Well of course it does, "Quantitative easing" is common practice.
> a central bank implements quantitative easing by buying financial assets from commercial banks and other financial institutions, thus raising the prices of those financial assets and lowering their yield, while simultaneously increasing the money supply.
Imagine splicing in an ad of the content creator shilling for Pepsi into a video.
That leads to customized "in media" ads, and ads that are "targeted" at users by having their favorite Youtubers be unwitting mouthpieces for advertisers.
I look forward to the eventual deepfake of a person of color spouting ad copy for right-wing fascists.
The primary purpose of Foreign Aid isn't about charity.
McGillivray, F., & Smith, A. (2008). Punishing the prince: a theory of interstate relations, political institutions, and leader change. Princeton University Press.
It's about influencing governments. It's a really nice way to "bribe" foreign officials for things that a government wants.
Also, it seems like one of the popular ways to make money with crypto is this sort of "pump and dump" scheme, and so the "investors" should have been aware of the pattern at least.
Can't find a paper on the subject, but the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) has a promo video which shows off (what they claim is) a proof of concept device. So the team seems to have some serious money and influence behind them:
Then since batteries are in demand, cheap ones doubly so, and ones that don't rely on rare Earth minerals from Chine triply so, they should have a wide market to tap into to make them profitable. Then also, as the UK is a NATO country, an invention like this could reasonably be argued to be a national security issue, which implies (very lucrative) government contracts.
> According to a national work-from-home survey by economists at three universities, less than a quarter of 20-somethings who can do their jobs remotely want to do so full time.
> The Gap Between How Much Employees Want to Work from
Home and Employer Plans Fluctuates Near 0.5 Days
> Employers Offer Fewer Fully Remote Jobs and More Fully
Onsite Jobs Than Employees Want
> Workers In Their 50s and 60s Are Fully On Site and Fully
Remote More Often Than Younger Workers
> SWAA Respondents Prefer Hybrid WFH (2-3 Days/Week)
Over Fully In-Person Work By A Margin of 3.8-to-1
(With 57.4% of respondents preferring to work from home as compared with working on site every workday)
> Even the Least WFH-Friendly Age and Education Groups Favor
Hybrid WFH Over Fully In-Person Work by Wide Margins
I'm sure there's some "creative" reading of the data that supports the headline, but it's non-obvious how, and certainly not in keeping with any reasonable interpretation of the data and reality.
Stretching credulity, this part: "less than a quarter of 20-somethings who can do their jobs remotely want to do so full time." could be related to the data item "SWAA Respondents Prefer Hybrid WFH (2-3 Days/Week)
Over Fully In-Person Work By A Margin of 3.8-to-1", as a reading of the survey question compared working 2-3 days *in total* as compared to working full-time on site:
> "How would you feel about WFH 2 or 3 days a week, compared to working at your employer's site every workday?"
And so the headline may be based on this single poorly worded question.
> a central bank implements quantitative easing by buying financial assets from commercial banks and other financial institutions, thus raising the prices of those financial assets and lowering their yield, while simultaneously increasing the money supply.
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing
At least one cause of inflation is "increasing the money supply".
Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Harvard University Press.
reply