🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

I find ones mental health is directly proportional to ones comfort with silence.

When I am not in as healthy a mental state, just some stress or whatever, nothing too significant, I find silence, particularly at the end of the day, as very uncomfortable, almost has a depressing feel to it. But if i keep music or the TV on, even in the distance without watching it that goes away.

But when i am in a healthier place I rarely even notice the silence and when I do it can be relaxing and soothing.

Is this just me?

@ravenclaw

While I generally have a huge distaste for conspiracy theories there are the absolute nutty ones and then ones where im like "well that is possible but there is still no evidence and it would be hard to pull off"... this one is just nutty...

There are so many limitations and even fundamental laws of phsyics, that make this impossible... If there is a chip then you would see it in the liquid, the conspiracy wouldnt get so far.

If it were nanobot microscopic shit they would be impossible to communicate on RF as their antenna would be far too small to be able to communicate on any useful frequency. The smaller the antenna the less effective it is at a given frquency, specifically those at wavelenths above the antenna size. So to be small enough to be unable to be seen by the naked eye means they are too small to act as a chip in anyway.

The reason its so laughable as an idea is because even if there was, somehow, the unbelievable cooperation of people en masse to make this possible, it STILL wouldnt be possible.

We are in flat earth territory here.

@blinkwarp

@blinkwarp

No no, you are fine. I just needed to know you were in STEM. We check with most people. As long as you either studies, practice, work in, or love STEM then you are perfectly fine.

So that answer satisfies me, your good by me.

@ravenclaw

@blinkwarp

One of our rules that we explicitly state on our about page is that you **must** be a professional in stem or training to be one.

Therefore you are required to let us know if you are a STEM professional and if not you would be required to move to a different server. It is nothing personal, but those are the rules of the server stated on the front door.

So I will ask again, are you a STEM professional, and if so what is your profession/training?

@ravenclaw

@raucao I am sorry you feel it is me insulting, that is not my intent.. I am pointing out character flaws, yes, and that may not be praise. But it is not an insult. It is intended to be constructive and in the hopes you can better yourself.

I certainly dont take any offense in any character flaws you could point out in me either, it may help me better understand how to communicate with you. At least if constructive.. but you havent really offered any that are actionable as of yet.

@raucao I've addressed the actual points, many times over, and you continually fail to make any effort to understand them..

You immediately assert how you interpret my statements when i address it and dictate it as an absolute rather than making any attempt to see if the ideas were communicated and understood in both directions clearly. Everytime causing a failure to communicate.

I have addressed the underlying points many times, and every time it results in complete failure for you to understand what was being said.. so all i can do now is try to fix the mechanisms of communication in the hopes that, if we do, we can get back to underlying points and have a productive progression from there.

@raucao And that right there is what we call projection...

Someone calls you out on a flaw in your ability to communicate, and you deflect that by assuming i must have some sort of cognitive dissonance in even presuming you there could possibly be a breakdown of communication, and therefore any flaws exposed in yourself is really just flaws in other people...

Again there is nothing remotely healthy about this conversation at this point, and again i dont think you are ill willed either. so no hard feelings. But I also cant battle against your own character flaws if you refuse to consider them as even a possibility.

Contrast this with my own response where I have acted much the opposite, admitting that I could very much be to blame as well by miscommunicating my own points, and that I do not know which it is. Even that you responded in a way to suggest it is not possible that you could have possibly misunderstood me, even if it happened to be my own fault.

All I can say is you will never have much success communicating people in life is this is how you approach conversations. It certainly has wasted a lot of both of our time that need not be wasted and has made communication with you on any level impossible at this point.

@raucao the best way to fail at communication is being as cocksure as you are that communication couldnt have possibly failed... you really need to reevaluate your approach to discussion if you wish to have productive ones.

@raucao "supposed facts"... thats a fancy term for "My opinion as to what things I beleive to be facts"...

Everything is an opinion, sometimes your opinions are right, when they are then they are also a fact.

I am stating my opinion as to what the facts are, you are stating your opinion as to what the facts are.

This is also a tangent though, because the point is you are still getting horrifically wrong the "fact" I am trying to express and paraphrasing it as something entierly different than the intended meaning... So really no need to get into this semantic mess at all.

@raucao

Obviously your language is not clear, if it was I wouldnt be asking you to clarify.

As for if my language is clear, I cant be certain of that either.. It is clear you are getting the opinions I express demonstrably wrong. So that means either you are failing to understand clear language, or I am failing to make my language clear... Either way it is quite bvious by the fact thatI know what my opinions are, and am doing my best to express them, and you are reciting my opinions incorrectly, that there is, quite obviously, a break down in communication.

What I find concerning about your reaction is two fold

1) You assume your conclusion as to what my opinion happens to be holds greater weight than what I know my opinion to be. This is a serious character flaw, obviously I will know my own opinion better than you will, so if i tell you that you are reciting my opinion incorrectly then that should be accepted at face value and a different cause should be considered as to where the disconnect is.

2) You are assuming that I must be able to know what your own opinion is accurately as you must be conveying it in a way that leaves no doubt. Again this seems like a serious character flaw of the same nature. While I will make a best effort to understand your opinion if i quite literally tell you "I do not understand this sentence, please rephrase it" it is not in the least constructive to assume your communication was flawless.

These two add up to a pattern that is extremely troubling when having any hope for a productive conversation. Though I am more than happy to try to work through it so long as I feel you are acting on good faith. For now I suspect they are character flaws, once you may not recognize, and not intentional. But you must make some effort to overcome these two points if you'd like to move forward from here.

@raucao

> And that's not at all what I just quoted back to you.

I don't understand what you are saying in this sentence. sounds like you are now agreeing with what i have been repeatedly saying for 8 hours now. Are you saying you understand what I have been saying now?

This sentence is just hard to parse, not sure what it says, please rephrase if not.

> The rest of that post is even more adamant about me having to deposited all the money first, before they can lend it out.

Yes, you **do** need to deposit the money first before they can leng it out. That's what a fractional reserve system means. At 1% they can only lend out 99% of your M1 money. They can **not** lend out money if you and no one else has deposited any.

Again not sure if your finally understanding what im saying or still struggling with it... Perhaps you are using a different definition of money? When I say money I mean the technical definition, effectivally M0 - M3, whether we count MZM or not is a bit more open to interpretation but not a relevant point here I dont think, nor part of the problem with you understanding what I am trying to say.

@raucao I'm not really sure if you understand it or not.. I am only presuming you dont since it might explain why you keep paraphrasing my quotes to mean things unrelated to what the quote says... honestly im mostly just confused why that is happening as I am trying to assume good faith here still.

> then explain to me what a reserve requirement of 1% means, please.

It means essentially what I just said in the last post. If a reserve requirement of 1% is set then that means that a bank is required to money, on hand, that is 1% of its M1 deposits, which is most simply described as the checking account deposits (though it is a bit more nuanced than that).

So if a bank starts with no money and a 0 balance sheet and you make a deposit of $100 as a new depositor, the bank is required to keep $1 on hand (in reserve) and is permitted to loan out $99 of the $100 you gave them.

@raucao

> So now you're flip-flopping between fractional reserve banking exists and fractional reserve banking does not exist. Which is it?

Holy hell man your paraphrasing skills are 0 today... No I said nothing for the sort. I am describing the fractional reserve system here, and have consistently stated it exists...

Perhaps you dont get how it works..

1) the bank must have the money on hand to loan out, this money can come from the bank borrowing the money from somewhere, having its own assets, or from depositors

2) the bank must keep the required reserve (typically 10% but it varies) on all M1 monies, for example checking accounts. Ergo they can loan out, at most, 90% of your checking account money, which again they had on hand through your deposit.

3) The bank either needs to keep a much lower required minimum, or none at all, on M2 money it has, for example savings deposits. In this case typically near or at 100% can be loaned out.

4) At no point can a bank loan out more money than would cause it to be left with less than the required reserve, again typically about 10% of all M1 money accounts (checking)... ergo it can not loan out money it doesnt have, it can only loan out the money it has, and even then only a fraction of it.

5) This creates a money multiplier effect where the total money supply is higher than the base money, since you now have your account balance (which shows the on demand amount you can withdraw) and someone has their own money that they got via the loan

@raucao i didnt say I never said that... I did say it, and it is valid. If they have no depositors and their money on the books and in the vault is zero then they can not loan out money (unless they aquire money to loan out by making a loan of their own of course)...

Only once you or someone makes a deposit into an account, where you agree to have your money loaned out, only then can they loan your money to individuals.

So yes, I said that, never said I didnt, and it still holds true.

What I find baffling is how you took what you just quoted and got all the nonsense you claimed you thought I said that in no way is reflected in that statement.

I can only speculate where the disconnect is, but you keep quoting me and those quotes dont remotely resemble your paraphrasing of them in the least.

@raucao Good night, and happy to try.

To be clear it is entirely possible for a person to attempt to disassemble and still get it wrong and misunderstand. I am not claiming it is due to any lack of intelligence on your part, only that very clearly you are telling me what you thought i was saying, and it wasn't even remotely close to what I was saying.

I think it should be rather clear I know what my own opinion is better than you do, so when someone tells you that you misinterpreted what they said and you are incorrect about my opinion, that is the last thing you should have any desire to argue about. At that point you should try to better understand the opinion.

@raucao

> you argued that they don't create money because it already exists.

See, as expected, not even remotely close to what I argued. In fact I explicitly stated that the money multiplier effect was not intended to be part of this diagram, I did not deny tht it occurs, in fact I stated clearly from the get go it does.

Even my updated diagram that did about an hour ago specifically addresses it...

So yea, your really doing a bad job understanding what I am saying. Only thing im uncertain about is why, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt so far it is not intentional but I dunno.

@raucao

> he mere fact that you acknowledge that a bank run would create problems means that your original counter argument is now null and void.

Which argument is that exactly that is null and void.. up to this point you have had a pretty horrible track record of knowing what my arguments were at all.

## How Money is created

#### Monetary & Quantitative Easing

Yesterday I posted this diagram, but it had some significant errors in it. I have since corrected it and wanted to share the new version. Enjoy.

So I created this diagram showing what Quantitative Easing and Monetary Easing is and more generally how new money is created and put into circulation, thus increasing the money supply.

#Money #USPol #Economics #Economy #Investing #QuantitativeEasing #MonetaryEasing #TheFed @General

@raucao yes neither of those statements come even close to the paraphrasing or psudo-quotes you attributed to me... Notice I never say anything about the fed not being able to fail by printing money.

I am also clearly talking about singular bank and not a mass run on **all** banks (notice the word bank is singular there). What I am describing is not just accepted fact, it is the norm and happens daily.. When a banks reserve dips below the required minimum this is exactly what they do, they just get a garunteed short term loan from the Fed to cover it which they correct through one of several means then return it.

So yea, nothing I said is even remotely MMT, it is, in fact, simply the cold hard fact of what takes place consistently in the banking system.

@dvdmoore

To which practice are you refering to? All money creation, QE, ME, discount rate adjustment, reserve rate adjusement? I touch on several methods that all increase money supply so you have to be more specific.

I am posting ina few minutes a much improved version of the chart, it may make it clearer.

@General