Imagine a town with two widget merchants. The two go out to dinner one night, and next week they both double their prices. Both widget merchants are pleased.

Sure you'll have destroyed the company, but at least you'll have avoided bureaucracy.

Trump: they demand you, they love you, they love what you do...

Bukele: {something about supporters}

Trump: you know what I want to do? Home-grown criminals are next. {louder, to his senior staff in the room} I said HOME-GROWNS are next. The home-growns. You've got to build about five more places.

Bukele, laughing: Yeah, that's fair! Alright.

{big burst of laughter from Trump's staff}

Trump: It's not big enough!

For a large majority of supervisors, if you give them carefully-worded, polite, respectful, private, accurate, truthful, ego-preserving feedback about something they're doing wrong, their response will range between "immediate firing" and "hold a grudge against you, fire you as soon as they can find a replacement". There is nothing that makes people as angry as accurately pointing out their flaws.

The way around this is in essence to get the leader to think it was their idea to make a change, which is possible in some cases but not in others.

a) company starts up that explicitly avoids being a bank

b) company does something where some amount of money is placed in FDIC-insured banks, and it TRUMPETS on its website: "FDIC INSURED" over and over

c) consumers are misled into thinking their money is safe

d) regulators do not act

e) consumers lose all their money

f) profit (for a very specific set of individuals)

The company can even fake up a bunch of social media accounts to tell people reassuring lies right up until the scam collapses.

These scams will continue until regulators get serious about putting people in jail for them.

https://www.reddit.com/r/yotta/comments/1ctf25r/is_our_money...

Harris is a party-line voter (pretty obviously, as an insider she's defining the party line in the first place). The Democratic Party isn't leftist and nor is Harris. It's routine in most democracies for elected representatives to be party-line voters.

The opinion expressed here that nothing has changed in the world recently about how truth and politics are handled is false. With the collapse of reasonable arbiters of "truth", such as network TV anchors, who were imperfect themselves but nevertheless served as a check on the falsehoods that a political party could put out, parties have discovered that 100% bullshit 100% of the time is a workable approach to politics, and some of them are pursuing that. That was never true before.

Done and dusted, problem solved.

Well, that's not in evidence here. There is maybe one commenter total in this thread other than myself who is NOT commenting as if these are real debts, that cannot be paid off since "the UK is broke" and will somehow cause the UK to be bankrupted or harassed by debt collectors.

> It can be good if it is invested wisely with positive ROI exceeding the cost of borrowing. Borrowing for negative ROI obviously impoverishes the future for the benefit of today.

Even this is a misunderstanding of sovereign debt. The UK can pay off all its debts by tea time. The cost of borrowing can therefore be $0. The UK is choosing to make payments to debt-holders for various reasons but none of them are "we need the money to make investments and this is the only way to get it, making payments to debt-holders". The UK does not need to borrow in order to spend.

Discussions of sovereign debts as if they were the same as debts owed by individuals are laughable.

The stated actions planned by Labour (generally impoverishing the populace and slowing the economy) will have the effect of increasing the notional indebtedness of the UK, not decreasing it.