It's classified as 'developing'.

Dude, M1 went up almost 3 _times_ during the last 4 years ( http://research.stlouisfed.org...). Do you see 250% inflation? I certainly don't. Nor does Billion Prices Project which monitors the cost of "Actual Groceries"(tm)(r).

And I don't care if you define inflation per millisecond or whatever. The end result is the same - there has been no hyperinflation episodes recently, exactly because central banks got quite good at lowering inflation.

M1 changes are meaningless. They are NOT inflation. Inflation in 1947 was 18.13%, according to BLS ( http://www.multpl.com/inflatio... ).

The highest inflation after that was 13.91% in 1980, it was not a hyperinflation by any stretch. And I lived through an _actual_ period of hyperinflation after the USSR breakup.

For one, more plants would just spring up. Even if part of the buyout was "you may never go into coal again," someone else may. The economic structure of energy is why coal is still king, and buying out the current players won't change that.

For two, the cost of shutting that industry down does not cover the cost of starting new energy industries to replace it. Or were we just going to go without 37% of our electricity?

For three, coal works efficiently and predictably at far smaller scale than most energy technologies. Many of the locations coal services today cannot be practically services by other generation methods.

It was not a hyperinflation (which was always defined as 20% or more per year). Inflation in the US has never been more than 13% a year (at least, since 1940).

:facepalm: Do you realize that hyperinflation is impossible without actually _inflating_ the money supply? Which is controlled by the central banks.

Here's a list of hyperinflation episodes during the last 100 years: http://www.cato.org/sites/cato...

Do you see there any developed country with a central bank controlled by these devious money-grabbing bankers? Nope. All such countries have generally stable currencies and moderate inflation. There's a simple reason for that - inflation hurts rich people dis-proportionally. While deflation actually benefits them somewhat and hurts poor people.

Nope. The problems with the developed economies are simply caused by idiots like YOU, who can't understand the basic macroeconomy.

Why, it generated so called 'economic growth'. It's clearly a pyramid scheme waiting to collapse, just you wait.

Yeah, and the whole 'technical revolution' pyramid scheme lasted only for 250 years.

Yes, I have. Groceries and fuel have been largely flat over the last years. That old canard: "but REAL inflation is UP! UP! UP!" is simply bonkers. Alternative inflation measures like Billion Prices Project agree with the official inflation numbers.

First, central bankers have shown a remarkable restraint. There haven't been ANY hyperinflation episodes in developed countries for more than 50 years. Even in developing countries or xUSSR countries most hyperinflation episodes are linked with political upheavals.

In fact, right now ECB doesn't print _enough_ money - inflation is way under the targeted level, threatening to go into outright deflation.

Nope. That 'insufficient grazing' theory is bullshit. Animals are known to ruin nascent ecologies. In practice, desertification is caused simply by insufficient water.

Actually, government needs to start spending _more_ and taxing (rich people) even more. That _will_ help the economy right now. As it is, government has been contracting for 6 years now.

You do know that in Modern times the first decriminilazation of homosexual activity was en-acted under Napolean, in 1811?

Why, yes. I even said that, in my comment, though I named the country instead of the leader. Search my comment for France.

You spelled his name wrong, you got the wrong leader, and you got the year wrong. It was during the French Revolution, not under Napoleon; it was in 1791, not 1811; it was the Constituent Assembly, in replacing the penal code, not by a single leader. .

NOTHING with regards to human rights started in the US.

Lol okay :) .

You are so fucking ignorant you make Fox News seem informed.

Says the guy who tried to make a correction to a comment that already contained what he wanted to say, and in a single factual claim made three fundamental errors.

I mean you at least got which country it was right, at least.

This isn't Reddit. Generally slashdotters are expected to hold better behavior than this.

Incorrect. A crooked bank teller would be put into prison and bank would have to compensate you. In the case of a crooked bank president the _government_ (or state-run bank insurance organization like FDIC) would have to compensate you.

The classic banking system evolved for a LONG time to minimize the effects of bank failures and bad bank employees. Besides, it's almost impossible to actually _steal_ money from a bank. Sure, you can rob a bank and maybe get a couple hundred thousands in cash. But stealing any non-trivial sum is impossible, because accounts are not kept in anonymous cash.