iNow

Who gets to decide what is useful, or which studies are more useful than others?

Also bc that’s the current split in the senate

50/50

Only until the government promised to spend MORE money. According to our OP, that should’ve made the problem worse, yet it managed to solve it / prevent the knee dropping catastrophe you cite. It was an issue with household debt. Credit given to households that shouldn’t have been given credit…. Credit backed up solely by assets that lost their worth all at once… And insurance companies being unable to pay what they’d promised when those households defaulted. And banks being unable to write more loans… again, global economy was saved by a promise by GOVERNMENTS to spend more. Government debt is different than household debt. I’ll need to keep repeating this core point, apparently.

Unless voting reform happens... like via the legislation currently being proposed by the Democrats, for example.

Yes, that's correct, but existing agreements would be unaffected by future rate changes. If you lock in your mortgage at 3% for 30 years, that doesn't bump up to 11% just because that's the going rate 5 years from now. Your use case just means there'd be less borrowing, which according to you is a good thing... so what's the problem, exactly? Right, but that doesn't apply to countries. As long as others are willing to lend, it doesn't matter (so long as that debt can be serviced). Sorry, you're not making sense, and you're continuing to conflate a household budget with the global economy. Not at all, but what I did forget was to remind our OP in my previous response that this isn't like a household debt. We're talking about the global economy... nations that can print their own money... nations that can write and sign trade agreements... change their revenues with the stroke of a pen. I can't do that in my house. Maybe you can?

According to what metric? You may as well say the financial system is losing it's pizazz... It's meaningless as currently phrased. Given that rates are historically low and practically zero, they have literally nothing BUT opportunity to raise them, significantly or otherwise. How so? You're being evasive I suspect because you don't really understand what you're talking about and are just throwing around buzz words. I'm asking you to be more specific. Can/Will you?

But that's not what I asked you. Please be clear, what do you see bad in this? Again, if debts are being paid, why would inflation and default rates increase? You are conflating them, but they're different things. Debt is not a problem so long as it continues being properly serviced. Do you disagree? If so, why and for what reason?

This is another one of those questions that actually can be answered, and your answer is mistaken. There's fairly broad support for more taxes on wealth and the wealthy. They're just not generally as vocal nor as well connected. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-inequality-poll/majority-of-americans-favor-wealth-tax-on-very-rich-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN1Z9141 I appreciate the sentiment here, but most folks aren't getting their information from public broadcasts anymore. Media has become atomized. Basically, but adding funding in the way you suggest, you're still fighting yesterday's war and missing the modern enemy.

Why wouldn't it be?

And what is the consequence you see coming from this, especially if transactions and money flows are still occurring unimpeded regardless of aggregate debt levels?

I'm more and more inclined to believe we're interacting with a poorly programmed bot.

Avoid calling it free. It's not free. There's still a cost. Instead, call it publicly funded education, and yes. I support that. We already have it for K through 12. We should simply extend to include preK through 16.

Nope Good for you. I should care, why exactly? Sorry, but wrong again (and barely even coherent). It was a US Defense Department project created to link computers from Pentagon funded research institutions together over telephone lines. What the AF? Never mind. Don’t answer that. I don’t care.

Possible? Yes. Probable? No. Please try going with just a little bit less ridiculousness and a little more reality in future posts. It will be appreciated.

Did you just really suggest people are using deep fake video tech to falsely make it look like things in Afghanistan are kinda horrible for lots of people right now? GTFOH with that special brand of crazy sauce

Your business plan is lacking. Your product is undesirable. Your intent is good, but your ability achieve it is... let's call it... questionable. Hard pass.

No At least 34 according to the post 4th above yours.

If I may, and with authentic respect… It’s likely bc you’re living now in a world where patience with bullshit and dissemblance leads to needless death and avoidable suffering… and you’re one of the good ones who desires neither

Simple narratives are easier to grasp than raspy truths. Not all voters are lazy or anti-intellectual. Many just want to feel better and find simple answers to complex questions.

Whoa, shocker! Thank you for being honest for the first time. I applaud this.

He’s not here to make sense nor find correct answers. That was obvious from the start.

Obtuse. Watch out. I shoot back.

They’d be more likely to replace cows/beef as a food source than to replace horses as a transportation method (a method that’s barely used by barely anyone any more anyway).

You’ve been intellectually dishonest. You argue in bad faith. You evade clear direct questions. You’re a waste of time.