if only he was a bit poorer

Credit in a full-reserve system is created when individuals (banks, businesses, etc) extend credit at their own expense. The difference to the current fractional reserve system is that the bank can only lend out of funds they genuinely control (ie haven't promised to hold ready for withdrawal). When I buy a certificate of deposit I lose the claim on my money. This is an extension of credit by me to the bank. It is not inflationary because I lose the funds. Fractional reserve credit creation is inflationary because I continue to claim the funds (and so does whoever borrowed them). Credit ends with money payment, while money does not end. So no, mining companies do not create credit. Credit, currency and money are all different things. I don't doubt that digital currencies will be used in future. I very much doubt that such a thing as digital money is even logically possible.

Judges or Africans?

> In a separate development that could have profound implications for redistricting battles across America, the US Supreme Court last week said it will consider the constitutionality of redistricting that's intentionally aimed at creating "majority-minority districts" with the goal securing power for blacks and Hispanics. In that Louisiana case filed by self-described "non-African American voters," claiming a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, the high court said it will examine whether that kind of redistricting violates the 14th or 15th Amendments to the US Constitution. > In April 2024, a federal panel of judges in the US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana ruled that purposefully creating a majority-black district was "an impermissible racial gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” The 15th Amendment bars governments from denying or abridging the right to vote based on race or color. WAIT so giving the Africans a Congressman violates their right to vote? isn't it the exact opposite? https://www.zerohedge.com/political/texas-democrat-lawmakers-flee-state-block-gop-house-map-overhaul

they look like pin-and-tumbler locks

And if the question is "Where does the money supply come from under full-reserve banking?" the answer is the ground. We dig it up and stamp it into coins

Yes - that's the key - lending should come from real savings which involve delaying consumption. We have fractional reserve banking which allows credit creation. The bank is permitted to lend out the money while only holding a portion ready for depositors. In theory those depositors could demand all of their deposits this afternoon, and this would be a bank run and could bankrupt any bank in the developed world on any day. This is why some people (eg me) think the financial system is very precarious and could blow up tomorrow or could blow up 20 years from now - the difference is psychological. In 1800s England under this system they had a financial crisis every 10-15 years. The alternative (in my view) is full-reserve banking. In this model, when a bank promises to pay your deposit immediately, they are required to actually hold that money available for immediate redemption. Failure to do so would result in the assets of the bank (or to go back to the original joint-stock companies, the personal fortunes of the bank's directors) being seized to make good on their obligation. Consequently lending can't come from funds that are promised to immediate payment. Banks would instead need to borrow for the term of the loan they intend to make. So I would buy a 30-year certificate of deposit, the bank would lend those funds out to a home buyer and I wouldn't be entitled to demand my money back for 30 years. Another name for this is maturity-matched accounting.

The opposite of A is "not A" When you say that walking is numerically associated with +X and the opposite is -X, you are already expaninding the context

Opposites are metaphorical. The literal opposite of a thing is nothing. The literal opposite of doing is not-doing. "Nothing" and "not-doing" are names for thoughts that don't exist. But looking metaphorically, if you say that walking burns 300 calories then eating 300 calories of pizza is the opposite. Metaphorically, if you say that walking is the most upright and active then lying down is the opposite. Metaphorically, if you say that walking is the most boring form of transportation then water-skiing (or jet plane piloting or skydiving or something) is the opposite.

Interest rates match business activity to savings. If I want to start some new business venture, I will compare what it costs me to borrow the money with what I expect to make from the venture. If I make more than the interest cost, I'll pursue the venture. Even if I already have the money, I could lend it out for roughly the same interest rate so I make (almost) the same comparison. When interest rates go up, this tends to pull more money into savings (and thus away from consumption, freeing real resources). When interest rates go down, there's less reward for saving and consumption becomes relatively more attractive. In a properly functioning free market, interest rates match non-consumption (savings) with business activity. "Money" in this process is a coordination mechanism for real resources. By delaying consumption (saving) I make real resources (concrete and steel, etc) available for business use. When the central bank intervenes to suppress interest rates (perhaps by permitting fraudulent activity by commercial banks, perhaps by directly extending credit from the central bank), this increases the attractiveness of business activity (because the alternative is less attractive) and increases the attractiveness of consumption (because the alternative is less attractive). Thus real resources are withdrawn from business availability (and into consumption) just as demand increases. This is inflationary and disruptive. Note that this happens even if the bank lending is only for productive business ventures. While lending for consumption is an important phenomenon, the shift towards consumption I am describing is the consequence of lower interest rates and lower incentive to save, not necessarily low cost for personal borrowing.

You can transfer ownership of gold in just the same way. Again, the hard part is actually getting the gold, which you've given up on.

You didn't send him anything, you updated a computer record. You can do that with gold just fine. The tricky part is making sure he actually gets the gold in the end, which is the part you've given up on from the start.

I don't concede that you're estimating probability correctly. But yes, those are both exaplanations, as is the possibility that you got a LOT of chances.

How life first originated is a mystery, for which you might invoke miracles (a form of confession of ignorance). But once you have replicating organisms, no miracle is required to explain evolution.

doc, what's the daily recommended consumption of micro-plastics?

If I spend something, I must part with it Therefore, If I spend my bitcoin, I must part with my bitcoin My laptop is my bitcoin Therefore, if I spend my bitcoin I must part with my laptop Do you agree with this conclusion? And if not, which of the two premises is false?

In other words, you have told lies and cannot carry on.

OK, let's say, Bitcoin is tangible and my laptop (with the correct key phrase) *is* my Bitcoin. When I want to spend it do I ship the laptop to the seller of whatever I want to buy? Or is there a central clearinghouse that sorts through everyone's laptops and pagers and whatever?

My laptop is a Bitcoin? How do I cash in on the $100k or whatever?

"punish the baddies" common law liability does this (if they are actually baddies)