Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
It was only necessary because france required it. And they could have stopped requiring it any time in the next 120 years and didn't.
'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)
91–100 of 123 posts
Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)
#92This 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.
It's an old case, but timely and relevant. The story, now being old and quaint, provides a lower complexity, lower stakes model for monetary actions of the present.
Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The bank and government claim that if I want my money they can give me my money in green physical paper bills because it exists in the bank.
Problem is that it's a lie. That's why bank runs are possible. And the current bank runs ends with another institution taking over and articulating the same lie.
Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was only necessary because france required it. And they could have stopped requiring it any time in the next 120 years and didn't.
France required compensation money in exchange for recognition of Haiti (which was Haiti's only choice at the time, nobody else wanted to recognise them). Because of course Haiti didn't have the money nor any realistic prospects of coming up with the money soon (not only was their infrastructure decimated by the slave revolts and civil war and revolution and various campaigns, their cash crops were only viable with s…
> regardless of ethics
Yes, that's the bad part.
Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
The money itself is also imaginary. It's just numbers on a ledger that people have agreed on.
No, money is suppose to exist as solid green paper. The value is imaginary but its existence is physical. The bank and government claim that if I want my money they can give me my money in green physical paper bills because it exists in the bank. Problem is that it's a lie. That's why bank runs are possible. And the current bank runs ends with another institution taking over and articulating the same lie.
It's similar to how banknotes originally were 1:1 correlated with physical gold (or whatever) in the vault, then banks realized they could lend out more notes than they have gold in the vault.
Very similar situation with electronic vs paper dollars.
Most bank deposits are created out of thin air by commercial banks when they make loans. There isn't enough paper money to cover all those deposits.
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/m...
Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)
#96Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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)
#98"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)
#99Of course the issued correction was rather new in 2017, the report it corrected was what was 103 years old. But I guess only overly pedantic souls like myself get bothered by stuff like that.
Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
The money itself is also imaginary. It's just numbers on a ledger that people have agreed on.
No, money is suppose to exist as solid green paper. The value is imaginary but its existence is physical. The bank and government claim that if I want my money they can give me my money in green physical paper bills because it exists in the bank. Problem is that it's a lie. That's why bank runs are possible. And the current bank runs ends with another institution taking over and articulating the same lie.