Quantcast
Face it. It is over. Trump won.

Forums - Politics Discussion - Face it. It is over. Trump won.

Tagged games:

Trump or Hillary?

Trump FTW! 305 51.69%
 
Hillary all the way! 285 48.31%
 
Total:590

MikeRox said:

Government "shouldn't" have anything to do with it. But Central Banks (not the same as the banks you are referring to) have everything to do with it. Banks cannot lend money which they don't have. No, they can't just "create" money. Central banks do that. It is true though, that there is not enough currency in most banking systems for the actually cash to be completely withdrawn, as much of it is digital fantasy. However the central banks are the ones that put it into the "system".

Yes, banks CAN just create money. If someone gets an credit from the bank this credit isn't based on money the bank has accumulated from other sources. It is written to the account as book money. True is, that these credits must be backed by some money the banks have from other sources. How much is not that easy to answer. For europe and the US the current rules are based in the Basel III agreement:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_III

It's hard to understand, the rules are complicated. But basically the credits are money which is created out of thin air and backed by around 3%-5% money the bank has in reserve. this reserve money can come from a credit the bank took from another bank.

That the central bank isn't creating money alone (they do too based on the same principles) is clear, if you see that the central banks don't know how much money is in existance but make estimations instead.

Look here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply#United_States

The central bank controls the actually printed money (M0) and some deposits (MB). Other than that it is out of direct control for the central bank. M2 includes the money you have in your banking account. In the graphic you see how much more M2 (green) is in comparison to MB (blue). So M2 is mostly money that is NOT created by the central bank.

The situation in europe is similar.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

Around the Network
MikeRox said:
SpokenTruth said:

Regular banks sort of do create money.  It's called Fractional Reserve Banking.   They can lend 90-97x more than their reserves.  If a bank has $1,000, they can lend up to $90,000-$97,000 (depending on their require reserve ratio).

However this limit is set on them. They can't just indefinitely create infinite money. Hence that part falls on central banks and investor confidence with it.

The reserve can be money they have lent from other banks. So multiple banks can create indefinite money without a central bank. You're right though that at some point the confidence in credits goes away. But that point is far far beyond the money created and controlled directly by the central bank.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

Soundwave said:

Trump is the most dishonest person to come into politics in 30 years+++++. This whole thing about "they're both the same" is bullshit. They're not.

Well, Clinton is opting every time she has the chance for war. That alone makes her instantly a bad candidate in my book. I don't say Trump is good, but basically it boils down to Cholera vs. pestilence. Yes, we could argue for hours about who of the two is the lesser evil, but basically they're both bad. Fortunately the americans have other options: Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Gloria la Riva...



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

I do not know Donald Trump. I can only form an opinion of the man based on what I have actually heard him say and what I have actually read of his writings. Based on these criteria alone I conclude that he is despicable. If he believes what he says and writes then, to me, he is in appalling individual. If he says and writes these things purely to attract a demographic that , in his estimation, gives him a chance of winning the election and he doesn't believe most of these utterances then he is even more despicable.

It will be a bad day for the U.S. and a worse one for the world were he to succeed.

Just my opinion of course!



Mnementh said:

Soundwave said:

Trump is the most dishonest person to come into politics in 30 years+++++. This whole thing about "they're both the same" is bullshit. They're not.

Well, Clinton is opting every time she has the chance for war. That alone makes her instantly a bad candidate in my book. I don't say Trump is good, but basically it boils down to Cholera vs. pestilence. Yes, we could argue for hours about who of the two is the lesser evil, but basically they're both bad. Fortunately the americans have other options: Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Gloria la Riva...

Especially when she talks about replying by military means to Russia's supposed hacking, and blaming them for about anything, this is pure madness. That not becoming a major topic for newspaper really proves they are leashed. And she's alone on this, because wether it's Trump, Jill Stein, or Gary Johnson, they seems to have a much more realistic approach when dealing with a major nuclear weapon state.



Around the Network
Norris2k said:

So yeah, tax cuts, infrastructure spending, get money back with better deals (China, military base, etc.), get rid of tax loopholes, review the spending, tax Chinese imports and get back the money from offshore seems like a very good plan for me.

I agree with you if there are tax cuts then loopholes should be removed.  Problem is that few politicians want to get rid of the loopholes because they are controlled by special interest groups aka lobbyist.  They mainly just talk about lowering taxes and no mention of getting rid of loopholes.  I'm all for lower taxes if you cut exemptions out for personal (even ones that I benefit from like getting some money back from student loan interest, and house) and businesses.



Norris2k said:
Mnementh said:

Well, Clinton is opting every time she has the chance for war. That alone makes her instantly a bad candidate in my book. I don't say Trump is good, but basically it boils down to Cholera vs. pestilence. Yes, we could argue for hours about who of the two is the lesser evil, but basically they're both bad. Fortunately the americans have other options: Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Gloria la Riva...

Especially when she talks about replying by military means to Russia's supposed hacking, and blaming them for about anything, this is pure madness. That not becoming a major topic for newspaper really proves they are leashed. And she's alone on this, because wether it's Trump, Jill Stein, or Gary Johnson, they seems to have a much more realistic approach when dealing with a major nuclear weapon state.

Does this statement sound like she is advocating military action as in ground troops but cybertroops

"We need to respond to evolving threats from states like Russia, China, Iran and North Korea," Clinton said in the speech. "We need a military that is ready and agile so it can meet the full range of threats and operate on short notice across every domain – not just land, sea, air and space but also cyberspace."

Are you 2 stating that our military should not be capable of handling and responding to cyberattacks and should not treat those threats as if they were harmfull to theUS.  If any one of those countries knockout our infratstructure, banks, city and local government through cyberattacks how do you think we should respond?



The thing is both Trump and Hillary will get involved overseas.

Hillary is a classic neoliberal War Hawk



Machiavellian said:
Norris2k said:

Especially when she talks about replying by military means to Russia's supposed hacking, and blaming them for about anything, this is pure madness. That not becoming a major topic for newspaper really proves they are leashed. And she's alone on this, because wether it's Trump, Jill Stein, or Gary Johnson, they seems to have a much more realistic approach when dealing with a major nuclear weapon state.

Does this statement sound like she is advocating military action as in ground troops but cybertroops

"We need to respond to evolving threats from states like Russia, China, Iran and North Korea," Clinton said in the speech. "We need a military that is ready and agile so it can meet the full range of threats and operate on short notice across every domain – not just land, sea, air and space but also cyberspace."

Are you 2 stating that our military should not be capable of handling and responding to cyberattacks and should not treat those threats as if they were harmfull to theUS.  If any one of those countries knockout our infratstructure, banks, city and local government through cyberattacks how do you think we should respond?

What I'm refering to is "Russia is even hacking in the Democratic National Commity. Maybe even some state elections. So we have to step up our game. Make sure we are well defended, and ready to take the fight to those that go after us. [...] We will be ready with serious political, economical and military responses.". Even if you imply that this cyber counter attack, you do not make a bold statement about military answer to Russia.

USA is hacking a lot of countries, wikileaks proved even close allies like germany and France, and certainly Russia and China. Do you want them to take military measures, including cyber attacks ? That's now how it works, we are talking about cyber espionnage, everyone do it, everyone has to protect itself against it, and that's just how the game is.

Here she specifically point at espionnage and leaks from Russia, which as far as I know is not even proven, and which should not lead to any military response. Because how do you think Russia would react to a military response ? We are talking about ending the world here, that's totally crazy.

If a country knockout anything, that is an act of war, this is China/Russia or whatever declaring war on USA. This should be not linked in the same speech with DNC hacking, which is a whole different topic.



sethnintendo said:
Norris2k said:

So yeah, tax cuts, infrastructure spending, get money back with better deals (China, military base, etc.), get rid of tax loopholes, review the spending, tax Chinese imports and get back the money from offshore seems like a very good plan for me.

I agree with you if there are tax cuts then loopholes should be removed.  Problem is that few politicians want to get rid of the loopholes because they are controlled by special interest groups aka lobbyist.  They mainly just talk about lowering taxes and no mention of getting rid of loopholes.  I'm all for lower taxes if you cut exemptions out for personal (even ones that I benefit from like getting some money back from student loan interest, and house) and businesses.

Trump has been quite explicit about it, talking about ending "Carried Interest Tax Loophole". So it would give smaller companies the kind of low taxes global companies enjoy through loopholes. But at the end of the day, it depends if one can believe him on it or not. Obama also talked about it and just did nothing, so that's would not be new to be all talk, and no action. Based on campain funding alone, he is the one that has any chance to do it.