SoleInvictus

I'm the same way. I take like a quarter hit and I'm alright. The whole puff? Gone for hours.

I was coming to post the same. Those fucking clickers were so stupid and overpriced, all so my biochem professor could poll the class AND grade everyone on their results. Results to questions about material that was JUST taught in the same lesson. Good thing everyone benefits equally from lecture, right? Fuck that guy.

Feeling this so hard as I trundle into my forties. I can't get enough bitter gourd.

After first seeing the term trans femme, I was very sad trans homme wasn't in use.

"Fiscal conservative" was always just a reputable seeming veneer for "we'd rather let poor people die than tax the wealthy at the same rate as everyone else".

Holy shit. I get it! That's a great explanation and I really appreciate your taking the time to type it all out. I'm glad we don't have Lemmy medallions to award but, if we did, I'd give you one. I now see how a 100% reserve requirement, i.e., all deposits completely backed in cash, would entirely change banking.

The only thing that feels weird to me is the virtual money the bank creates doesn't seem go away once it's paid back. For example, if a mini bank only had $1000 and lent $900 with a 10% reserve, they'd end up with $1900 once the loan is repaid (ignoring interest). Or does the $900 they lent create a -$900 for the bank that is cancelled through repayment?

I've been thinking about it and it still doesn't make sense. I'm a scientist, not an economist, so it's wildly out of my wheelhouse. Would you mind pointing me in the right direction?

Here's where I'm hung up. Let's assume a 10% fractional reserve and, for the sake of simplicity, just one bank and a dramatically simplified deposit/loan scenario, just to minimize the number of hypothetical people and transactions.

Person A deposits $1000. Bank lends $900 to person A which is sent to Person B.

Person B deposits $900. Bank lends $810 to person B which is sent to Person C.

Person C deposits $810. Bank lends $729 to person C which is sent to Person D.

Person D deposits $729. Bank lends $656 to person D which is sent to Person E.

Let's stop there. So we have one initial deposit of $1000, which has resulted in an additional $2,493 in deposits ($3,493 in total) and $3,095 in loans. The bank is now receiving payments, plus interest, on over 3x the amount of actual money it was actually given. To me, it seems like the bank is figuratively "printing money" and gaining interest on it. Nothing I've read on fractional reserve lending has suggested this is incorrect.

Halp!

Or work for free in prison, after which you may be saddled with debt for your stay.

I learned to pick locks in my youth. I absolutely have picked my way into places and things to fuck with friends and family, but I always tell them. At some point.

One of my favorites was getting into my friend's garden shed and turning everything upside down, then a few weeks later rearranging everything so it was a mirror image of how it was previously.

I'm always surprised how few people know about this. The banks are literally gaining interest on money they never had. It should be illegal.

While it's all fine and good to just say "hire the right people", that's a gross oversimplification. Those people became "right" through time and dedication, which led to experience. Not every employee will be a "right person" and none of them started out as one. Also consider that not every manager is a "right person", so making SMART goals protects you from their managerial inadequacy.

SMART lays out how to both set and receive tasks, goals, assignments, etc., that are clearly defined. A goal lacking in one or more of these elements is what is commonly referred to as a "shitty goal". Why? I'll lay it out using the acronym from the perspective of an employee, plus an example for each of what can happen when that information is missing.

Specific: what does my boss actually want from me?
Converse - I completed the wrong task.

Measurable: how do I prove I did the task and how well it was done?
Converse - I did great work but can't prove to the client how great it is.

Achievable: can the task actually be done with the time, knowledge, and resources available?
Converse - I agreed to complete a task which turned out to be impossible given our resources.

Relevant: how does the task relate to the job/project/etc?
Converse - I completed an unnecessary task. Now I have to work even more to undo it and complete what actually does need to be done.

Time: when does this need to be done by?
Converse - I completed the task after it was needed, putting the project behind.

If you're missing any of those parameters, you're either not giving your people enough information or they aren't asking enough questions. I'd love to hear how work can be consistently done well if any of that is missing.

Those "right people" you mentioned are likely already incorporating these elements into communications with you. Dare say that makes them... SMARTer than you? Heyo!

To anyone with the math skills, I just explain it as a piecewise function. It's pretty easy to model.