What corrections might be issued about our time in 100 years?
'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)
31–40 of 123 posts
Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Somehow this reminds me of the people trying to get money for 100+ year old Tsarist Russian bonds https://www.rbth.com/lifestyle/327261-french-still-waiting-f...
Or haiti paying reparations to france until like 1950.
Ya know it sounds funny but it seems to me that it is a fundamental principle they the larger a body of humans under consideration is, the slower everything will move. For example a small startup with 15 developers often is able to add features and move faster to capture a market than a massive lumbering blue behemoth.
Thus if we were to reframe our understanding of timelines considering organization size.
Less than a few hundred people could be measured in time scales of a few weeks.
Large organizations with thousands of people change and move on time scales of years or decades.
Then understandably nations would often move on the time scales of centuries to do things, simply because of inertial forces.
I wonder how much of the discontent and mudslinging that now happens is a result of everything in our personal lives suddenly becoming faster without the rest of the human organizations surrounding it being able to speed up as well.
Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Kind of, but I don’t pay any fees for my bank account(s) and I don’t expect to in the future, even with the small insurance rate increase levied by the FDIC to cover making SVB depositors whole. Making loans with my money is profitable enough for my bank that they don’t need to charge fees.
Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)
#34Another 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? :)
Similar bonds were also raised for the Napoleonic and Crimea wars and back to the South Sea Bubble crisis of 1720 and have been cancelled or converted in some way over the years.
https://amp.theguardian.com/business/blog/2014/oct/31/paying...
Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)
#35I wonder why they bothered going through with the fake bond purchase, rather than simply manipulate the published numbers of bonds sold? Unless the Bank was also keeping it a secret from central government?
According to one bitcoin maximalist[0] this was the real origin of fiat currency.
I’m not sure I understand everything that is said nor fully believe, given that it’s a bitcoin maximalist dumping on fiat currency, but what I took away was that the english pound was redeemable for gold. When they did this fake bond purchase, they just minted new pounds (that didn’t have gold backing it) and used that to buy back these bonds in secret.
This is significant because there was a fear of a bank run in England at the start of the war where everyone was afraid that this would happen. The Bank of England had to assure everyone that they wouldn’t do this to stop the bank run - and so, when they actually went ahead and did it, they kind of had to keep it secret
Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)
#36Sort 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.
> Better question on that front is how it’s legal.
Because, when, after allowing FDIC broader discretion to decide how to resolve bank failures so long as at least insured balances were covered from the creation of the FDIC, Congress narrowed that discretion in 1991 by adopting the least-cost rule which normally prohibits FDIC from committing more from the Deposit Insurance Fund than necessary to cover insured accounts, they also permitted the FDIC to choose a higher-cost resolution when the required set of officials certified the existence of a systemic risk. (The system risk provision itself precedes the least-cost rule, but when the least-cost rule was adopted, the procedure for systemic risk waa changed and the system risk privision was made an exception to the least cost rule.)
Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)
#37I wonder why they bothered going through with the fake bond purchase, rather than simply manipulate the published numbers of bonds sold? Unless the Bank was also keeping it a secret from central government?
According to one bitcoin maximalist[0] this was the real origin of fiat currency. I’m not sure I understand everything that is said nor fully believe, given that it’s a bitcoin maximalist dumping on fiat currency, but what I took away was that the english pound was redeemable for gold. When they did this fake bond purchase, they just minted new pounds (that didn’t have gold backing it) and used that to buy back these…
As best historians can determine, fiat currency originated in 11th Century China; with absolute confidence we can say it didn’t originate in 20th Century Britain.
Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)
#38> "We are now happy to make clear that none of the above was true," the FT wrote.
Why are they happy?
Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Somehow this reminds me of the people trying to get money for 100+ year old Tsarist Russian bonds https://www.rbth.com/lifestyle/327261-french-still-waiting-f...
Or haiti paying reparations to france until like 1950.
These are rookie numbers!
Tom Scott has a video about bonds that are being serviced continuously for more than 370 years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfSIC8jwbQs
Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)
#40> "We are now happy to make clear that none of the above was true," the FT wrote. Why are they happy ?
It didn't sound like the FT was privy to this at the time?