There are amateurs successfully manufacturing ancient Kodak photographic processes; given that, "insert apples into bag" sounds pretty easy in comparison. The problem is my real juicer juices better than I can likely make this machine juice with homemade bags, and to keep my carb load low, I generally eat pieces of fruit not juices so I'd not use it personally, although its an interesting challenge.
I guess the components. I think the sold the machine at a loss and maybe you could make some profit reselling some components, yet I am not quite sure.
Why would this guy should go to prison when no one(except one guy in us) went to prison after the massive financial crisis in 2008?I know its naive/rhetorical question but thinking about it, its crazy to me.He did no financial harm too.
> I don't understand the connection between the two. Do you mean the financial considerations?
Yep.They try to save money on the most crucial part of every country and yet they spent vast amounts on so called refugees.It does not make any sense to me..
The UN convention on refugees is that a person MUST seek refugee status in the first non-war location they set foot on.
Whether or not this convention/policy makes sense is a different matter (it was not conceived of for the mass migrations we are seeing now), but technically speaking, these people stop being refugees when they leave the first peaceful state they are in. And practically, they are shopping for benefits -- why settle for Denmark which forces you to integrate, when you can get to Sweden and only integrate if you want to? Why settle for Greece or Turkey, where you get safety in a refugee camp, when you can go to Germany and get safety and help among the local's preferred residence?
I do not fault these people for trying to get the best for themselves - I'm not sure I'd have acted differently in their place - but the word "refugees" has very specific legal meaning, both locally and internationally, and therefore "so called refugees" is technically correct, because these people are not refugees by international conventions and definitions.
That just moves the goalpost though. Denmark could say the same to Germany, and they to southern countries. Should the beach-cities of Italy carry all the responsibility? Should we in Norway not help humanity, because there are some other borders between us and the problems?
No, it doesn't just move the goal posts - international law does make the first peaceful ground different by being the place a refugee needs to settle their status first.
The refugee infrastructure in Italy (and Turkey, and Greece, and Jordan) is stretched thin and breaking, as this law was not written for the current situation. And as a result, Italy asked for help, did not receive it, and is now threatening to use a loophole to grant every refugee seeker some EU status that would make them effectively pan-european refugees -- but that has not happened yet.
Assuming you are norweigan -- didn't Norway recently threaten closing the Swedish border if Sweden doesn't reign on their refugee situation and stop them from crossing to norway?[0] Not sure if this speisa is reliable, remember reading it in a reputible source but can't find one right now on Google.
> Assuming you are norweigan -- didn't Norway recently threaten closing the Swedish border if Sweden doesn't reign on their refugee situation and stop them from crossing to norway?
Yes, as has happened elsewhere in the world, we have elected a government based on fear, FUD, protectionism and anti-immigration.
I don't support us sitting on a throne of riches, leaving the rest of the world to deal with the problems, though. This is of course my personal belief, but I also think not doing it this way is shortsighted and will leave everyone, including us, worse of in the long run.
Overstretching infrastructure won't make it any better for anyone. Imagine the lifeboat which accepts everyone and sinks because it cannot support the weight.
I think we should help, but compared to capita Sweden has been carrying most of the burden for a war we have no stake in and for us it is a huge economical loss to host all these people here. Many will probably never have a job in Sweden.
Then it's the security issue, there is no background checks in Sweden. They could be literally mass murderers and IS-fighters and we would have no idea. Then there is this age issue. In Sweden they throw away their papers and say that they are underage when they are clearly sometimes around 30. Then they go to school with real boys and girls and shit like this happens:
http://www5.idrottonline.se/globalassets/gefle-if-fif---frii...
It is time for Sweden to stop accepting refugees. I think very few people in Sweden are against immigration, just irresposible immigration.
Huh? You stop fleeing from war when you get to a nation that is in peace. Then, you head for Sweden to get free money from the government for the rest of your life.
Coins only have value if people accept them as valuable. The userbase ultimately decides whether or not they would accept payment via a certain coin.
If the userbase is not interested in a coin, it will not matter how much hashrate is behind the coin, or how many figureheads try to prop it up. That coin will not have value.
Well apple also hoard tons of cash somewhere.Is that any more beneficial for society?Value is imo to big degree subjective and always will be.But your comment was insightful.
What Apple and other companies have been doing is also harmful and caused by poor monetary policy of western world central banks. Interest rates have been stuck to the floor because central banks prefer to strangulate their own countries than to let wages and prices catch up a bit.
Bitcoin monetary policy is orders of magnitudes worst than that however.
Interest rates have been stuck to the floor because fiscal authorities are afraid of deficits. Permanent structural deficit spending would allow central banks to raise interest rates.
Central banks have a mandate to keep prices stable. Interest rates are low because central banks don't have a choice.
The fiscal side can help but IMO you have to get the monetary policy right first because if fiscal stimulation is attempted and it causes inflation to go up towards target and bad central bankers tighten in response like they have been doing in the eurozone and to a lesser extent in the US, this will counter and undo the benefits of the fiscal efforts and leave countries in debt without much to show for it. If you repeat that a lot you may get
sordidasset's 'collapse of rome type situation'.
Once you get the monetary side right, you may not even need government fiscal help at all (though you might still need some of it).
I don't understand. What do you mean by "get the monetary side right"? What does that look like to you?
What's wrong with central bankers tightening in response to fiscal expansion? From where I'm sitting, central bank tightening seems like exactly what we need. And we can't have it without the fiscal expansion coming first. What do you mean when you say that monetary tightening will "counter and undo" the benefits of fiscal expansion?
The problem with monetary policy that's too expansionary is that it leads to the creation of lots and lots of debt in the private financial sector. And the thing about private debt is that it's WAY less stable than public government debt. As private debt builds up in the economy, the web of interconnected private debt obligations becomes ever-more brittle and susceptible to a chain reaction of defaults bringing down the whole system. See 1929 and 2008.
Fiscal expansion, on the other hand, increases the amount of public debt. This expansion induces a monetary policy tightening response that raises interest rates and reduces the amount of lending in the private economy. You're basically swapping in a more stable form of debt for a less stable form of debt. I'd rather have the stable form of debt.
To put it succinctly, fiscal expansion coupled with monetary tightening helps crowd out what Austrian economists call malinvestment in the private economy.
The "collapse of Rome" outcome is what we get when the federal deficit is too small for too long. It's not the other way around.
> Wouldn't that eventually lead to a 'collapse of rome' type situation?
No.
Intuitively, it seems like piling up mountains of debt would lead to a default (or default equivalent) some day in the future. But if you're a government and your debt is denominated in a currency that you control, you'll always be able to meet your debt obligations by creating new currency.
Now you might think that this kind of "money printing" action would lead to inflation, which is the equivalent of a default that's distributed across the entire economy. This isn't true either.
This is where monetary policy comes into play. Any inflationary pressure caused by fiscal policy has to be compensated for through monetary tightening. Poof goes the distributed default.
The deficit can be way higher than it is now. And it can be permanent. We can cut taxes AND increase spending no problem.
There is, in fact, a limit to how much of this we can do. That is to say, there's no limit to how big the debt can grow, but there is an optimal size of the deficit, above which (and below which) we start to see some problems. But that optimal size has nothing to do with balancing the budget in the traditional sense.
If we don't kick the can down the road sufficiently, we're dropping the ball.
Okay, good faith response here, just trying to wrap my head around it;
>This is where monetary policy comes into play. Any inflationary pressure caused by fiscal policy has to be compensated for through monetary tightening.
So you're saying we print money to meet the demands of bondholders, but stop printing and raise the federal funds rate to combat inflation if it starts to grow past target?
