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

71–80 of 123 posts

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

#71

Post by IIAOPSW »

nl wrote: post #7
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…

I find this history really interesting. Apparently there was a weird set of loans the UK took from the US during WW1 where the US put a moratorium on repayments during the Great Depression, and then loan payments never restarted: > These loans remain in limbo. The UK Government's position is this: "Neither the debt owed to the United States by the UK nor the larger debts owed by other countries to the UK have been se…

The official government position is procrastination

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

#72

Post by defrost »

dragonwriter wrote: post #59
concordDance wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still worth it to get it passed through parliament. (Also, would be a bit odd for the British government to pay people who were not enslaved by it, but instead by private individuals)

Property rights are a creation of law; every person made property within the territory ruled by Britain was enslaved by the British government.

Err, weird take.

With the forenote that I'm opposed to slavery, British companies and wealthy individuals purchased (or owned) copper from Welsh mines (or some other commodity) which they traded in Africa with African nations in exchange for humans (who were purchased already 'enslaved') and then either further traded in the Americas to plantations or used directly in plantations owned.

eg:

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/uncomfortable-...

This was a large and complex business enterprise and didn't involve formal enslavement by the British Government.

The Abolition referenced above was the British Government outlawing slavery within its territories and by its citizens - as an act of Government it was only supported on the promise of slave owners (which included nice little old widowed grannies of modest means with a 2/6 th share in a slave left by an uncle) being recompensed for their forfeited property.

The funds that flowed to former British slave owners went on to establish canals, factories, rail lines, develop colonies in Australia, etc.

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

#73

Post by Veen »

dragonwriter wrote: post #59
concordDance wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still worth it to get it passed through parliament. (Also, would be a bit odd for the British government to pay people who were not enslaved by it, but instead by private individuals)

Property rights are a creation of law; every person made property within the territory ruled by Britain was enslaved by the British government.

From that it follows that everyone whose property rights were created by the British government owed tax to Britain on that property. Ergo, the American Revolutionaries were in the wrong and the U.S. owes Britain substantial reparations for property theft and non-payment of taxes.

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

#74

Post by flohofwoe »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #50
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…

consider that some countries have a larger bureaucracy/democracy than others, it may be that dictatorships with few people in thr actual inner circle of power can adapt faster than those countries that have to persuade their constituency and find consensus before making a move.

Well yeah, there's no doubt that dictatorships/autocracies are faster at implementing bad ideas. That's the whole point of democracies/bureaucracies: to have a chance to weed out the obviously bad ideas before people are harmed.

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

#75

Post by leokennis »

This is one of the reasons I love reading British publications like the FT, Economist etc. While they are serious publications, at the same time they do not take themselves too seriously. They seem to be keenly aware of their standing and how they (and their readers) are perceived and communicate this in subtly humorous ways.

Come to think of it, this seems to go for basically all British people I know.

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

#76

Post by joewalker_ »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #41
geenew wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yet they were precise enough to mention that he died at 12:16 PM.

I believe in this case that the reference to "noon, on the 16th instant" is referring to the 16th day of the month, not the minute after 12:00 - so, he died at noon on June 16. Encyclopaedia Britannica lists his date of death as 16/06/1858 (https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Snow-British-physi...)

"Instant" means the current month, "ultimo" refers to the previous month and "proximo" the next (https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority...).

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

#77

Post by BlueTemplar »

chasing wrote: post #27
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."

Even more to the point is how money is a sort of illusion : it's a signal that allows for better allocation of real (and imaginary) resources in the economy.

P.S.: Aaand, ninjaed.

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

#79

Post by CrazyStat »

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…

I don't get it, what's the hypocrisy here?

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

#80

Post by swores »

adastra22 wrote: post #47
rafram wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You pay fees, even if they are hidden (e.g. lower interest rates in savings).

That's not paying fees.
Post reply on HN