I watched your 2 minutes video. It is very sensationalistic and doesn't really explain anything about how the system works or why it could be problematic.
The speaker is American, not European.
She doesn't address the fact that such a system is already in place and the norm for everyone. As of now it is not a 3 party system but a 4 party system: the two persons involved in the transaction and the two private banks handling the transactions. I don't get how taking out the private banks and having a public institution doing the handling would make the system worse.
It would indeed be worse for private banks, which I guess is why a bank employee may be opposed to it.
Moreover, a video by a person who supported Donald Trump in the elections and opposed COVID lockdown is not very reassuring.
What is in the documentation? I skimmed over and thy don't seem to talk about stopping payments or rationing ones money. They do seem to focus quite a bit on privacy and how to protect user data.
Who is the YouTube video by and why should I care to watch it?
i thought it was the EU to issue and back Euro, not a private bank. Here I'm saying backing the Euro as defining it money and having police that will enforce its validity.
This is a way to track you
How is this worse than a regular bank account, which you're required to have anyway?
Bank decides who can buy what and then
Banks could do that already, they do not. Really doubt that is going to happen as it would strongly undermine the utility of Euro.
Do you have reasons to believe this is going to happen or this is just wishful thinking?
Wouldn't that be backed by the EU and thus officially be money? That is quite different from a bank account, which is just a credit you've got with the bank and which they may or may not honor.
Why would this not be a currency?
From these numbers the net difference is 23 Tg/year which are fixated from atmosphere overall. Keep in mind these numbers are without accounting for uncertainty of measurements, the number might very well be 0.
It's quite common in interdisciplinary papers that some of the authors cover a part of the paper in which they are expert while others cover another part.
It is uncommon in those cases for all authors to read all referenced papers.
I doubt taking away 0,001%* of nitrogen from atmosphere, which then goes right back into atmosphere in the following years will create any problems. Especially given that nitrogen is over 70% of atmosphere.
Didn't check the numbers, it's probably much lower than that.
set a precedent for "thousands of ordinary citizens who are abused and crushed every day by a system that presumes them guilty and forces them to prove their innocence"
Not often am I abused by the government in paying 14 millions in taxes which I had forgot to file. I think I'll be fine even without this precedent.
I watched your 2 minutes video. It is very sensationalistic and doesn't really explain anything about how the system works or why it could be problematic.
The speaker is American, not European.
She doesn't address the fact that such a system is already in place and the norm for everyone. As of now it is not a 3 party system but a 4 party system: the two persons involved in the transaction and the two private banks handling the transactions. I don't get how taking out the private banks and having a public institution doing the handling would make the system worse.
It would indeed be worse for private banks, which I guess is why a bank employee may be opposed to it.
Moreover, a video by a person who supported Donald Trump in the elections and opposed COVID lockdown is not very reassuring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Austin_Fitts