If you're going to consider solar energy external, then you should also consider the energy in deep currents as external, because that energy differential was created by solar energy hitting the ocean.
I'd probably consider both internal, as there is a relatively fixed amount of energy input into the Earth by the Sun, and both solar and deep current generators use that.
Have you heard of a supply vs. demand curve in microeconomics? If the marginal cost of producing an item rises, thus shifting the supply curve, the equilibrium price (where the supply and demand curves meet) will change. This works in aggregate as well, for the whole economy. Hence, macroeconomics.
"The only way for the cost of everything in the economy to increase is if the money is worth less."
The cost of everything could also increase for other reasons. For example, if there is less of everything in the economy, perhaps because of a depression when no one is working (but it works on a smaller scale too), prices will rise because there is the same amount of money to buy a smaller amount of total goods. (Again, both supply and demand matter)
Finally, government debts don't lead to inflation, because when the goverment borrows, it decreases the money supply. Printing money, of course, does lead to inflation.
Also, please provide evidence for this "storm" that you feel is coming. Inflation will likely continue (which most economists don't think is a bad thing anyway, as long as it is relatively stable), but I don't see many people calling for a "storm" of inflation.
The optimal price for a seller is determined independently of fixed (or sunk) costs, as the seller should set the price so as to maximize revenue net of variable (production and distribution) costs. Thus, whether or not the seller has "gotten their money back" in the sense of having made more revenue than their fixed costs should have no bearing on the price they set.
"A proper religion is a means of enhancing our relationships with ourselves and with the universe."
It's really nice of you to, with no support whatsoever, create your own totally new definition of "proper" religion that excludes (by definition) the religions of the vast majority of people who consider themselves religious. Very helpful.
I'd also agree that a lot of pro-life people and organizations aren't too happy with flushing embryos down the drain, for the exact reason you pointed out. Most pro-life organizations have a consistent view here, although many individuals may not yet have thought too much about fertility clinics whien they think about abortion. I believe that most of those who have thought about it apply their logic consistently, though, just as you did.
Of course there can be free rider problems for public goods. The problem is often precisely in paying for it - both creation, and maintenance.
Your example demonstrates the problem perfectly. Let's say the only benefit of the satellite is to farmers, and the satellite costs $100/year to maintain. Assume there are 100 farmers, and the benefit of the satellite is $3/year to each farmer. It is possible to form a farmer's association that brings together 50 farmers each paying $2 to keep the satellite in orbit. However, if there were ever more than fifty members, each of the members would have the incentive to leave the association and still retain the benefit of the satellite.
Even if there are exactly 50 members, each member still has the incentive to defect if he believes that the association will be able to recruit a new member if other farmers realize that their public good is about to go away if no one else joins.
This is the freerider problem, for the association may be forced to dissolve if everyone attempts to freeride by leaving the association. The problem becomes even more difficult when people benefit differently from the good, and the exact amount of the benefit cannot easily be ascertained by others, making it difficult to charge the correct fee.
I feel strongly about the issue, and I guess that would make me MORE inclined to use it. You seem to have forgotten that there are people (split about 50-50) on both sides of the issue.
With CAPPS II, there will be a redress process established, to include a Passenger Advocate. The Passenger Advocate will focus on assisting passengers who feel that they have been incorrectly or consistently prescreened. Since CAPPS II will be a centralized government-run system, rather than a decentralized system implemented by over 70 airlines, CAPPS II will provide the opportunity for a more efficient and effective disposition of passenger complaints. The passenger authentication process that CAPPS II will provide will eliminate many of the mistaken identity situations that airline travelers currently face under the pre-screening system that the airlines now operate.
"Not to mention that except in the case of hybrid and electric vehicles, energy used to go up a hill is lost going up the hill, you don't get any of it back when you come down."
Of course you do. You either coast or press the accelerator more lightly.
That article has ONE sentence regarding Bayesian filtering, and all it says is that spammers will resort to images in blank emails. But I've found that they always include at least some text, and that these messages are easily filtered. Plus, a Bayesian filter could simply assign a negative value to the tag and so an email with just that would be filtered.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're going to consider solar energy external, then you should also consider the energy in deep currents as external, because that energy differential was created by solar energy hitting the ocean.
I'd probably consider both internal, as there is a relatively fixed amount of energy input into the Earth by the Sun, and both solar and deep current generators use that.
Have you heard of a supply vs. demand curve in microeconomics? If the marginal cost of producing an item rises, thus shifting the supply curve, the equilibrium price (where the supply and demand curves meet) will change. This works in aggregate as well, for the whole economy. Hence, macroeconomics.
"The only way for the cost of everything in the economy to increase is if the money is worth less."
The cost of everything could also increase for other reasons. For example, if there is less of everything in the economy, perhaps because of a depression when no one is working (but it works on a smaller scale too), prices will rise because there is the same amount of money to buy a smaller amount of total goods. (Again, both supply and demand matter)
Finally, government debts don't lead to inflation, because when the goverment borrows, it decreases the money supply. Printing money, of course, does lead to inflation.
I don't think you know what you're talking about. There are explanations for inflation other than the increase of the money supply. See http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/index.cfm?lesson =EM615&page=teacher
Also, please provide evidence for this "storm" that you feel is coming. Inflation will likely continue (which most economists don't think is a bad thing anyway, as long as it is relatively stable), but I don't see many people calling for a "storm" of inflation.
150% more than the new price is the same thing as 250% of the new price.
The optimal price for a seller is determined independently of fixed (or sunk) costs, as the seller should set the price so as to maximize revenue net of variable (production and distribution) costs. Thus, whether or not the seller has "gotten their money back" in the sense of having made more revenue than their fixed costs should have no bearing on the price they set.
You have it backwards. What you describe is zero elasticity.
Unless they are hiding $20's under their bed, this "hoarding" you speak of is called "investing" and in no way causes the economy to grind to a halt.
"A proper religion is a means of enhancing our relationships with ourselves and with the universe."
It's really nice of you to, with no support whatsoever, create your own totally new definition of "proper" religion that excludes (by definition) the religions of the vast majority of people who consider themselves religious. Very helpful.
The source of this claim is the Palestinian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister. I'm not sure how credible that is.
Just wondering...since she didn't notice it, how does she know how long it was missing?
I'd also agree that a lot of pro-life people and organizations aren't too happy with flushing embryos down the drain, for the exact reason you pointed out. Most pro-life organizations have a consistent view here, although many individuals may not yet have thought too much about fertility clinics whien they think about abortion. I believe that most of those who have thought about it apply their logic consistently, though, just as you did.
The difference is that the embryo isn't dead at the time stem cells are harvested. The act of harvesting is what kills the embryo.
Of course there can be free rider problems for public goods. The problem is often precisely in paying for it - both creation, and maintenance.
Your example demonstrates the problem perfectly. Let's say the only benefit of the satellite is to farmers, and the satellite costs $100/year to maintain. Assume there are 100 farmers, and the benefit of the satellite is $3/year to each farmer. It is possible to form a farmer's association that brings together 50 farmers each paying $2 to keep the satellite in orbit. However, if there were ever more than fifty members, each of the members would have the incentive to leave the association and still retain the benefit of the satellite.
Even if there are exactly 50 members, each member still has the incentive to defect if he believes that the association will be able to recruit a new member if other farmers realize that their public good is about to go away if no one else joins.
This is the freerider problem, for the association may be forced to dissolve if everyone attempts to freeride by leaving the association. The problem becomes even more difficult when people benefit differently from the good, and the exact amount of the benefit cannot easily be ascertained by others, making it difficult to charge the correct fee.
My Nokia 3585i has this property.
Does it come with a copy of Windows?
Are you kidding me? How does some picture prove that both are to the right? How did they set the origin?
That's right, they just picked a point they felt was the middle, given their own particular bias.
Do all athiests agree on every moral (and other) issue?
Do you have a source for this information?
Are you kidding? Why doesn't she just randomly assign one to herself?
Why should everyone have to be assigned a password just because some lady can't make up her mind?
I feel strongly about the issue, and I guess that would make me MORE inclined to use it. You seem to have forgotten that there are people (split about 50-50) on both sides of the issue.
Actually, there will be an appeals process.
o rial_1202.xml
From: http://www.tsa.gov/public/interapp/editorial/edit
With CAPPS II, there will be a redress process established, to include a Passenger Advocate. The Passenger Advocate will focus on assisting passengers who feel that they have been incorrectly or consistently prescreened. Since CAPPS II will be a centralized government-run system, rather than a decentralized system implemented by over 70 airlines, CAPPS II will provide the opportunity for a more efficient and effective disposition of passenger complaints. The passenger authentication process that CAPPS II will provide will eliminate many of the mistaken identity situations that airline travelers currently face under the pre-screening system that the airlines now operate.
"Not to mention that except in the case of hybrid and electric vehicles, energy used to go up a hill is lost going up the hill, you don't get any of it back when you come down."
Of course you do. You either coast or press the accelerator more lightly.
Just download the file and make your own .zip.
That article has ONE sentence regarding Bayesian filtering, and all it says is that spammers will resort to images in blank emails. But I've found that they always include at least some text, and that these messages are easily filtered. Plus, a Bayesian filter could simply assign a negative value to the tag and so an email with just that would be filtered.
But now you're making a different claim than the one being attacked by this thread.