All eating is violence. I try to minimize the violence. I believe plants have a different survival strategy than animals: plants produce sweet fruit and edible seeds because they want birds to eat them and carry the seeds to far-off lands where they will have a chance to germinate. So eating an apple is not comparable to killing a cow.
I believe you must get an animal's permission before imprisoning it, and milking it or whatever. So if you milk a cow that does not want to be milked, you are guilty of something like rape. Give the cow a choice. If the cow lets you milk her when she's free to go at any time, then it's probably okay.
Jefferson was wrong and ignorant about blacks. He couldn't imagine an educated black; yet slave narratives existed in his day that provided proof. Jefferson was willfully blind.
The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice.
Jefferson knew slavery was wrong, but he compromised politically. That he still owned slaves, knowing it was wrong, makes him a coward.
People today who breed are morally wrong and cowardly as well. I would say that owning another human being is a greater sin than procreating though.
Eating meat is also wrong, today, yesterday, and tomorrow. Meat-eaters today are complicit to murder. It will be as obvious 200 years from now as it is today. Those who can't see it today are as cowardly and blind as Jefferson was about slavery.
Carson's kinda like Linus Pauling. They may be smart enough in their fields, but in other areas (politics in Carson's case, supplements in Pauling's) they are complete loonies.
Jefferson didn't make ends meet. He died some $2 million in debt in today's money.
Anyway there were lots of Americans at the time that were opposed to slavery. Quakers existed, abolitionists existed. It was obvious then as it is now that slavery was wrong. Jefferson and other slaver founding fathers lived in denial.
Franklin for example became an abolitionist. Jefferson could have, should have, too.
Why wouldn't you need length? You're sorting on length. You need something to hold the spaghetti strands in an upright position, so you need volume. Volume increases faster than the material needed to bound it does.
The more hardware you add to make the cube bigger, the much more spaghetti you can sort. The hardware increases less than O(n).
Even if other hardware components increase at O(n) (not sure of that even), because your container hardware increases at less than O(n) your total hardware increases less than O(n). You get an advantage because nature increases volume faster than its bounding lengths.
"In fact, the amount of hardware scales as O(N) with the amount of spaghetti."
No, because if you double each side in a cube, you get an eight-fold increase in volume. 2 x the material to extend the cube gives you 8 x the spaghetti you can fit in it.
The real reason the Repubs are opposed to the Export-Import bank is that a public bank conceptually takes away from the private sector's drive to become the exclusive creator of all money. That's why Repubs want to end the Fed too, to fully privatize the money supply.
Sanders is against it, if he is, because he doesn't fully understand how much money the private sector creates out of thin air, tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars per year. Sanders's Fed audit revealed $16 trillion in off-balance-sheet money creation; the question Sanders should ask is why can't we use that power of money creation in the General Welfare, to create money for a basic income for example?
How do the rich actually produce anything? They simply tell others what to do. Not how to do it, they just crack whips. Can't we produce things without their oversight? Do we really need them to pay us for us to do anything?
The billionaires don't do any physical labor themselves, they don't write code. They mostly figure out how to work personal relationships to get funding. They play people games. They give IOUs to others, and roll over the loans, because of their personalities and con games.
If all the money was suddenly erased from the computers keeping track of it (as in the TV show Mr. Robot), would we immediately forget how to farm and build things, how to program? Would we immediately stop because there's no more money so we have no motivation to be creative?
No man is an island, Entire of itself, Every man is a piece of the continent, A part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less. As well as if a promontory were. As well as if a manor of thy friend's Or of thine own were: Any man's death diminishes me, Because I am involved in mankind, And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.
Better solution than the government employing people: government supplies a basic income, at zero taxpayer cost, funded by the Fed on its balance sheet.
Then hold challenges to stimulate disruptive innovation. The best ideas can be turned over to business, which can do what what it does best: incrementally innovate.
Standards of living will rise faster than the market alone can do it.
The unlikely potential of unexpected inflation can be addressed at the outset by implementing and indexation scheme. Amend Section 2A of the Federal Reserve Act to replace everything after "maintain" with "purchasing power." The Fed can maintain purchasing power by automatically, seamlessly, and immediately increasing all incomes pari passu with prices. Thus purchasing power does not decrease. Denote debit cards in units of purchasing power, and inflation disappears.
MOOCs are free because professors like the attention, and they can manipulate the emotions of orders of magnitudes more students with their gotcha test questions than can fit in their classrooms.
CHAIRMAN BERNANKE. Bill, if we were going to take action today, what would you recommend in terms of counterparties? Should we say an unlimited amount? Should we specify an amount? Can we leave the time open? What are your recommendations on all those dimensions?
MR. DUDLEY. Certainly you want to make it pretty broad. You want to make it to the Bank of England, Switzerland, the ECB, the Bank of Japan, potentially Canada. I would leave it to their discretion if they would like to participate. I would make the offer to them; and if they want to participate, then we should be willing to do that. In terms of size, I think it is really important that you don't create notions of capacity limits because the market then can always try to test those. Either the numbers have to be very, very large, or it should be open ended. I would suggest that open ended is better because then you really do provide a backstop for the entire market. As we've seen with the PDCF, if you provide a suitably broad backstop, oftentimes you don't even actually need to use it to any great degree. So I think that should be the strategy here.
Thus, the Fed is willing to provide unlimited liquidity to banks, backstop them to get them out of problems they created for themselves; but we should come down hard on the poor because "self entitlement"?
The financial sector creates $30 trillion a year out of thin air. The world capital total is approaching $1 quadrillion, over an order of magnitude greater than world GDP. Financial firms are creating tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars out of thin air, and backstopping it with public money creation by the Fed (which opens unlimited swap lines with the ECB, Bank of England, and other central banks).
I just closed the page linked in the article, which I think was Dr. Masters's blog, because it started playing an audio ad. I guess I should look into AdBlock. The proliferation of intrusive advertising is becoming intolerable. Anyway thanks for your comments (if you are the same AC who posted the original post I responded to), I learned something and the page didn't jump around on me or start yelling at me to buy something as I was reading.
I'm trying to read Dr. Masters's article. It's very annoying that as I'm reading something down the page a bit, the page suddenly reloads on me, I assume because the ad at the top is refreshing. I'm bumped back to the top of the page and lose my place.
Why is advertising so much more important than the information on the page?
Why do companies have so much money they spend it on nefarious, intrusive advertising tricks? Obviously we have plenty of production capacity and the real problem companies are trying to solve today is demand. So why do we listen when politicians and economists harp on and on about scarcity? Advertising is proof that we are in a post-scarcity society.
Detroit is a victim of UBS corruption. UBS wrote interest rate swap contracts with Detroit that called for huge, immediate payouts if a credit downgrade occurred (Goldman Sachs did the same with AIG, and the Fed honored GS's contracts to the letter when they bailed out AIG). Then UBS proceeds to manipulate LIBOR downwards, so that Detroit lost on its interest rate bets. Then UBS wants to get paid before the people in Detroit.
The corruption is in the banks that create money out of thin air, charge you interest to lend it to you (interest is more created money, since it is booked in advance under "Net Worth" and thus is available for bank investors to spend), and manipulate the market with illegal setting of key rates on which your contracts are based.
You remind me of a character in a Rockford Files episode who was watering her lawn in the middle of a drought (in the 1970s) and phoning her local radio host to proclaim that the drought was the result of the liberals in Washington selling all our water to the A-rabs.
Private sector money creation is occurring at the rate of $30 trillion per year, according to a Bain report. Total world capital is approaching $1 quadrillion, exceeding world GDP by at least an order of magnitude. Where's the devaluation? The dollar is getting stronger.
Your quantity theory of money has very serious empirical problems. Sometimes you quantity theorists like to cite "velocity of money" as the reason we haven't seen the predicted rise in inflation. However, you are not measuring velocity of money; you are calculating it after the fact to make your predictions come out right, in hindsight. Velocity of money is a fudge variable.
Private sector money turns over a lot. Banks are constantly lending and borrowing in the Fed Funds and Repo markets, putting off final settlement for another day. Money created by the private sector does not simply sit in bank accounts; it is turning over, daily. So you can't use Velocity of money as an excuse why your Quantity Theory of Money fails to predict.
I repeat: the real shortage in California is knowledge. Create money to facilitate the increase of knowledge, and everything is abundant. The more you know, the less you need.
Slashdot Mirror
All eating is violence. I try to minimize the violence. I believe plants have a different survival strategy than animals: plants produce sweet fruit and edible seeds because they want birds to eat them and carry the seeds to far-off lands where they will have a chance to germinate. So eating an apple is not comparable to killing a cow.
I believe you must get an animal's permission before imprisoning it, and milking it or whatever. So if you milk a cow that does not want to be milked, you are guilty of something like rape. Give the cow a choice. If the cow lets you milk her when she's free to go at any time, then it's probably okay.
Jefferson was wrong and ignorant about blacks. He couldn't imagine an educated black; yet slave narratives existed in his day that provided proof. Jefferson was willfully blind.
The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice.
Jefferson knew slavery was wrong, but he compromised politically. That he still owned slaves, knowing it was wrong, makes him a coward.
People today who breed are morally wrong and cowardly as well. I would say that owning another human being is a greater sin than procreating though.
Eating meat is also wrong, today, yesterday, and tomorrow. Meat-eaters today are complicit to murder. It will be as obvious 200 years from now as it is today. Those who can't see it today are as cowardly and blind as Jefferson was about slavery.
Carson's kinda like Linus Pauling. They may be smart enough in their fields, but in other areas (politics in Carson's case, supplements in Pauling's) they are complete loonies.
If Clinton is a rapist, then so is Trump.
Jefferson didn't make ends meet. He died some $2 million in debt in today's money.
Anyway there were lots of Americans at the time that were opposed to slavery. Quakers existed, abolitionists existed. It was obvious then as it is now that slavery was wrong. Jefferson and other slaver founding fathers lived in denial.
Franklin for example became an abolitionist. Jefferson could have, should have, too.
"The financial liabilities of my bank are really expensive. I'd hate to pay that bill."
Yet you do if you have a deposit there...
Why wouldn't you need length? You're sorting on length. You need something to hold the spaghetti strands in an upright position, so you need volume. Volume increases faster than the material needed to bound it does.
http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gross...
Surface area = 6 * length^2
Volume = length^3
The more hardware you add to make the cube bigger, the much more spaghetti you can sort. The hardware increases less than O(n).
Even if other hardware components increase at O(n) (not sure of that even), because your container hardware increases at less than O(n) your total hardware increases less than O(n). You get an advantage because nature increases volume faster than its bounding lengths.
Related: Ultimate Free Lunch
"In fact, the amount of hardware scales as O(N) with the amount of spaghetti."
No, because if you double each side in a cube, you get an eight-fold increase in volume. 2 x the material to extend the cube gives you 8 x the spaghetti you can fit in it.
The real reason the Repubs are opposed to the Export-Import bank is that a public bank conceptually takes away from the private sector's drive to become the exclusive creator of all money. That's why Repubs want to end the Fed too, to fully privatize the money supply.
Sanders is against it, if he is, because he doesn't fully understand how much money the private sector creates out of thin air, tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars per year. Sanders's Fed audit revealed $16 trillion in off-balance-sheet money creation; the question Sanders should ask is why can't we use that power of money creation in the General Welfare, to create money for a basic income for example?
How do the rich actually produce anything? They simply tell others what to do. Not how to do it, they just crack whips. Can't we produce things without their oversight? Do we really need them to pay us for us to do anything?
The billionaires don't do any physical labor themselves, they don't write code. They mostly figure out how to work personal relationships to get funding. They play people games. They give IOUs to others, and roll over the loans, because of their personalities and con games.
If all the money was suddenly erased from the computers keeping track of it (as in the TV show Mr. Robot), would we immediately forget how to farm and build things, how to program? Would we immediately stop because there's no more money so we have no motivation to be creative?
There is no production capacity shortage. The only shortage is an artificially imposed scarcity of money.
No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
John Donne
Better solution than the government employing people: government supplies a basic income, at zero taxpayer cost, funded by the Fed on its balance sheet.
Then hold challenges to stimulate disruptive innovation. The best ideas can be turned over to business, which can do what what it does best: incrementally innovate.
Standards of living will rise faster than the market alone can do it.
The unlikely potential of unexpected inflation can be addressed at the outset by implementing and indexation scheme. Amend Section 2A of the Federal Reserve Act to replace everything after "maintain" with "purchasing power." The Fed can maintain purchasing power by automatically, seamlessly, and immediately increasing all incomes pari passu with prices. Thus purchasing power does not decrease. Denote debit cards in units of purchasing power, and inflation disappears.
Use technology to reach more students through recorded lectures with interactive components, and discussion forums where students can help each other.
MOOCs are free because professors like the attention, and they can manipulate the emotions of orders of magnitudes more students with their gotcha test questions than can fit in their classrooms.
"a mass of young people that have a sense of self entitlement where they suddenly believe others will pick up the costs for them"
I'm reminded of William Dudley's words in the Federal Open Market Committee's transcript for September 16, 2008, page 11:
Thus, the Fed is willing to provide unlimited liquidity to banks, backstop them to get them out of problems they created for themselves; but we should come down hard on the poor because "self entitlement"?
"the money magically appears out of thin air."
The financial sector creates $30 trillion a year out of thin air. The world capital total is approaching $1 quadrillion, over an order of magnitude greater than world GDP. Financial firms are creating tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars out of thin air, and backstopping it with public money creation by the Fed (which opens unlimited swap lines with the ECB, Bank of England, and other central banks).
Sources: A World Awash in Money, The Spread of Central Bank Currency Swaps Since the Financial Crisis.
I just closed the page linked in the article, which I think was Dr. Masters's blog, because it started playing an audio ad. I guess I should look into AdBlock. The proliferation of intrusive advertising is becoming intolerable. Anyway thanks for your comments (if you are the same AC who posted the original post I responded to), I learned something and the page didn't jump around on me or start yelling at me to buy something as I was reading.
I'm trying to read Dr. Masters's article. It's very annoying that as I'm reading something down the page a bit, the page suddenly reloads on me, I assume because the ad at the top is refreshing. I'm bumped back to the top of the page and lose my place.
Why is advertising so much more important than the information on the page?
Why do companies have so much money they spend it on nefarious, intrusive advertising tricks? Obviously we have plenty of production capacity and the real problem companies are trying to solve today is demand. So why do we listen when politicians and economists harp on and on about scarcity? Advertising is proof that we are in a post-scarcity society.
Detroit is a victim of UBS corruption. UBS wrote interest rate swap contracts with Detroit that called for huge, immediate payouts if a credit downgrade occurred (Goldman Sachs did the same with AIG, and the Fed honored GS's contracts to the letter when they bailed out AIG). Then UBS proceeds to manipulate LIBOR downwards, so that Detroit lost on its interest rate bets. Then UBS wants to get paid before the people in Detroit.
The corruption is in the banks that create money out of thin air, charge you interest to lend it to you (interest is more created money, since it is booked in advance under "Net Worth" and thus is available for bank investors to spend), and manipulate the market with illegal setting of key rates on which your contracts are based.
You remind me of a character in a Rockford Files episode who was watering her lawn in the middle of a drought (in the 1970s) and phoning her local radio host to proclaim that the drought was the result of the liberals in Washington selling all our water to the A-rabs.
The more things change...
Private sector money creation is occurring at the rate of $30 trillion per year, according to a Bain report. Total world capital is approaching $1 quadrillion, exceeding world GDP by at least an order of magnitude. Where's the devaluation? The dollar is getting stronger.
Your quantity theory of money has very serious empirical problems. Sometimes you quantity theorists like to cite "velocity of money" as the reason we haven't seen the predicted rise in inflation. However, you are not measuring velocity of money; you are calculating it after the fact to make your predictions come out right, in hindsight. Velocity of money is a fudge variable.
Private sector money turns over a lot. Banks are constantly lending and borrowing in the Fed Funds and Repo markets, putting off final settlement for another day. Money created by the private sector does not simply sit in bank accounts; it is turning over, daily. So you can't use Velocity of money as an excuse why your Quantity Theory of Money fails to predict.
Shoot it into the sun.
I repeat: the real shortage in California is knowledge. Create money to facilitate the increase of knowledge, and everything is abundant. The more you know, the less you need.