Just imagine how much worse it would be if the graduate had an art history degree. I mean, it's fascinating but it doesn't tend to be relevant on the job.
The idea that university is job training just needs to go. The academic material may be relevant for work later on but it often isn't, and on the job there is way more to learn.
In engineering school you solve problems similar to industry - but its more the difficulty than the similarity.
New grads can handle the difficulty your job provides. If you train them - they should get the hang of it.
Industry leads academia in undergrad - not the other way around.
Industry knew that new grads needed 6-12 months of niche education (this is the general operation of Turbo Encabulators https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac7G7xOG2Ag). It was in their budget. Now.... not so much.
A fundamental problem a lot of this work has to confront is that interpreting motor behavior is generally the best way of interpreting brain activity.
The activity that's happening in the brain but never reaches the level of motor activity (in people that are not disabled and/or impaired in some way) is problematic to interpret as it is difficult to control and may not even be properly regarded as intentional.
That isn’t how fractional reserve lending works. An example will probably help.
You walk into Friendly Neighborhood Bank and ask for a loan, and since they’re friendly they make the loan. Now, what does that mean? From your perspective you now have a liability (the loan) and an asset (money in a bank account). From the bank’s perspective, they now have an asset (the loan), a liability (your bank account), and an income stream (the interest payments).
The bank didn’t have to move any money around from the Fed or other people’s savings accounts to make this happen. They just entered the debits and credits into their system and boom the money appears in your account, just as good as any other money. They literally created it out of thin air.
> That isn’t how fractional reserve lending works.
I'm not sure which part of the GP you're disagreeing with.
Fractional reserve is exactly that banks lend out a fraction of the deposits that they take in (the rest is kept in reserve).
The only reason it looks like money is created is because people (and economists) think of 'money in their account' as real money, when in fact it's just a IOU from the bank to you (possibly guaranteed by the government).
If you think of money-in-your-account as actually a debt the bank owes you, then it becomes quite clear that banks don't create money any more than lending money to a friend creates money. And there is a sense in which it does - lending money to a friend results in your friend having money and you having an asset (an IOU from your friend) that you expect to be able to use at some point in the future, so there is a sense in which the sum total of wealth has increased by the value of the IOU.
> Fractional reserve is exactly that banks lend out a fraction of the money that they take in
Isn't it a multiple instead of a fraction? Banks are required to keep in reserve a small percentage of the actual amount being lent, which means that they can lend a multiple of the money they take in.
Correct. In the US the required capital reserve is expressed in terms of daily net transaction amount. Wikipedia has a good breakdown[1], but for large banks the Fed requires 10% of NTA to be swept into the bank's Fed account overnight. There are also capitalization requirements for all banks, which are more stringent for nationally important "too big to fail" banks and bank-like entities.
For every debit there has to be a matching credit so nothing comes out of thin air.
If you go to your Friendly Neighbourhood Bank for a loan they are giving you their money, so you can then give that money on to someone else.
Now the bank is not so friendly that it gives you their money, instead they offer to lend you their money, on the proviso you pay it back in full and with interest.
For example lets say you want to buy a new car, so you go to the bank to get the loan.
The bank transfers the money to pay for the new car to the car dealership and you end up with a new car and a whole lot of debt.
That is incorrect, they only are required to own a fraction of the loans they give in assets. When a bank lends someone money, they create that money https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation.
The Central bank in your link is the Federal Bank.
Basically when retail banks need money they get it from the Central Bank through the Open Market Operation.
What happens is the retail banks offering up theirs bonds (which are assets), and the Central bank effectively buys (or sell) these bonds using a swap or repurchase agreement.
The retail banks then use that money to offer up loans to the public.
So the Central bank has the ability to print money by being prepared to buy up these bonds (using money that is effectively printed), but retail banks don't have that ability.
Retail banks and companies can do something similar by offering up their own bonds and selling them to investors, however should that organisation go broke the bonds take on junk status which basically means any investor that paid good money for them has lost the money.
For these transaction the money being used is real money.
When a bank lends you money the money lands in your bank account which means the bank can lend it out again. Even if you spend it, the money is going to land in someone else's bank account again. If we assume that 100% of the money is in the banking system without any potential for a bank run then in theory the bank could lend out an infinite amount of money.
It's a bit more complicated too - rather than the AAA ratings being completed unfounded, they often seemed to have justification (at least on the surface), as various kinds of CDOs were typically packaged with insurance baked in, to make them appear less risky to the ratings agencies' models. One big problem ended up being that a lot of those insurance payouts were theoretical, as the entity on the other end (often ultimately AIG) didn't have have the money to pay out when so many mortgages were defaulting.
But, yeah. The agencies didn't really have much incentive to be skeptical of their models.
The notion of psychedelic drugs is a convolution of terms, not very surprisingly, considering the adverse effects drugs have on the users who'd describe the effects. Huxley used LSD for example.
The term you are looking for is trance. Think of those manic church sessions, where people feel all so connected to god and go stark raving mad. Psychedelic trance can be achieved playing music or through meditation, as well.
You are correct, the Fed has said they would be ending this policy sometime this year and they're on track to do that. How I understand it, the big news here is that they've changed their language about raising interest rates from "we'll do it sometime in the future" to "we're going to do it sometime soon".
I don't think investors agree with you. If you look at the yield curves for the 1 year to 5 year treasury bonds[0] over the last year they have stayed relatively stable. Which means the investors expectations of future interest rate have been relatively stable. I don't think this supports you're theory that the Fed will be raising interest rates any time soon.
The yield curve has been relatively stable at close to 0. Indeed (as I understand it) that's the entire point of quantitive easing: it artificially keeps interest rates on long term securities down to encourage that money to be lent and spent http://marketrealist.com/2014/03/fed-taper-quantitative-easi....
The short term rate is 0. The yield curve is the curve if you plot interest rates on the y axis, and length of treasury bond on the x axis. This creates a curve that tells you what investors think will happen to the interest rate over the next 3 months to 30 years.
It think it would be a worse version of the 2008 crash. Many of the issues that led to that crash, instead of being fixed, were temporarily bandaged with accelerated borrowing and spending, like a credit card junkie who staves off the inevitable with ever more cards.
No, the drop has been quite substantial. From what I can tell the Fed was buying $85B worth of bonds monthly at peak. It's down to ~$45B now and they are planning on a final $15B in October.
The idea that university is job training just needs to go. The academic material may be relevant for work later on but it often isn't, and on the job there is way more to learn.