perfecthjrjth

The deeper problem is not discussed at all: is it possible in a one-state solution (non ethnostate, that is) for Jews to co-exist with Muslims when the latter becomes majority? Past drives the decisions for the present and the future.

The other issue heavily discussed is settlements in the West Bank. Settlements have caused, and continue to cause, problems: barriers, scanners, street closures (thereby preventing access for non-Jews), etc. Here, Israel downplays problems faced by locals. This is also a consequence of why it is not possible for Jews and Arabs to live together without barriers, scanners, closures.

Arafat scuttled the camp David deal in 2000. Of course, that deal was bad to Palestinians from the latter's perspective. Can they get a better deal than that by NOT 'lay down and die'?

From Clinton's biography: 'Finally, Arafat agreed to see Shimon Peres on the thirteenth after Peres had first met with Saeb Erekat. Nothing came of it. As a backstop, the Israelis tried to produce a letter with as much agreement on the parameter as possible, on the assumption that Barak would lose the election and at least both sides would be bound to a course that could lead to an agreement. Arafat wouldn’t even do that, because he didn’t want to be seen conceding anything. The parties continued their talks in Taba, Egypt. They got close, but did not succeed. Arafat never said no; he just couldn’t bring himself to say yes. Pride goeth before the fall.'

Banks don't need deposits to loan out, as loans create deposits.

It is good for the developing world, as producers/exporters subsidize countries with reserve currencies. That's why inflation in countries with reserve currencies is always a way lower than other counties. MMT claims that one can swap "printed money" with real products (such as cars, commodities, food, clothes). This kind of swapping is possible for the US, EU, UK (Mostly the Western world and Japan). Who wants to swap million barrels of oil to Zimbabwian dollars.

Judges are always 'partisan', meaning that they are influenced by some or other ideology, policy choices, theories. As long as a certain segment of population finds their judgments reasonable, that's fine. What is reasonable to one set of people, may not be reasonable to another set of people. The issue is not about truth or falsity, but one of reasonableness.

Loans create more money; in other words, according to your proposal, private banks shouldn't lend out more money than what they have (as customers' deposits).

Janet Yellen during Obama's second term didn't want to raise interest rates to protect Democrats. However, she wanted to raise interest rates during Trump. That's why Trump didn't renominate her. Why blame Powell here? Blame Janet Yellen, when she should have started raising rates under Obama.

with some caveats: if you keep $250k in your personal checking, another $250k in your personal savings, another $250K in a joint checking account, another $250K in a joint savings account, all accounts being with SVB, you will get $1M back. FDIC states "The standard insurance amount is $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank, for each account ownership category"

The third-party doctrine makes it legal to acquire data from third parties, without any consent or warrant.

What a great deal for the investors with connections to the local political 'mafia'. If profit is 70% after taking away expenses, that is about $140M. $140M * 7 = $980 (7 multiples). Where can one find such a profitable business for 7 multiples?

Go to Andhra Pradesh, cronies of politicians are filing private cases against CBI officers with the aid of the AP police. This is with respect to the investigation of the murder of YS Vivekananda Reddy, brother of ex-CM YSR, and an uncle of the current CM of AP. It tells us how weak is CBI is. Every one knows that the current CM of AP is involved in killing his uncle.

hahaha, in India, no one can become a politician without getting arrested. In fact, Indian police makes money by 'false' arrests in resolving civil disputes.

Well, two conceptions of human beings are in conflict: (a) humans are controlled by their own "will" (b) signaling system (biochemical interactions) control stuff. (a) is a cultural intuition. Now many life sciences researchers sell us a hybrid version: both (a) and (b) are true.

Calories In Calories Out (CICO) doesn't explain obesity. You are dealing with biochemical machines (humans). CI enters this biochemical machine; here, the signal system should be effective to 'equalize'. Otherwise, you get all kinds of problems: obesity, t2d, cardiovascular events, etc.

These new generation of drugs (semaglutide, tirzapatide) deal with the signaling system (endocrine signaling, that is).

It is good for the US to distribute power centers across at least 50 universities, not just tier-1 Ivies and Stanford.

Are they laying off back office folks or consultants?