Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:This is interesting.... (Score 1) 573

by Serge_Tomiko (#49310305) Attached to: Greenpeace Co-Founder Declares Himself a Climate Change Skeptic

Evolution is not established science. It is an interesting hypothesis for which much circumstantial evidence is present, but it has never been observed. The same is true for climate change. If the scientific method can't be used to test the hypothesis, it is not science. Period.

Comment: Re: Double Irish (Score 1) 825

"Sure, that never causes a problem. Why, every time it's been tried in history it has ended well. Wait, sorry, it always ends the other way, but hey, maybe this time will be different!"

All decisions can be made well or poorly in all things, not simply governance or social organization. The error you make is believing that there is some kind of perfect system, when the reality is humans are imperfect, irrational creatures. Money is like religion and mass propaganda. It is a high level abstraction that organizes society. In all cases, such organization can be beneficial or detrimental, what matters is not the system, but the people making the decisions.

The reality is there are relatively few examples of the hyperinflation bogeyman in civilized countries. In fact, the evidence is overwhelming that unrestrained creation of money by banks is far more dangerous than a sovereign running fiscal deficits, as every single major depression was predicated upon reckless creation of money my banks that severely misallocated capital, and resulted in massive defaults and impoverishment.

Regardless, the fact remains that this is our financial system. You have either banks creating money with loans, or you have the sovereign authority running fiscal deficits. The former method requires more money to be created to pay interest, the latter does not.

You are free to propose a new economic order, but it is cruel and irresponsible to suggest a currency issuing sovereign can or should run budget surpluses or have a "balanced budget". This, again, shows a total lack of understanding of how banking works, and has ever worked.

Comment: Re: Double Irish (Score 1) 825

Your post shows a fundamental lack of understanding of money. The sovereign does not have any need to tax to raise revenue. They can create as much money as they wish. Taxation is about social control. Further, the sovereign power must always run fiscal deficits. 97% of all money is created by banks as loans, all of which has interest attached. Only the sovereign can create money without future interest. Without deficits, interest will consume all money in time.

Nothing happens.