The rare cases where deflation has occurred are generally associated with economic depressions.
This is true (in the past hundred and fifty years or so), but there is no good reason to believe that disflation is causing the depressions. If you're interested, here is a nice short article on it.
Nuclear weapons are quite a technical achievement, but I don't think it would ever be okay to call nuclear weaponry "the greatest invention of the 20th century."
Brilliant! Now those "wage slaves" will have no option but do work that's even less desirable. Why do you think they are working in electronics manufacturing? They would rather do that work than any other option they have. Do you presume to know better than they do about where they should work?
You've also just made electronics (and whatever else you presume worthy of virtue-signaling tariffs) less affordable for the poor in the tariff-imposing countries.
Two birds, one stone.
Tariffs are only good for one thing: bestowing political favors.
Those Christians were not communist. "No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own" means they acknowledged that they were stewards of God's property, not that they advocated for governments to take their and others' property.
Everything will get cheaper as a result of automation. It will take less work and resources to achieve the same result. Productivity will continue to rise.
This is clearly a "growing global crisis." What a tragedy!
No, he's complaining about the shift in usage of the world itself: liberalism. From an article on the matter:
Liberalism has become one of the most widely misused and abused words in the American political lexicon. It represents, some say, politically “progressive thought,” based on the goal of “social justice” through greater “distributive justice” for all. Others declare it represents moral relativism, political paternalism, governmental license, and just another word for “socialism.” Lost in all of this is that fact that historically “liberalism” originally meant, and continues to mean for some, individual freedom, private property, free enterprise and impartial rule of law under constitutionally limited government.
They should pay for the airspace they use. That is, the rocket companies as well as the airline companies. If you use a lot of air space and cause inconveniences for others in the space, you pay a lot. If you use a little, you pay less. People who buy airplane tickets shouldn't have to subsidize commercial space companies (nor the other way around, but that doesn't seem like an issue at the moment). No special favors for anyone -- not even Musk.
> If I may say, no. Violently enforcing your opinion would be extremist. Mere disagreement is hardly extremist.
If this is true, then most people are extremists, as they believe in violently enforcing their opinions, albeit indirectly through government. I think the dictionary definition of "a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action" is more accurate.
You're linking to a page that talks about something completely different: unwillingness to divulge financial information of clients. That's pretty much completely unrelated to corruption. A more relevant list (sorry I don't know how to link to it with sorting by government integrity) will show us that Venezuela, Nigeria, Cambodia, Madagascar, and Somalia top the list of most corrupt.
And that's what some people support about Uber: that they have broken laws that should never have existed in the first place. But lobbying for new bad laws makes them just as bad as everyone else.
I can't imagine that 80% of the population subsists on $2 a day or less, but 75% has a television. Better to raise the price and let those who most value it buy it than to have a price that fails to convey the information that prices are supposed to convey -- in this case, that they should use less water.
That was added later as the Sixteenth Amendment. Furthermore, the Constitution is not perfect as we all well know. If it were, blacks would still be 3/5 of a person.
The fact that India is not as developed as the United States says nothing about the effect of taxation or tax avoidance. You can't say "Bob is fat and Ronald is not. Bob is mean and Ronald is not. Therefore, being fat makes people mean."
That may be true, but how many people die when the FDA fails to approve drugs on time? Why not just have incentives to avoid hurting people rather than telling them how to do it? If someone falsely advertises, they can be sued for fraud. If their drug has X side effect (maybe even death), they can be sued for all damages caused by their nondisclosure of said side effects. Federal regulation is not the most effective way to keep people safe. The problem is that we have an easy time imagining what would happen if the FDA doesn't exist -- "snake oil," unsafe drugs, etc -- but we fail to see what innovation didn't happen or what lives weren't saved because of the FDA.
This means that is to everybody's advantage to hoard currency, since it gets more valuable the longer you hold onto it.
I believe the word is save, not hoard. Deflation does not work like you think it does. Money is just like any other good in the economy, and so its price is set just like every other good -- by supply and demand schedules. There's nothing special about money that exempts it from the normal way we analyze goods. Under your logic, the same would happen to stocks. If a stock goes up, then people would buy more of it and it would become a "vicious cycle" of price increases in the stock. Yes, there are bubbles due to bad judgement, but the idea is the same: the price of currency can go up and down. When it goes up too fast, that just means that it hasn't found its correct price point yet. The price of money doesn't change how many goods are produced. No one is going to say "Darn, I can't sell for 0.0005 BTC, I'll have to set the price to 0.0004 BTC and pay my employees 20% less. I don't want to do that. I'll just stop producing anything and let my capital rot!"
I think the lesson is that deflation is actually be a good thing, especially for long-term savings. Plus, who doesn't want to wake up to lower prices every day?
Slashdot Mirror
Read to this point. Whoever wrote this article needs to do a little bit of research before pretending to know anything about blockchains.
The part that makes it "crypto" is the fact that cryptographic signatures are used. No encryption involved.
s/disflation/deflation
I apologize for the typo.
The rare cases where deflation has occurred are generally associated with economic depressions.
This is true (in the past hundred and fifty years or so), but there is no good reason to believe that disflation is causing the depressions. If you're interested, here is a nice short article on it.
Nuclear weapons are quite a technical achievement, but I don't think it would ever be okay to call nuclear weaponry "the greatest invention of the 20th century."
Brilliant! Now those "wage slaves" will have no option but do work that's even less desirable. Why do you think they are working in electronics manufacturing? They would rather do that work than any other option they have. Do you presume to know better than they do about where they should work?
You've also just made electronics (and whatever else you presume worthy of virtue-signaling tariffs) less affordable for the poor in the tariff-imposing countries.
Two birds, one stone.
Tariffs are only good for one thing: bestowing political favors.
Those Christians were not communist. "No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own" means they acknowledged that they were stewards of God's property, not that they advocated for governments to take their and others' property.
No, there's a word for what they were: generous.
Everything will get cheaper as a result of automation. It will take less work and resources to achieve the same result. Productivity will continue to rise.
This is clearly a "growing global crisis." What a tragedy!
No, he's complaining about the shift in usage of the world itself: liberalism. From an article on the matter:
Liberalism has become one of the most widely misused and abused words in the American political lexicon. It represents, some say, politically “progressive thought,” based on the goal of “social justice” through greater “distributive justice” for all. Others declare it represents moral relativism, political paternalism, governmental license, and just another word for “socialism.” Lost in all of this is that fact that historically “liberalism” originally meant, and continues to mean for some, individual freedom, private property, free enterprise and impartial rule of law under constitutionally limited government.
...for airspace.
They should pay for the airspace they use. That is, the rocket companies as well as the airline companies. If you use a lot of air space and cause inconveniences for others in the space, you pay a lot. If you use a little, you pay less. People who buy airplane tickets shouldn't have to subsidize commercial space companies (nor the other way around, but that doesn't seem like an issue at the moment). No special favors for anyone -- not even Musk.
I thought the same thing. Slashdot editing is pretty bad. Apparently it's some kind of online shopping website: Flipkart (Wikipedia)
The class at Carnegie Mellon is actually at the undergraduate level.
> If I may say, no. Violently enforcing your opinion would be extremist. Mere disagreement is hardly extremist.
If this is true, then most people are extremists, as they believe in violently enforcing their opinions, albeit indirectly through government. I think the dictionary definition of "a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action" is more accurate.
You're linking to a page that talks about something completely different: unwillingness to divulge financial information of clients. That's pretty much completely unrelated to corruption. A more relevant list (sorry I don't know how to link to it with sorting by government integrity) will show us that Venezuela, Nigeria, Cambodia, Madagascar, and Somalia top the list of most corrupt.
It's not a euphemism. They're the same thing.
And that's what some people support about Uber: that they have broken laws that should never have existed in the first place. But lobbying for new bad laws makes them just as bad as everyone else.
I can't imagine that 80% of the population subsists on $2 a day or less, but 75% has a television. Better to raise the price and let those who most value it buy it than to have a price that fails to convey the information that prices are supposed to convey -- in this case, that they should use less water.
See a more complete and accurate list (in thousands) in recent history from Death by Government.
A few of the numbers:
- USSR: 61,911,000
- China (PRC): 35,236,000
- Germany: 20,946,000
- China (KMT): 10,075,000
"abcdef".chars
That was added later as the Sixteenth Amendment. Furthermore, the Constitution is not perfect as we all well know. If it were, blacks would still be 3/5 of a person.
The fact that India is not as developed as the United States says nothing about the effect of taxation or tax avoidance. You can't say "Bob is fat and Ronald is not. Bob is mean and Ronald is not. Therefore, being fat makes people mean."
That may be true, but how many people die when the FDA fails to approve drugs on time? Why not just have incentives to avoid hurting people rather than telling them how to do it? If someone falsely advertises, they can be sued for fraud. If their drug has X side effect (maybe even death), they can be sued for all damages caused by their nondisclosure of said side effects. Federal regulation is not the most effective way to keep people safe. The problem is that we have an easy time imagining what would happen if the FDA doesn't exist -- "snake oil," unsafe drugs, etc -- but we fail to see what innovation didn't happen or what lives weren't saved because of the FDA.
I'm aware that I accidentally submitted the same comment twice. Sorry about that -- wish Slashdot would let you delete your comments.
They've figured out that regulations hurt innovation and make it difficult to compete with established businesses collecting economic rent.
They've figured out that the regulations they're always pushing for make it near-impossible to compete with established companies and hurt innovation.
This means that is to everybody's advantage to hoard currency, since it gets more valuable the longer you hold onto it.
I believe the word is save, not hoard. Deflation does not work like you think it does. Money is just like any other good in the economy, and so its price is set just like every other good -- by supply and demand schedules. There's nothing special about money that exempts it from the normal way we analyze goods. Under your logic, the same would happen to stocks. If a stock goes up, then people would buy more of it and it would become a "vicious cycle" of price increases in the stock. Yes, there are bubbles due to bad judgement, but the idea is the same: the price of currency can go up and down. When it goes up too fast, that just means that it hasn't found its correct price point yet. The price of money doesn't change how many goods are produced. No one is going to say "Darn, I can't sell for 0.0005 BTC, I'll have to set the price to 0.0004 BTC and pay my employees 20% less. I don't want to do that. I'll just stop producing anything and let my capital rot!"
I think the lesson is that deflation is actually be a good thing, especially for long-term savings. Plus, who doesn't want to wake up to lower prices every day?