it is no longer dependent on the current or the future state of US economy, nor does it have a reason to care about possible changes it may create there.
Well, that's not right. Just because they aren't directly dealing with the US, doesn't mean the US has no affect. It would still affect trade, the non-BRICS loans (C-I, I-C), it would affect their partners, the other banks they deal with, etc.
Ups! Should have added "regarding that particular action". No... wait... I DID add that.
when that one third of humanity gives loans to itself
And you should read a bit more carefully... Where exactly did I say "US has no affect"? Granted... might be a bit hard to read the type on Slashdot while on horseback, but still...
If you're talking about the underwriting services provided by banks, such as bank bills so when trading with international companies, they can be assured the deal will go through, then you're wrong. First of all, bank bills and these notes (as far as I have seen) have always been denominated in the local currency. The bank isn't protecting them from exchange rate risk, only default risk.
Who said anything about "banks"? We are talking central financial institution of one country issuing a loan or grant to another country. At best it is A bank, or as the article puts it "our designated banks". We're not talking commercial banking here - these are governments handing out loans to each other through the banks that are effectively extensions of their respective treasuries. But that is besides the point.
The point is, they can give out a loan/grant in local not_directly_dependent_on_the_dollar currency to each other (let's call it loan A), which they can use to cover their loan from their local bank(s)/financial_authorityTM to get the dollars to buy goods they need. Call that the loan B. That way, even though their loan B doesn't cover them from exchange rate risks directly, the loan B itself is covered by the loan A which does all the risk covering. They do this reciprocally and they are both covered.
The article even states "this will not affect trade". This policy regards only loans made by banks, to entities in a BRICS country.
One, no it does not state that second part. It states "an agreement...in issuing credit or grants to each other." You seem to be thinking that all trading EVER is done only between companies - and it is not. Governments CAN trade too. Particularly in things like food and fuel which they are obligated to keep national reserves of.
Two, try thinking about it rationally. Would a cheap loan of great quantities of money to a country have an effect on the trade that country does? Hell yeah it would! They just found a huge pile of money. They're not going to use it as toilet paper. They're going to spend it. How do you do that? Ding! You buy stuff!
What would the absence of directly visible effect in such a case mean? Well, that might mean that there really is no effect on the trade cause they are trading with fairies OR that the effect is being masked somewhere in the chain.
Where would that masking take place? In the part where they would otherwise influence the value of the dollar in a positive manner, which would in turn influence their budgets in negative manner through increased costs of the loan.
They are practically saying it out loud - only it is politi-talk.
The rest of your response is babbling nonsense, and from what I can tell its still about trade, and is mostly addressed by the above. Are you sure you studied this at university?
Don't be silly! Who studies common sense and reading between the lines in university? I mean, clearly, you didn't. Right?
The user fundamentally needs to know the difference between adding information to a document and removing information.
Sure, because that is the way it is in the real life, right? When you paint a black rectangle over a piece of text you are adding information to that piece of paper. When you paint it all black it is positively LOADED with information. In fact, it has ALL THE INFORMATION EVER right there on that black page - you just need to extract it out of there.
And don't get me started on those white pages that people think of as blank. HA! I "borrowed" a piece of paper from a classmate back in school - he didn't even know it had every book ever written, every movie ever made, every piece of music ever recorded right there on it. Including some that never existed in our universe (or ever will).
If you'll excuse me now, I'm off to watch the fourth and fifth Star Wars trilogy on it again. Han shoots first all the time.
India and China alone are over ONE THIRD of humanity.
Now, when that one third of humanity gives loans to itself (C-I, I-C) it is no longer dependent on the current or the future state of US economy, nor does it have a reason to care about possible changes it may create there. Where will this become apparent? Fungible assets that they spend more than anyone else - like food and fuel.
They take out a loan from each other to import goods, pay goods in dollars because they have to, which influences the dollar value in a positive sense (it goes up or it doesn't go down, but since everyone else is trading in dollars it is usually invisible) - but now, the price of their loans does not increase with the amount of grain or oil they import.
As a bonus, both economies being outsourcing centers for the US economy, the positive influence their importing makes on the dollar now makes the dollars they are paid in more valuable - while their interest rates and other costs of loan don't go up along with the value of the dollar. Bonus points if the exporter country is the lender at the same time. Like say... Russia for grain/oil/coal.
A smaller economy/country would probably not have that much of a positive effect, but we ARE talking India and China here. And Russia. And 2.5 billion people can eat a lot of food and burn a lot of fuel.
Besides, you can't fix overpopulation by going to Mars. How many people are born on Earth every minute, and how many could you realistically send to Mars ? Not enough to make a difference.
Did people living in USA and Australia today all come from Europe? Are those two technologically advanced countries? Colonization is not about exodus, you know? It is about populating an area, preferably one rich in exploitable resources.
Also, there is nothing really there to fix regarding overpopulation. You know... kinda the way nothing needs fixing about unicorns.
But you know what there is on Mars? A basket. Not really big one, not really safe one... but a spare basket none the less. And one that we could spit-shine into a much better basket with a bit of elbow-grease. And then we would have two really nice baskets - plus all the basket spit-shining tech we came up with in the process. Just all the Hobbit-tech (there and back again) is worth the trip or two, not to mention A WHOLE FUCKING PLANET for us. And by us, I mean us. Not you. You just lost your chance. Along with your Nazi friends you will have your face melted off while we go to Mars and beyond.
...from all those instructional videos from 1950s about living on Mars - weren't there supposed to be domes over human habitations for first couple of generations anyway? You know, radiation or no radiation, Mars ain't exactly t-shirt and shorts climate.
Besides, you have to ask yourself what kind of product you would be able to manufacture locally, that would benefit from electricity, and clean energy, and where the profit would pay for the huge setup and shipping costs. Most likely, this product can be replaced by something that's a little easier to make - in China.
I am very glad that you are so supportive of the space conquering efforts of our new/old Chinese overlords. There will a special place in the "consuming lines" for you and your progeny once everything starts being imported from the People's Republic of Yueliang.
You get into a lot of trouble. That' the law's purpose. That's why it exists. They made up a law to get people in trouble for doing harmless stuff. That video taught me that.
I say we listen to the fine video and abolish such a law. It is clearly evil and endangers people and sea otters by making them juggle piranhas while firing themselves from a cannon. It also promotes property damage and spontaneous litigation.
But, considering what is seen here, I do believe that something along the lines of wash-dry-perfume bidet is actually the correct answer. Or should be.
In my "developing country" (Bosnia), the cost would be in the number of calories expended by taking it to the dumpster, plus the cost of the rubber removed from your shoes through the act of walking during the task.
I'm actually all for recycling and reuse. Always have been. In most cases, you can't improvise if you don't reuse and recycle. Sadly... the last effort I've seen for actual paper and PET recycling ended up with special dumpsters being broken open and just placed next to the regular ones. Hell... If it wasn't for Roma (or gypsies, as referred to colloquially) stores would probably be burning their cardboard packaging each day. Instead, these people go around each day, collect it and sell it. The rest of us... I guess we are too rich for that.
Meanwhile, about a year or two back, I remember reading an article about used PET bottles being smuggled into Croatia from Bosnia. See... In Croatia you get 1 kuna (~0.2$) for for one large or three small recyclable bottles. Now, since Herzegovina borders with Croatia over huge parts of unguarded land which includes one pretty large river that crosses the border into Croatia - people would either just chuck bottles into river and gather them into nets downstream OR smuggle them across the border on donkeys.
Best part is, those are not your regular donkeys but "homing donkeys". They press the bottles into bales, pack the bales on a donkey and send it across the border. People on the other side exchange the bottles for cash and the split the profits. And should border patrol actually catch a donkey... What are they going to do? Arrest it? Worst case, they return the "escaped donkey" to the owner.
She's been using my old 166 MHz MMX (overclocked to WHOLE 200 MHz), with ENTIRE 64 MB of RAM running Windows '98. She had no computer at work and she got tired of asking other people to use theirs each time she had to type a memo - so she took the one she was using at home to work. Until something finally gave up in it the other day.
Since it's a bit of a ride to her workplace, and I've been rather busy lately I don't know what exactly is wrong with it - I'm guessing either motherboard or graphic card from the symptoms she described. Best part is she absolutely refuses any fixing that would involve spending money - though we could buy a refurbished one that would be at least 8 years younger and at least 10 times faster that her old machine for about $100 or less, with 12 month warranty. Which would, at the moment, be cheaper than trying to replace any part in that computer - save perhaps the floppy drive.
Thing is... that old MMX machine was just fine for her. All she needed it for was some Microsoft Word and Excel from time to time. And she's a bit pissed off at her superiors for having to bring her own computer in the first place, plus since she's a step away from retirements she figures - fuck it. They want her to do something on a computer, let them get her one. She's not donating another dime to the company, thank you very much.
The above linked plans and costs are all WITH NASA spending ON NASA budget. Completely doable and affordable.
Problem is, they are neither pork nor do they need a bunch of pet projects. You know... "ALL" they'd do is get a crew to Mars and back and let them do some actual scientific work while at it. Perhaps pave the way for colonization and other useless crap that never got anyone reelected.
The challenge for space travel is to get buy-in from the broader population, and to do that it has to have the same visceral, senseless emotional response that warfare has. War is mate competition carried out by other means, and as such engages our deepest emotional responses.
No... not really. A HUGE part of population is very interested in space travel COMPLETELY VOLUNTARILY. In fact, find me one kid who would not choose "Astronaut" as a profession if it was available. You don't need it to be anything like war - just as colonists of the "New World" didn't go there because of some antiquated patriotic notion. They went to find a better life for themselves or to prove themselves. Fuck... many of them went to GET AWAY from antiquated patriotic notions.
While exploration is daring and dangerous, the vast majority of people can't participate in it in an active way.
Depends on your definition of "active participation". By that same logic, people voting for their political representatives are not "actively participating" in politics. Same as people who donate to various causes don't "actively help".
Give the humans a way to donate their time and money to such an endeavor. Hell... People donate both to deletionists at Wikipedia.
We sent 12 people to the Moon, compared to hundreds of thousands rotated through Iraq.
Besides obvious logistic differences here, most people that were sent to Iraq would actually like NOT to be there. Those 12 were volunteers chosen from thousands others who would swap places with them in a blink of an eye if they could. Just ask the other 12 that went there without actually landing.
So from my point of view the problem with exploring other worlds is that we aren't doing enough of it to engage a large enough segment of the population.
"A large enough segment" is very much engaged - if by that you mean interested in space travel. If you mean "sent to outer space" well... compared to your "engagement in war in Iraq" example - it costs a little more per person than a just some jet fuel, uniform, gun, ammo and a couple of months training to send someone to space.
If some country were to commit to militarizing the Moon, say, we'd see a vast increase in resources flung at space travel, and at this point I'm not sure that wouldn't be a bad thing. Even done by an organization as stupid and inefficient as any standing army, it would be cheaper and vastly less destructive than even a fairly tiny war.
Why militarized? Look up at that Clausewitz quote again. It's POLITICS by other means, not war by other means. Politics is also "Hey, let's go there TOGETHER". There really ARE friendly ways of competition available to humans where you don't even have to kill anyone.
She remained in the plane, pinned down by a catering trolley - effectively a seat belt. Also, she was found with a colleague's body on top of her (effectively an air-bag cushion). Also, the part of the plane she was in crashed into trees on its way down - cushioning the fall. Also, she was found by a trained medic. Also, according to her statements she apparently always had rather low blood pressure - which prevented her from bleeding out until she was found.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah... right after you teach them not to use 5 letter passwords.
Ups! Should have added "regarding that particular action". No... wait... I DID add that.
when that one third of humanity gives loans to itself
And you should read a bit more carefully... Where exactly did I say "US has no affect"?
Granted... might be a bit hard to read the type on Slashdot while on horseback, but still...
Who said anything about "banks"? We are talking central financial institution of one country issuing a loan or grant to another country. At best it is A bank, or as the article puts it "our designated banks".
We're not talking commercial banking here - these are governments handing out loans to each other through the banks that are effectively extensions of their respective treasuries.
But that is besides the point.
The point is, they can give out a loan/grant in local not_directly_dependent_on_the_dollar currency to each other (let's call it loan A), which they can use to cover their loan from their local bank(s)/financial_authorityTM to get the dollars to buy goods they need. Call that the loan B.
That way, even though their loan B doesn't cover them from exchange rate risks directly, the loan B itself is covered by the loan A which does all the risk covering.
They do this reciprocally and they are both covered.
The article even states "this will not affect trade". This policy regards only loans made by banks, to entities in a BRICS country.
One, no it does not state that second part. It states "an agreement...in issuing credit or grants to each other."
You seem to be thinking that all trading EVER is done only between companies - and it is not. Governments CAN trade too.
Particularly in things like food and fuel which they are obligated to keep national reserves of.
Two, try thinking about it rationally. Would a cheap loan of great quantities of money to a country have an effect on the trade that country does? Hell yeah it would! They just found a huge pile of money. They're not going to use it as toilet paper. They're going to spend it. How do you do that? Ding! You buy stuff!
What would the absence of directly visible effect in such a case mean? Well, that might mean that there really is no effect on the trade cause they are trading with fairies OR that the effect is being masked somewhere in the chain.
Where would that masking take place? In the part where they would otherwise influence the value of the dollar in a positive manner, which would in turn influence their budgets in negative manner through increased costs of the loan.
They are practically saying it out loud - only it is politi-talk.
The rest of your response is babbling nonsense, and from what I can tell its still about trade, and is mostly addressed by the above. Are you sure you studied this at university?
Don't be silly! Who studies common sense and reading between the lines in university?
I mean, clearly, you didn't. Right?
Or you would pick up on the fact that I am not waving the banner of my extensive bachel
The user fundamentally needs to know the difference between adding information to a document and removing information.
Sure, because that is the way it is in the real life, right?
When you paint a black rectangle over a piece of text you are adding information to that piece of paper. When you paint it all black it is positively LOADED with information.
In fact, it has ALL THE INFORMATION EVER right there on that black page - you just need to extract it out of there.
And don't get me started on those white pages that people think of as blank. HA!
I "borrowed" a piece of paper from a classmate back in school - he didn't even know it had every book ever written, every movie ever made, every piece of music ever recorded right there on it.
Including some that never existed in our universe (or ever will).
If you'll excuse me now, I'm off to watch the fourth and fifth Star Wars trilogy on it again. Han shoots first all the time.
India and China alone are over ONE THIRD of humanity.
Now, when that one third of humanity gives loans to itself (C-I, I-C) it is no longer dependent on the current or the future state of US economy, nor does it have a reason to care about possible changes it may create there.
Where will this become apparent? Fungible assets that they spend more than anyone else - like food and fuel.
They take out a loan from each other to import goods, pay goods in dollars because they have to, which influences the dollar value in a positive sense (it goes up or it doesn't go down, but since everyone else is trading in dollars it is usually invisible) - but now, the price of their loans does not increase with the amount of grain or oil they import.
As a bonus, both economies being outsourcing centers for the US economy, the positive influence their importing makes on the dollar now makes the dollars they are paid in more valuable - while their interest rates and other costs of loan don't go up along with the value of the dollar.
Bonus points if the exporter country is the lender at the same time. Like say... Russia for grain/oil/coal.
A smaller economy/country would probably not have that much of a positive effect, but we ARE talking India and China here. And Russia.
And 2.5 billion people can eat a lot of food and burn a lot of fuel.
Besides, you can't fix overpopulation by going to Mars. How many people are born on Earth every minute, and how many could you realistically send to Mars ? Not enough to make a difference.
Did people living in USA and Australia today all come from Europe? Are those two technologically advanced countries?
Colonization is not about exodus, you know? It is about populating an area, preferably one rich in exploitable resources.
Also, there is nothing really there to fix regarding overpopulation. You know... kinda the way nothing needs fixing about unicorns.
But you know what there is on Mars? A basket.
Not really big one, not really safe one... but a spare basket none the less. And one that we could spit-shine into a much better basket with a bit of elbow-grease.
And then we would have two really nice baskets - plus all the basket spit-shining tech we came up with in the process.
Just all the Hobbit-tech (there and back again) is worth the trip or two, not to mention A WHOLE FUCKING PLANET for us.
And by us, I mean us. Not you. You just lost your chance. Along with your Nazi friends you will have your face melted off while we go to Mars and beyond.
...from all those instructional videos from 1950s about living on Mars - weren't there supposed to be domes over human habitations for first couple of generations anyway?
You know, radiation or no radiation, Mars ain't exactly t-shirt and shorts climate.
Viva el Consumismo!
Besides, you have to ask yourself what kind of product you would be able to manufacture locally, that would benefit from electricity, and clean energy, and where the profit would pay for the huge setup and shipping costs.
Most likely, this product can be replaced by something that's a little easier to make - in China.
I am very glad that you are so supportive of the space conquering efforts of our new/old Chinese overlords.
There will a special place in the "consuming lines" for you and your progeny once everything starts being imported from the People's Republic of Yueliang.
Cheaper than on the Moon? Using Phlebotinum I presume?
http://www.moonsociety.org/whitepapers/moonreturn_positionpaper.html
The French must have better PR.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoLIU2NI66w#t=1m07s
You get into a lot of trouble.
That' the law's purpose. That's why it exists. They made up a law to get people in trouble for doing harmless stuff.
That video taught me that.
I say we listen to the fine video and abolish such a law.
It is clearly evil and endangers people and sea otters by making them juggle piranhas while firing themselves from a cannon.
It also promotes property damage and spontaneous litigation.
http://www.suite101.com/content/the-april-fish-a13685
You might remember that from this movie.
In a fiery death no less?
Where is the donation button for that fine endeavor?
There's even a diagram on how to use them here.
But, considering what is seen here, I do believe that something along the lines of wash-dry-perfume bidet is actually the correct answer.
Or should be.
What ever for?
In my "developing country" (Bosnia), the cost would be in the number of calories expended by taking it to the dumpster, plus the cost of the rubber removed from your shoes through the act of walking during the task.
I'm actually all for recycling and reuse. Always have been. In most cases, you can't improvise if you don't reuse and recycle.
Sadly... the last effort I've seen for actual paper and PET recycling ended up with special dumpsters being broken open and just placed next to the regular ones.
Hell... If it wasn't for Roma (or gypsies, as referred to colloquially) stores would probably be burning their cardboard packaging each day.
Instead, these people go around each day, collect it and sell it. The rest of us... I guess we are too rich for that.
Meanwhile, about a year or two back, I remember reading an article about used PET bottles being smuggled into Croatia from Bosnia.
See... In Croatia you get 1 kuna (~0.2$) for for one large or three small recyclable bottles.
Now, since Herzegovina borders with Croatia over huge parts of unguarded land which includes one pretty large river that crosses the border into Croatia - people would either just chuck bottles into river and gather them into nets downstream OR smuggle them across the border on donkeys.
Best part is, those are not your regular donkeys but "homing donkeys".
They press the bottles into bales, pack the bales on a donkey and send it across the border. People on the other side exchange the bottles for cash and the split the profits.
And should border patrol actually catch a donkey... What are they going to do? Arrest it? Worst case, they return the "escaped donkey" to the owner.
She's been using my old 166 MHz MMX (overclocked to WHOLE 200 MHz), with ENTIRE 64 MB of RAM running Windows '98.
She had no computer at work and she got tired of asking other people to use theirs each time she had to type a memo - so she took the one she was using at home to work.
Until something finally gave up in it the other day.
Since it's a bit of a ride to her workplace, and I've been rather busy lately I don't know what exactly is wrong with it - I'm guessing either motherboard or graphic card from the symptoms she described.
Best part is she absolutely refuses any fixing that would involve spending money - though we could buy a refurbished one that would be at least 8 years younger and at least 10 times faster that her old machine for about $100 or less, with 12 month warranty.
Which would, at the moment, be cheaper than trying to replace any part in that computer - save perhaps the floppy drive.
Thing is... that old MMX machine was just fine for her.
All she needed it for was some Microsoft Word and Excel from time to time.
And she's a bit pissed off at her superiors for having to bring her own computer in the first place, plus since she's a step away from retirements she figures - fuck it.
They want her to do something on a computer, let them get her one. She's not donating another dime to the company, thank you very much.
But what does this story have to do with Microsoft, and why is there are Bill the Borg icon attached to it?
I mean... I know it's a samzenpus post but still... Wouldn't a script do his job cheaper and more effectively?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnAKd6PRjDs
The above linked plans and costs are all WITH NASA spending ON NASA budget. Completely doable and affordable.
Problem is, they are neither pork nor do they need a bunch of pet projects.
You know... "ALL" they'd do is get a crew to Mars and back and let them do some actual scientific work while at it.
Perhaps pave the way for colonization and other useless crap that never got anyone reelected.
The challenge for space travel is to get buy-in from the broader population, and to do that it has to have the same visceral, senseless emotional response that warfare has. War is mate competition carried out by other means, and as such engages our deepest emotional responses.
No... not really.
A HUGE part of population is very interested in space travel COMPLETELY VOLUNTARILY. In fact, find me one kid who would not choose "Astronaut" as a profession if it was available.
You don't need it to be anything like war - just as colonists of the "New World" didn't go there because of some antiquated patriotic notion. They went to find a better life for themselves or to prove themselves. Fuck... many of them went to GET AWAY from antiquated patriotic notions.
As for "mate competition" - way off there. Wars are no longer fought in order to "git the'r women an' food".
Nor are they fought to "preserve the species" - wars are political tools. Have been since humans invented guns and by doing it made "warrior noblemen" obsolete.
And the quote goes "War is not merely a political act, but also a political instrument, a continuation of political relations, a carrying out of the same by other means."
While exploration is daring and dangerous, the vast majority of people can't participate in it in an active way.
Depends on your definition of "active participation".
By that same logic, people voting for their political representatives are not "actively participating" in politics.
Same as people who donate to various causes don't "actively help".
Give the humans a way to donate their time and money to such an endeavor. Hell... People donate both to deletionists at Wikipedia.
We sent 12 people to the Moon, compared to hundreds of thousands rotated through Iraq.
Besides obvious logistic differences here, most people that were sent to Iraq would actually like NOT to be there.
Those 12 were volunteers chosen from thousands others who would swap places with them in a blink of an eye if they could. Just ask the other 12 that went there without actually landing.
So from my point of view the problem with exploring other worlds is that we aren't doing enough of it to engage a large enough segment of the population.
"A large enough segment" is very much engaged - if by that you mean interested in space travel.
If you mean "sent to outer space" well... compared to your "engagement in war in Iraq" example - it costs a little more per person than a just some jet fuel, uniform, gun, ammo and a couple of months training to send someone to space.
If some country were to commit to militarizing the Moon, say, we'd see a vast increase in resources flung at space travel, and at this point I'm not sure that wouldn't be a bad thing. Even done by an organization as stupid and inefficient as any standing army, it would be cheaper and vastly less destructive than even a fairly tiny war.
Why militarized?
Look up at that Clausewitz quote again. It's POLITICS by other means, not war by other means.
Politics is also "Hey, let's go there TOGETHER". There really ARE friendly ways of competition available to humans where you don't even have to kill anyone.
But that clearly wouldn't be of use to person of your... qualities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_for_Less
Or try this, if you are more partial to video.
And then... there's the colonization option.
Best part is, no unobtainium needed. Everything is based on current, tried technologies already in use.
And not in a "build on the knowledge of past generations" kind of sense. Literally.
Also, compared to some other "adventures", the whole thing would be rather cheap. On budget too.
She remained in the plane, pinned down by a catering trolley - effectively a seat belt.
Also, she was found with a colleague's body on top of her (effectively an air-bag cushion).
Also, the part of the plane she was in crashed into trees on its way down - cushioning the fall.
Also, she was found by a trained medic.
Also, according to her statements she apparently always had rather low blood pressure - which prevented her from bleeding out until she was found.