Instigate

Obligatory response that this is highly dependent upon the field and your experience. Of the four authors I contacted for copies to their paper in my tenure as a child protection caseworker, none of them even replied to me let alone gave me a copy of their paper. I don’t know if it was because of the fields (psychology and social science) or because I emailed them from my .gov.au email but this advice doesn’t always hold true.

Kinda reminds me of the story of how David X Cohen (Futurama, Disenchantment, The Simpsons) got the middle initial X when his middle name is Samuel: when he went to be registered with The Writers Guild there was already a David S Cohen, and they don’t allow two people with identical names to be registered, so he chose X because it sounds more ‘sci-fi-ish’.

See, that’s the thing though - he doesn’t. He never pays his own debts and never spends a dollar he doesn’t have to when it comes to his own money. When it comes to taxpayer money though? He’ll firehose that shit in whatever direction he feels like.

Those who hold treasury bonds don’t tend to spend the interest on their day-to-day living costs. Those who hold treasury bonds use them as an investment vehicle, whose proceeds are usually either reinvested or invested elsewhere where the effects of investment aren’t inflationary. Many treasury bonds are also held by the international community, who by definition don’t spend those proceeds within the country whose bonds they hold. Domestic Australian retail investors make up such a small fraction of total ownership and, those that do own them in this context, tend not to use the proceeds as regular income that would be inflationary.

That’s why I specified in my first sentence that it depends upon how the monies are spent. I outlined a few different ways in which government spending impacts inflation.

Just paying down interest on national debt (as we have been doing) is just as deflationary as paying down principal, given that it’s removing money from the economy.

It entirely depends upon how the government uses that money. Paying down national debt is entirely deflationary; they are literally removing money from the economy. Spending on services can be very mildly inflationary, but usually also increases quality of life for the most marginalised and therefore reduces the impacts of inflation on those who feel it most. It can also be deflationary when spent on services, especially if those monies are spent on the government shouldering costs that have been pushed onto the average citizen (single-payer healthcare, energy costs and the like).

By far the biggest upward effects on inflation are caused by corporate greed and geopolitical instability.

I generally prefer to tight internet in my woman but you do you, I guess.

I mean, I kind of agree with you but the Liberals are definitely a minority party now (let alone the fact that without the Nationals, they’ve always been a minority party). They’ve been ringing their death knell for a while now. I get what you’re saying and its intent but be careful you don’t accidentally call the Libs serious about fascism.

It’s really just the Greens and Independents that are the real politicians these days; i.e. those that genuinely represent the views of their constituents.

Depends on your jurisdiction. In most places in Australia, a parent or guardian is absolutely able to provide consent for their child to get a tattoo. Good luck finding a decent tattoo artist who’s willing to take on the commission though.

He can borrow against that asset value for liquid cash at extremely low interest rates, so he essentially has access to at minimum 50-80% of that value. For all intents and purposes, and especially given that it would be essentially impossible for an individual to ever actually spend a trillion dollars, he has that much money.

If I own a house outright that’s worth $2 million but I only have $10 cash in the bank, it would be entirely disingenuous to say that I’m poor. It’s far more accurate to say I’m a millionaire.

That’s why, to this day, removal of a woman’s uterus is still called a ‘hysterectomy’. As in, removal of what causes hysteria.

The Greek word ‘hystera’ means womb, or uterus, so ‘hysteria’ is literally just ‘uterus syndrome’. To take a broader brush, it kind of means ‘woman syndrome’.

Surprises me we still use this naming convention in English, given the obvious modern connotations.

No! No, see that’s wrong; it’s being exaggerated again!