percentage are they. COMEX disclaims responsibility for eligible contract reporting but that in large part dictates spot for the future month given percentages. If they were collusive the fix would be in right? What would you see if in addition to Dealer A's selling a gold contract to Dealer B, and back again the following month, they have a private repurchase agreement and vice versa to guarantee and deviations in the market can be capitalized on by either side at a profit (as a strangle). Its all paper (a warrant) after all until you have a load-out policy.

Yes, that is insufficient, reporting is opaque, and creates many more additional threats to the health of the banking sector. Bank of International Settlements has a more accurate rundown.

Most of the requirements are only applied to G-Sibs, which are only classified as such if they hold over 200 or 250B in assets (off the top of my head).

If you were paying attention to what happened with FRC, that was a trial run of things to come. There's an option's mechanism to cause the market maker to create synthetic shares. In volatility spikes they have two options to recoup losses, write/sell options and receive preferential treatment for clearing in receivership, or purchase shares. The latter in the face of significant shorting in addition to gamma squeeze causes a short squeeze (Gamestop), the former causes aggregate indebtness violations forcing delisting within 30-60 days which aren't usually announced (FRC).

Market mechanics say when there are more sellers than buyers the price goes down. If you can indirectly trigger more shares than are in existence being sold, the market can be tanked at a profit with sufficiently obfuscated capital.

Anytime you have over a 100% leverage ratio, its no longer fractional. Given the complexity of collateralization and the lack of any single clearing house for collateralized debt. You have no way of proving that the underlying capital reserve won't suddenly vanish in a contagion crisis. At any time there are tens of thousands of floating contracts that influence the market capitalization/stock price.

What's nonsense is Basel III using market capitalization as fulfilling capital reserves.

Those asset classes are heavily collateralized. If you want to get technical, what really happens when you convert the same underlying asset to be collaterilized multiple times and aggregate it in a single security or several steps removed so no one is the wiser?

My experience of unions in general is more akin to the corrupt demagogues of Rome, or the corrupt magistrate of Japanese historical drama.

Initially they were an alternative, but no longer given current case-law relating to corporate sovereignty and other legal frameworks/interpretations that allow dual faces when its most beneficial (i.e. your a person when it suits, your a corporation and not your responsibility when you'd go to jail as a person).

I've been paying close attention to the rail workers which have been largely absent from media and ruminating on what normally happens when you tell people that they cannot strike and must continue to work without pay increases in the face of staggering inflation over the span of 20+ years.

> Do you think if we start shouting ...

I think, at least from my studies, evil has a way of shooting itself in the foot, and compulsion; coercion and deceit all fall into that definition, at least when it comes to cascade failures and their resulting outcomes (historically, thinking of the Cultural Revolution under Mao).

You can only really do whatever is within your sphere of influence, given the consolidation of power outstripped my generation, there isn't much to do besides prepare for the worst.

If it is inevitable as most cascade failures become at some point, at least insofar that it happens regardless of anything you do, those that are prepared have greater opportunity to survive.

Engines either burnout or stall when the balance of factors disrupts normal operations.

I'll take a look at Timothy Snyder, I hadn't heard of him.

I'm familiar with LL, I liked Lawrence Lessig's presentation on tweedism. Really to the point.

As for your comment about Companies and the economy not functioning without labor. That is true, but its a troubling area because for a time they can function without labor. This is part of why AI/GPT related derivatives should be banned; but that's a topic for another day.

Its not fractional. Its 0%, see FDIC website on monetary policy.

Also, the executives from those banks received compensation packages and structured equity sales prior to the banks failing. They did make out like bandits, and congress was looking at options to claw it back, but nothing was ever finalized.

Retirement funds which were invested heavily in index weighted stocks took the biggest hit net worth wise.

That's just crazy, or shill talk.

Anyone saying something like that clearly has absolutely no clue or concept what the counter-party risks of doing so are nor how bureaucracies actually work in practice. Just promoting that kind of narrative is fundamentally deceitful because its outcomes pose such harm to not only yourself but everyone else you've enrolled in the process.

You'd wake up one day and not be able to get your money. The account would be frozen, they'd refer you to some other department, who would then point back to the first department in a circle. No escalation route, 8 hours getting through to 1 department, another few days, your back in a loop no resolution. In the meantime funds are still going into your account but they can't be removed.

You'd say that will never happen, but this type of finger pointing happens all the time in business and bureaucracies alike. There is a fundamental lowest common denominator, and in a state funded systems that denominator is ultimately negative production value. Business can't afford it, but government gets paid by the money printer (stealing value from those holding the currency over time).

That's not even going into what they'll use your banking information for? We see you deposited and withdrew cash in 200+ dollar amounts multiple times over the span of a year. This is structuring, in addition to your reported income you owe taxes on the undeclared amounts and this has been referred to department X for further investigation, they make a finding and take your money first, wait time for their due process before returning (if you can prove its yours) or just keeping the money (in the case of non-responsive/lost mail). Civil Asset Forfeiture 2.0. Nevermind you do group grocery shopping on behalf of someone else (elderly who can't drive), or other plausible explanations, you are guilty until innocent because they have your money and you lack the power to stop them.

As you say, its not a new plan.

First comes concentration and consolidation, being close to the money supply provides benefits not available to others. The bail-out game repeated every 8-10 years. Then when that can no longer be done, in the face of crisis nationalization, or inflation until the currency fails bleeding off as much personal profit as possible into other assets and suppressing those assets so you get a bargain. (Ask yourself how two-party collusive options trading in the metals market might affect the spot price, could you farm it for consistent profit while ensuring the USD remains the safer alternative if you were the size of the big 5/4?)

Unfortunately, counter-party risk is inherent in just about everything these days.

You are right to consider it risky, especially when there technically is no longer a fractional reserve.

You may want to take a look at the FDIC website for monetary policy required reserves, protip its 0% a/o 2020. The only reason everything hasn't collapsed is implementing capital reserve requirements via Basel III which counts stock market capitalization as part of the reserves (based on what I read).

As for why there aren't new banks, just look at the requirements for chartering a bank. You must accept personal liability for your decisions as a Board Member and have no financial interest in the bank to be on the board of directors. You can receive no compensation, that started after 2008. Who in their right mind aside from crooks who lie or ethical religious rural/grounded/moral/actual communities (Amish/Mennonites) would find that level of exposure acceptable? The former are so common, and the latter upstanding folk so rare...

Thomas Paine had a few choice words to say in answer your question, though I won't repeat them here.

I don't agree with him on that point, but I haven't come across any other practical wisdom that accounts better for how to deal with people who do not give up power willingly.

I continue to hope, but then again I'm an eternal optimist at heart.

Systems could enforce it independently such as currency indirectly, if you required a funding plan for any proposed program. It does require functioning arms of government though and printing more money than tax revenue obviously not being an option. Corruption would need to be minimized with harsh penalties and not allowing conflicts of interest. Basic stuff.

Yes, this is how its been classically taught, but it hasn't been true for some time now because they removed deposit reserve requirements in 2020 (set it to 0% and haven't changed it back).

Basel III utilizes complex risk formulas tied to specific asset classes for the basis of qualification and capital-based reserves which include stock market exposure (capitalization) counted as part of supplying part of their reserves.

Also, long-term issued debt (bonds) value reporting becomes fixed if they elect to hold them to maturity, with no further reporting needed (at least as far as I've been informed). This was one of the findings from Signature and a number of other banks.

The closest financial structure that describes the banking system is a government granted Ponzi scheme that's limited by rules set by unelected private institutions (Fed/FOMC).

Bubble pressures eventually cause an economic calculation problem which manifests in shortages.

> Money is created when debt is issued and it is destroyed as the debts are repaid.

fourier, fundamentally the quoted statement is wrong except in a very narrow niche. Its a overgeneralization that ignores core principles.

There's no real way to clarify this in the span of a single post, there's a lot of fundamental material you need to be aware of.

I'd instead refer you to a very solid book by David Graeber called Debt, The first 5,000 years; and then The Wealth of Nations & The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, for a more broad economic understanding (when things actually worked).

Following those two, Bridgewater's Report (Ray Dalio) Big Debt Crises will give you sufficient background to understand what they are talking about and realize its just a narrow niche that ignores the forest for the trees. There are people that believe you can borrow from the future indefinitely with debt, and the price never comes due; Modern Monetary Theory is one such dogmatic approach and it ignores important distinctions about who decides what in trade, and also unfortunately many places reuse language in a completely different unrelated context which itself is misleading and corruptive.

Start with the question, "What is money, what is it used for, and what requirements does it have to have, to be money".

I agree it seems farcicle but it will inevitably creep in regardless with any centralized system, simply as turnover of people's roles to younger overseers without the benefit of experience occurs. Self-limiting and enforcing limits is not unheard of though usually exceedingly rare.

There is such a thing as the rule of law, but as you mentioned when the powerful band together in collusive behavior anything is possible, and its usually for their benefit. The rule of law as we've come to know it generally speaking usually requires appropriate representation with regard to crafting/maintaining those laws but that is not always the case.

Also, without maintaining a market which limits currency sufficiently to allow rational price discovery, you run into the Economic Calculation problem which has no solution. A form of it is inflation/deflation curves based on lagging indicators where you whipsaw closer and closer to the margins until one or the other outcome spirals out. Very dynamical.

> What we are seeing. >> I don't buy this at all as a key factor

We'll have to disagree. Its pretty obvious that previous generations starting at the point of taking the dollar off the gold standard have consistently spent more than revenue (negative cashflow). They've spread the loss in value globally, but its still a loss and worse its in lagging inflation adjusted payouts.

The bill always comes due, and the consequences of policies put in place over that time will be paid by generations who had no say in its creation. Debt can be just as coercive when backed by law (austerity measures).

Incidentally, a very similar issue came up during the French Revolution (Bastille) at least according to Thomas Paine who wrote about it in passing in his Rights of Man (1770s). That and Common Sense are both very interesting reads if you can make the time.

In my opinion, power should be entrusted to the people's representation in a republic with important limitations enforced independently to preserve their responsiveness to the people they represent.

For example representatives who spend more than X% of their time on activities other than representation, time for which they are paid by the taxpayer. Or representing/concentrating more than 80,000 people's voting rights in a single person aren't really representing their constituents in any equitable way. Exceeding either of those limits causes their responsibility and duty to fall in furtherance of maintaining their profession.

You are mistaken in outcome, but you are not wrong that we do have a corruption problem.

Unfortunately, corruption is endemic in any political system. Socialism also isn't a solution. Someone has to pay and be held accountable.

As long as it remained manageable its not necessarily a negative. What we are seeing is the debt fueled rage of two selfish generations piling up unchecked and snowballing; leaving us with the check, or more appropriately bag of flaming poo rolling down on us.

The problem with 'consensus' as a whole is, its not always possible.

Just because you do something doesn't mean you agree with it.

> A large percentage of divorces are due to financial disagreements.

That's putting it delicately.

Quite a number of judges have straight out ruled that prenuptial agreements are not binding making this a free for all. The resulting judicial caused disaster often is what's catastrophic as opportunism shines through.

> And you want us to reach life milestones sooner?

Its pretty clear based on the conclusions of the article that the author doesn't have much credibility.

Don't forget, there's no guarantee college = paying job.

Its been shown with quite a lot of supporting evidence that experienced workers crowd out the entry-level jobs used by College Alumni, when their primary work isn't available.

It used to be 'Everyone has a mortgage, and they do it for the mortgage'. Now its 'Everyone has rent, and they do it for the rent and food'.

> What's today's trends with people going for advanced or professional degrees?

The vast majority don't actually make it through to graduation. In a 6 year period , something like 12-20% graduate for a 4 year degree depending on how they've (the college) decided to measure. Metrics aren't tracked to determine how much repeatability happened. That, for the most part is for those who can afford to go to school full time indefinitely which in Today's dollars amounts to roughly $15,000 per 6 months living expenses (if your smart without including books and tuition costs).

Most degrees have general education that act as weed out classes that are designed and structured to fail. Core Physics in Engineering, Economics/Anthro in Business.

Many classes also misrepresent the time commitment needed to succeed in the class. I've seen some 3-unit classes that have so many assignments that you had to spend 28 hours a week just completing them. In a 12 unit full-time load you would need to be able to put in 68+ hours a week for 16 weeks with just one of those classes. Sometimes you get two. Normally a 3-unit class should never require more than 9 hours of coursework a week but that rarely happens consistently.

Older people going back to school would find themselves having to go to the emergency room if they had any stress related medical conditions with that kind of work load.

Physics has the 3 question two test, where each question depends on the previous question's correct answer. You can only get the last problem wrong on either of those tests to pass. Its perfection or nothing.

Economics is plagued with non-deterministic answers in their testing methodology for at least 30% of the questions for any course using Pearson resources (almost all use them). The reading material doesn't match the tested material, and you have to choose which answer is correct among 3 or 4 correct answers. By choose I mean guess because that's what it is without determinism properties which these lack but the professor and school lack rigor in applying it to coursework.

I'm largely self-taught after failing college coursework for nearly two decades. Self taught through MIT's OCW and I do IT System's Administration/engineer responsibilities, no degree. Systems and Signals was probably one of the most important OCW courses I took (where they discuss these properties rigorously). I've completed up past Calc 3 into DiffEQ/Linear Algebra, I couldn't pass the physics because they inconsistently handle rounding rules on those causality spiraled tests. I gave up after try/fail #9 (not the same professor/college) where I got the only perfect at the college for the bundled lab portion/project which was pooled among all physics courses at that college, but not the three question test. The project was designing an egg drop that survives a 4 story drop with set materials from a pool of materials divied up exclusively between teams, I took the lead and we did it with a plastic bag, paper, and water. Escalating the academic dishonesty issues (students selling previous tests in the class to other students loudly with the teacher turning a blind eye), resulted in no action because the teacher had seniority over the Dean (straight from the Dean's mouth).

Organic Chem is often one as well. Many of these course sections have an 8% pass rate or worse.

Systemic issues reported get ignored, the escalation path is professor -> chair -> dean -> board of trustees. All teachers, all with the bureacratic mindset that doing any action will affect their standing so its better to do nothing at all in anything but clear cut fraud. Paying a teacher to teach, and then having them refer you to Khan Academy videos, not teach (no lecture), and autograde/refuse to correct issues on tests where material tested didn't match course materials; isn't fraud in their mind. Incidentally, they also don't consider revoking access to digital materials you purchased through a specific date, which are LMS locked, without any refund, fraud either after you withdraw. There's no requirement for investigatory action upon report and these people are all co-workers who are in it together.

There's a lot of fraud involved with colleges and they largely have blanket legal protection. Unless you go to school outside the US you are faced with this, and predatory loans that can't be discharged in bankruptcy or cases of outright fraud. ITT tech happened in early 2000s, it was clearly fraud, and they only recently reached a settlement in 2022 to discharge the existing debt (but not refund interest payments).

While that agreement was reached, I personally haven't heard from anyone involved in that actually completing the process for the discharge. Last I heard you had to submit additional paperwork that had to be just right which was error prone and stalling tactics. I've a few friends from HS where they went that route and regretted it. They are in their 40s now, not a homeowner, no kids, no wife, critically stunted from overbearing debt imo.

The only other alternative for qualifications is professional certifications, and the same companies are involved with the same fraudulent practices. Extract as much money as possible, have government contracts for blanket legal protection, eliminate due process. Its rapidly becoming an unlivable world where you can't get ahead unless you were born wealthy or steal it.

Most of us are raised from a young age to not steal, the existing environment encourages those who steal and get away with it, at the expense of those that follow ethics, morals and rules. Cheating and academic dishonesty is rampant because fraud & corruption is endemic to the system.

Employers use the claim that you aren't qualified even when you are, simply because you don't have a certification or degree. I've turned down many job offers because they wanted me to come work for them at half-off for work I've a decade of experience at. Imagine what people who have no experience and no college have to deal with.

Edit: Clarification

Unfortunately the data is matched against the poverty line which is a bad measure when the cost of living is significantly higher than the poverty line.

You'd probably see a much larger statistically significant move towards the negative if you accounted for many of the commonly known issues such as college graduations. Several of the milestones are measured in such a way that anyone taking a minimum wage job would meet several of those milestones since the poverty level is 13,590. That won't even cover rent let alone food, 150% of that is 20,385, after tax 18,346 net, not enough for food and rent so clearly not financially independent but counted as such in this study.

I never said fiat, I said usury (interest), and that goes on any underlying asset.

I see where this is going though. Its not a new idea, it runs very close to similar lines of thought put forth by the authoritarian socialists.

It all sounds like a magical utopia until you get into the details. Promises are put forth, but once power is ceded, abuses happen. Those in power will claim "but those only happen because there is not enough of power and we face oblivion, anyone not with us is against us, they threaten our future", and the fools that are scared will believe it, and they are the ones that allow everyone else to become slaves. Its part of a common authoritarian playbook, and has happened many times throughout history.

https://www.mit.edu/people/fuller/peace/war_goering.html

When you look at the requirements for clearing at a national scale, it requires a centralized system with coercive control, and absolute information (future sight). For the most part those systems only operate efficiently because of corruption, and there is no future sight thankfully.

It doesn't address a number of issues with any centrally planned economy and without incentives it must be centrally planned to produce goods. Having assets without being able to use them means no property rights. The borgeioux/monopolists take over and the common man only needs bare subsistence. That's fine in a pre-limits of growth world but we'll be at 9B people soon and predefined currency pool without expansion doesn't take into account population growth. So given contention, who decides who lives and has children, or dies and doesn't. In that kind of system, the people at the top.

You end up with no investment, no companies, and no future within a generation or two (20 years = 1 generation).

Inevitably shortages occur, and when they do it causes death when its a strategic good (i.e. food). That death also won't be coming to those at the top while there's such a larger pool below. The people at the top need the good more since they are responsible for decisions that impact the whole. Sometimes its necessary to cut off a leg so the body can survive. Its important that the designated people can continue to make these important decisions in times of crisis... so they would say.

You can tweak those systems any number of ways and end up with the exact same outcome when you don't address the core problem of economic calculation which doesn't have a solution in centrally planned economies. Its not new, its old, there's quite a large body of material from the 1920s-1940s on it.

This was done in the past. Money lending (usury) was outlawed.

For 100+ years, interest above a certain percentage was outlawed until congress created a exclusion loophole for federal financial institutions.

If you haven't already read the book "Debt, The First 5,000 yaers" by David Graeber, I think you'd get a lot out of it.

Also, Market system's aren't a silver bullet.

Trust is a fickle thing, and requires credibility.

> Do you really trust China to manage the World's currency?

No, they have terminal credibility issues when it comes to how they handle things, and its real hard to support something like that when you have no laws protecting foreign investors.

Netflix's The China Hustle was a great documentary providing visibility on these issues. A world currency is a foreign investment in any country that accepts and denominates in that currency.

This article has some significant misunderstandings about how these things actually are. The only potential reason would be to mislead the reader because it surely does not educate when a significant portion of what's said is wrong in a way that a layperson wouldn't be able to tell.

Specifically, it acts as if this is business as usual when it is not. The debt to GDP, and inflation rates, are not correct. It makes no mention of the requirements imposed by Basel III which is what banks are being held to now.

There is no deposit requirements anymore. In 2020, they set this to 0 and haven't returned it. Boys and girls we no longer have a fractional banking system. Let that sink in for a moment.

Everything we know historically about banking and economic trends is largely based upon the banking system being a fractional banking system. You can't have a non-fractional banking system and claim its the same, or will operate remotely similar. Its unprecedented and was barely announced if you didn't follow all the metrics available through their site.

As they've redone their site again to hide stuff, here is the link for those that want to check it out themselves.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm

Basel III sets up capital requirements but allows stock market capitalization to be counted against those requirements. Making any bank very susceptible to market attacks, synthetic shares can be indirectly created using the market maker as a patsy; just like commodities can be suppressed with net0 options contracts between colluding parties.

Worse, the banks have centralized to the point where if any of the big primary banks now fails, none of the others have the assets to take it over. Which means the next step is nationalization, or inflate the currency even more than is happening currently (as a bail-in).

Banks and other financial organizations don't have to disclose changes in the underlying assets (bonds specifically) when they intend to hold them to maturity. You've got funds holding 90%+ of 1.8% bonds whose value is significantly lower than actual market value (because interest rates went up how many times?). Value is worth approximately 1/3 when I last calculated, but the going market rate is well above that. For those that don't know, its the sum of all interest payments and principal discounting inflation above 2% up to present date as calculated in 1984, and adjusting for the difference of the current interest rate bond compared to the 1.8).

Not only that, it mistakes what really happened with Gamestop (a short squeeze, and market weighted index rebalancing) or the M2 triggered liquidity issues (in 2019) that prompted payouts to the general public amid the pandemic because the banks weren't lending due to liquidity.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2V

I seriously don't see much that is actually accurate in that post. Even the market growth part is misleading.

If you want a solid background on how these things work, read David Graeber ("Debt, The first 5,000 years") followed by the Economic calculation problem (essays). You run into the latter in non-market and market systems that deviate sufficiently from rational pricing.

Debt to GDP is well above 300% when you count all outstanding liabilities, the measure he references is what the government publishes but if you look at how they've changed that formula over time you'd see its just like inflation. Less about accuracy more about promoting a narrative.

Don't forget the circumlocution that needs to happen sometimes.

"Have you tried turning it off and on again?" I've already done that multiple times... (Console shows uptime on device is 12 days 4 hours 31 minutes).

Ok, I need you to remove the cable going into the back on the right side (the power plug but I'm not going to say it) and let me know when the light goes off. You mean the power cord?

The cord on the right hand side. Are the lights off?, good.

"I'm initiating a reset, go ahead and plug the cable back in and let me know once the lights go steady." (no reset actually initiated on my end).

A lot of CSR is working around trigger words to de-escalate.

An AI program will never be able to do that effectively. Its a fundamental limit of computation. You can't have the same inputs map to two equally separate outputs. It breaks determinism required for computers to work, and words have same inputs, different outputs (meanings). Anyone worth their salt in IT would have warned against this article's type of magical thinking.

The foundation responsible for funding them is basically just misrepresenting and taking money and not providing the services and support that was intended at the loss of a group of at-risk individuals. Real stupid imo.