“The injunction of Jesus to love others as ourselves is an endorsement of self-interest,” Goldman’s Griffiths said Oct. 20, his voice echoing around the gold-mosaic walls of St. Paul’s Cathedral, whose 365-feet-high dome towers over the City, London’s financial district. “We have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieving greater prosperity and opportunity for all.”
None of those are computationally universal.
Is euthanasia considered killing?
Is self-defense exempt?
What if your mother and father are trying to kill you?
What is the penalty for stealing?
It needs to rattle on for six pages in order to cover all the bases.
I, for one, never understood why programmers have such a hard time with legalese. Quality programmers should make sure their software is as computationally universal as possible, which is exactly the reason for having "legalese."
So having something to export is bad because lobbying will yield laws preventing imports? Subsidies are different than tariffs or import bans.
We would still have something to export if private investment were to research a new technology. It is true that subsidies are different than tariffs, but we both know that allowing imports would fly in the face of the "Buy American" philosophy. It doesn't have to be treated like health care, but it will be.
In part due to OPEC, and in part due to speculation, gas prices soared not too long ago. As worldwide demand for oil increases, we are only going to have more problems. And the cost doesn't have to skyrocket unpredictably for it to cause major problems. A steady increase of 10% over inflation each year could easily cause problems faster than we can deal with it. In fact, it could be argued that we see the need for these technologies right now, but consumers don't buy what is in their best long term interests, they buy what is cheapest right now, and that creates an economic incentive for companies to do what is cheapest right now. The way U.S. capitalism is structured, most companies seem to do what is in the best interests of short to medium term profits. Subsidies are required to get the country to act in it's long term best interests.
Consumers don't see what's in their best long term interest, but investors do. And the only reason people aren't investing in it is because they're competing with the government. Why would you invest in research if you know there's someone with virtually unlimited resources trying to frontrun you? There is absolutely zero chance of getting any return on investment in a field that is so heavily dominated by government grants.
Yes, subsidies can cause unintended side effects, and bad subsidies (e.g., subsidies for corn ethanol) would be disastrous. I can understand being wary. However, blindly saying "subsidies bad, free market good!" is likely to lead to equally bad results too.
On a completely philosophical level, how can the government possibly foresee something that the market can't? Investors chase risk, so absent the expectation of government subsidy, someone will always be willing to take the risk if there is any foreseeable need for something in the future.
If we "become the leader in new forms of energy" by subsidizing research, we'll only be helping foreign countries. It will work out exactly the way pharmacueticals work, wherein the technology is exported to foreign companies to manufacture cheaply, but tough reimportation bans are placed on the technology so as to preserve profits for American corporations.
Even without subsidizing, we won't be in a situation where there are political problems due to rapid oil shortages. It's more likely that the oil price will creep up at a predictable rate, making it likely that the need will be seen well in advance, and private investors will see the opportunity for future returns.
Remember, government subsidies are not always what they're cracked up to be, either. Often they end up subsidizing the wrong behavior, causing unintended side effects, crowding out private investment, being overly susceptible to private interests... Just look at the housing market, which has been one of the most heavily subsidized markets over the past decade or more.
Anytime you encounter one of these conspiracy theories, you have to ask yourself, "Why would they do this?" In this case, what incentive would the US Government have to try and suppress oil prices? That flies in the face of the current government economic philosophy, which is to reflate all assets at any cost. Everything the government has tried to do in the last year has been an attempt to raise prices, not lower them. I think the thought is that if they can manage to report a positive CPI number, they can get people and institutions to start releveraging.
Yes, demand has decreased, but it decreased well before the oil crash began. The global recession (officially) began in December 2007, but oil prices didn't peak until six months later. Also, demand didn't increase substantially in those six months leading up to the peak in prices. For at least a year leading up to peak prices, demand was weak, at best. Speculation (and dollar devaluation) certainly played a role.
Just like we're seeing now. Oil prices just went from $40 to $80 in under a year, yet demand for oil really hasn't seen a significant movement in that time. Except this time it's largely a result of Ben Bernanke's total destruction of the dollar, which has funneled money into basically anything that's not the US Dollar (just look at the way HY bonds skyrocketed in the face of rising defaults).
"There is nothing I dread so much as a division of the Republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader and converting measures in opposition to each other." -- John Adams, 1790.
Actually, they don't allow you to lose more than the total equity in your account. That means it will come out of their pocket. My broker, for example, will issue a margin call well before you've run out of cash to cover the position (I think 35% extra is what you need to maintain), and will force sell/cover the positions before you run out of cash. They're not going to be stuck with the bill when you don't have enough cash in your account to cover and you walk away.
His mistake was shorting the stock instead of buying put options. Never short stock, is my theory.
Just look at it this way: If you short 100 shares of company XYZ at $6.00 and cover at $4.00, you've made $200. If you buy one 6.00 put when the stock is $6.00 and you sell the put when the stock is $4.00, you've made almost $200. Essentially by buying a put instead, you've greatly limited your downside risk at the expense of slightly less profit and a more limited time constraint.
It's clear that this blogger doesn't know what he's doing.
Well, he was partially right, in that if you short, your broker will probably initiate a forced cover when you run out of cash in the account. You can lose whatever your initial proceeds were from the stock sale, plus the cash you have in your brokerage account.
It will collapse soon. Probably within 12 years. We can't go into debt any more.
I was saying the same thing last year, but now that they've added trillions more to both the debt and the monetary base (which they'll have nearly tripled by the end of the year), I decided I'm moving up the timeframe a bit.
Your comparison between your fire hazard insurance and credit default swaps is weak, at best. For several reasons:
a) You are a private individual who doesn't have time to do a detailed analysis on your insurance company's balance sheet. A very large bank, on the other hand, should know how to look at AIG's balance sheet and determine how liquid they are. They have people who know and understand finance.
b) The type of disasters that could cause people to make claims on their fire hazard insurance cannot possibly affect the percentage of the policy holders as the type of disasters that could befall the CDS counterparties. With CDS, it's almost all or nothing, as far as people making claims, since house prices more or less move together.
c) AIG doesn't care if they have enough capital to cover these defaults. They know they're betting the bank that prices would keep going up; nobody should assume they have enough capital. Again, they need only look at AIG's balance sheet to make that determination.
The key here is that these banks should've known that there was no way AIG could cover all these CDS. They should've known that if housing prices decline, there would be lots of defaults. CDS became widespread out of stupidity and greed on the part of AIG and their counterparties.
Tell me now, why do we need to protect the counterparties in the derivatives contracts? Shouldn't they have been aware of the risk involved? Just look at it this way: Company A offers credit default swaps against securities to protect lenders in case of default. Company B says, "Hey, that sounds great! Small premium for such a policy!" But Company B should considering, "Hey, they only way we'll need this insurance is if there is a catastrophic collapse. But if that happens, Companies C, D, E,..., Z are all going to be asking to be reimbursed along with us! And why should we think Company A has anywhere near enough capital to insure all of those companies in case of default?" Company B should be asking Company A, "Hey, do you even able to insure this?" And the answer would be a resounding "No" (or a bald-faced lie that would be easy to uncover).
The simple fact is, these companies didn't even think about what would happen if AIG couldn't cover all the swaps. Because nobody could cover all those swaps. Let AIG fail. As far as the banks who are counterparties, let them go into receivership, wipe out the shareholders, and sell off their assets to pay off as many debt holders as possible. That's what the FDIC is for; maybe we should use it for something other than a moral hazard provider.
Just look at how favorably we look back on some of their cancelled shows: Arrested Development Futurama Family Guy, before it came back on the air The Tick (etc.)
Family Guy has sucked ever since its return, and its long-running shows (The Simpsons, 24) have experienced a precipitous decline in quality (as do pretty much every long-running show). Maybe there's some value in doing things the British way, and running a show for only two or three seasons (and having only six episodes in a season). Sure, the quantity may not be as much, but the quality is far better.
...Users like to have all of their applications in one space. They can just open up their browser, and they simply need to obtain the correct permissions to access it. No need to install 4-5 different internal apps, and have to update the stupid thing each time there's a new release, when you only actually use the application once every two months.
Here in Arizona, we have a little trick that works quite well. You just drive a car that is registered to someone else. They can't ticket you because they don't know who you are, and the person to whom the car is registered is not liable because he is not the one who broke the law. My younger brother has gotten out of two tickets already by driving the parents' car. So, if you have a family member or friend whom you trust, just swap cars and ignore cameras to your heart's intent.
The other option you have is to just challenge every ticket that they send you. They have lawyers here who chargea flat $35 and basically take you through the process of challenging a ticket. It's really easy to get off, because by the time it's all said and done, it costs them more to get a judge to force you to pay it than the ticket is actually worth.
Slashdot Mirror
This is Schenectady we're talking about. I should think $100 is a drastic overestimate.
None of those are computationally universal. Is euthanasia considered killing? Is self-defense exempt? What if your mother and father are trying to kill you? What is the penalty for stealing? It needs to rattle on for six pages in order to cover all the bases.
I, for one, never understood why programmers have such a hard time with legalese. Quality programmers should make sure their software is as computationally universal as possible, which is exactly the reason for having "legalese."
So having something to export is bad because lobbying will yield laws preventing imports? Subsidies are different than tariffs or import bans.
We would still have something to export if private investment were to research a new technology. It is true that subsidies are different than tariffs, but we both know that allowing imports would fly in the face of the "Buy American" philosophy. It doesn't have to be treated like health care, but it will be.
In part due to OPEC, and in part due to speculation, gas prices soared not too long ago. As worldwide demand for oil increases, we are only going to have more problems. And the cost doesn't have to skyrocket unpredictably for it to cause major problems. A steady increase of 10% over inflation each year could easily cause problems faster than we can deal with it. In fact, it could be argued that we see the need for these technologies right now, but consumers don't buy what is in their best long term interests, they buy what is cheapest right now, and that creates an economic incentive for companies to do what is cheapest right now. The way U.S. capitalism is structured, most companies seem to do what is in the best interests of short to medium term profits. Subsidies are required to get the country to act in it's long term best interests.
Consumers don't see what's in their best long term interest, but investors do. And the only reason people aren't investing in it is because they're competing with the government. Why would you invest in research if you know there's someone with virtually unlimited resources trying to frontrun you? There is absolutely zero chance of getting any return on investment in a field that is so heavily dominated by government grants.
Yes, subsidies can cause unintended side effects, and bad subsidies (e.g., subsidies for corn ethanol) would be disastrous. I can understand being wary. However, blindly saying "subsidies bad, free market good!" is likely to lead to equally bad results too.
On a completely philosophical level, how can the government possibly foresee something that the market can't? Investors chase risk, so absent the expectation of government subsidy, someone will always be willing to take the risk if there is any foreseeable need for something in the future.
If we "become the leader in new forms of energy" by subsidizing research, we'll only be helping foreign countries. It will work out exactly the way pharmacueticals work, wherein the technology is exported to foreign companies to manufacture cheaply, but tough reimportation bans are placed on the technology so as to preserve profits for American corporations. Even without subsidizing, we won't be in a situation where there are political problems due to rapid oil shortages. It's more likely that the oil price will creep up at a predictable rate, making it likely that the need will be seen well in advance, and private investors will see the opportunity for future returns. Remember, government subsidies are not always what they're cracked up to be, either. Often they end up subsidizing the wrong behavior, causing unintended side effects, crowding out private investment, being overly susceptible to private interests... Just look at the housing market, which has been one of the most heavily subsidized markets over the past decade or more.
Anytime you encounter one of these conspiracy theories, you have to ask yourself, "Why would they do this?" In this case, what incentive would the US Government have to try and suppress oil prices? That flies in the face of the current government economic philosophy, which is to reflate all assets at any cost. Everything the government has tried to do in the last year has been an attempt to raise prices, not lower them. I think the thought is that if they can manage to report a positive CPI number, they can get people and institutions to start releveraging.
Yes, demand has decreased, but it decreased well before the oil crash began. The global recession (officially) began in December 2007, but oil prices didn't peak until six months later. Also, demand didn't increase substantially in those six months leading up to the peak in prices. For at least a year leading up to peak prices, demand was weak, at best. Speculation (and dollar devaluation) certainly played a role. Just like we're seeing now. Oil prices just went from $40 to $80 in under a year, yet demand for oil really hasn't seen a significant movement in that time. Except this time it's largely a result of Ben Bernanke's total destruction of the dollar, which has funneled money into basically anything that's not the US Dollar (just look at the way HY bonds skyrocketed in the face of rising defaults).
No, but isn't the alternative to subsidize other energy types, which costs money, and has the same net result on the economy as a real shortage?
I'm not clear on your reference. Is it a totally epic game of Mornington Crescent?
"There is nothing I dread so much as a division of the Republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader and converting measures in opposition to each other." -- John Adams, 1790.
Buying puts over the same period of time was very profitable as well. What's your point?
Actually, they don't allow you to lose more than the total equity in your account. That means it will come out of their pocket. My broker, for example, will issue a margin call well before you've run out of cash to cover the position (I think 35% extra is what you need to maintain), and will force sell/cover the positions before you run out of cash. They're not going to be stuck with the bill when you don't have enough cash in your account to cover and you walk away.
His mistake was shorting the stock instead of buying put options. Never short stock, is my theory.
Just look at it this way: If you short 100 shares of company XYZ at $6.00 and cover at $4.00, you've made $200. If you buy one 6.00 put when the stock is $6.00 and you sell the put when the stock is $4.00, you've made almost $200. Essentially by buying a put instead, you've greatly limited your downside risk at the expense of slightly less profit and a more limited time constraint.
It's clear that this blogger doesn't know what he's doing.
Well, he was partially right, in that if you short, your broker will probably initiate a forced cover when you run out of cash in the account. You can lose whatever your initial proceeds were from the stock sale, plus the cash you have in your brokerage account.
I was saying the same thing last year, but now that they've added trillions more to both the debt and the monetary base (which they'll have nearly tripled by the end of the year), I decided I'm moving up the timeframe a bit.
How about the entire Austrian School of Economics?
Your comparison between your fire hazard insurance and credit default swaps is weak, at best. For several reasons:
a) You are a private individual who doesn't have time to do a detailed analysis on your insurance company's balance sheet. A very large bank, on the other hand, should know how to look at AIG's balance sheet and determine how liquid they are. They have people who know and understand finance.
b) The type of disasters that could cause people to make claims on their fire hazard insurance cannot possibly affect the percentage of the policy holders as the type of disasters that could befall the CDS counterparties. With CDS, it's almost all or nothing, as far as people making claims, since house prices more or less move together.
c) AIG doesn't care if they have enough capital to cover these defaults. They know they're betting the bank that prices would keep going up; nobody should assume they have enough capital. Again, they need only look at AIG's balance sheet to make that determination.
The key here is that these banks should've known that there was no way AIG could cover all these CDS. They should've known that if housing prices decline, there would be lots of defaults. CDS became widespread out of stupidity and greed on the part of AIG and their counterparties.
Tell me now, why do we need to protect the counterparties in the derivatives contracts? Shouldn't they have been aware of the risk involved? Just look at it this way: Company A offers credit default swaps against securities to protect lenders in case of default. Company B says, "Hey, that sounds great! Small premium for such a policy!" But Company B should considering, "Hey, they only way we'll need this insurance is if there is a catastrophic collapse. But if that happens, Companies C, D, E, ..., Z are all going to be asking to be reimbursed along with us! And why should we think Company A has anywhere near enough capital to insure all of those companies in case of default?" Company B should be asking Company A, "Hey, do you even able to insure this?" And the answer would be a resounding "No" (or a bald-faced lie that would be easy to uncover).
The simple fact is, these companies didn't even think about what would happen if AIG couldn't cover all the swaps. Because nobody could cover all those swaps. Let AIG fail. As far as the banks who are counterparties, let them go into receivership, wipe out the shareholders, and sell off their assets to pay off as many debt holders as possible. That's what the FDIC is for; maybe we should use it for something other than a moral hazard provider.
Just look at how favorably we look back on some of their cancelled shows:
Arrested Development
Futurama
Family Guy, before it came back on the air
The Tick
(etc.)
Family Guy has sucked ever since its return, and its long-running shows (The Simpsons, 24) have experienced a precipitous decline in quality (as do pretty much every long-running show). Maybe there's some value in doing things the British way, and running a show for only two or three seasons (and having only six episodes in a season). Sure, the quantity may not be as much, but the quality is far better.
The Tick was actually a very good show. Although just the one season may have been just the right amount.
Facebook is great. You should join!
...Users like to have all of their applications in one space. They can just open up their browser, and they simply need to obtain the correct permissions to access it. No need to install 4-5 different internal apps, and have to update the stupid thing each time there's a new release, when you only actually use the application once every two months.
Get off my lawn, indeed.
CoDe
(Sorry, couldn't resist)
Here in Arizona, we have a little trick that works quite well. You just drive a car that is registered to someone else. They can't ticket you because they don't know who you are, and the person to whom the car is registered is not liable because he is not the one who broke the law. My younger brother has gotten out of two tickets already by driving the parents' car. So, if you have a family member or friend whom you trust, just swap cars and ignore cameras to your heart's intent.
The other option you have is to just challenge every ticket that they send you. They have lawyers here who chargea flat $35 and basically take you through the process of challenging a ticket. It's really easy to get off, because by the time it's all said and done, it costs them more to get a judge to force you to pay it than the ticket is actually worth.