|
Jaeluni Asjil posted:Knowing a couple of both former and current Labour MPs in person and just how innumerate they are, and I imagine they are typical of MPs from all parties and none, I have no confidence that most MPs have a clue about the things they are voting on. There should be a compulsory 6 week course on economics, law, structure of the legal and penal systems, and a few other bits and pieces for all new MPs. Didn't they have a "What is the EU?" seminar thing for MPs in like 2017? None of those fuckers know gently caress all about gently caress all. E: Cat snipe. https://twitter.com/WhatEvil/status/1357764962991681536?s=20
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 20:49 |
|
|
Mebh posted:Either way I don't want to police others' language. This isn't true. We're all comfortable policing other people's language, just as we are comfortable with violence. It's just about where we draw the line. n-word? Police away. oval office? eh, maybe. This isn't just contained on the left either: see all the gammons insisting that gammon is a racial slur, actually, and you should stop using it. The same also applies to violence, because we'd all say that stopping some homophobes from beating up a gay person who did nothing wrong is fine, and if violence is required that's also fine, but loads of people when challenged say that 'all violence is wrong'. I don't want to get into 'a good guy with a gun is the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun', because obviously if you can do it non-violently that's preferable, but we don't rule it out (language policing or violence) as quick as we'd like to think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 19:09
|
|
|
I'm not a native English speaker so idk if my opinion means that much  but "oval office" still retains this vicious, biting quality to it that seems almost lost from the other 4-letter swear words. Like, "poo poo" and "gently caress" just don't cut through as much anymore, compared to "oval office". I suppose its status as this Schrodinger's slur of sorts adds to it somewhat - which is why I personally try to avoid using it. Though to me "bitch" feels much more gendered and slur-like and misogynistic in its connotations.Interestingly, calling someone "scum" or "filth" kinda feels more, I dunno, insulting, than anything properly sweary - bar the c-word and the slurs of course
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 19:09
|
|
|
The easiest way to provoke someone to a fight or tears has always been calling them a "loving child". Don't entirely know why, but it cuts people deep so use carefully lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 19:15
|
|
|
Ewan posted:No deal is better than a Baddiel
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 19:18
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:The easiest way to provoke someone to a fight or tears has always been calling them a "loving child". Don't entirely know why, but it cuts people deep so use carefully lol I do something similar, "god, you're boring", but I'm also a fan of "you weird oval office" - people seem to fixate on the 'weird' part.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 19:26
|
|
|
Miftan posted:This isn't true... Yeah but I personally don't want to start policing others as honestly I don't really belive in myself strongly outside the realm of making fun video game systems enough to stand up for much in a soapboxy way. It's why I like this thread. It's nice to be challenged on stuff and it's why I try to post rather than hide because it's a safe space while at the same time a place where you all won't hesitate to call me out if I say something stupid. When I found out about the labour leaks and what the labour right did in 2017 the term "loving cunts" floated immediately to the surface. I still think that, however I'm not going to say it. Everyone else can happily say it though but I'm not about to start a debate on it. It is an interesting one to think about but in the end I prefer to err on the side of caution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 19:29
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Isn't the entire point of banks that they are allowed to create money up to a certain number of times their actual cash on hand? Plenty of economics textbooks say that, but in the UK there is no Bank of England rule that says "if customers have deposited £100 with you, you can lend out £800". But there is a limit to how much money they can/will create, and the BoE can influence this with interest rates: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvRAqR2pAgw
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 19:31
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:The easiest way to provoke someone to a fight or tears has always been calling them a "loving child". Don't entirely know why, but it cuts people deep so use carefully lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 19:36
|
|
|
Red Oktober posted:I do something similar, "god, you're boring", but I'm also a fan of "you weird oval office" - people seem to fixate on the 'weird' part. I take it you haven't spent much time in the out group. Being in the out group used to mean death.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 19:47
|
|
|
SpicePro posted:I see what you have done here and it is quality posting!!! Should have been "you are posts", and there's a capital letter at the beginning - I need to be better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 19:49
|
|
|
Jaeluni Asjil posted:Knowing a couple of both former and current Labour MPs in person and just how innumerate they are, and I imagine they are typical of MPs from all parties and none, I have no confidence that most MPs have a clue about the things they are voting on. There should be a compulsory 6 week course on economics, law, structure of the legal and penal systems, and a few other bits and pieces for all new MPs. Many of the worst offenders are PPE* graduates so in theory they've already spent 4 years studying this poo poo. * Politics, Philosophy and Economics, but I think they'd have learned a lot more - and would certainly have been of more benefit to society - if they'd been forced to make face masks and gloves for those 4 years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 19:52
|
|
|
Isn't the point of ppe degrees to give you a load of wrong information you can use to waffle at other ppe idiots?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 19:53
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Isn't the point of ppe degrees to give you a load of wrong information you can use to waffle at other ppe idiots? I'm pretty sure the point is so that rich idiots can say they went to Oxbridge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 19:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Isn't the point of ppe degrees to give you a load of wrong information you can use to waffle at other ppe idiots? Yeah that was going to be my follow-up, I doubt the PPE course explicitly says "all the no-money-left stuff is nonsense, but we have to pretend it isn't, don't tell anyone" Apropos of nothing, when I see a US congressperson mentioned as e.g. "Rep. John Smith", I can't help but read it as "Republican". Which is mostly just on-the-nose political commentary, though it's a bit jarring when my brain parses "Republican Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez"
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 20:03
|
|
|
nurmie posted:I'm not a native English speaker so idk if my opinion means that much Jerry Sadowitz - a man who knows his swearwords - says that "oval office" would be the most offensive word in the English language even if it meant fluffy bunny, because you can't have that many consonants that close together without it being a word that bruises. I've always found it interesting that we assign different meanings to swear words describing the same thing - oval office, pussy, twat and fanny are all synonyms anatomically* but are wildly different in meaning and relative offensiveness. It does suggest Sadowitz is on to something with his consonants theory too, with the way other swearwords ascend in offensiveness depending on the amount of hard consonants, e.g. poo/poo poo, willy/dick, wee/piss, etc. * At least nowadays, they all came into the language describing different things - often not anatomical at all of course.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 20:08
|
|
|
Bobstar posted:Yeah that was going to be my follow-up, I doubt the PPE course explicitly says "all the no-money-left stuff is nonsense, but we have to pretend it isn't, don't tell anyone" I do that too! Also, I have quite a few American friends on facebook, and seeing friends I know who are of similar views to me cheering for Blues not Reds took some getting used to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 20:09
|
|
|
You could accuse people of being a right immanuel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 20:10
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Many of the worst offenders are PPE* graduates so in theory they've already spent 4 years studying this poo poo. Wouldn't PPE just be called 'General Studies' at a normal university? And don't they just get their servants to sit the exams anyway? But seriously, I don't know what they actually study in those degrees in terms of practicality, but if it's like other degrees eg my surveying degrees we did a bit on 'concrete test cubes' and I imagined something maybe 1 cm each side. I went up on site with my boss and there were these rather large lumps - 15cm each side - he said "what are those then" - me: shrugs - no idea. Him: "Concrete test cubes". And I know the electrical engineers at work were always complaining about new graduates not having a clue what actual components looked like in real life because they'd done everything off diagrams. One of them used to put a pile of components on the desk when interviewing new grads and asked them to name each component. Jaeluni Asjil fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Feb 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 20:10
|
|
|
ANYTHING YOU SOW posted:Plenty of economics textbooks say that, but in the UK there is no Bank of England rule that says "if customers have deposited £100 with you, you can lend out £800". But there is a limit to how much money they can/will create, and the BoE can influence this with interest rates: I don’t think that is right. I believe that is covered under BOE capital adequacy regulations, which although not identical has the same effect.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 20:12
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Jerry Sadowitz - a man who knows his swearwords - says that "oval office" would be the most offensive word in the English language even if it meant fluffy bunny goddamnedtwisto posted:poo/poo poo, willy/dick, wee/piss, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 20:17
|
|
|
therattle posted:I don’t think that is right. I believe that is covered under BOE capital adequacy regulations, which although not identical has the same effect. Yes, I think you are right about that. I was going to look it up but you've done it before I did. I know they had to increase capital substantially in the last few years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 20:17
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Isn't the entire point of banks that they are allowed to create money up to a certain number of times their actual cash on hand? And wasn't there some whole bust up about how much that should be a while back because the increased liquidity vs "oh poo poo we actually can't pay this back if people ask for it" and then the government has to create money to bail them out and then pretend they didn't. You get into a pretty deep philosophical argument about exactly what you mean by "create" money. Banks can and did lend money even in the days of specie currency (i.e. actual physical coins made of precious metal), nobody claimed that they were "creating" new coins when they did that, and - in theory at least - everyone should be aware that the money in their bank account isn't actually, physically there. It's more obvious when you're dealing with limited-access saving accounts (and any other interest-bearing financial instrument) but still most people think of a bank as just a big Scrooge McDuck vault and when you make a withdrawal someone has to dive in to get the money for you. The problem is that banks have blurred that distinction more and more as they come up with ever-more exotic ways of loving around with the cash they have in hand (and accountants have done likewise with company and personal finances), and governments - who *can* create money out of nowhere - have encouraged this behaviour since the days of the South Sea Bubble, and the reaction to each time it's fallen over has been to double down on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 20:17
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:everyone should be aware that the money in their bank account isn't actually, physically there I reckon the majority of people think real life banks are exactly the same as Gringott's except with fewer mine cart rides.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 20:19
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Jerry Sadowitz - a man who knows his swearwords - says that "oval office" would be the most offensive word in the English language even if it meant fluffy bunny, because you can't have that many consonants that close together without it being a word that bruises. I had the misfortune to see Jerry Sadowitz live once. Did not enjoy it. One thing interests me about the word 'bitch': if a British man uses it to refer to a woman, they usually mean it (or whenever I've actually heard it used) as equivalent to 'prick tease' - a woman who won't come across with the goods. But when an Egyptian man - speaking English - uses it, they normally use it as a translation for 'shamouta' which basically means whore or words to that effect - ie a woman who DID come across with the goods. Same word, opposite meaning. When women use it about other women they are usually referring to unpleasant aspects of personality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 20:21
|
|
|
sebzilla posted:I reckon the majority of people think real life banks are exactly the same as Gringott's
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 20:26
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:You get into a pretty deep philosophical argument about exactly what you mean by "create" money. Banks can and did lend money even in the days of specie currency (i.e. actual physical coins made of precious metal), nobody claimed that they were "creating" new coins when they did that, and - in theory at least - everyone should be aware that the money in their bank account isn't actually, physically there. It's more obvious when you're dealing with limited-access saving accounts (and any other interest-bearing financial instrument) but still most people think of a bank as just a big Scrooge McDuck vault and when you make a withdrawal someone has to dive in to get the money for you. I mean, if a bank can just give me a loan without giving me a fraction of a finite resource that they control, they are creating money? Because money is this conceptual thing made up of trust, if I spend the money the bank loaned me the person I give it to trusts that they will be able to exchange it for other things, because it's got a picture of the queen on it or because their bank has had the electric recepit from my bank and has said "yep that's real money" but ultimately they are creating money in that they are fabricating a quantified amount of trust out of thin air, backed by the fact that they're called a bank and have a big building somewhere with columns on the front what says "we're a real bank with real money you can trust us" Money is a concept that is perpetually reified by giving people bits of paper and the ability to exchange numbers of it for semi-consistent amounts of actually real things, and some organizations have the ability to spread that reification thinner or thicker. And capitalism desires it to be spread as thin as possible because they want as many slices of toast as possible. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Feb 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 20:27
|
|
|
I also want many slices of toast.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 20:33
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I also want many slices of toast.  My favourite thing is when people have a "Gringott's" style understanding of money, and then continue to cling onto it when presented with a link to the Bank of England website explaining how it actually works. "Nah, they're lying"... I mean, how do you answer that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 20:35
|
|
|
Red Oktober posted:I do something similar, "god, you're boring", but I'm also a fan of "you weird oval office" - people seem to fixate on the 'weird' part. call 'em a nonce
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 20:40
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean, if a bank can just give me a loan without giving me a fraction of a finite resource that they control, they are creating money? Because money is this conceptual thing made up of trust, if I spend the money the bank loaned me the person I give it to trusts that they will be able to exchange it for other things, because it's got a picture of the queen on it or because their bank has had the electric recepit from my bank and has said "yep that's real money" but ultimately they are creating money in that they are fabricating a quantified amount of trust out of thin air, backed by the fact that they're called a bank and have a big building somewhere with columns on the front what says "we're a real bank with real money you can trust us" Right but like I say retail banking vastly predates fiat currency - if anything is actually a weird relic of the days when shiny metal was our store of value. The free (or even interest-bearing) current account, with deposits being lent out for interest, dates back to *at least* the Renaissance, and even then the Venetians almost certainly got the idea from the Chinese who were operating what we now know as mutual societies for hundreds of years before then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 20:42
|
|
|
Bobstar posted:"Nah, they're lying"... I mean, how do you answer that? If people didn't believe that then the concept would stop working, so it's actually very important that people don't believe the bank of england when it explains how the bank of england works goddamnedtwisto posted:Right but like I say retail banking vastly predates fiat currency - if anything is actually a weird relic of the days when shiny metal was our store of value. The free (or even interest-bearing) current account, with deposits being lent out for interest, dates back to *at least* the Renaissance, and even then the Venetians almost certainly got the idea from the Chinese who were operating what we now know as mutual societies for hundreds of years before then. I mean if they can lend out money they haven't actually got then that's fiat currency, isn't it? It's issuing value at the fiat of the bank. It's not government backed but it's backed by the bank. If the bank can create money that only exists in its ledgers it's doing fiat currency isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 20:43
|
|
|
Look, I'd never claim Andrew Neil is a nonce, there really isn't enough evidence to support that. But I do think there would be value in an open, free and thorough exploration of the subject in a national newspaper.  
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 20:43
|
|
|
Off topic but I saw this in another thread and it's just so good to see it again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVRlYcPIacE
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 20:45
|
|
|
At the perfect intersection of "some insufferably posh person has probably named a child this" and "you can't have that many consonants that close together without it sounding like a swear".
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 20:51
|
|
|
I was gonna do a big piece of work this weekend in advance of monday's meetings, and typically I left it to the last minute (now), but I've just discovered I already did it last week and forgot, GET IN
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 21:25
|
|
|
Did we talk about this yet? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth quote:The Queen successfully lobbied the government to change a draft law in order to conceal her “embarrassing” private wealth from the public, according to documents discovered by the Guardian. quote:The papers reveal that in November 1973 the Queen feared that a proposed bill to bring transparency to company shareholdings could enable the public to scrutinise her finances. As a result she dispatched her private lawyer to press the government to make changes. quote:Three crucial pages of correspondence between civil servants at the trade department reveal how, at that meeting, Farrer relayed the Queen’s objection that the law would reveal her private investments in listed companies, as well as their value. He proposed that the monarch be exempted. quote:After being informed that exempting only the crown from the legislation would mean it was obvious any shareholdings so anonymised were the Queen’s property, Farrer, the correspondence states, “took fright somewhat, emphasised that the problem was taken very seriously and suggested – somewhat tentatively – that we had put them into this quandary and must therefore find a way out.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvMxqcgBhWQ also gently caress john lydon for being a fascist oval office
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 22:11
|
|
|
Convex posted:
But.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4OzI9GYag0
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 22:17
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ClickHole/status/1018170815291052032
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 22:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 20:49 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If people didn't believe that then the concept would stop working, so it's actually very important that people don't believe the bank of england when it explains how the bank of england works It's not lending out money you haven't got, though? You have a contract with your depositors that a proportion of their money will be loaned out - your depositors are in effect loaning you their money at a low interest rate in exchange for a very low risk (a basically zero risk in modern central-banking systems of course) and an entitlement to withdraw it at any time. Like I say, retail banking could happen in the days when money was literal lumps of precious metal - unless the Venetians had cracked alchemy they weren't creating more lumps of precious metal when they gave out loans, and if retail banks were actually "creating" money when they made loans then there'd be no such thing as a bank run or a need for a central bank, because if everyone tried to take their money out at once they could just hand it over and wait for all that other money they created to come back to refill the coffers. The idea of retail banks creating money is a not-very-useful way of thinking of retail banking, and one I've always suspected was deliberately bought over from the concept of a central bank by goldbugs and ancaps to deliberately muddy the waters. Of course the slightly more honest goldbug interpretation is that - because retail banks are backstopped by the central bank, which *can* create money from nothing, then retail banking is dependent on the concept of creating money at one remove, but it's not a helpful way of conceptualising what a retail bank does.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2021 22:21
|
|