srgseg
Some other reasons that the ECB wishes to fight deflation are described here:
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2016/html/sp160404....
What you have in your bank account is "credit" from the bank to you. You can currently ask to withdraw this credit in the form of physical Euros.
A "Digital Euro" would mean that regular people could hold digital Euros at an account they hold with the ECB, just like the large financial institutions do.
This could be useful to allow the ECB to fight price deflation, because:
1. The ECB can directly credit the accounts of hundreds of millions of Europeans (without having to go via banks). This would mean they could fine-tune policy by depositing small amounts every single day in every single account. This solves the "pushing-on-a-string" problem of the ECB making it cheap for banks to lend, but finding that the banks are still unwilling to lend or that people are unwilling to borrow. The ECB could also decide to only top-up the accounts of people with low balances, so that aid is targeted.
2. The ECB can more effectively increase money velocity by enforcing negative interest rates. You can currently avoid negative interest rates by simply withdrawing physical Euros from your bank. But if the ECB discontinues or restricts the availability of physical Euros, you will only be able to withdraw Digital Euros from your bank. If your Euros are digital, you cannot avoid a negative interest rate.
Although price deflation is great if you have money or are owed money, price deflation makes it difficult for people who owe money to repay their loans. This is because their labor is earning them less money each year compared to the debt they owe. This is why the ECB and other central banks are very concerned about price deflation.
Manipulating the supply of the dollar via interest rate adjustments, along with open market operations, is how the Fed attempts to control inflation.
This means that to upgrade from Oracle JDK10 -> Open JDK11, you'll have to write a script yourself to modify the symlinks e.g. to redirect the existing "/etc/alternatives/java -> /usr/java/jdk-10.0.x/bin/java" to the new installation. There are 46 of these symlinks that need changing (for javac, jstack, etc etc).
I hope that's the only change that is required and that I'm not missing something. Anyone know if there is anything else necessary?
Edit: here is the script I just wrote to print out the commands required to change the symlinks:
#!/bin/bash
existingJdkBinPath=$(dirname `readlink /etc/alternatives/java`)
newJdkPath="/opt/jdk-11"
find /etc/alternatives -type l | while read link; do
target=$(readlink "$link")
targetPath=$(dirname $target)
targetFile=$(basename $target)
if [[ $targetPath = $existingJdkBinPath ]]; then
newTarget="$newJdkPath/bin/$targetFile"
echo ln -snf "$newTarget" "$link"
fi
doneNote that whether interest was earned via IOER or via the Fed Funds market, the funds would be deposited with the Fed either way (whether in the bank's own Fed account or overnight in the Fed account of the counterparty of a Fed funds loan).
It wouldn't be possible to accept transfers from other banks, to send funds to other banks or to participate in the Fed Funds market unless the bank had an account with the Fed.
On the point of "risk-free", the TED spread was north of 1% for much of the 20 months between August 2007 and April 2009, and peaked at over 4%. So it's not always what I'd call negligible risk. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TEDRATE
The idea is that you can prove that the encrypted input and output amounts in a transaction balance to zero, without having to actually reveal what any of those amounts are.
Imagine two people alone on a desert island. Both can save up firewood (a physical asset) during their entire working lives. They can then both retire and enjoy their savings (firewood) during their retirement. So it is possible for everyone to simultaneously save physical assets.
However, financial assets are reciprocal. One person's financial asset is another person's liability. That liability can be thought of as an 'obligation to perform'. In the desert island example, they both cannot save up obligations from each other and then retire, because there would be no one working to perform the obligations.
If everyone has 'saved' as many obligations owed to them as they've accumulated obligations they owe to others, then that's the equivalent of no one having saved at all.
So it's mathematically impossible for everyone to accumulate savings in the form of financial assets. Either everyone has net zero savings, or some people have financial savings and other people have financial debt.
Therefore the healthy approach is for people to work while they can to accumulate financial obligations owed to them by the next generation, so that when they retire there is someone around to fulfil those obligations.
Therefore everyone saving prior to retirement is certainly virtuous, because it means you've done work for others so that when you retire, they're not just forced to provide for you for free. It would have been a fair deal where you did something for others and now they're doing something for you.
So just because not everyone can save, that doesn't mean it's not virtuous to save during your working life.
Instead of cops pulling over some poor innocent guy every few weeks because he has a suspicious looking beaten up car, instead the police computer would green flag the person. The records might show that:
1. CCTV shows the person has not been driving in the vicinity of any crime they might currently be looking for suspects in connection with
2. The person has been stopped before, but was not involved in any criminal activity. This prevents unintentional repeated harassment.
3. The person has no known associations with any people involved in criminal activity.
Just like Uber, we'd be glad people were recording feedback about us because it helps people get a ride even in a high crime area where taxis would be otherwise afraid or unwilling to service.
Now it easily tops the Bloomberg misery index for the second year in a row [2]
[1] http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/10/30/people-in-emerging-marke...
[2] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-04/these-are-...
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/onetab/chphlpgkkbo...
Similarly, increasing access to healthcare would extend people's working lives. This is a fantastic outcome. But this would increase the number of years that people would be able to save over, and so this again would be flagged as rising inequality because some people will have been able to save for longer. Instead of people retiring at 50 with far greater savings than 18 year olds, you'd have people retiring at 60 with even greater still savings than 18 year olds. Yet those 18 year olds will when they are 60 achieve the same "wealth", so those 18 year olds are not being "wronged" by this inequality.
The primary adjustment that needs to be made is simply to start counting earnings potential as an asset, instead of ignoring it and claiming as a result that people are worse off than they really are.
SpaceX Falcon rocket explodes on landing after delivering satellite to space
There are of course very serious implications when, for example, asset bubbles and unfunded state liabilities will create unfairness between generations. That's an example of real inequality. There are many other forms of real inequality. Fake inequality is when two people with comparable earnings and abilities to purchase assets are treated as not equal simply because one is older and has had longer to save.
Their headline is based on a report by Credit Suisse [1] which defines net worth as: "the marketable value of financial assets plus non-financial assets (principally housing and land) less debts."
Consider two people who will earn exactly the same amount of money at every stage of their lives. But one is 18 and has just started working, the other is 65 and has just retired. Is the 65 year old really 1000x richer than the 18 year old, because the 18 year old has saved $100 so far and the 65 year old has had time to save $100,000? Is this really 1000x inequality? For the purposes of determining inequality, these people should be considered equal, because it's simply the case that one person is older and has had more time to save.
A fair assessment of a person's wealth, at least when determining fairness and inequality, should include more than this. It should include an estimate of their future earnings potential plus the social security/welfare state entitlements and state pensions that they are entitled to.
Otherwise you have hundreds of millions of people in the West with negative "wealth" who in reality will enjoy a far wealthier life than someone in the developing world with small positive financial assets and no debt.
Someone with $100 in assets and no debt does not get to claim that they are single handedly "richer" than the combined net worth of tens of millions of university graduates that each have a total career earnings potential of millions of dollars, but who each still have outstanding student debt and thus negative net worth.
Also see this article on the "the wealthy living paycheck to paycheck" [2] which points out that people that will enjoy very wealthy lifestyles are spending rather than saving their income, and therefore really are rich yet will be written off as being far "poorer" than others in terms of financial assets.
[1] http://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/inde... [2] http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/25/wealthy-amer...