No, it is really "competition" (banks compete for my money) vs "monopoly" (no other option than the government).
The assumption that CBDC is a good idea because the government is always benevolent and does what's best for the people is incorrect, as demonstrated by the horrible financial mismanagement in the recent 20 years.
I actually did, a few months ago. In my state, out of the 10 non gun-carrying people killed by the cops in the past 10 years, 2-3 were Black, 5 were White, the rest Hispanic and 1 Asian (matching the racial makeup of US).
So the statement by the poster above holds - if you don't point a gun at a cop (figuratively), your chance of surviving contact with police if you are Black are no lower than other races.
The Fed want inflation to diminish (in real terms) the mountains of debt the US government and consumers incurred in the past 20 years. At the expense of the poorest people and savers (because wage inflation is much lower than the goods/services inflation, not to mention bank savings interest rates, which are laughable).
Make no mistake, the Fed are not idiots, they have been trying to introduce inflation for a long time, but initially they succeeded in asset inflation only. With the help of Covid and the war, they got their wish.
But wage inflation needs to match the goods/services inflation, because without it, borrowers will be even less able to pay their debts.
In order to really stamp out inflation, the Fed would need to raise the interest rate to 10%, essentially forcing the US to declare bankruptcy.
The Fed is hoping to introduce a mild recession, which, they hope, would reduce all kinds of inflation, without them having to raise the rates above 3.5% or so.
Pearson had a 50% stake, most of which was sold to the Agnellis. So now, the Agnellis and the Rotschilds are the largest (and, together, controlling) shareholders.
Board members like Lady de Rothschild and Eric "you have no privacy" Schmidt publicly supported/donated to the Hillary Clinton campaign. The Rotschilds were invited by the Clintons to spend their honeymoon at the White House. The rest of the board reads like the attendees at the Bilderberg Group and the Council on Foreign Relations. The very definition of elitism, and collusion with the governments (Schmidt, Alex Karp, who is also on the board, there are also Sirs and Baronesses). "Free trade" - yes, reserved for the multinationals, Most definitely not mom-and-pop, small/medium business oriented anymore (which they used to be, before the sale).
The fact that they (probably still) have superbly written articles should not disguise the shift in their political stance.
Perhaps more like globalist/corporatist, which reflects their recent ownership?
In 2015, Pearson - a publishing company - sold its controlling stake to a bunch of corporate owners, like the Agnellis (43%) and the Rotschilds (21%), among others.
The change in their editorial direction was immediately visible (I had been a subscriber/reader for 35+ years until 2016)
This is a serious claim, and one that I have not seen coming from the protesters (they want an end to the Covid mandates, from what I can tell) . Can you please provide the source for your allegation?
What to do when you have two very different opinions coming from experts:
- Anthony "I am The Science" Fauci
or
- Dr Malone (mRNA inventor)?
Who to believe?
Difficult to say, but these days, sadly, the first (and prudent) thing to do is to follow the money.
While credentials matter, the first thing I check when I read a paper/publication is who funded the work.
>But it is absolutely true that pay has been surging since about 2014/2015
Only partially true:
1. High total compensation (not salaries) is limited to FAANG/Unicorn employees (awash with money)
2. That high compensation has been achieved by stock options multiplying in value, thanks to abnormal run of the stock market (thank you Federal Reserve), which is not going to continue with rising interest rates
3. Salary base seems to be stuck at $150K for mid-senior developers in bigger cities (except for NYC) for many years now
They were bailouts, because, without Fed's guarantees, no financial institution would loan money to most of these badly-managed, reckless corps. And they are doing the exact same thing again, knowing they will be bailed out again.
"Profits for the taxpayer" - did you get a penny of the "profits"? The only people who profited were the executives of the bailed out companies - who deserved to lose their jobs, not double their wealth.
The assumption that CBDC is a good idea because the government is always benevolent and does what's best for the people is incorrect, as demonstrated by the horrible financial mismanagement in the recent 20 years.