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

61–70 of 123 posts

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

#61

Post by FeepingCreature »

azangru wrote: post #55
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…

> The journal accepts that some readers may wrongly have inferred I am confused. What is the Lancet blaming its readers for? Why was this inference wrong?

The Lancet isn't saying that the inference was wrong but that the conclusion of the inference is wrong. There's not really a better way to say that; "some readers may have inferred, wrongly" is synonymous, and "may have inferred that the Lancet, wrongly" implies that the Lancet failed to recognize these achievements, which it did not (it merely failed to mention them).

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

#62

Post by sofixa »

vkou wrote: post #44
kneebonian wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's not all that funny, considering that the reason they were paying those reparations was the 'damages' inflicted upon French slaveowners by slaves freeing themselves.

It was all damages - lost property (land and slaves), deaths, lost profits, etc. It was a terrible but necessary sacrifice on the part of Haiti because it was the only way France would recognise their independence, which paved the way for other countries to do the same (but nobody was forthcoming on their own either out of fear of pissing of France or their own slaves/colonies rebelling).

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

#65

Post by HPsquared »

aaa_aaa wrote: post #53

"John Maynard Keynes, the economist who famously advocated for public spending to stimulate economies during recession, knew about the deception, the researchers say. In a memo marked "Secret" he called it "a masterly manipulation," while also warning that it was not sustainable in the long run." I could not help noticing the hypocrisy of him. Also when I read the end of the paragraph I chuckled recalling his famous…

Here we are now, in the long run.

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

#66

Post by nl »

cik2e wrote: post #17
nl wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a real bond purchase. The money just came from the Bank of England reserves, and the BoE was private at the time (although had very strong links to the Government). Eg: The episode marked an important step on the Bank’s transformation from private institution to a central bank.. A decade after the Armistice, the altered role of the Bank prompted creation of a Parliamentary commission to examine its functions,…

>> So instead of allowing the disappointing truth to come out, the Bank of England secretly funneled money to hide the gap. I believe that's what was meant by "fake". In other words, inauthentic . As far as the transformation from "private institution" to central bank, are you suggesting that this was a form of Open Market Operations?

I took fake to mean that they made up a sale and created money out of nothing (or something).

This isn't what happened. They took money from their reserves and spent it.

> As far as the transformation from "private institution" to central bank, are you suggesting that this was a form of Open Market Operations?

Hu? No, the Bank was nationalised. I don't really understand what you mean or are trying to say.

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

#67

Post by HPsquared »

HervalFreire wrote: post #42
chasing wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

There's a difference between an illusion that is a name and the illusion that I have all your money in a safe place that you can always access. A name is a imaginary representation, this is different from a factual claim about reality.

The money itself is also imaginary. It's just numbers on a ledger that people have agreed on.

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

#68

Post by nl »

dilippkumar wrote: post #35
rwmj wrote: post #3

I 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…

> When they did this fake bond purchase, they just minted new pounds

I didn't watch the video but if this is what they said it's wrong. The Bank of England had the money in their reserves and they used that.

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

#69

Post by ceejayoz »

concordDance wrote: post #57
vkou wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not all that funny, considering that the reason they were paying those reparations was the 'damages' inflicted upon French slaveowners by slaves freeing themselves.

I thought there was also a lot of killing?

Slave revolts tend to require killing, and I’m not inclined to blame the slaves for that.
Post reply on HN