Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 123 posts

Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)

#21

Post by geenew »

throw0101c wrote: post #20

See also The Lancet 's updating of their original 1858 obituary of John Snow: > Dr John Snow: This well-known physician died at noon, on the 16th instant, at his house in Sackville Street, from an attack of apoplexy. His researches on chloroform and other anaesthetics were appreciated by the profession. versus the 2013 one: > The journal accepts that some readers may wrongly have inferred that The Lancet failed to re…

It's pedantic to say, but, based on what they said, their original was not incorrect, simply less exhaustive than it could have been. It could (and, seems to) be that the fellow's work on anaesthetics was seen as more important than his work on cholera. Given the (often overlooked) importance of modern anaesthetics, I can easily believe this.

Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)

#24

Post by lettergram »

HervalFreire wrote: post #22

Sort of reminds me of the claim made by FDIC that they can back up all accounts in SVB. Maybe they can, but it's mainly the illusion that maintains the economy.

Better question on that front is how it’s legal. It’s not what congress passed or the FDICs charter / mission statement. So it’s kinda just “we’re doing it, even if it’s illegal”

Kinda like how they gave everyone a year or more where they could live in a place without paying rent via some BS CDC power that didn’t exist.

Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)

#25

Post by dvt »

lettergram wrote: post #24
HervalFreire wrote: post #22

Sort of reminds me of the claim made by FDIC that they can back up all accounts in SVB. Maybe they can, but it's mainly the illusion that maintains the economy.

Better question on that front is how it’s legal. It’s not what congress passed or the FDICs charter / mission statement. So it’s kinda just “we’re doing it, even if it’s illegal” Kinda like how they gave everyone a year or more where they could live in a place without paying rent via some BS CDC power that didn’t exist.

The legal loophole is that it's essentially a levy on the (other) banks, not the taxpayer. The comedy, of course, is that "bank customer" and "taxpayer" are more or less the same set of people.

Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)

#26

Post by RC_ITR »

lettergram wrote: post #24
HervalFreire wrote: post #22

Sort of reminds me of the claim made by FDIC that they can back up all accounts in SVB. Maybe they can, but it's mainly the illusion that maintains the economy.

Better question on that front is how it’s legal. It’s not what congress passed or the FDICs charter / mission statement. So it’s kinda just “we’re doing it, even if it’s illegal” Kinda like how they gave everyone a year or more where they could live in a place without paying rent via some BS CDC power that didn’t exist.

FDIC has broad authority to issue advance dividends on uninsured deposits, based on their estimate of what they will be able to recover from asset sales.

FDIC determined that a 100% advance dividend was appropriate, but merchandised it in a way that allows the receivership bank to continue operating as normal.

Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)

#27

Post by chasing »

HervalFreire wrote: post #22

Sort of reminds me of the claim made by FDIC that they can back up all accounts in SVB. Maybe they can, but it's mainly the illusion that maintains the economy.

I mean, it's also an illusion that you have a name. Just something everyone has kind of agreed to. Doesn't mean it's not steadfast and "real."

Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)

#28

Post by defrost »

ggm wrote: post #4

Another aspect of the british war debt, is that it was carried for hundreds of years. Rolling the specific consols into a unified public debt and then eradicating it wiped out the history of people sitting on long-tail bond payments from wreakage of the South Sea Bubble onwards. Basically, until they rolled them up you could have a stable (if low rate of return) income denominated in Napoleonic war debt, if you wante…

In other tangentially related long term British loan debt news:

    It was only in 2015 that, according to the Treasury, British taxpayers finished ‘paying off’ the debt which the British government incurred in order to compensate British slave owners in 1835 because of the abolition of slavery. Abolition meant their profiteering from human misery would (gradually) come to an end. Not a penny was paid to those who were enslaved and brutalised.

    The British government borrowed £20 million to compensate slave owners, which amounted to a massive 40 percent of the Treasury’s annual income or about 5 percent of British GDP. The loan was one of the largest in history.
[0] https://taxjustice.net/2020/06/09/slavery-compensation-uk-qu...

[1] https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/working-paper/2022/the-colle...

Eight year old 'news' now, but still relatively recent given it was a near 200 year note.

Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)

#29

Post by justinclift »

ggm wrote: post #4

Another aspect of the british war debt, is that it was carried for hundreds of years. Rolling the specific consols into a unified public debt and then eradicating it wiped out the history of people sitting on long-tail bond payments from wreakage of the South Sea Bubble onwards. Basically, until they rolled them up you could have a stable (if low rate of return) income denominated in Napoleonic war debt, if you wante…

> hundreds of years

Doesn't sound right. It only came into existence in 1914, so only one "hundred" since then. What are I not seeing? :)

Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)

#30

Post by eru »

defrost wrote: post #28
ggm wrote: post #4

Another aspect of the british war debt, is that it was carried for hundreds of years. Rolling the specific consols into a unified public debt and then eradicating it wiped out the history of people sitting on long-tail bond payments from wreakage of the South Sea Bubble onwards. Basically, until they rolled them up you could have a stable (if low rate of return) income denominated in Napoleonic war debt, if you wante…

In other tangentially related long term British loan debt news: It was only in 2015 that, according to the Treasury, British taxpayers finished ‘paying off’ the debt which the British government incurred in order to compensate British slave owners in 1835 because of the abolition of slavery. Abolition meant their profiteering from human misery would (gradually) come to an end. Not a penny was paid to those who were e…

> The British government borrowed £20 million to compensate slave owners, which amounted to a massive 40 percent of the Treasury’s annual income or about 5 percent of British GDP. The loan was one of the largest in history.

I wonder how that compares (perhaps as percentage of GDP or per capita or so) to the expenses of the American civil war.

Post reply on HN