Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Jimmy Dore Show"
channel.
-
2
-
Immunity imparted by a vaccination is at a more consistent level. Infections before Delta gave adults a weak or good antibody count depending on whether they had a very mild case or if they had it at least like a bad cold (some discomfort, fever, …). Children reacted much better even with very mild infections, but for adults it was all over the place. Study in the U.S., not sure if Delta has changed that.
In Isreael (who were the first to vaccinate the population) it was initially unclear if the antibodies waned more than expected (and the performance of the vaccine were on the weaker end of the range when it comes to LONGER protection against getting no infection at all, not even a harmless case).
OR if the virus (Delta) is now better in evading immunity. Which would be the much worse news.
The new antibodies prompted by a third shot DO help (see the numbers that drop quickly) and the immune systems did not even have weeks of time to process the last trigger - so luckily it is not evasion (or not much to that effect).
It is waning antibody count. Especially among the first, most vulnerable group that goog the shots in eary 2021. They land in the ICU, or even die.
Overall many harmless infections although on recored level numbers (tested positive per million).
The good news is these people have NOW a boosted immunity (they immune system got a reminder) - which is now also taillored to Delta. And they did not get that immunity at a high cost for society and high(er) risks for them.
The negatives:
Of course we still have the case numbers, there will be vulnerable persons that cannot be protected and the damn' thing can continue to mutate.
but - if everybody that is eligible is vaccinated - it is harmless cases, even IF a surge happens - that is still good news. And it confirms the value of vaccines.
Despite the high vaccination rate, the have their anti vaxxers (orthotox Jews among them). At least one dose: 67 % of the population, and both doses 62 % (as per end of September) The share of vaccinated eligble adults is higher (or adults and teenagers over 12), but the children bring down the average.
That is not enough for herd immunity considering the virus has mutated to spread more easily. And it improved a LOT on that front.
The only safe, fast and effective way to boost the antibodies again for vulnerable people w/o exposing them to mortal risks, is the third shot. As long as vaccines are scarce I would rather have them for the developing countries, and no mass rollout of booster shots (third shot) for people with no special risks.
So IF a nation has a surge it makes sense to at least vaccinate the most vunerable for the third time. The breakthrough infections of the others are harmless, they had the shots later, so that also means better antibody count. Of course this is valid for people who are fully vaccinated. One shot should (in general) ward off the worst effects, but there is a reason they give the second booster shot with most vaccines. There are people that have no or hardly any reaction to the first shot, they need the reminder.
_Admissions to hospitals are slowly going down - the number of critical care patients has gone up - it is now a larger share. That is normal, people are transfered from normal beds to the ICU - they become worse after 1 week or 2, and intense care can last 2 - 4 weeks. So the deaths and intensive care numbers have a lag of typically 3 weeks.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The BBC is funded by U.K. CITIZENS. They have a houshold tax. In theory the government or special interests should not be able to meddle with them. In practice they can meddle with their funding by passing laws to reduce the tax, or to make it very easy to opt out. And these TV stations have become havens with excellent salaries, and a lot of money is spent. (For instance many local news stations, that costs money. One could say if they get public funding that is legit, ....).
And the Tories do not like the BBC (they used to have a center left, pro working class bias, but Thatcher scared them into submission).
they have a rabid rightwing media scene (Murdoch TV and their tabloid press is notorious), so many citizens like the red meat they are getting there and the BBC that shifted to the right is still too "left" for them. They find all they want in media owned by billionaires (which they get for free), and many are for defunding the BBC, which aligns nicely with the goals of the Tories. The neoliberals find the BBC useful, because of its excellent reputation (like PBS used to be good). Now they are a shell of their former self.
And NO public major outlet dared to be anti NATO. That was one of the reasons to give Europe the Marshall plan after WW2. To have a lot of goodwill and to have obedient vasall states. Since these were democracies the publicly funded TV stations were ideal to manufacture consent. People had not way of knowing, how much they were lied to, even in the past.
The right and far right often claims to be treated unfairly so if the right gets into power they try to undermine them. Often they appease them then - you can see that also with PBS that gets a lot of money from big donors and also the oil industry (Koch Brothers).
In case you have wondered about the hostile tone towards Sanders when they interviewed them.
The journalists that have a CONTRACT or are employed make good money, while their less fortunate collegues lose their jobs and have insecure gigs, you bet they all play nice with the powerful.
(other countries) and in the U.K. the government could even lean on them to fire people at the top or even directors (Thatcher AND Blair). Which is completly unacceptable as this is the people's TV.
But of course they were founded when TV was the. most. important. media and there was only THAT channel (for a long time in many European countries there was no private TV). For instance Germany, Austria.
They have less advertisements and none DURING a segment or movie. They have certain standards (so no trashy shows).
But of course the CIA and the governments hijacked them and used their image of respectablity and fake neutrality.
It is better in many ways because the will go after industries, and polluters. But you did not hear a lot of criticism of banksters (apart from standup comedy). One format in Germany is called The Asylum (translated). In the news (highly respected by the unsuspecting citizens) they give you the NATO talking points, also about Libya and Ukraine and regime change wars - and between 9 and 10 pm the comediens rip that apart.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+ voltarine Capitalism DOES not require the Petrodollar (USD as world reserve currency), actually we had a long time of capitalism w/o that.
(And a gold backed currency is no requirement either).
Capitalism IS a problem. - And the U.S. was on the forefront of war, military spending and neoliberalism (deepening the problems with capitalism). All of that would never have been posssible w/o the free ride the U.S. gets because of the Petrodollar.
They could never uphold the insane military spending. And of course they defend the Petrodollar with their bloated military - Iraq, Libya had at least threatened to go w/o. Not sure if they meant it or if it was just chest thumping (it did not end well).
The U.S. cannot afford to have its currency drop like a stone (as would be justified regarding the output of goods and services and the completely skewed export / import balance - much, much more imports than exports.
It is always funny to hear the snarky remarks about Venezuela (thier currency has completely devalued, very high inflation, they intend to use the USD they get for their oil exports to import necessary goods. However, the USD allocation is completely corrupted and fuels the black market - currency and goods). so the situation is dire. - The U.S. would not look good either with a realistically valued currency. So the U.S. is throwing stones sitting in the glasshouse. Of course Venezuela never let the world pay for an insanely bloated military with which it could protect a special status.
All the export industries (China, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, other European countries) cannot afford an USD dropping to its real value either.
It is like an unhealthy co-dependent relationship.
Think in terms of a loan, the borrower when he is behind with the payments is in trouble (that would be Venezuela in that analogy). But if the loan is HUGE the question arises: Who is more in trouble: the borrower - or the lender ? (That would be the US vs. the countries that send a lot of their products to the US and have grown used to the U.S. being a market).
They have propped up their export industries supplying to the U.S. on the back of their other industries (who serve the domestic market, or who sell to other countries). So the Germans get relatively worthless Dollars for good products. Of course the exporting companies can exchange the Dollars they get paid immediately into other currencies or goods (at too high rate).
Who pays for that: the German workers with stagnant wages, the corporations producing for the domestic market, the German consumers in general because their currency should have a higher value, meaning more purchasing power for imported goods.
Jobs in the export industry that sells a lot to the U.S. would be lost.
On the other hand - when you throw good products at the U.S. in return for a cheap currency - you could as well help the developing countries.
The situation is good for the owners of the export industry. On one hand the U.S. proft when they get good products for less than should be paid because of the overvalued USD. Trade with Europe, Japan it is mostly B2B, the Chinese dominate the consumer products market.
On the other hand a depreciating Dollar would have stopped outsourcing and deindustrialization in the U.S. long ago.
Domestic production becomes more attractive with a dropping currency. Imports become more expensive, so more inflation, the citizens could afford less - unless domestic production kicks in (think jobs). At some point the oligarchs would need to produce more IN the U.S. again (more manufacturing jobs which are better paid). Than means less unemployment, that means better wages overall.
Less imports, maybe more exports would eventually strenghten the weak currency.
A currency should be backed up by the amount of goods and services an economy produces. (With the Petrodollar the Australian mining products or the Saudi oil count as if the U.S. had produced them).
Another aspect is that the developing countries trade their crops, mining products, cotton in USD as well. Trading in their own currency would strenghten that currency. Imports (of technical goods) would become cheaper for them. Especially when coming from the U.S.
When a country buys goods from other countries they should export something of equal value. If that balance is skewed over longer time the currency will react - that is the safety valve.
A country exports a lot, the currency will become stronger = appreciate.
Then exporting becomes harder because the goods become more expensive for other countries - imports become cheaper, so more will be imported which will weaken the currency again, so exporting becomes easier ....
It is like a safety valve.
The U.S. undermines that mechanism with the petrodollar. The EU undermines that with the common currency the EU since 1999.
A currency should fit the economy of a country like a taillored suit - the EURO is "one size fits nobody".
Too weak for Germany (and a few other country who had traditionally a strong national currency and they are all strong export nations).
The Euro is too hard for many EURO member states.
2
-
@carlsjr7975 Oh, the 3 houses narrative. It is getting old ! One nice family home in Burlington (middle class standard !), a row house in D.C. and since 2016 a vacation home in VT. After close to 40 years of (paid) public service - and the additional income of his spouse.
Lets dissect this:
Vermont main residency in Burlington. As elected representative he must have residency in his state. Yahoo did a sort of house tour in 2016, the video is online, it is not a mansion. Solid middle class standard.
Then a row house in Washington D.C. - he needs a place to stay.
Plus the luxury - a 595,000 lake front property at Lake Champlain in convenient distance to the main VT residency. They bought it after it was clear he would not be the nominee of the Democratic party. They use it as summer house.
I've seen photos of that house as well. Log cabin style, it is fine and has heating and all of that (so it could be used as full time resicidency) - but it is not fancy. The location explains the price and it is large enough to house guests.
Since Sanders is not into wife, wine and song (or luxury cars, or expensive travel or yachts) nor does he spend a lot on dress and hairstyle - that is the only luxury he splurges on. (and no legal costs or paying hush money to mistresses or flings).
I assume, that now the extended family puts the vacation home to good use, he never stopped touring the country since the election 2016.
That house has been partially paid for by the inheritence of Jane Sanders. She sold an old holiday house in Maine. It was too far away to be of use to them.
Members of Senate currently earn 172,000 before taxes. Plus GOOD healthcare, so no financial drain in that respect. He was mayor for 8 or 9 years in the 1980s and has been in D.C. since 1991.
That's decent to well paying jobs for almost 40 years. That should get a person a solid to upper middle class life style, don't you think ? (You can add the income of Jane Sanders as well).
The constituents of Sanders think he earns his keep - they have been voting for him in ever increasing numbers for EVERY office: mayor, member of Congress and then Senate (let's hope that trend also shows - for the whole counttry - when it comes to running for president).
Unlike almost all other politicians rich donors do not buy him name recognition. It is all earned by grassroots work and a record.
True, elected representatives get a good salary and benefits. That is O.K. - when they are CONTENT with THAT and work for The People (and only for them) in exchange.
Sanders is one of the "poorest" members of Congress or Senate. Most of them either come from wealth or they find ways to turn their networks, information advantage (and doing favors to the special interests) into additional financial gain.
Knowing where to invest in real estate, cushy jobs for family members, etc. etc. - also book sales. The Super Pacs can buy the books up by the truck loads, so that is one way they can directly bribe politicians even when they still hold office.
Because of the surprising success of the 2015 / 2016 campaign Sanders sold a lot of books (he already had 2 older ones and wrote another one after the campaign, but I do not think the old ones were hits until he ran for president) - you bet the special interests did not boost sales !
BTW: Sanders and Jeff Weaver planned the 2015 campaign (grassroots / small donations only) with a budget of only 30 million USD. Sanders wanted to use the platform to raise some issues (healthcare, financial regulation, ....) - they had no idea that it would be that successful - or that it would lead to better book sales for Sanders.
The book sales alone pay for the vacation home, they would not even have needed the inheritance of Jane Sanders for that.
2
-
Political correctness is the LOW-COST LOW-EFFORT substitute for really serving The People. Both parties have the same donors from the same industries (even corporations / persons). Both use issues that do not cost the donors anything when they try to get the base to the ballot box - while giving them NOTHING of substance.
Democrats and Republicans use guns, abortion, LGBT rights to rile up the base w/o offending the Big Donors.
Examples:
Gay marriage does not cost the donors a penny.
Legalizing marijuana - THAT's another story, special interests (many of them donors) are against it. The "police" and justice system (police unions !!). Big tobacco (in the past), alcohol and last but not least the pharmaceutical industry.
Additionally the Republicans have been specializing in racism since the 1970s * and white dominance (which is a form of identity politics).
* before the Civil Rights Movement and legislation racism was equally represented in both parties).
The Democrats are supposed to be the party that stands up for the interests of the little people.
Well, that would hurt the interests of the big donors so now virtue signalling instead of virtuous action will have to suffice for the base.
Getting "offended" on behalf of minority groups about (allegedly) offensive behavior does not cost them any effort, and it is a ego-stroking exercise as well ("See how good I am, I have high ethical standards").
Especially the Democrats invoke how they are for regular people. Even with good skills in double think and psychological suppression - deep down the Corporate Democrats know they are sell outs. That applies to "liberal" media persons (to avoid the word journalists) and to most politicians.
So they DO have an urge to at least virtue signal.
The Republicans villify and "other", that is THEIR mechanism to maintain double think and to gloss over the contradictions between messaging and action. They get all enraged about welfare queens - if they are minorities. Not white people (their base) and definitely not corporate welfare.
Republicans always go on about the virtues of the job creators and they openly serve the affluent (or people that think they are only embarrassed millionaires), so they have less conflict of conscience when they work for the interest of the rich and businesses (= LARGE businesses). There is less contradiction between the messaging and the real action.
Now Democrats could also fight like hell for things like good and cost-efficient healthcare for everyone. But that would be DIFFICULT, a hassle and a lot of work. And they would need to educate themselves (more work) instead of parroting the talking points and thought stopping clichés of the lobbyists.
Most important: Serving The People (and only them) would alienate the big donors and the party leadership. Forget about cushy posts for ex-politicians. And it would require some courage, because they would need to win their elections in a different manner.
Amazon spent 1,45 million USD in the local elections in Seattle, and even though they may not succeed in unseating 4 or so progressive council members, they might get the prize, the most progressive one is Kshama Sawant. i
t is still unclear and Sawant might pull it off.
So if you step on the toes of the powerful and do not hold back there is chance to lose the seat (which means having to build a new career. Which is going to be hard if you stepped on many toes of rich and powerful people, and that is inevitable if you look out for the little guy. Good luck with getting a decent job).
2
-
2
-
2
-
Kasparov snapped, Halversson-Mendoza whitewashed - and the guy from Amnesty International Norway responded reasonably. - WHY ? Humans - as highly social beings - like to have the moral highground ("I am fighting for democracy, freedom ...") while ALSO being selfish.
Halversson-Mendoza was eagerly spouting a lot of buzzwordsy talking points - indeed - "Methinks thou protesteth too much !"
("I am for regime change in Venezuela because those damned Chavistas infringed on the privileges of my class, the white upper class. So my relatives engaged in a coup, which failed, my family has connections to the CIA . I hide that family connection by not giving my full name.
Now the U.S. neocons or the Deep state finances my cushy job which gives me prestige and a good income - and some "moral highground" on top of it").
Most people do not have the intellectual and psychological fortitude (cynicism) to be brutally honest about such conflicts to themselves.
Their willingness to be bribed or their cowardice.
Sometimes people compromise not because they are not greedy but they fear disadvantages, are people pleaser,s fear for family and livelyhood, or at least inconveniences. Their motives can be very understandable.
But they prefer to keep an impression of themselves of being much more courageous and noble and independent than they are.
The cure for such conflict of thought and self-image ? They need to use some major double think.
If Kasparov would cynically play the game he would of course take the money and never admitpublicly admit the agenda.
BUT: then there would be no need to get "emotionial". On the contrary they would all give a sleek answer - and then somehow the issue of U.S. human rights violations would never resurface, they would not find the time, other issues are more pressing, ....
There a SMART and COVERT ways to manipulate. For effective manipulation it is essential that YOU KNOW what you are doing. And that requires to be honest to yourself. Brutally honest.
The Norwegian guy was reasonable - and most likely HONEST. Even if he gets a salary from Amnesty Interantional - he is in a rich and safe country where he can get an equally well paid job (if not better paid). Norway is a small country so the CIA likely did not bother to undermine that regional org.
In short he was not (very) hypocritical, did not have to defend his self-interests, had no reason to defend the U.S. empire.
(That incident might have opened his eyes however to the Oslo Freedom Forum).
Jimmy touches the whole complex of hypocrisy and double think.
It sounds counterintuitive - but intelligence can help to maintain that. Hypocritical selfishness and being ideologically driven are IMMUNE to intelligence, knowledge, facts or education - they stem from a deeper and older level of the human brain.
Intelligence, and consiousness is a new and vulnverable evolutionary invention. It is easily overcome by the older functions of the human brain and psyche. On the contrary: intelligence and education can be helpful to "find" the "arguments", to know of which facts to stay clear, to "win" discussions, to find the spin o facts.
Double think does cost some energy, it is much more effortless to avoid any "conflicts of thought", stay in the bubble and do not expose yourself to contradictory facts.
Which is btw one of the reasons why the Clinton campaign was so clueless: Selfish interests, the desire to have the moral highground (to please their vanity) and lying to themselves about how they make money while betraying the voters.
I was done by all of them: the party establishment, the careerists/staffers hoping for their chance to climb the ladder, the consultants - often obedient ex-politicians, the sell-outs of mainstream media.
The hopeful careerists do not even dream of questioning the status quo and "common wisdom" of how to do political campaigns. And dissenters would have been immediately kicked out.
Usually one has strong group think in such environments.
They all had to suppress a part of reality, which made them incapable to make a realistic assessment of the altered political situation.
Their double think and being overly invested in their gains made them literally unable to assess the mood in the country - to read the signs on the wall.
The human brain also likes black and white scenarios. When it comes to fight/flight/freeze considering a multitude of nuanced opinions does not cut it - while you try to weigh objectively all scenarios the sabber toothed cat has already killed you - or the prey has vanished. That crowd did not make it into the gene pool. The people who made simplistic and swift judgments (jumping to conclusions) and who erred of the side of caution and who were TRIBAL surivived.
Within small groups of hunterer and gatherers group cohesions (same cultural norms and opinions) was crucial for survival. you could not just move away from your tribe 100,000 years ago if you did not fit in well with the folks of your clan.
Humans are weak and vulnerable animals - they have their brain, language and COOPERATION going for them.
So we are not wired for "freedom of speech" and tolerance for dissent. Only the safety and high survival rates granted by technology allowed us recently to indulge in such luxuries. Groupthink was not a bad thing in the old days (that does not mean people felt oppressed, they were raised a certain way, and completely adopted those mindset. They HAD to make compromises to get along with each other, and they were subject to strong group pressure which ensured good, social, responsible behavior).
Kasparow is an ideologue on top of getting paid
He likely had some experiences of political suppression in Russia (more institutional I guess). And he was a nut job even when he was a chess player.
Like running away when he made a grave mistake and defeat was inevitable. Later he tried to reinvent history during TV interviews (which is kind of hard with chess !!! - it is so predictable)
"He did not lose that badly, could have achieved an impasse if the had bothered" whatever ...... Made him look very immature, like a sore loser. Unworthy of a world class player - who can have a bad day.
Or the episode many years later when he wanted to buy the votes to become president of the chess federation (which got him banned for some time). I read reference to that - did not check it out, but it got him banned for some time, so likely he did it.
Nothing screams commitment to democracy like that.
Even if it is NOT a political organization ...... if he wanted to BUY THAT, he either wanted to make money of that presidency or he is so vain that he is willing to buy prestige. - Not a person to be trusted.
2
-
Chomsky also has the opinion that the media - the legacy newspapers (TV always has been infotainment not news or "journalism") might sometimes disagree on domestic policy with the sitting government - but they always ! support the government when it comes to war mongering.
Starting and expanding wars and of course military spending.
Ending wars ? Not so much.
No one questioned the odd timing of the Syrian government allegedly starting poison gas attacks in spring 2017 and 2018 always when peace talks were around the corner and the Syrian government had a strong position (read not many concessions to the jihadi "rebels", because the rebels were losing).
Boom - poison gas attack. (and the second time chlorine was used. I noticed that they used the word chlorine, but then the messaging changed to "poison gas")
Or NOW the claim that the Russians paid bounties - just there was the danger of peace in Afghanistan. No one showed some (justified) scepticism about that wild story. So the intel agencies had brought that up summer 2019 already. They would not put the breadcrumbs in place, would they ? After all there was some talk about peace and getting the troops out of Afghanistan in 2019 already. They may have learned from Syria (have your narrative in place, be prepared, build on that base whenever you want to derail peace talks or want to let weapons and nuclear weapons treaties expire from the
Around 1900 there was a lively debate if the U.S. should stop acting as imperialistic power and mind its own business (Mark Twain was a strong supporter of that movement). Never mind the banksters and other oligarchs who like to exploit other nations - there was one newspaper, the son had taken over from the father. And he found out that war (on a lower level, never too many losses in life or the voters get tired of it) is good for sales.
he vastly expanded sales within a few years only and became very rich - War related headlines sold. Then only wealthy people had subscriptions, they sold the copies per piece with the help of shops and newspaper boys - and of course it mattered what these boys shouted.
Business and imperialism go hand in hand beautfully (also see "I was a gangster for capitalism" quote by Smedley Butler. He has the list of all the nations that the U.S. military attacked or kept subdued for U.S. business interests.
Only when Vietnam had become untenable, the leaders of big biz (after a major setback for U.S. troops) signalled to the Nixon admin that they were not interested anymore in that war. AND the population organized against that war in an unprecedented manner (and then - unlike now - the protesters WERE ORGANIZED on a national level).
Only then the war that was started on a lie against a nation that could not have been a threat to the U.S. if they wanted to be one, was ended. Only then the legacy media found out that they were against the war continuing - it was a well intentioned effort but it had not worked out.
Also Chomsky: the public saw Vietnam as morally wrong (after the fact, the voters were not that wise right away) while journalists and politicians continued to describe it as well intentioned blunder.
There are studies on that.
Makes sense: the citizens have not direct influence on whethere there will be war. But the top income people, big biz, the ruling class, politicians, top media - those who have the power to shape public opinion - still had to defend the war and THEIR role in cheering for it. They could not defend the American ! sacrifices (no one really cared about the much higher Vietnamese toll), and they did not even get a victory to show off, to justify the loss of American lives.
So it had to be defenided as a well meaning project - that sadly did not work out.
The U.S. did not "win" but the goal to destroy Vietnam and to keep them from having their own independent government and maybe having some mild positive development (with a center left or center right populist government) was achieved.
The U.S. tried to force a right wing dictator on them that was of course corrupt and friendly to Western business interests - that heavy handed meddling - started the far left resistance.
Those poor peasants did not want an extreme government, any centrist with a populist message could have taken the reigns, and some economic aide would have done the trick - would have made them devoted allies to the U.S. - but I read that then synthetic rubber had not yet been invented and they had rubber plantations in Indochine.I guess there would have been some kind of land reform - the former French colony first shaking off the French rule and then having land reform etc. would set a very bad example. Like in Latin America the U.S. oligarchs were not having it.
France tried to keep them as colony with force and the U.S. helped them in the war against Indochine. France gave up on that, but the U.S. continued to fight for colonial power. for many many years, that started right after WW2.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@GregoryWonderwheel FIAT money. Most of the money we use, is created whenever banks give out a loan. (gov. creates cash but that is a tiny portion of the money we use, and there was direct money creation in the form of Quantitative Easing, but that is for "special occasions"). Banks only need to "have" approx. 10 % of the loan volumes.
They need to have either the money of large investors / shareholders and / or if a person deposit money at a bank it is legally now part of their "capital" which is problematic when they go under. If a bank stores valuables for a person or manages an account with bonds or shares for a client - THAT remains the property of the customer. But you pay rent for the vault or a fee for handling the bonds / stock account.
Loans are the most lucrative for a bank, but that 10 % rule forced them to also take care of little savings accounts. Which was much more of a hassle back in the day and cost the banks much more. Regular people got paid in cash and shopped with cash.
The problem where to keep the savings did not exist for many families in the 1920s and 1930s.
For a modern economy it is better to use less cash, but if the service of having a bank account would have been too expensive, citizens would not have used it.
Attracting small savings and managing checking accounts a low costs (compared to what it cost them before modern computers) made sense for the banks because that was the base for how many loans they were legally permitted to give out. (I guess they look at that ratio over longer periods of time, a few months or a year).
The concept is called FIAT money. Latin: So be it ! (when the money is "created out of thin air")
It is not only theory, it is well established in academia and reflected in the law and accounting rules, although the regular citizens are not bothered with that insight. Weirdly enough even a lot of bank employees (even if they work with loans) do not know that.
There is the fiction that we "need" the persons with huge fortunes to deposit their money with banks (and in the country - not taking it to another country pretty please). Else the banks would not be able to give out loans to productive companies and home owners. That myth is perpetuated - it serves the interests of big finance and rich persons alike. - see below
Example how FIAT money works:
Person signs loan contract, the bank is legally permitted to book that promise (to pay and with interest) as "asset" = claim (the bank may or may not have a collateral). The claim is the original amount of the loan, I think they add the interest and fees as they become due.
On the other side of the balance sheet they will open an account for you, enter the loan amount - and from then on you can use it like a savings account.
Meaning that entry gives you purchasing power and you can either withdraw cash based on that entry (that "filled" your account) or use it for transfers.
As IF you had saved it up. In many ways it is like a savings account in reverse.
The common misunderstanding is that banks collect savings, and they use that to give out loans.
Nope !
a) that would be SOMEHOW reflected in accounting.
b) this is not about "money" and the need to "have" money: If I want to lend someone money I must first "have" it. That is not how it works for banks.
They have the legal privilege to give access to the (untapped) resources of the economy. They allocate purchasing power - with an accounting exercise.
You want to open a reastaurant, but have no money. You get a loan (money that the bank created).
You spend the loan amount on equipment, rent, wages .... (accessing the resources of the economy). The recipients of the money you pay with help of the loan will (sooner or later) get other things from the economy. Like paying their rent, buying groceries, cars, ....
Even though he bank creates the money with only a few key strokes - as the gatekeepers for borrowed purchasing power it is important that they make sure that the borrower is likely to pay back
They are legally obliged to check that, although they criminally abstained from that during the buildup to the Great Fiancial Crisis in order to give out as many loans as they possibly could.
Other participants of the economy spent resources, time to provide the goods and services - that the loan money pays for.
Then you "pay back"
If we assume that the money for that comes from work (not inheritance or the lottery) ....could be revenue from the restaurant, or that does not work out and you return to a job - then it means that the borrower helps to create goods and services that other participants of the economy want to have.
So the borrower got access to goods and services (usually that is one larger chunk, loans tend to be larger amounts) - and then the borrower provides goods and services and the income makes it possible to pay back (that is typically in smaller installments over time).
The balance of taking and giving is kept.
As for the accounting side of "paying back" - when all is paid down the loan account is net zero.
The claim (asset) account too, I think they add the interest and fees to that on an ongoing base. But that evens out too as you pay principal & interest and fees.
They bank can create money (but not for themselves) and they do not get to "keep" it when the borrower pays back . At the end it vanishes out of their balance sheet, except the surplus that they have from interest, fees.
"Capital" is a shy deer that is easily spooked. It is risk averse and needs to be attracted with high(er) interest rates (or ROI). If huge fortunes are leaving the U.S. it also influences the value of the USD (making imports more costly). (That is made worse because the currency speculators now see a trend they can bet on and reinforce. The speculators need 0 - 10 % deposit (large established actors zero) so that explains how they can speculate against currencies.
The countries that receive the fortunes are not happy either, it drives up the value of their currency (plus the speculation drives it up) thus making it harder for them to export and it becomes a more expensive destintion for tourists. Was a problem for Switzerland. Or Germany (their exporters) when the USD dropped in value compared to the German Mark (in the early 1990s).
(A way to solve that would be negative interest rates on large fortunes).
So finance and "capital" has to be coddled and accomodated - even if that is bad for the economy in general or the citizens. Another version of a myth that serves big money interests is "too big to fail" banks.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
in the 1930s the U.S. had just shy of 90 million people. NOW 325 million. a lot of immigration happened until the 1980s. The country COULD absorb it - but then wages incl. minimum wages were good and the rich and profitable companies did pay taxes. Big Finance was strictly regulated. And politicians had not yet made it possible, safe, and lucrative to outsource jobs - to undermine the domestic workforce.
The U.S. ramped up their game if you will. even the undocumented people earned enough so they could spend, buy homes ... which kept the economy going.
I do not thing that immigration can continue at that rate. The solution would be a Marshall plan for Latin America, stop the regime changing efforts (for over 100 years - no wonder they never become prosperous), stop the War on Drugs, reign in the multinationals that want to exploit the workforce there. And go after the international WESTERN banks that help the cartels launder money.
People with legal residency AND others. There were always people coming from Mexico - they also could return until harsher legislation forced them to stay permanently in the U.S. (if they returned to Mexico this times they might not have a chance to make it back).
That alone did not bring the wages down. - I am sure the wage reducing effect is there in THIS economic and political environment - especially in construction.
In other areas it helps - crime decreased in low income areas - the new renters are Latinos. Catholic, family values, they can only afford the bad neighbourhood - and raise standards there. That also means income for the landlords.
They contribute to CHEAPER food. although arguably a lot is for the middle man. If Walmart etc. would demand 50 cents more for a pound of tomatoes the farm workers could get better pay. (some retailers joined such an initiative, Walmart didn't) Meaning they could contribute to the local economy.
w/o the nannies and maids (people working in landscaping and as gardeners) - what would the affluent white working women do ? The U.S. unlike other wealthy nations (Germany, France, Austria, Netherlands, Denmark Japan ....) does not offer Public Non-profit Quality Locally-run Subsidized Affordable childcare that supports working parents.
If all the 11 million undocumented would vanish - the U.S. would quickly get such childcare. True - the bargaining position of the low-income workers would go up.
it would be disruptive, though.
2
-
2
-
@PlateletRichGel The U.S. had a war by proxy against Iran you glossed over that (and the 1953 coup against the democratically elected leader) - in 1980 Saddam Hussein was still the darling of the West and foolish enough to start a war against Iran in 1980. (Revolution was in 1979), The war lasted 8 years, cost the lifes of 1 million people (never mind those who were injured, lost limbs, also civilians harmed by landmines). Then they finally gave up and neither side had won anything.
The Iranians could have ended it earlier - on the other hand I get why they did not stop when they thought they could get out with an advantage - if your neighbour country ATTACKS you on behest of another power the logic is that is should cost them dearly so that they (the population not the dictatror) hesistate the next time when they are tempted.
Well that did not work out - both countries ended up where they started - only with tragedies and the massive economic damage on top of it.
The war had cost Iraq a lot, it was supposed to be over quickly and seizing some Iranian territory near the border with oil fields would pay for the financial costs. All of that would have been graciously tolerated by the West. Plus the extremist gulf theocracies (Saudia Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, ...) were supposed to help out Iraq financially - they hated the Shia's with a passion (KSA certainly does).
Under the regime of the Shah - which was a "good" dictator = U.S. approved - KSA and the other oil rich SUNNI dictaroships could not move against the natural hegemon in the region (natural hegemon according to Larry Wilkerson - "...our decades of support of the Shah was testimony to that role of Iran in the region). And unlike KSA Iran did and does have a capable army and the economy never has been not completely dependent on a foreign skilled workforce and on serfs from other countries for the unskilled tasks.
Iran is a very old culture. KSA etc. are the noveaux riches. The over abundant natural resources in those countries would be a constant incentive to trigger coups - so military leadership and the medium ranks are occupied with a system of nepotism. Not dedication, committment, or capability.
So that neither family can seize power with help of the military without the other power brokers in the country knowing it. That has maintained the delicate pwer balance, and the West always helped them to suppress their own population, while the Western media graciously fails to mention the brutal crackdowns (Bahrain only one example, the constant prosecution in KSA. Same is true for the war against Yemen which MbS started. They are doing an awful job there - not even Western support and all the fancy military equipment lets them win the war against that poor country. (again assessment of Larry Wilkerson).
The elites of Saudia Arabia are not able to integrate the weapons they buy from the U.S. and all other important Western manufacturers (U.K. France and Germany). They are not needed for defense nor are they useful for attack (see Yemen): KSA spends more on the military than Russia. Russia however is very well to build weapons (and sophisticatd ones !) so for them it brings at least employment and they export those weapons. And they have an army that is dedicated as well.
When KSA spends fortunes on buying Western weapons - the expenditures are not necessary for the good of the COUNTRY: they are bribes of the ruling class of KSA for for the Western politicians to help them stay in power. The first target of these bribes is of course the U.S. government, bought and paid for Congress, and the U.S. M.I.C. - helping the Saudi theocrats to remain in power and rule in a totally undemocratic manner, the authoritarian secular regimes in Syria and Libya were/are benign by comparsion.
And those weapons purchases (and oil investments, or investments in social media or banks) are also the bribes for the Western mainstream media wich indirectly profits from the M.I.C. and the constant wars.
Never mind that the CIA has been infiltrating and bribing the important media in the "allied" "democratic" nations for decades. The CIA (or neoliberal or neocon think tanks) only need to find an agreement with the rich owners and they need to influence only top management. They even succeeded - to a wide extent - with publicly funded TV and radio which in theory has to serve neutrally the citizens that finance it with mandatory fees.
If not the CIA - then it will be neoliberal/neo conservative think tanks and the U.S. = NATO friendly Atlantic Bridge.
I know that that applies to the German and U.K. publicly funded TV (I heard the same about Switzerland, and would be very surpised if it would be different in France. Of course it is even easier to bribe the for-profit networks that have rich owners - lots of common interests).
In the U.K the government has undue influence (I think even by law) considering the the BBC should be a neutral player - which would of course mean that they especially hold the current government to account. In Germany the system of nepotism, cushy positions for ex-politicians, ... is undermining the elected boards that are supposed to hold the network in line with their legal obligation to provide neutral information.
When public TV was installed in the U.K. and Germany they were an incredibly powerful information tool, and had massive impact on public opinion - so OF COURSE they were hijacked by the national and international powers that be. The people passing the laws to keep them neutral were the same people that had an interest to corrupt the integrity of objective and critical TV and radio reporting.
Back to the delicate balance among the powerful families in Saudia Arabia:
Mohammad bin Salman was quite busy sucessfully upsetting that balance and was nontheless celebrated by the media as reformer. While dishing out the death penalty against peaceful acvivists, and holding the "fellow" Saudi ruling class (in KSA that means extended family !) hostage in a luxury hotel.
MbS was extorting (allegedly with torture if necessary) money from them. Before MbS all the influental families had a say in what happened, the king or crown prince accepted them as advisors. They were still a backwards and extreme theocracy suppressing their own people - but that system of nepotism added some pragmatism and caution to the foreign policy decisions.
Well, MbS sidelined all the other members of the "extended" family, or shut them up (by any means necessary, there were weird "accidents") - and followed his own reckless inclinations. See the Khashoggi killing.
Only then - when it hit one of their approved fellow collegues * - the Western media could be bothered to have a realistic look at MbS and even KSA. MbS must have severely annoyed some very powerful peopel in the U.S. by his erratic style of ruling, so that the U.S. mainstream media was all of a sudden got the green light to be so critical).
Khashoggi was no dissident, he was very well aware what would fly in the WaPo and what not. So he had one opinion in English for the U.S. outlet and one in Arabic for other audiences.The U.S. audiences (or management) cannot read Arabic so his "unbecoming" support of the Palestinans went unnoticed. Since Khashoggi had done well in the system of Saudi Arabia he knew of course how to navigate such a landscape and how to be polite to special interests.
He knew the Washington Post would have kicked him out immediately had he drawn attention on the fate of the Palestnians (who knows what he really thought about the situation, his Arabic messages may have been equally calculated and self-serving). He had always been loyal to whoever had power in KSA - but MbS did not trust him because of his Muslim Brotherhood connections - and there was the connection to Osama Bin Laden, too - so Khashoggi offering his services as advisor to MbS found himself rejected (like almost all such offers).
Khashoggi that had so skillfully navigated the scene for decades found himself allied with Saudi influencers/mentors that lost their influence (or got onto an "enemy list") during the silent coup of MbS. That is why he fled the country - he knew the system well enough, he was right to flee. Does not mean he deserved to be killed in the embassy in Turkey - although it is well possible that he actively supported that happening to other people (only done in a less cavalier and obvious manner by more savvy rulers before MbS). At the minimum Khashoggi certainly did not object to it happening to other people in a more discreet manner as long as he was in the good graces of one or the other then influental Saudis.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Gabbard was a small fish, she had no chance to become the nominee, but Sanders could have turned this around by going rogue on them for the pandemic stimulus bills. (on the leadership of both parties not only the Repubs). - Sanders was called to BE the Organizer in chief - and he dropped the ball. Returned to the safe well-known corner of being the eternal underdog, that is right (but does not have and does not WANT power).
My theory: afraid of success, has subconscious scruples to fight for, to get and to user power.
He wants to belong to The Club (not even for financial gains) being accepted not being shunned and villified.
After the strategy to turn out the young vote did not work so well - maybe he had second thoughts about winning against Trump. And he does not dare to risk it - Biden in cognitive decline WANTS the presidency more, he lies for it, and gladly risks to lose against Trump.
Or his handlers and his wife risk it.
In hindsight gives you appreciating for the backstabbing of Warren: At least she REALLY wanted the success, and she was willing to fight dirty.
Maybe Sanders could not live with himself when losing to Trump (more because he could not deal with the vicious attacks and the guilt he may feel). So Biden who is much weaker, is the gamble against Trump.
Sanders also carefully avoids that they have ANY pretext to blame him for "harming" Biden by not dropping out, endorsing Biden etc. - the smear campaign of the Hillary camp seems to have gotten to him.
2
-
2
-
I know the single payer systems of Germany and Austria very well, participation is mandatory (if your monthly salary is over approx. 500 USD). Not only is it mandatory - it also gives you the RIGHT to have FULL COVERAGE (and the same treatment like the CEO of the company that has the same % of wage deductions and will show up in the same hospitals). Coverage also includes dependent family members (till age 26 if they have a professional training).
ALL companies must match the affordable wage deduction (it is a percentage of wage with a cap). That is ALL the insured have to pay - treatment is "free at the point of delivery".
There are no healthcare questions (of course not, the risks are irrelevant, only the income determines the contributions). Signing up takes 5 minutes when you are new at a job. (Of course there are provisions for single stay at home parents, retired persons, jobless, still at college while older than 26, ....)
The public non-profit insurance agency is mandated to make cost-efficient healthcare happen and to serve the public good. "Government-run" does not really apply. The wage deductions go directly to the agency. Governments are voted in and out, the agency stays the same.
The well negotiated contracts mandate the doctors and hospitals (also non-profits usually run by cities, some larger by states) that they must treat all patients with the same care. And they get the same money for the treatment - so why wouldn't they ?
The ONLY large and powerful for-profit player in the system is Big Pharma, they have very standardized and internationally comparable substances, which makes it easy for the public non-profit agency to negotiate. You bet tiny Iceland with 300,000 people also gets good prices (much better than the U.S. consumers - 325 million people).
In the U.S. the industry had their politicans pass a law that the public agencies (Medicare) cannot negotiate drug prices (only the VA is allowed to negotiate).
The large for-profit insurers in the U.S. do not start a Battle Of The Giants with Big Pharma or the for-profit hospital chains. If only a few huge companies dominate the scene, they usually do not hurt each other. They agree to peacefully co-exist - and take it out on the consumers instead. Plus they had Obama and the Dems pass ACA - which makes sure they can extract a lot of government funding into the dysfunctional system.
Nations with single payer ALSO need to subsidize the system (of course, the very affordable mandatory contributions would not be enough) - but that funding goes into a streamlined, cost-efficient system. Meaning wealthy nations usually operate with 50 to 65 % of the PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES of the U.S.
The government funding also does not finance a lot of profits. Some of big pharma. Overhead is modest - in the range of 2 - 5 % for the public insurance agencies. The profits for pharmacies and doctor practices finance a "wage" that is appropriate for the specialists - but not beyond that. some more for dentists or specialists - but it is not extravagant.
The agency of Iceland could buy with other nations, they can have a pretty good idea what nations with 3, 30, 85 million people are paying. No doubt there is some behind the scenes cooperation of the non-profit agencies of several countries. (Why wouldn't they help out each other, they do not compete, nor do they need to make a profit or please shareholder). No chance to rip off the Vikings.
Using the meds is complicated and intransparent for the patients and the agency cannot micromanage that - but the doctors are free to use them as they see fit - and they have NO profit motive.
Healthcare is a terrible fit for the free market. The free market and the for-profit motive only work if the actors have about the same power. That is not the case with healthcare (no delaying of the purchase, an extremely complex service.
Even doctors consult specialists if they get sick - and that is only about optimal treatment not even about the cost side. No "we do not buy at all" like you can do with consumer goods. And the service can be very costly.
Government regulation - even IF well intentioned - cannot compensate for the inherent massive advantage of the big for-profit players - they will always be ahead 2 steps of the regulators or 3 steps ahead of the patients.
Countries with single payer have for the most part eliminated the profit motive from the systems. Small !! private doctor practices and pharmacies (they are not allowed to organize in chains to not even start troubles). They have a contract with the non-profit agency. So while they are independent - it is not very entrepreneurial.
The profits pay for the wage/income of the doctor. They are doing well, but they are not making money hand over fist. And they cannot strongarm the agency or the patients.
They can of course be "private" w/o a contract and bill the patients directly. Maybe 15 - 20 % of small practices do that. Either because they do not get a contract, or they have a speciality that is not covered by the public agency but attrative enough to get patients - like accupuncture. Some dentists are private too - or if the doctor is a capacity.
Per region only a certain number of doctors and pharmacies get a contract. Enough for some choice for the patients and the doctors / pharmacies all have a chance to have enough business.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Try EFT (meridian tapping) for pain and anxiety - Seriously ! - See eftuniverse(dot) com - run by Dawson Church * Meridian tapping calms down the Amygdala.
Since it works on a central part of the human brain (or the processing of information) - it has a lot of uses for medical AND psychological afflictions. So don't be astonished at the wide range of areas where people use it.
Pain is something the brain "provides" as a means to secure safety and survivial. ** Pain comes from processing information. That is why people can have pain from amputated limbs. The physical base isn't there - the patient is having pain in a non-existent bodypart.
But the brain is still running a routine of the usually physically damaged limb that used to be there.
Ongoing pain can get a life of it's own beyond the usefulness for survival. It can become a self-fuelling routine. That is why it is worth to give EFT a try with pain - it does not change any physical condition in your system of course BUT it might alter the response of the brain to the signals or sideline a pain routine.
And EFT has a good track record with anxiety (because it calms the amygdala)
** There is a very, very rare genetic condition where people are unable to feel pain and it is really dangerous for them, the parents of such kids have to guard them constantly and bad things happen to them because they are not protected by the ability to feel pain).
The motto regarding EFT / Meridian Tapping is "Try it on everything" - and as it is easy and does not cost much time and no money - so why not. (Provided that you will not neglect to seek professional medical help if a condition does not get better - using common sense and discretion)
* Dawson Church might be a good start (introduction video - for free), you can browse the archive for pain. - just stay clear of of the all too commercial sites and videos on youtube heralding EFT (and courses to pay for and what not).
I also like the crowd of the U.K., empathic and not salesy, good down to earth content: Gwyneth Moss, she is one of the organizers behind EFT Gathering U.K. (and a very experienced practicioner herself).
There are plenty of good and free resources on the web of responsible EFT practicioners. (Not to say you could not engage the paid help of a professional. Online or in person - some doctors, psychotherapists also have adopted EFT or Meridian Tapping into their toolbox. And an experienced practicioner might be of help too - even if they are legally not allowed to work directly at health issues).
But there is definitely value in having tested the method as a lay person, it is ALSO an easy to learn and easy to use self help tool (so fumbling rookies can have success right away, while not even getting it all right - while an experienced practicioner can be helpful to increase your success rate or help with those issues where the self-help approach does not work for you.)
So whatever you might do with the help of a professional - being able to do homework can boost your success.
Dawson Church has a large archive of stories of use of EFT (you can search for pain, anxiety etc. Browse the stories to get a feel how others - users or practicioners - used the methode in a specific case).
Good luck to you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Easier to order a shutdown and mandate mask wearing if it does not harm your economy that much. In Europe Iceland reacted very reasonable. Well it for sure did help, that major industries in Iceland were not hit. Tourism in February and early March in Iceland is slow. Fishing is big (no problem), and they do not have many international business travellers either. As opposed to France, Germany, Italy, U.K., Netherlands, ....
In Austria, Switzerland, Italy, France, Germany, Spain ... they had the end of winter tourism. In the Southern European counties where you have a lot of destinations for sightseeing (think Italy, but also the old cities of Spain), it was the start of spring tourism, there it can nice but not too warm in Feb, and they have the blossom of almond, orange trees, etc. Ideal for sightseeing tourists.
The winter skiing season was excellent till end of February - record numbers if this had been a regular year, and they could have gone on till March or even April depending on the altitude (good snow fall, good consumer mood, economy doing O.K. or better, so the well established middle class and above spends money on vacations).
Carnival and other folclore "let's chase out winter" mass events exist in most of these countries. They are a widespread European tradition. (in some cases they are an international touristic attraction even, like in Venice, or attracting droves of locals and some travelling within the country).
Finally the start of outdoor warm season sports in the lower altitudes, escpecially soccer (mass events that were also allowed in late February).
U.S. expats caught in the lockdown in the most hit zone in Italy (they are pastors). "When they closed down church and cancelled soccer events in Italy we knew it was serious".
Not much of that applies to Iceland (or let's say South Dakota), they were not hit early and their industries do not depend on travellers, they do not host large events like that.
Likewise some U.S. states that did not rely that much on tourism could easier justify a lockdown to their hospitality industry. Or people live rural, so they were not the first were it spread.
the situation in states and nations in March, April, May are TOO RANDOM to just throw the numbers together and say: those who mandated masks had 2 % less growth of cases (that is an average).
For ethical reasons you cannot do real live tests. Not letting people wear masks when you are convinced they give some protection and then let's see how many more (on average) are infected.
2
-
2