Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

idk, central banks can use adjusting the fractional reserve amount as one of the levers on the economy. A few percentage points more or less makes a big difference. Just effectively jumping to 100% fractional reserve overnight would basically cause massive deflation and crash the economy. They should gradually raise it and see it it's stable. I doubt anything "magic" happens at 100% fractional reserve as compared to e.g. 95% fractional reserve.

The fractional reserve amount in the USA/Europe are too low however: if something is already zero in most cases, then you can't use that as a lever. They should raise it whenever the economy overheats, as a buffer. Then, the government could have actually lowered it again to boost spending after the crash, without actually spending a dime of taxpayers money.

But at 100% fractional reserve, wouldn't 100% of the money deposited in banks be saved for further use instead of for loans/investments/paying people who want to withdraw money?

No, because when you deposit the money that becomes the banks reserve, and they put credit in your account . Further "Credit" is given out just by making another bank account. They don't literally hand you the reserve cash.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

How it works

In most legal systems, a bank deposit is not a bailment. In other words, the funds deposited are no longer the property of the customer. The funds become the property of the bank, and the customer in turn receives an asset called a deposit account (a checking or savings account). That deposit account is a liability on the balance sheet of the bank. Each bank is legally authorized to issue credit up to a specified multiple of its reserves
...
Fractional-reserve banking allows banks to create credit in the form of bank deposits, which represent immediate liquidity to depositors.

[Rolepgeek]

Well, no that's not what you're doing.

No

You're the one saying we should only care about halal butchers and dismiss any problems with other butchers.

Ok so you haven't even done the courtesy of reading my posts before responding :\
I did mathematics for you Reelya, that's how much I cared for your opinion
That's a slap to the bass

What I'm saying is you tackle the biggest problem first, then work down.

This is the biggest problem and the easiest solved m8 where is the mass deb8 from, you're telling me to ignore an easily solved problem and instead chase after a nebulous Vegan spectre

You don't single out e.g. rapes by immigrants only and ignore rapes by locals, especially if local rapes are more prevalent.

You don't single out e.g. rapes by locals only, especially if rapes by immigrants are more prevalent.

Reminds me of when the Pakistani rape gangs came about and people kept bringing up Savile even though the number of Pakistanis vastly outnumbered Savile in victims, perpetrators, complicit authorities and lacking in lawyers or even being from Britain

What madness is this

I find myself in agreement with you. Probably because I'm tired so it's harder for my brain to make reasoning errors without telling me about it. Also probably because I give fewer pats about cow suffering than I do about human suffering. Or something.

But also because ease/capability of affecting halal/Jewish animal slaughter to be more human or whatever or reduce amount is somewhat more easily accomplished than reducing failure rates. I would not consider saying it would be twenty times easier to be an exaggeration.

Numbers helps too, probably. Oh! And simple solution proposed.

This is the only way I can rationalize my possibly actually being convinced of something on the Internet forums where I come to try and be convinced of things.

[Reelya]

I was more skeptical about conservatives suddenly affecting a deep concern for the treatment of livestock. Usually they're the ones telling animal rights people to give it a rest.

[scriver]

In Sweden neither halal nor kosher meat is banned, but the slaughter process is because of how it falls under inhumane treatment of animals, and it would be for everyone, regardless of religion. You can still produce either as long as you follow proper standards. My father used to work as an animal health/safety official, among other things he inspected a butchery that produced halal - the livestock went through the exact same procedure as the non-halal stock, the only difference was that they would have an imam come in and bless/approve the meat at the end of the production line.

 

There's questioning, and then there's "WAKE UP SHEEPLE! MSM is all in a conspiracy to hide Muslim atrocities right in front of our eyes because....well, just because!"
When you have to rely on obscure, questionable, highly biased "media" sources to build your argument, that might be a sign there's something wrong with your argument.

A few months ago I would have agreed with you. Then these stories (English) started surfacing, and it turned out that the sources I had dismissed out of hand as "obscure, questionable and highly biased" had been the ones telling the truth all along.

[Sergarr]

Vaguely related: I've found this interesting theory on how to deal with things that are very uncertain, and it seems to be potentially applicable to dealing with figuring out this "which media source to believe" business.

[nullBolt]

I was more skeptical about conservatives suddenly affecting a deep concern for the treatment of livestock. Usually they're the ones telling animal rights people to give it a rest.

There's economic necessity and then there's cruelty. Battery farming is an unfortunate economic necessity in the modern world, as an example.

In Sweden neither halal nor kosher meat is banned, but the slaughter process is because of how it falls under inhumane treatment of animals, and it would be for everyone, regardless of religion. You can still produce either as long as you follow proper standards. My father used to work as an animal health/safety official, among other things he inspected a butchery that produced halal - the livestock went through the exact same procedure as the non-halal stock, the only difference was that they would have an imam come in and bless/approve the meat at the end of the production line.

Then it's not halal. By definition.

There's questioning, and then there's "WAKE UP SHEEPLE! MSM is all in a conspiracy to hide Muslim atrocities right in front of our eyes because....well, just because!"
When you have to rely on obscure, questionable, highly biased "media" sources to build your argument, that might be a sign there's something wrong with your argument.

A few months ago I would have agreed with you. Then these stories (English) started surfacing, and it turned out that the sources I had dismissed out of hand as "obscure, questionable and highly biased" had been the ones telling the truth all along.

The guy saying "Muslamic ray guns" got laughed at until it turned out he was trying to say "Muslim rape gangs".

Then it suddenly became very unfunny.

Vaguely related: I've found this interesting theory on how to deal with things that are very uncertain, and it seems to be potentially applicable to dealing with figuring out this "which media source to believe" business.

Weird that's pretty much what I've been using. You find the points where the two sources collide and it falls to either side of it.

As an example from the 13-year-old girl stuff from before:
1. Media source alleges gang rape. Police state no rape occurred. Police do not state that no sexual activity occurred. Likely that child was involved in sexual relations in some way.
2. Media source alleges kidnapping. Police state that the child went missing but no kidnapping occurred. Child definitely went missing for a period of time.

So, the facts we have are:

• No confirmation that sexual activity did not occur, police state rape did not occur.
  
• Child definitely went missing for a period of time.
  
• Child was 13, this is the legal definition of rape unless the other person was under 18 (and even then that's a very gray area).

So, we have three logical choices:
- Police are covering up the deliberate kidnapping and gangrape of a 13-year-old child.
- Parents are upset by their 13-year-old child going out and having sex and are stating that what happened was rape (which it likely was under legal definition). Police have elected not to class it as rape because of reasons.
- Kid went missing for a period of time and then made up a story about what happened to not get in trouble.

In terms of likelihood, I'd rank them 25/60/15. European police have a history of disagreeing with parents on what the rape of a minor is.

[nullBolt]

I understand non-Muslims not wanting to eat halal meat, personally, even the slightly more humane variations. It seems bit akin to not wanting your baby baptised if you're an atheist (assuming you live in an imaginary Christian country where all babies are baptised by default).

The Imam of a Salafist mosque in Cologne says 'The events of New Year’s Eve were the girls' own fault, because they were half naked and wearing perfume. It is not surprising the men wanted to attack them.' (in the video on the page).

Victim-blaming seems to be the theme today, actually; I heard a BBC Asian Network piece where a Muslim caller phoned in to basically say that all the terror attacks, etc, are entirely the fault of our foreign policy, and that if we're going to start talking about what terrorists are doing then we should start talking about how Hitler reflects all Christians. According to the caller, Islamophobia (which, in my opinion, shares much in common with 'The Patriarchy') is the real issue, and we shouldn't talk about these Islamist terror attacks because it just promotes Islamophobia.

It sounds surprisingly similar to what happened after the Paris terror attacks. The Muslim guy standing in the Paris centre with a blindfold on and a sign around his neck saying to hug him because not all Muslims are terrorists. It stank of self-pity and a diversion from the topic instead of giving sympathy to the victims. There were quite a lot of news stories like that.

"Why should other Muslims apologise for what happened?" was the most common one. And, honestly, they shouldn't but no one was arguing that they should, just that it needed to be condemned by Muslim leaders.

The real question is whether Islam's written ideology is inherently violent against non-Muslims. And, from that, whether Islamic ideology is inherently violent against non-Muslims.

[Sergarr]

...but it was condemned by pretty much everyone, with sole exception of al-Nusra?

Also, almost every ideology is inherently violent against most other ideologies. Islam today is pretty mild in comparison to the world-shattering crusade that Christians have pulled just a couple of centuries ago, enslaving and killing dozens of millions of people on its way of supremacy. Hell, even the traditionally portrayed as "peaceful" ideologies - like Buddhism - are not free of violence in the name of ideology. So that question is not "real", it's just stupid.

[martinuzz]

The crusades were pretty low on casualties if you compare them with the 20 million native americans that were genocided in the name of the Lord

[nullBolt]

...but it was condemned by pretty much everyone, with sole exception of al-Nusra?

Also, almost every ideology is inherently violent against most other ideologies. Islam today is pretty mild in comparison to the world-shattering crusade that Christians have pulled just a couple of centuries ago, enslaving and killing dozens of millions of people on its way of supremacy. Hell, even the traditionally portrayed as "peaceful" ideologies - like Buddhism - are not free of violence in the name of ideology. So that question is not "real", it's just stupid.

It really wasn't condemned by pretty much everyone. There were a few Imams that spoke out, but not very many.

So because Christianity was a shit a millenia ago, that gives people the rights to be a shit now?

Do you understand what is wrong with that logic?

P.S. The Crusades weren't really that bad, they were punishment wars after the conquest of Iberia by Moors.

The crusades were pretty low on casualties if you compare them with the 20 million native americans that were genocided in the name of the Lord

Again, see above.

Although I honestly don't think you can claim that colonialism was religious rather than socio-economic.

[Sergarr]

So because Christianity was a shit a millenia ago, that gives people the rights to be a shit now?

Do you understand what is wrong with that logic?

I did not say that. I've said that your question is utterly useless. It doesn't mean that I condone such behaviour - and the very fact that you did interpret it in such a way speaks volumes of your attitude towards honest discussion.

P.S. The Crusades weren't really that bad, they were punishment wars after the conquest of Iberia by Moors.

I didn't mean "crusades" as in "The Crusades", I meant "hundreds of years of world-spanning colonialism". Did you really think I would've called those small-scale invasions "world-shattering"?

Again, see above.

Although I honestly don't think you can claim that colonialism was religious rather than socio-economic.

"Socio-economic" and "religious" are practically the same thing in Protestant ideology. If you're financially successful, it means that the God favour you - including the case where you get rich by enslaving other people - or rather, "non-people" - as the ideologists of that age were big on claiming that black people and other natives were not actually humans, but rather human-shaped monkeys with no soul and etc. It's why the South of USA was simultaneously extremely religious and very big on usage of slaves one and a half century ago.

[nullBolt]

I did not say that. I've said that your question is utterly useless. It doesn't mean that I condone such behaviour - and the very fact that you did interpret it in such a way speaks volumes of your attitude towards honest discussion.

You've not addressed why the question was useless at all, then, other than to frame it against things in the distant past. You are still making no logical sense.

I didn't mean "crusades" as in "The Crusades", I meant "hundreds of years of world-spanning colonialism". Did you really think I would've called those small-scale invasions "world-shattering"?

Do you condemn the Turkish for their conquest of Constantinople and Greece? Do you condemn the Timurids for their conquest of Northern India and the forced conversion of millions of Hindus, Jainist and Sikhs to Islam? Do you condemn the Moors for their conquest of Iberia and the murder and rape of hundreds of thousands of native Iberians?

No? You're not condemning any of those things?

Why not?

Colonialism is something practiced by everyone. It is a method of survival. Condemn not those who create their colonies, but those who did not fight back hard enough.

"Socio-economic" and "religious" are practically the same thing in Protestant ideology. If you're financially successful, it means that the God favour you - including the case where you get rich by enslaving other people - or rather, "non-people" - as the ideologists of that age were big on claiming that black people and other natives were not actually humans, but rather human-shaped monkeys with no soul and etc. It's why the South of USA was simultaneously extremely religious and very big on usage of slaves one and a half century ago.

Of course it was, which is why Britain banned slavery pretty much before anyone else. Clearly a fundamental part of Protestant ideology.

Stop being so Amerocentric.

[Sergarr]

Stop being so Amerocentric.

Stop being so Amerocentric.

Mm, given the wide differences in racial and class issues between America and Europe, it's sometimes very apparent in conversations like this that Americans are approaching these issues with certain presumptions that just aren't applicable to our own societies. It can be quite irritating, I find, particularly in real life.

oh ok

since apparently I'm an American now, I'll just shut up and let you two, as proper Europeans, continue your discourse in this European thread

[Arx]

(Sergarr's Russian)

[Flying Dice]

Not if you don't belieeeeeve that he is.