![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/db7182d9-181a-45e1-b0aa-6768f144911a.jpeg)
Hey, the Boy Scouts are getting better, no need to kill them!
Hey, the Boy Scouts are getting better, no need to kill them!
I was coming to post the same. Those fucking clickers were so stupid and overpriced, all so my biochem professor could poll the class AND grade everyone on their results. Results to questions about material that was JUST taught in the same lesson. Good thing everyone benefits equally from lecture, right? Fuck that guy.
Because the Overton window in the United States has many people viewing fascists as friends and anyone further left than center right as “extreme left wing socialist communist Nazi terrorists”.
Holy shit. I get it! That’s a great explanation and I really appreciate your taking the time to type it all out. I’m glad we don’t have Lemmy medallions to award but, if we did, I’d give you one. I now see how a 100% reserve requirement, i.e., all deposits completely backed in cash, would entirely change banking.
The only thing that feels weird to me is the virtual money the bank creates doesn’t seem go away once it’s paid back. For example, if a mini bank only had $1000 and lent $900 with a 10% reserve, they’d end up with $1900 once the loan is repaid (ignoring interest). Or does the $900 they lent create a -$900 for the bank that is cancelled through repayment?
I’ve been thinking about it and it still doesn’t make sense. I’m a scientist, not an economist, so it’s wildly out of my wheelhouse. Would you mind pointing me in the right direction?
Here’s where I’m hung up. Let’s assume a 10% fractional reserve and, for the sake of simplicity, just one bank and a dramatically simplified deposit/loan scenario, just to minimize the number of hypothetical people and transactions.
Person A deposits $1000. Bank lends $900 to person A which is sent to Person B.
Person B deposits $900. Bank lends $810 to person B which is sent to Person C.
Person C deposits $810. Bank lends $729 to person C which is sent to Person D.
Person D deposits $729. Bank lends $656 to person D which is sent to Person E.
Let’s stop there. So we have one initial deposit of $1000, which has resulted in an additional $2,493 in deposits ($3,493 in total) and $3,095 in loans. The bank is now receiving payments, plus interest, on over 3x the amount of actual money it was actually given. To me, it seems like the bank is figuratively “printing money” and gaining interest on it. Nothing I’ve read on fractional reserve lending has suggested this is incorrect.
Halp!
I learned to pick locks in my youth. I absolutely have picked my way into places and things to fuck with friends and family, but I always tell them. At some point.
One of my favorites was getting into my friend’s garden shed and turning everything upside down, then a few weeks later rearranging everything so it was a mirror image of how it was previously.
I’m always surprised how few people know about this. The banks are literally gaining interest on money they never had. It should be illegal.
Camp out front with a big signboard laying out their anti-LGBTQ+ donations. If money is an issue, I’ll pay for it.
Sorry, I’m usually a bit more tactful! I’m not trying to criticize, just inform.
Right to work laws have nothing to do with at-will employment, which it what you’re describing. Right to work laws prevent unions from collecting dues from non-union members. That’s all.
Before anyone jumps on and says right to work laws prevent union shops from requiring membership in a union as a condition of employment, that was the Taft-Hartley act of 1947.
We’re getting really 1984 up in here.
I came here to make exactly the same point. Fuck the United States judicial system.
That’s understandable, I agree with your point. We DO get a ton of trolls on new accounts fomenting trouble for kicks, but people ought to hold themselves to a higher standard and at least wait for trolls to prove themselves to be trolls instead of acting on assumptions.
I think the issue here is you didn’t actually voice any of your concerns until much later in the conversation. The equivalent of “Lol Biden bad” isn’t very helpful or bound to be well received unless either the content being commented informs the statement or you care to explain yourself.
I’m growing increasingly tired of “something happened, here is how random people on social media reacted” articles.
I feel like MAGA shit heads would also find a way to berate women for being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
Obvious troll is obvious
I saw your comment and my thought process went: “What?! Good fascist? The only good fascist is…is…oh. Ohhhhhh!”
Leftists.