AnonymousCoward2

Interesting, forgive me for not being fully up to date with the latest in Monetary Policy, has been a while since I got my MSc in Economics/Finance. Yet, a few questions: 1. This argument is based on a governments ability to issue bonds exclusively denominated in its own currency? Which is basically only valid for the big guys in the world, like US & Japan. Swedish national debt consists e.g.of 31 % of bonds/derivatives denominated in foreign currency: https://www.riksgalden.se/sv/omriksgalden/statsskulden/Sveriges-statsskuld-oversikt/Statsskulden-fordelad_pa_skuldslag/ Instinctively the argument seems based on a closed-loop system, which the said government has 100 % control over. 2. The fact that no government under floating exchange rate has ever default is a partial truth. Greece for example defaulted on its debt a few years back. However, how many countries in the world today have free floating exchange rates? Many rates that are formerly floating are de facto manipulated by the government. In any other case we still have a very limited sample of sovereign countries operating under floating fiat under a prolonged period of time. 3. The reason for basically all defaults in history has not been a matter of ability, but rather a willingness to default on their debt. Like everything in economics its all about future expectations, hence governments have an incentive in the present to repay bonds to be able to borrow again in the future. 4. Also: It does not need to raise taxes, but not raising taxes and thus offsetting the injection into the money supply means it will jerk up the inflation instead? Or am I missing something? Those are just my2cents.

Let me guess, you have read the wikipedia article and does not get a shit out of it? Seriously, for what you are writing is just bull crap. Please do you research and save your thoughts on matters you apparently have 0 insight into. Alright, you at least seem to be slightly better informed than OP. Listen: 1. Derivatives are widely used by various market participants ranging all from banks to small exporters, primarly to hedge against a price change. This is the standard procedure in almost all markets trading an underlying asset susceptible to price risk due to supply factors, i.e. oil/timber (but not Ralph Lauren clothes). 2. Since the big bust in 2008 the prop mandate among the big banks is close to... 0. Basically all speculative trading as has been abolished in favour either market-making or agency trading, with the new regulations it has become impossible to play around like you could do before. Check out the Dodd-Frank act. - There are of course ways around this but, according to what I heard its pretty dry nowadays. 3. The "problem" with the system is that different banks have sold different hedging instruments to different parties, creating a complex interweaved web, so if one part of the web breaks - the whole web breaks and shit hits the fan. The big issue in 2008 when Lehman failed was that banks did not even know which counterparty held which liabilities creating a panic run of headless chickens running around in a frenzy (litterarly). Could it happen again? Probably. Will it happen again? Yeah I'd guess so, but it won't be Deutsche Bank in that case, because then you would not have Germany as a state left the morning after. DB knows it, Angela Merkel knows it. Even derivatives on derivatives on derivatives on derivatives... Crazy shit, you better buy gold and lots of it, the derivatives are coming

Hahah... the funny thing with the IQ argument is that you need a certain IQ to understand it

Well, might just be envy of Jewish success. But at the same time envy a people forced to live in secluded areas, that is disregarded upon for being religiously awkward and arbitrarly pissed upon by ruling elite as they suddenly decided to default on their debt, feels a bit odd. Let alone that many jews in Eastern Europe was not affluent and living in extravagnce, but they were living on side of majority society. On Hitler however, you better do some read-up. Hitler was a revanchist and German nationalist, but first and foremost a pragmatist. He is clearspoken about the major reason for the antisemitistic stand of NSDAP is that antisemitism forms the best basis for garner support for the movement. Again was not a Hitler socialist in any economic sense, it was mere a matter of rhetoric to gains votes from the working class. Nazi economics were more a matter of "whatever sees fit for the good of the race (as defined by the state) is appropriate economic politics", hence emphasis on a welfare state/alliance with big businesses (IG Farben etc...) etc. Quite similar to the post-war Socialdemocratic policies enacted. Is there really any evidence of higher Jewish intelligence outside of New World? Most reasonable would be that the smartest, most affluent etc. were able to leave Europe and escape the nazis, leaving the rest behind. To my knowledge the average IQ in Israel for Ashkenazi is about 103-104, whilst in the US 110-115 e.g.

Dude, he actually got a point there. Almost wherever there has been Jewish populations, there have pogroms. So, is it because every other race on earth fears jews because of their superior intellect and übermensch qualities, or because there might be something to it? Having partial jewish heritage myself (no not mummy sid) and having distant relatives dying in the holocaust does not make me blind to see that jews have tended to be an odd one out. White guilt since the holocaust has been pounded into the minds of every white person for the last 50 years and its getting a bit tiresome, why should a German feel guilt for what a guy who happened to share his nationality did to them some 70 years ago? Its just as morally corrupt as all other inherited guilt which has been bore down on white people (or any people for that matter). That said, the whole Zionism-Control-The-World-bullshit is totally filled with crap, its a boyhood fantasy of the secret society ruling behind the shadows. Its like the court of Owls (for those reading Batman) and anybody above the age of 15 believing in it must be disregarded for living in Cloud-Cuckoo-land.

Honestly, when the shit hits the fan for real and I am positive it will. Then the least thing people will worry about are what leftisch besserweissers are saying about good old Mr D. In a situation of increased tension and unstability people en masse tend to revert to authorative statism as the holy saviour, not to an uncertain ancap world of rosy flowers and free markets. The difference is that might not really be a welfare state, but rather an authorative leadership not shying away from massive force of violence - especially not against the previous intelligentia/ruling elite.

Well first of all the new FIFA 17 came out yesterday and as you know the day only got 24 hours . Honestly speaking yeah, the debate was bullshit. Trump looked tired and was not the way I am used to see him. But hey might just be as Scott writes on it, but can't the guy just have had a bad day? Still jumping the train because he did not behave absolutely as expected appear a bit infantile, which suggests to me OP was actually just looking for an excuse to jump off the train. If that was so, I don't really see why join in the first place.

A note on the mixup with the words "libertarian" and "liberal" in Europe. Liberal in Europe generally refers someone promoting freedom for the benefit of the majority of people and whenever this "freedom" appears not benefit the majority they staunchly oppose it. Liberal is more or less used interchangibly with the word "socialliberal", not libertarian. Its a bit fuzzy to speak about a "classical liberal" during the enlightment as this was more or less just a reaction to the moral authority of church/monarch, not so very much a system of ideas. Libertarianism as an ideology is a relatively instance in history to my knowledge, more or less getting up to speed with Nozick/Friedman/etc in the 70'ies and does not really exist to any degree in Europe. Instead you have the classical "conservative" parties standing up for some semi-"market liberalism" previously mixed with traditional values and nowadays with cultural marxism.

Well mate, I agree its a matter of semantics its all about to what you define the different words for. However, empathy is quite clearly defined in the opening sentence of wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy Likewise is sympathy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympathy If we sum it up: Empathy: I can understand it feels shitty to be fat. Sympathy: I pity that you feel sorry not being physically attractive. By all means if you wish to use the terms in any other way, its your call. However, these are the general understandings and use of the two words.

Well, it depends on your perception of race and the relation between the members and the collective. Let me explain: Statement 1: Race A scores higher than race B on IQ-test, by this premises race A is deemed superior to race B as IQ is the benchmark stat in the racial hierarchy. Does the above statement implicate that: 1. All members of race A are more intelligent than race B? 2. Members of race A are in general more intelligent than those of race B? Clearly we cannot say anything about 1, as we do not know. However, 2 is by nature of argument true. Statement 2. The distribution of IQ is normally distributed for both races, the difference is that race A has an higher overall mean. Clearly we must then refute 1. whilst 2. still holds up to scrutiny. Conclusively thus; A race can be superior on a collective level without all members being superior on an individual level. The question then becomes do you define racist as someone: - Stating a fact about different overall characteristics of different groups into two non-mutually exclusive sets. - Irrationally extrapolating average different group differences to create two mutually exclusive sets. And btw, "believe" is something you do in church - I rather stick with the facts.

You are mixing it up here. Empathy can clearly put as "The ability put oneself in another person's shoes". Its the cognitive ability to understand other person's feelings/thoughts, it does not necessarily require empirical foundation - i.e. you do not have to be fat to understand that fat people are unhappy about being fat. The second part is about sympathy or compassion, the ability to share someone else's feelings. I am not emphatic when can't help but laughing when someone else is laughing. Sympathy is a very direct emotional bound between to persons.

Listening to Stef, when speaking about anything that might implicate anything negative about a certain group (yes, I am talking about blacks in particular), there is always this infactual caveat pushed: "Still, you know we cannot say anything about individuals based on aggregated tendencies among a certain population". From the perspective of science its pretty much a "eeehhh... say what?!"-moment, as it is a logical contradiction. It's a bit like "the gamblers fallacy", in the misrepresentation of probability. Proposition 1: People with red caps are more five times more likely to involved in assaults and armed robberies than people with green caps. Proposition 2: Not every person with a red cap has ever been involved in an assault or an armed robbery. Proposition 3: Based on the two propositions stated above, we cannot say anything about the individual likelihood of a person being involved in assaults or armed robberies. The last proposition is an obvious logical fallacy, as the group of "red caps" are made up of individuals contributing to the overall group mean and thus pushing population mean to become 5x that of the "green caps". The population mean is just a simple average of each individuals behaviour alltogether. If the random green cap has a 2 % assualting me in the street, then the random red cap has 10 % chance of assaulting me. If I do not observe these differences and take the necessary precautious - carry a gun/avoid neighbourhoods with red caps/etc., I would every else hold equal, simply run a bigger risk around red caps. How would that be beneficial for me as a person to simply ignore this? I reckon that humans in general does not understand probabilities, its a complex topic and the human mind prefers to instead draw general conclusion in over/understating the probability of an event occuring (we are like binary machines with 0 and 1s). Still if you are to make an informed decision, i.e. choose to one with results in highest expected utility for you as a person, you have to learn to work it through with a correct and factual assessment of reality - not how you would like it to be. Secondly, everybody please drop this idea of seeking recognition on the terms of your philosophical enemies, for then you are still subject to their ideological hegemony of imposed (preferably, white) guilt. You do not make your arguments or state the facts on the benefit of women, black, gipsies, poor or whatever - you do it because its true and you are capable of making your judgements based on the facts, nothing else. Please.

Hi there, - Swede in exile. - Economist/Political Scientist/Statistician (yeah, triple major) - Objectivist in practice since ca 7-8, in theory since 17. - Love Disney (bite me, you coldhearted bastards) - Long-running AoE1 player. Learned the hardship of socialism early on from the Swedish school as being constantly looked down upon for being above your peers, having to re-write (good you are done, now erase it and do it again...) in your math books and all other mind numbing you have to go through. Otherwise no personal stories, no nothing.