Comment You smug pieces of shit (Score 1) 639
This place, and you people disgust me.
http://www.newsday.com/news/world/famine-anniversary-somalis-dying-on-food-walks-1.3847439
This place, and you people disgust me.
http://www.newsday.com/news/world/famine-anniversary-somalis-dying-on-food-walks-1.3847439
I've seen vines, ipxspx, osi etc fall by the wayside.
Really. Nobody cares about ipv6. It's not a problem, people like you are a bigger problem.
It's just you.
The nature of a bank you see is to make their credit seem as good as cash. Spend it here, spend it there, spend it everywhere.
For example, you go to your bank and deposit $100. (It is legally a loan to the bank.)
The bank takes your $100 and notes in your account $100 of credit....
Did you see what just happened? The money supply increased. There is now $100 of cash which the bank can loan out and $100 worth of credit in your account to spend. The bank just created money out of thin air. Interestingly, not US dollars. This is just bank credit which represents dollars. By using credit to pay for things you are using a completely private money created by your bank.
This is why banks are heavily regulated compared to for example paypal, they manipulate the money supply. It's why they are orders of magnitude more dangerous than paypal no matter how much you may dislike them.
So. There are some regulations, banks have to retain a certain amount of money as reserve in case people ask for their money back. Around 10% in the US. In fact they could only loan out $90. Not what happens in reality mind you. They loan first and find reserves later in reality. You may note that this means they don't have your money in their vaults, they loaned it out. It also means that they can only ever pay back 10% of their depositors, in the event of a bank run 90% are going to lose out. It's why there are bank runs the first place, you have to be at the head of the queue to get any money back.
Now, the more people depend on credit rather than cash, the lower the reserve ratio can be pushed, and the higher the leverage can be pushed. In Europe, the reserve ratios are discretionary and in reality between 30 (3%) and 50:1 (2%). If nobody ever used cash, in theory the reserve could be 0 and the reserve ratio could be infinite... i.e. banks could create as much money as they wanted, they could leverage up as far as the eye can see.
This is the real reason for the constant push for credit cards, debit cards... Always trying to get rid of cash. Cash limits their ability to create money.
You would like to own a money tree? All a banker needs is a book of accounts and a pen. All this talk of counterfeiting is complete rubbish, banks already create far more credit money than there is cash. In fact orders of magnitude more. The UK: 30 times more. EU 50 times more. Only a tiny percentage of our money is cash by now.
They were desperate for it. Just like the rest.
I'm all for hating the banks, let's just hate the right banks.
All bankers are parasites.
Hope This Helps with your understanding of the nature of banking.
Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, Citi are at the top of the list of banks making use of Federal Reserve loan facilities. If they are and were so healthy why are they at the top of the list of heavy users?
http://projects.propublica.org/tables/treasury-facilities-loans
The simple truth is they did need the money and would have failed as spectacularly as Bear Stearns and Lehman without it. I'll just point out that the Federal Reserve was created for exactly the purpose of transferring risk to taxpayers by exactly the banks who made most use of it.
Oh and JP Morgan did everyone a favour for taking Bear Stearns over a $2 a share, financed again by the Federal Reserve? Oh please.
Good luck going to war against China.
Morgan Stanley had to buy back all the stock to prevent it turning from Facebook into Faceplant. They'll have to sell it all over again.
1. Give them the money concept: The first people to completely meet the requirements get all the money plus interest. I would expect the goal to be some sort of working prototype for whatever it is they want to fund.
2. Invest the money in their company concept: The first people to meet the requirements get all the money plus interest in exchange for a minority stake of non voting stock. This is how to encourage people to hand their "crowdsourced" money over.
i.e. They have to already have something more than an idea, to get the cash. Ideas are worthless, everyone and their dog has The Great Idea. The global supply of ideas is huge. The supply of people taking it beyond that and doing something with it is scarce and that is what is worth funding.
What about linux?
Good point! Apple and Microsoft will be happy to fund the legislation.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
The hypothesis being for example; Some fish in the human food chain is heavily contaminated by pollution from Fukushima.
That the pollution will mix and spread out evenly over the ocean... That really depends on mixing effectiveness.
There's still oil. You're not getting independence.
You require people by law to retain all comm for N years on their own machines at their own expense. You require them by law to install a tool which indexes and reports the info back to the command center. You make versions available for Windows and Mac.
Then you just imprison anyone who doesn't comply (terrorists). Problem solved.
We need a good war. Kill a few million and there's more money left for the survivors to pay for the credit bubble. We can't have creditors losing their investments, getting wiped out. Gotta keep those zombies walking.
Real Programmers don't write in FORTRAN. FORTRAN is for pipe stress freaks and crystallography weenies. FORTRAN is for wimp engineers who wear white socks.