I now understand his logic, and it makes perfect sense. If you print your own currency to sell, and therefore to drive your currency down, then you are absolutely easing monetary conditions. It is - effectively - quantitive easing, albeit with the specific goal of devaluing the currency to boost exports.
However, I think it misses another point. World trade collapsed in the 1930s, because countries reacted to competitive devaluations by raising tariff barriers.
That's a competely different point. I agree to an extent, but you overstate the effects of the tariffs. (See Krugman on this). World trade was collapsing because the world economy was collapsing - the tariff barriers made a terrible situation completely disastrous.
In any case, the original point stands - competitive devaluations were a necessary consequence of loosening of monetary policy, which caused boom conditions in many countries between 1933 and 1937. And in depriving themselves of two of the three instruments of economic policy, the EU is economically illiterate, and the whole premise of the ERM/euro is disastrously wrong.
There's nothing surprising or controversial about this - it has been mainstream economic theory in the UK and the US for decades. Anybody with a higher degree in international macro is well aware of it. But German macroeconomics simply doesn't understand it. And the EU (and, disastrously, the europhiles in the Conservative Party in the late 1980s) bought into the continental European analysis.
Germany has a pathological hatred of inflation because of hyper inflation and the rise of Nazism that it resulted in.
People often say that, but I'm not convinced. It was the Great Depression, not the 1923 inflation, that resulted in the rise of Nazism. The Nazis actually did really badly in elections in 1924 and 1928. Perhaps it was the post-war hyperinflation that caused the German dread of inflation. But Switzerland did not experience either the 1923 or 1946-7 hyperinflations and is even more anti-inflation than Germany.
I think it might be the influence of Stackelberg. But I'm not sure.
Reparations from WWI played a big part in creating Nazism. They are an incredibly dangerous evil.
I read that a commission has been approved by the US Congress to study the idea of reparations to black people in America. Insane.
I think any former American slave should be paid reparations. As they would be coming up to 160 though, it might be a bit late. I can make a far better case for reparations for Native Americans. Or for Vietnam.
A key tenet of Christian morality is that the sins of the father are not vested on the children ("The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father").
That holds here.
Reparations are just a quick way to civil war, and it staggers me that some people seem so blind to this.
Yes, once again like "defund the police" it is a poor choice of terminology. Reparations doesn't have to mean cash, but rather institutionally organised redistribution of wealth to compensate for decades of ingrained social inequality.
So similar to Johnson's professed policy to level up the North.
I now understand his logic, and it makes perfect sense. If you print your own currency to sell, and therefore to drive your currency down, then you are absolutely easing monetary conditions. It is - effectively - quantitive easing, albeit with the specific goal of devaluing the currency to boost exports.
However, I think it misses another point. World trade collapsed in the 1930s, because countries reacted to competitive devaluations by raising tariff barriers.
That's a competely different point. I agree to an extent, but you overstate the effects of the tariffs. (See Krugman on this). World trade was collapsing because the world economy was collapsing - the tariff barriers made a terrible situation completely disastrous.
In any case, the original point stands - competitive devaluations were a necessary consequence of loosening of monetary policy, which caused boom conditions in many countries between 1933 and 1937. And in depriving themselves of two of the three instruments of economic policy, the EU is economically illiterate, and the whole premise of the ERM/euro is disastrously wrong.
There's nothing surprising or controversial about this - it has been mainstream economic theory in the UK and the US for decades. Anybody with a higher degree in international macro is well aware of it. But German macroeconomics simply doesn't understand it. And the EU (and, disastrously, the europhiles in the Conservative Party in the late 1980s) bought into the continental European analysis.
Germany has a pathological hatred of inflation because of hyper inflation and the rise of Nazism that it resulted in.
People often say that, but I'm not convinced. It was the Great Depression, not the 1923 inflation, that resulted in the rise of Nazism. The Nazis actually did really badly in elections in 1924 and 1928. Perhaps it was the post-war hyperinflation that caused the German dread of inflation. But Switzerland did not experience either the 1923 or 1946-7 hyperinflations and is even more anti-inflation than Germany.
I think it might be the influence of Stackelberg. But I'm not sure.
Reparations from WWI played a big part in creating Nazism. They are an incredibly dangerous evil.
I read that a commission has been approved by the US Congress to study the idea of reparations to black people in America. Insane.
I think any former American slave should be paid reparations. As they would be coming up to 160 though, it might be a bit late. I can make a far better case for reparations for Native Americans. Or for Vietnam.
A key tenet of Christian morality is that the sins of the father are not vested on the children ("The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father").
Aren't we supposed to be simultaneously grateful for the removal of original sin though? Seems contradictory
(half rembered uncertain doctrine on the internet is the best way of settling theological disputes, I find)
You might enjoy Atheist Sunday School on the subject of Original Sin*
I now understand his logic, and it makes perfect sense. If you print your own currency to sell, and therefore to drive your currency down, then you are absolutely easing monetary conditions. It is - effectively - quantitive easing, albeit with the specific goal of devaluing the currency to boost exports.
However, I think it misses another point. World trade collapsed in the 1930s, because countries reacted to competitive devaluations by raising tariff barriers.
That's a competely different point. I agree to an extent, but you overstate the effects of the tariffs. (See Krugman on this). World trade was collapsing because the world economy was collapsing - the tariff barriers made a terrible situation completely disastrous.
In any case, the original point stands - competitive devaluations were a necessary consequence of loosening of monetary policy, which caused boom conditions in many countries between 1933 and 1937. And in depriving themselves of two of the three instruments of economic policy, the EU is economically illiterate, and the whole premise of the ERM/euro is disastrously wrong.
There's nothing surprising or controversial about this - it has been mainstream economic theory in the UK and the US for decades. Anybody with a higher degree in international macro is well aware of it. But German macroeconomics simply doesn't understand it. And the EU (and, disastrously, the europhiles in the Conservative Party in the late 1980s) bought into the continental European analysis.
Germany has a pathological hatred of inflation because of hyper inflation and the rise of Nazism that it resulted in.
People often say that, but I'm not convinced. It was the Great Depression, not the 1923 inflation, that resulted in the rise of Nazism. The Nazis actually did really badly in elections in 1924 and 1928. Perhaps it was the post-war hyperinflation that caused the German dread of inflation. But Switzerland did not experience either the 1923 or 1946-7 hyperinflations and is even more anti-inflation than Germany.
I think it might be the influence of Stackelberg. But I'm not sure.
Reparations from WWI played a big part in creating Nazism. They are an incredibly dangerous evil.
I read that a commission has been approved by the US Congress to study the idea of reparations to black people in America. Insane.
I think any former American slave should be paid reparations. As they would be coming up to 160 though, it might be a bit late. I can make a far better case for reparations for Native Americans. Or for Vietnam.
A key tenet of Christian morality is that the sins of the father are not vested on the children ("The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father").
That holds here.
Reparations are just a quick way to civil war, and it staggers me that some people seem so blind to this.
Yes, once again like "defund the police" it is a poor choice of terminology. Reparations doesn't have to mean cash, but rather institutionally organised redistribution of wealth to compensate for decades of ingrained social inequality.
So similar to Johnson's professed policy to level up the North.
Is he doing that on racial lines?
Do you need to show Danish ancestry to collect the cash ?
Exercising less would help too. Less breathing going on. I suppose painting the Sahara will be OK, but work will be needed on the tundra, the coniferous forests and most of all painting the sea will be a challenge.
The hard copies of The Guardian would be more environmental if they were pure white instead of having the great thoughts of Polly Toynbee and other equally unreadable clickbait printed on them in heat retaining black.
Loving this doctor!
A biostatistician many years ago made a related point in a presentation I attended. Longevity in different species, from mice to elephants, is inversely correlated with the frequency of heartbeats such that on average the total number of heartbeats in a lifetime is approximately constant.
The rest of his advice does dent his credibility somewhat, sadly:
Q: Should I reduce my alcohol intake?
A: No, not at all. Wine made from fruit. Brandy is distilled wine, that mean they take water out of fruity bit so you get even more of goodness that way. Beer also made of grain. Bottom up!
Q: How can I calculate my body/fat ratio?
A: Well, if you have body and you have fat, your ratio one to one. If you have two bodies, your ratio two to one, etc.
Q: What are some of the advantages of participating in a regular exercise program?
A: Can’t think of single one, sorry. My philosophy is: No pain…good!
Q: Aren’t fried foods bad for you?
A: YOU NOT LISTENING! Food are fried these day in vegetable oil. In fact, they permeated by it. How could getting more vegetable be bad for you?!?
Q: Will sit-ups help prevent me from getting a little soft around the middle?
A: Definitely not! When you exercise muscle, it get bigger. You should only be doing sit-up if you want bigger stomach.
Q: Is chocolate bad for me?
A: Are you crazy?!? HEL-LO-O!! Cocoa bean! Another vegetable! It best feel-good food around!
Q: Is swimming good for your figure?
A: If swimming good for your figure, explain whale to me..
Q: Is getting in shape important for my lifestyle?
A: Hey! ’Round’ is shape!
Can't see the problem. It all makes perfect sense to me so far.
I now understand his logic, and it makes perfect sense. If you print your own currency to sell, and therefore to drive your currency down, then you are absolutely easing monetary conditions. It is - effectively - quantitive easing, albeit with the specific goal of devaluing the currency to boost exports.
However, I think it misses another point. World trade collapsed in the 1930s, because countries reacted to competitive devaluations by raising tariff barriers.
That's a competely different point. I agree to an extent, but you overstate the effects of the tariffs. (See Krugman on this). World trade was collapsing because the world economy was collapsing - the tariff barriers made a terrible situation completely disastrous.
In any case, the original point stands - competitive devaluations were a necessary consequence of loosening of monetary policy, which caused boom conditions in many countries between 1933 and 1937. And in depriving themselves of two of the three instruments of economic policy, the EU is economically illiterate, and the whole premise of the ERM/euro is disastrously wrong.
There's nothing surprising or controversial about this - it has been mainstream economic theory in the UK and the US for decades. Anybody with a higher degree in international macro is well aware of it. But German macroeconomics simply doesn't understand it. And the EU (and, disastrously, the europhiles in the Conservative Party in the late 1980s) bought into the continental European analysis.
Germany has a pathological hatred of inflation because of hyper inflation and the rise of Nazism that it resulted in.
People often say that, but I'm not convinced. It was the Great Depression, not the 1923 inflation, that resulted in the rise of Nazism. The Nazis actually did really badly in elections in 1924 and 1928. Perhaps it was the post-war hyperinflation that caused the German dread of inflation. But Switzerland did not experience either the 1923 or 1946-7 hyperinflations and is even more anti-inflation than Germany.
I think it might be the influence of Stackelberg. But I'm not sure.
Reparations from WWI played a big part in creating Nazism. They are an incredibly dangerous evil.
I read that a commission has been approved by the US Congress to study the idea of reparations to black people in America. Insane.
I think any former American slave should be paid reparations. As they would be coming up to 160 though, it might be a bit late. I can make a far better case for reparations for Native Americans. Or for Vietnam.
A key tenet of Christian morality is that the sins of the father are not vested on the children ("The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father").
That holds here.
Reparations are just a quick way to civil war, and it staggers me that some people seem so blind to this.
Yes, once again like "defund the police" it is a poor choice of terminology. Reparations doesn't have to mean cash, but rather institutionally organised redistribution of wealth to compensate for decades of ingrained social inequality.
So similar to Johnson's professed policy to level up the North.
Is he doing that on racial lines?
A similar approach in the USA might be to spend more on schools, health care programmes and other social infrastructure in deprived areas, which in America would mean particularly high spending on inner cities, Native American reservations, the cotton belt of the Deep South etc. I suspect parts of Appalachia would benefit too. Indeed it sounds very much like LBJs Great Society Programme when Biden went into politics.
It just a fancy term that means economic redistribution to deprived communities. Nothing wrong with that.
I now understand his logic, and it makes perfect sense. If you print your own currency to sell, and therefore to drive your currency down, then you are absolutely easing monetary conditions. It is - effectively - quantitive easing, albeit with the specific goal of devaluing the currency to boost exports.
However, I think it misses another point. World trade collapsed in the 1930s, because countries reacted to competitive devaluations by raising tariff barriers.
That's a competely different point. I agree to an extent, but you overstate the effects of the tariffs. (See Krugman on this). World trade was collapsing because the world economy was collapsing - the tariff barriers made a terrible situation completely disastrous.
In any case, the original point stands - competitive devaluations were a necessary consequence of loosening of monetary policy, which caused boom conditions in many countries between 1933 and 1937. And in depriving themselves of two of the three instruments of economic policy, the EU is economically illiterate, and the whole premise of the ERM/euro is disastrously wrong.
There's nothing surprising or controversial about this - it has been mainstream economic theory in the UK and the US for decades. Anybody with a higher degree in international macro is well aware of it. But German macroeconomics simply doesn't understand it. And the EU (and, disastrously, the europhiles in the Conservative Party in the late 1980s) bought into the continental European analysis.
Germany has a pathological hatred of inflation because of hyper inflation and the rise of Nazism that it resulted in.
People often say that, but I'm not convinced. It was the Great Depression, not the 1923 inflation, that resulted in the rise of Nazism. The Nazis actually did really badly in elections in 1924 and 1928. Perhaps it was the post-war hyperinflation that caused the German dread of inflation. But Switzerland did not experience either the 1923 or 1946-7 hyperinflations and is even more anti-inflation than Germany.
I think it might be the influence of Stackelberg. But I'm not sure.
Reparations from WWI played a big part in creating Nazism. They are an incredibly dangerous evil.
I read that a commission has been approved by the US Congress to study the idea of reparations to black people in America. Insane.
I think any former American slave should be paid reparations. As they would be coming up to 160 though, it might be a bit late. I can make a far better case for reparations for Native Americans. Or for Vietnam.
A key tenet of Christian morality is that the sins of the father are not vested on the children ("The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father").
That holds here.
Reparations are just a quick way to civil war, and it staggers me that some people seem so blind to this.
Yes, once again like "defund the police" it is a poor choice of terminology. Reparations doesn't have to mean cash, but rather institutionally organised redistribution of wealth to compensate for decades of ingrained social inequality.
So similar to Johnson's professed policy to level up the North.
Is he doing that on racial lines?
Do you need to show Danish ancestry to collect the cash ?
There are no original ideas in politics, we've just come back around to Danegeld.
I now understand his logic, and it makes perfect sense. If you print your own currency to sell, and therefore to drive your currency down, then you are absolutely easing monetary conditions. It is - effectively - quantitive easing, albeit with the specific goal of devaluing the currency to boost exports.
However, I think it misses another point. World trade collapsed in the 1930s, because countries reacted to competitive devaluations by raising tariff barriers.
That's a competely different point. I agree to an extent, but you overstate the effects of the tariffs. (See Krugman on this). World trade was collapsing because the world economy was collapsing - the tariff barriers made a terrible situation completely disastrous.
In any case, the original point stands - competitive devaluations were a necessary consequence of loosening of monetary policy, which caused boom conditions in many countries between 1933 and 1937. And in depriving themselves of two of the three instruments of economic policy, the EU is economically illiterate, and the whole premise of the ERM/euro is disastrously wrong.
There's nothing surprising or controversial about this - it has been mainstream economic theory in the UK and the US for decades. Anybody with a higher degree in international macro is well aware of it. But German macroeconomics simply doesn't understand it. And the EU (and, disastrously, the europhiles in the Conservative Party in the late 1980s) bought into the continental European analysis.
Germany has a pathological hatred of inflation because of hyper inflation and the rise of Nazism that it resulted in.
People often say that, but I'm not convinced. It was the Great Depression, not the 1923 inflation, that resulted in the rise of Nazism. The Nazis actually did really badly in elections in 1924 and 1928. Perhaps it was the post-war hyperinflation that caused the German dread of inflation. But Switzerland did not experience either the 1923 or 1946-7 hyperinflations and is even more anti-inflation than Germany.
I think it might be the influence of Stackelberg. But I'm not sure.
Reparations from WWI played a big part in creating Nazism. They are an incredibly dangerous evil.
I read that a commission has been approved by the US Congress to study the idea of reparations to black people in America. Insane.
I think any former American slave should be paid reparations. As they would be coming up to 160 though, it might be a bit late. I can make a far better case for reparations for Native Americans. Or for Vietnam.
A key tenet of Christian morality is that the sins of the father are not vested on the children ("The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father").
Aren't we supposed to be simultaneously grateful for the removal of original sin though? Seems contradictory
(half rembered uncertain doctrine on the internet is the best way of settling theological disputes, I find)
You might enjoy Atheist Sunday School on the subject of Original Sin*
It sometimes amazes me how logic gets tendentiously twisted in the cause of inaction. For instance, if by dint of repeated exercise one hour each day over a long period one's average rate drops from 70 beat per minute to, say, 50 bpm then taken over a 24 hour period that's equivalent to an average rate of just over 54 bpm.
That was my case, roughly for decades. Sadly age and lack of proper exercise time has raised the average from 50 to 60.
Of course exercise has other beneficial effects on one's circulation and mental state.
I now understand his logic, and it makes perfect sense. If you print your own currency to sell, and therefore to drive your currency down, then you are absolutely easing monetary conditions. It is - effectively - quantitive easing, albeit with the specific goal of devaluing the currency to boost exports.
However, I think it misses another point. World trade collapsed in the 1930s, because countries reacted to competitive devaluations by raising tariff barriers.
That's a competely different point. I agree to an extent, but you overstate the effects of the tariffs. (See Krugman on this). World trade was collapsing because the world economy was collapsing - the tariff barriers made a terrible situation completely disastrous.
In any case, the original point stands - competitive devaluations were a necessary consequence of loosening of monetary policy, which caused boom conditions in many countries between 1933 and 1937. And in depriving themselves of two of the three instruments of economic policy, the EU is economically illiterate, and the whole premise of the ERM/euro is disastrously wrong.
There's nothing surprising or controversial about this - it has been mainstream economic theory in the UK and the US for decades. Anybody with a higher degree in international macro is well aware of it. But German macroeconomics simply doesn't understand it. And the EU (and, disastrously, the europhiles in the Conservative Party in the late 1980s) bought into the continental European analysis.
Germany has a pathological hatred of inflation because of hyper inflation and the rise of Nazism that it resulted in.
People often say that, but I'm not convinced. It was the Great Depression, not the 1923 inflation, that resulted in the rise of Nazism. The Nazis actually did really badly in elections in 1924 and 1928. Perhaps it was the post-war hyperinflation that caused the German dread of inflation. But Switzerland did not experience either the 1923 or 1946-7 hyperinflations and is even more anti-inflation than Germany.
I think it might be the influence of Stackelberg. But I'm not sure.
Reparations from WWI played a big part in creating Nazism. They are an incredibly dangerous evil.
I read that a commission has been approved by the US Congress to study the idea of reparations to black people in America. Insane.
I think any former American slave should be paid reparations. As they would be coming up to 160 though, it might be a bit late. I can make a far better case for reparations for Native Americans. Or for Vietnam.
A key tenet of Christian morality is that the sins of the father are not vested on the children ("The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father").
That holds here.
Reparations are just a quick way to civil war, and it staggers me that some people seem so blind to this.
Yes, once again like "defund the police" it is a poor choice of terminology. Reparations doesn't have to mean cash, but rather institutionally organised redistribution of wealth to compensate for decades of ingrained social inequality.
So similar to Johnson's professed policy to level up the North.
Is he doing that on racial lines?
A similar approach in the USA might be to spend more on schools, health care programmes and other social infrastructure in deprived areas, which in America would mean particularly high spending on inner cities, Native American reservations, the cotton belt of the Deep South etc. I suspect parts of Appalachia would benefit too. Indeed it sounds very much like LBJs Great Society Programme when Biden went into politics.
It just a fancy term that means economic redistribution to deprived communities. Nothing wrong with that.
So if it's an argument for redistribution to help deprived communities (as measured socioeconomically) then I think most people would agree.
I now understand his logic, and it makes perfect sense. If you print your own currency to sell, and therefore to drive your currency down, then you are absolutely easing monetary conditions. It is - effectively - quantitive easing, albeit with the specific goal of devaluing the currency to boost exports.
However, I think it misses another point. World trade collapsed in the 1930s, because countries reacted to competitive devaluations by raising tariff barriers.
That's a competely different point. I agree to an extent, but you overstate the effects of the tariffs. (See Krugman on this). World trade was collapsing because the world economy was collapsing - the tariff barriers made a terrible situation completely disastrous.
In any case, the original point stands - competitive devaluations were a necessary consequence of loosening of monetary policy, which caused boom conditions in many countries between 1933 and 1937. And in depriving themselves of two of the three instruments of economic policy, the EU is economically illiterate, and the whole premise of the ERM/euro is disastrously wrong.
There's nothing surprising or controversial about this - it has been mainstream economic theory in the UK and the US for decades. Anybody with a higher degree in international macro is well aware of it. But German macroeconomics simply doesn't understand it. And the EU (and, disastrously, the europhiles in the Conservative Party in the late 1980s) bought into the continental European analysis.
Germany has a pathological hatred of inflation because of hyper inflation and the rise of Nazism that it resulted in.
People often say that, but I'm not convinced. It was the Great Depression, not the 1923 inflation, that resulted in the rise of Nazism. The Nazis actually did really badly in elections in 1924 and 1928. Perhaps it was the post-war hyperinflation that caused the German dread of inflation. But Switzerland did not experience either the 1923 or 1946-7 hyperinflations and is even more anti-inflation than Germany.
I think it might be the influence of Stackelberg. But I'm not sure.
Reparations from WWI played a big part in creating Nazism. They are an incredibly dangerous evil.
I read that a commission has been approved by the US Congress to study the idea of reparations to black people in America. Insane.
I think any former American slave should be paid reparations. As they would be coming up to 160 though, it might be a bit late. I can make a far better case for reparations for Native Americans. Or for Vietnam.
A key tenet of Christian morality is that the sins of the father are not vested on the children ("The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father").
That holds here.
Reparations are just a quick way to civil war, and it staggers me that some people seem so blind to this.
Yes, once again like "defund the police" it is a poor choice of terminology. Reparations doesn't have to mean cash, but rather institutionally organised redistribution of wealth to compensate for decades of ingrained social inequality.
So similar to Johnson's professed policy to level up the North.
Is he doing that on racial lines?
A similar approach in the USA might be to spend more on schools, health care programmes and other social infrastructure in deprived areas, which in America would mean particularly high spending on inner cities, Native American reservations, the cotton belt of the Deep South etc. I suspect parts of Appalachia would benefit too. Indeed it sounds very much like LBJs Great Society Programme when Biden went into politics.
It just a fancy term that means economic redistribution to deprived communities. Nothing wrong with that.
But if you were just doing it to spend on the poor you wouldn't be doing it in racial lines, you'd also include the poor white families in inner cities, the people living in trailer parks, the poor blacks and others who migrated after 1864 and so on.
"Reparations" isn't the answer to anything, if you want welfare then say that and make a case for that.
Compared to the risk of a clot after a vaccine, you are six times more likely to be struck by lightning in your lifetime, 11 times more likely to die in a car accident each year ans 100 times more likely to get a blood clot if you use an oral contraceptive. If you are hospitalised with Covid, your risk of a clot is one in four...Some may decide to wait for more safety data to emerge or in the hope herd immunity will protect them without a vaccine. This strategy is much riskier than having the vaccine...Some people get unpleasant temporary side effects from vaccines. But the overall chance of dying, as with just about every modern vaccine, is around one in a million. Paracetamol is much more of a risk.
Huh, I had already done the lightning stat on here.
I now understand his logic, and it makes perfect sense. If you print your own currency to sell, and therefore to drive your currency down, then you are absolutely easing monetary conditions. It is - effectively - quantitive easing, albeit with the specific goal of devaluing the currency to boost exports.
However, I think it misses another point. World trade collapsed in the 1930s, because countries reacted to competitive devaluations by raising tariff barriers.
That's a competely different point. I agree to an extent, but you overstate the effects of the tariffs. (See Krugman on this). World trade was collapsing because the world economy was collapsing - the tariff barriers made a terrible situation completely disastrous.
In any case, the original point stands - competitive devaluations were a necessary consequence of loosening of monetary policy, which caused boom conditions in many countries between 1933 and 1937. And in depriving themselves of two of the three instruments of economic policy, the EU is economically illiterate, and the whole premise of the ERM/euro is disastrously wrong.
There's nothing surprising or controversial about this - it has been mainstream economic theory in the UK and the US for decades. Anybody with a higher degree in international macro is well aware of it. But German macroeconomics simply doesn't understand it. And the EU (and, disastrously, the europhiles in the Conservative Party in the late 1980s) bought into the continental European analysis.
Germany has a pathological hatred of inflation because of hyper inflation and the rise of Nazism that it resulted in.
People often say that, but I'm not convinced. It was the Great Depression, not the 1923 inflation, that resulted in the rise of Nazism. The Nazis actually did really badly in elections in 1924 and 1928. Perhaps it was the post-war hyperinflation that caused the German dread of inflation. But Switzerland did not experience either the 1923 or 1946-7 hyperinflations and is even more anti-inflation than Germany.
I think it might be the influence of Stackelberg. But I'm not sure.
Reparations from WWI played a big part in creating Nazism. They are an incredibly dangerous evil.
I read that a commission has been approved by the US Congress to study the idea of reparations to black people in America. Insane.
I think any former American slave should be paid reparations. As they would be coming up to 160 though, it might be a bit late. I can make a far better case for reparations for Native Americans. Or for Vietnam.
A key tenet of Christian morality is that the sins of the father are not vested on the children ("The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father").
That holds here.
Reparations are just a quick way to civil war, and it staggers me that some people seem so blind to this.
Yes, once again like "defund the police" it is a poor choice of terminology. Reparations doesn't have to mean cash, but rather institutionally organised redistribution of wealth to compensate for decades of ingrained social inequality.
So similar to Johnson's professed policy to level up the North.
Is he doing that on racial lines?
Do you need to show Danish ancestry to collect the cash ?
There are no original ideas in politics, we've just come back around to Danegeld.
I now understand his logic, and it makes perfect sense. If you print your own currency to sell, and therefore to drive your currency down, then you are absolutely easing monetary conditions. It is - effectively - quantitive easing, albeit with the specific goal of devaluing the currency to boost exports.
However, I think it misses another point. World trade collapsed in the 1930s, because countries reacted to competitive devaluations by raising tariff barriers.
That's a competely different point. I agree to an extent, but you overstate the effects of the tariffs. (See Krugman on this). World trade was collapsing because the world economy was collapsing - the tariff barriers made a terrible situation completely disastrous.
In any case, the original point stands - competitive devaluations were a necessary consequence of loosening of monetary policy, which caused boom conditions in many countries between 1933 and 1937. And in depriving themselves of two of the three instruments of economic policy, the EU is economically illiterate, and the whole premise of the ERM/euro is disastrously wrong.
There's nothing surprising or controversial about this - it has been mainstream economic theory in the UK and the US for decades. Anybody with a higher degree in international macro is well aware of it. But German macroeconomics simply doesn't understand it. And the EU (and, disastrously, the europhiles in the Conservative Party in the late 1980s) bought into the continental European analysis.
Germany has a pathological hatred of inflation because of hyper inflation and the rise of Nazism that it resulted in.
People often say that, but I'm not convinced. It was the Great Depression, not the 1923 inflation, that resulted in the rise of Nazism. The Nazis actually did really badly in elections in 1924 and 1928. Perhaps it was the post-war hyperinflation that caused the German dread of inflation. But Switzerland did not experience either the 1923 or 1946-7 hyperinflations and is even more anti-inflation than Germany.
I think it might be the influence of Stackelberg. But I'm not sure.
Reparations from WWI played a big part in creating Nazism. They are an incredibly dangerous evil.
I read that a commission has been approved by the US Congress to study the idea of reparations to black people in America. Insane.
I think any former American slave should be paid reparations. As they would be coming up to 160 though, it might be a bit late. I can make a far better case for reparations for Native Americans. Or for Vietnam.
A key tenet of Christian morality is that the sins of the father are not vested on the children ("The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father").
That holds here.
Reparations are just a quick way to civil war, and it staggers me that some people seem so blind to this.
Yes, once again like "defund the police" it is a poor choice of terminology. Reparations doesn't have to mean cash, but rather institutionally organised redistribution of wealth to compensate for decades of ingrained social inequality.
So similar to Johnson's professed policy to level up the North.
Is he doing that on racial lines?
A similar approach in the USA might be to spend more on schools, health care programmes and other social infrastructure in deprived areas, which in America would mean particularly high spending on inner cities, Native American reservations, the cotton belt of the Deep South etc. I suspect parts of Appalachia would benefit too. Indeed it sounds very much like LBJs Great Society Programme when Biden went into politics.
It just a fancy term that means economic redistribution to deprived communities. Nothing wrong with that.
So if it's an argument for redistribution to help deprived communities (as measured socioeconomically) then I think most people would agree.
They would not on racial lines, and rightly so.
In America racial lines and economic lines are very highly correlated. The two become much the same, particularly if you look at social inequalities like health, crime, education etc.
Economist: In Britain and Europe we look at how the bonds that hold the United Kingdom together are fraying.
The union is now weaker than at any point in living memory. The causes are many, but Brexit is the most important. Political leaders in London, Edinburgh and Belfast have put their country at risk by the way they have managed Britain’s departure from the European Union.
Boris Johnson, the prime minister, has done it carelessly, by putting party above country and espousing a hard Brexit. Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister and leader of the Scottish National Party, has done it determinedly, by exploiting Scots’ dislike of the Brexit settlement. Arlene Foster, first minister of Northern Ireland and head of the Democratic Unionist Party has done it stupidly, by rejecting the softer Brexit proposed by Theresa May, Mr Johnson's predecessor.
If the Scots, Northern Irish or even the Welsh choose to go their own way, they should be allowed to do so—but only once it is clearly their settled will. That is by no means the case yet, and this newspaper hopes it never will be.
An interesting take, as always, by the Economist. But if this influential weekly had understood the dynamics of ordinary people 20 or 30 years before it did it might have done a lot of good. Its intellectual disdain for popular politics is a problem not a solution. It (almost) never got to grips with the democratic deficit or the meaning of ever closer union.
They fail to answer a key question: What is this other sort of Brexit (the unhard one) that would have actually got through the commons? Mrs May would like to know too; she tried. SFAICS Boris got through the nearest thing to the only runner. What should he have done?
And Brexit is not the main driver of disunion either for NI or Scotland. The NI problems go back not to 2016 but more like 1171 and thereafter; and the Scotland issue goes back to the devolution debacle where we end up with Scotland having an alternative government while, say, Yorkshire, with the same population as Scotland looks after local issues. It was a pure danegeld offer, accepted with both hands.
The divisive referendum was pre Brexit. Brexit is not the real issue.
Weird then that Better Together went so strong on preserving EU membership as a key reason for voting No in 2014. Luckily subsequent events will prevent them from repeating that error next time round.
In France the electoral gradient tends to be the opposite of ours, with the youngsters being the Right Wing Populists.
No, as I pointed out earlier 18 to 24s are 30% Macron, 25% Le Pen and over 65s 33% Macron, 28% for the centre right Bertrand and just 14% Le Pen.
So it would be more accurate to say middle aged voters are currently right wing populists in France, the youngest voters are still liberal left and the conservative centre right still does best with pensioners
Well I survived an evening in the pub beer garden. Nice before the sun went down but Brrrr! after that. A dozen tables taken, with 2-4 per table. I suspect that is more than the pub generally does on a Wednesday. Food a bit pricy but better than it used to be.
I had my 2nd Pfizer two weeks ago. The 1st one gave a minimal reaction of a little soreness in the arm for a couple of days, but the 2nd one hardly even that. Does that mean I'm immune(ish), or notably susceptible, or that I'm a zombie, or heaven forfend, normal??
I had my 2nd Pfizer two weeks ago. The 1st one gave a minimal reaction of a little soreness in the arm for a couple of days, but the 2nd one hardly even that. Does that mean I'm immune(ish), or notably susceptible, or that I'm a zombie, or heaven forfend, normal??
My wife had no reaction to the second shot, although I believe with Pfizer people tend to have a stronger reaction to the second if they are going to have a reaction.
I had my 2nd Pfizer two weeks ago. The 1st one gave a minimal reaction of a little soreness in the arm for a couple of days, but the 2nd one hardly even that. Does that mean I'm immune(ish), or notably susceptible, or that I'm a zombie, or heaven forfend, normal??
The really good news from you, based on the US data issued today, is that you now have a freakishly small chance of dying of COVID.
Well I survived an evening in the pub beer garden. Nice before the sun went down but Brrrr! after that. A dozen tables taken, with 2-4 per table. I suspect that is more than the pub generally does on a Wednesday. Food a bit pricy but better than it used to be.
Were there any heaters present? I was in a pub garden yesterday - we weren't near any heaters and it was cold!
Well I survived an evening in the pub beer garden. Nice before the sun went down but Brrrr! after that. A dozen tables taken, with 2-4 per table. I suspect that is more than the pub generally does on a Wednesday. Food a bit pricy but better than it used to be.
Were there any heaters present? I was in a pub garden yesterday - we weren't near any heaters and it was cold!
I had my 2nd Pfizer two weeks ago. The 1st one gave a minimal reaction of a little soreness in the arm for a couple of days, but the 2nd one hardly even that. Does that mean I'm immune(ish), or notably susceptible, or that I'm a zombie, or heaven forfend, normal??
Well I survived an evening in the pub beer garden. Nice before the sun went down but Brrrr! after that. A dozen tables taken, with 2-4 per table. I suspect that is more than the pub generally does on a Wednesday. Food a bit pricy but better than it used to be.
Were there any heaters present? I was in a pub garden yesterday - we weren't near any heaters and it was cold!
"Here's the menu for the @DavidGHFrost@MarosSefcovic dinner in Brussels: - Asparagus velouté with scallops - Filet of sea bass with a barigoule of vegetables - Marscapone, eau de fraise, meringue + vanilla ice cream - Mocha +petit fours"
Well I survived an evening in the pub beer garden. Nice before the sun went down but Brrrr! after that. A dozen tables taken, with 2-4 per table. I suspect that is more than the pub generally does on a Wednesday. Food a bit pricy but better than it used to be.
Were there any heaters present? I was in a pub garden yesterday - we weren't near any heaters and it was cold!
No, a country pub with several metres between tables, so no real possibility to heat, not that I approve of patio heaters anyway.
Pick a table, scan the QR code to order and pay by card. I had to tick a box to say we would follow covid rules. Couple of pints of Golden Hop, and a lamb and feta burger and chips. If that sounds too metropolitan for a country pub, then bear in mind the lamb is from the field next door!
I had my 2nd Pfizer two weeks ago. The 1st one gave a minimal reaction of a little soreness in the arm for a couple of days, but the 2nd one hardly even that. Does that mean I'm immune(ish), or notably susceptible, or that I'm a zombie, or heaven forfend, normal??
I had my 2nd Pfizer two weeks ago. The 1st one gave a minimal reaction of a little soreness in the arm for a couple of days, but the 2nd one hardly even that. Does that mean I'm immune(ish), or notably susceptible, or that I'm a zombie, or heaven forfend, normal??
The really good news from you, based on the US data issued today, is that you now have a freakishly small chance of dying of COVID.
Or as the 24 hr news media might report it, the bad news is your chance of dying from non covid related causes has gone up.....
Comments
I like Part 2 too.
https://www.tiktok.com/@iblamebill/video/6947338143574101254
It just a fancy term that means economic redistribution to deprived communities. Nothing wrong with that.
https://twitter.com/ElectsWorld/status/1382617400772804608?s=20
France, presidential election poll (1st round) :
Among 25-34 years old :
#LePen (RN) : 37 %
#Macron (LREM) : 18 %
#Mélenchon (FI) : 14 %
#Bertrand (LR) : 7 %
#Jadot (EELV) : 7 %
#Hidalgo (PS) : 6 %
#DupontAignan (DLF) : 3 %
if by dint of repeated exercise one hour each day over a long period one's average rate drops from 70 beat per minute to, say, 50 bpm then taken over a 24 hour period that's equivalent to an average rate of just over 54 bpm.
That was my case, roughly for decades. Sadly age and lack of proper exercise time has raised the average from 50 to 60.
Of course exercise has other beneficial effects on one's circulation and mental state.
They would not on racial lines, and rightly so.
"Reparations" isn't the answer to anything, if you want welfare then say that and make a case for that.
And visiting North Yorkshire!
For several months, such a trip was illegal.
So it would be more accurate to say middle aged voters are currently right wing populists in France, the youngest voters are still liberal left and the conservative centre right still does best with pensioners
Not to forget they were against Blair (at his peak still for Hague) not Corbyn.
Plus she chose the date of the election.
The LDs got 23% in 2010, just 7% in 2017 too
- Asparagus velouté with scallops
- Filet of sea bass with a barigoule of vegetables
- Marscapone, eau de fraise, meringue + vanilla ice cream
- Mocha +petit fours"
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1382776895452942338
NEW THREAD
Pick a table, scan the QR code to order and pay by card. I had to tick a box to say we would follow covid rules. Couple of pints of Golden Hop, and a lamb and feta burger and chips. If that sounds too metropolitan for a country pub, then bear in mind the lamb is from the field next door!