No, it is really "competition" (banks compete for my money) vs "monopoly" (no other option than the government).
The assumption that CBDC is a good idea because the government is always benevolent and does what's best for the people is incorrect, as demonstrated by the horrible financial mismanagement in the recent 20 years.
I actually did, a few months ago. In my state, out of the 10 non gun-carrying people killed by the cops in the past 10 years, 2-3 were Black, 5 were White, the rest Hispanic and 1 Asian (matching the racial makeup of US).
So the statement by the poster above holds - if you don't point a gun at a cop (figuratively), your chance of surviving contact with police if you are Black are no lower than other races.
Because you're fourteen, those randos are your peer group, and you're stuck with them all day. Also, you're fourteen so you haven't quite figured out whose opinions should be important to you, and also you're wildly insecure about your position in your world.
I'm frankly not a fan of hyperstitious social pessimism. Everyone needs to understand that this isn't knowledge, it's justification.
It's justification for being an asshole to people under the guise of 'helping' them. The people who end up believing it are rubes who do the same to others. Making someone tougher is survivorship bias by another name. It fails to account for the people who don't have supportive family members and friends. It's solution to this is saying, "it sucks, but they just couldn't take it," which does nothing to make things even slightly better for the next person. We're left with those who survived.
Abuse doesn't actually make people stronger. What helps people become stronger is overcoming adversity. You want people to challenge you and to run into obstacles to overcome, but people who are routinely abused just end up far more likely to have mental disorders later. Nobody is better off or "stronger" for having PTSD.
Toxic bosses, colleagues, brutal job interviewers are no where near as violent or persistent or inescapable as childhood bullies and if those toxic people did half the things kids do to each other they'd be quickly arrested and thrown behind bars.
The Fed want inflation to diminish (in real terms) the mountains of debt the US government and consumers incurred in the past 20 years. At the expense of the poorest people and savers (because wage inflation is much lower than the goods/services inflation, not to mention bank savings interest rates, which are laughable).
Make no mistake, the Fed are not idiots, they have been trying to introduce inflation for a long time, but initially they succeeded in asset inflation only. With the help of Covid and the war, they got their wish.
But wage inflation needs to match the goods/services inflation, because without it, borrowers will be even less able to pay their debts.
In order to really stamp out inflation, the Fed would need to raise the interest rate to 10%, essentially forcing the US to declare bankruptcy.
The Fed is hoping to introduce a mild recession, which, they hope, would reduce all kinds of inflation, without them having to raise the rates above 3.5% or so.
How do interest payments to the poor help them? They spend way more in interest expenses, heck they even pay taxes which pay the interest on government debt. Oh and finally if you buy a product from a company that borrowed money, the marginal profit of a product is necessary to cover the interest expenses of the company meaning you as a consumer pay interest in the form of higher prices on products.
The idea that the rich pay interest to themselves is laughable.
Perhaps more like globalist/corporatist, which reflects their recent ownership?
In 2015, Pearson - a publishing company - sold its controlling stake to a bunch of corporate owners, like the Agnellis (43%) and the Rotschilds (21%), among others.
The change in their editorial direction was immediately visible (I had been a subscriber/reader for 35+ years until 2016)
The Rothschilds have had a substantial stake in the Economist for 70 years, including prior to the time when Pearson was a shareholder. Pearson did not control the board, had only 6 of the 13 board seats, and never had majority control of the company. It's unclear what is meant by "corporate owners;" Pearson is a publicly traded corporation.
I'm also a long-time subscriber and do not understand the "shift" you are referring to. The Economist has been pro-free-trade, generally against heavy regulation, and a magazine that consistently takes small-l liberal positions for a very long time. That stance means that sometimes they are right - deregulation has been good in many areas - but sometimes they get it wrong, when, for example, free trade may have adverse effects.
Sometimes they take positions that are bad - they argued for the second Iraq war - but they are pretty up front about their biases, and generally don't represent their biases as purely objective facts, as many traditional newspapers do. Their writing is clear and concise and is not meant to be consumed uncritically. The magazine is still unparalleled for what it offers.
Pearson had a 50% stake, most of which was sold to the Agnellis. So now, the Agnellis and the Rotschilds are the largest (and, together, controlling) shareholders.
Board members like Lady de Rothschild and Eric "you have no privacy" Schmidt publicly supported/donated to the Hillary Clinton campaign. The Rotschilds were invited by the Clintons to spend their honeymoon at the White House. The rest of the board reads like the attendees at the Bilderberg Group and the Council on Foreign Relations. The very definition of elitism, and collusion with the governments (Schmidt, Alex Karp, who is also on the board, there are also Sirs and Baronesses). "Free trade" - yes, reserved for the multinationals, Most definitely not mom-and-pop, small/medium business oriented anymore (which they used to be, before the sale).
The fact that they (probably still) have superbly written articles should not disguise the shift in their political stance.
I wouldn't argue with that one, either. But it's also not "hard left" :)
The word - if we're willing to shed many of the more populist overtones around it - is probably "neoliberalism". Consistently siding with money & corporations, with a democratic bent. (But not too much!)
Since 2016, it's more and more living on its reputation and not coming quite to terms with the changes in the world. It is still firmly rooted in facts - can't really provide economic guidance when you deny realities - but it seems somewhat unable to engage with the rise of populism and nationalism in an economically intertwined world.
It's not distinctly or memorably left, either. It really, really isn't. It's milquetoast centrist with a helping of globalism, and a good chunk of neoliberalism.
You won't see it calling to defund the police, or that we should tax the bejeezus out of billionaires. And these are moderately left, not memorably left.
This is a serious claim, and one that I have not seen coming from the protesters (they want an end to the Covid mandates, from what I can tell) . Can you please provide the source for your allegation?
> One of the main organizers behind the convoy, Canada Unity (CU), acknowledged that they had planned to submit their signed "memorandum of understanding" (MoU) to the Senate of Canada and Governor General Mary Simon, described in the MoU as the "SCGGC". The MoU which was signed by James and Sandra Bauder and Martin Brodmann, was posted on the Canada Unity website in mid-December 2021 and publicly available until its February 8 retraction. Bauder, whose name is at the top of a CTV News' list of "major players" in the convoy, is the founder of Canada Unity. CTV cited Bauder saying that he hoped the signed MoU would convince Elections Canada to trigger an election, which is not constitutionally possible. In this pseudolegal document, CU called on the "SCGGC" to cease all vaccine mandates, reemploy all employees terminated due to vaccination status, and rescind all fines imposed for non-compliance with public health orders. If this failed, the MoU called on the "SCGGC" to dissolve the government, and name members of the CU to form a Canadian Citizens Committee (CCC), which is beyond the constitutional powers of either the Governor General or the Senate.
Well it's a matter of interpretation. You can call it just fundamental misunderstanding of the Canadian constitution, or an attempt to overthrow the government, but either way having the GG, Senate, or Elections Canada force an election while the government enjoys the confidence of the house would be a coup. I'm fine with giving the protesters the benefit of the doubt and just agreeing that they don't understand how the electoral process works in Canada.
It depends whom you petition. If you petition the House to call an early election, that's part of our normal democracy. If you petition the army to remove the government, that's attempting a coup.
In this case the MoU was not petitioning the House to call an early election, it was petitioning the Senate and Governor General to call an early election, who do not have the legal authority to call an election while the government has the confidence of the House.
And whether it's conditional on your demands being met is irrelevant. You can't hold a gun to someone's head and tell them to do something, and then say "well I was only going to fire if they didn't do it". The problem is in the threat, not the ask.
I just read the MoU (https://web.archive.org/web/20220122173201/https://canada-un...). It is a ridiculous document, suggesting that CU and the central government will form a joint committee to set Covid policy together. But nowhere in the document do I see anything about calling an election, dissolving the government, or being beyond any constitutional powers. The Wikipedia quote upthread does not seem like an accurate summary of the MoU.
Obviously it takes some suspension of disbelief to take anything in that document seriously, but it suggests that the Senate and Governor General (both unelected) make up the new "Government of Canada", with no mention of the House (elected). It's pretty clear that the intention of the "offer" is to remove the duly elected government from the picture in the mistaken belief that the Senate and GG are of higher authority to the House.
As far as the petition for an early election goes, I agree I can't find it in the MoU. Perhaps it was reading between the lines and combining statements made outside the MoU with what was found within.
No idea why this is being downvoted. This is the PROBLEM, people. Many Canadians support removing mandates but very few of us support removing the government through extra-legal mumbo-jumbo. We just had an election in Canada a few months ago and mandates were very much an issue that was debated and discussed.
Yes, the plumber will charge me more. No, you would not be able to determine that if you had my financial records, because I don't spend an appreciable fraction of my income on plumbers (or lawn care, or electricians, or other home services outside of child care).
The same applies to electricity and gas; the expenses are there, but a 10% rise in all of my utilities is still not meaningful in my overall budget. For comparison, I can easily see a 10% swing in annual heating bills based solely on the average temperature during 3 months of the year.
Yes, I am impacted by all the same things you are. But my health insurance expense dropped 3% and that dwarfs all the other category increases. This is why the BLS weighs their basket.
I understood the point entirely, and you are correct that if inflation continues at this rate for decades, what today are small expenses like lawn care will eventually become the dominant term, eclipsing my mortgage. But I would wager we will have bigger problems should that eventuality come to pass.
Also, don't forget that increased inflation also eventually leads to everyone's compensation increasing. As I am in "everyone"," it will net out. If inflation moderates over the next few quarters/years, the likely impact to me is that I will earn more and so my largest expense (which is fixed!) will be proportionally smaller. But yes, I will pay more for plumbers and the like so I will be impacted by the cycle.
The assumption that CBDC is a good idea because the government is always benevolent and does what's best for the people is incorrect, as demonstrated by the horrible financial mismanagement in the recent 20 years.