Banks make money when there is a sufficient spread between deposit and loan interest, and sufficient appetite for loans. This can occur in low central bank interest rate environments, and is harder when interest rates are high as appetite for credit is reduced.
An improvement due to a move from extreme poverty to a better state over the last 80 years is not necessarily to be repeated. You can't simply extrapolate from past trends, you have to model actual, and likely eventualities. Otherwise my parents would, when I was 2, have to conclude I would be 30 feet tall by now, based on the trend then. Such modellng is very hard, though, as the technology changes or distribution of wealth is unknown, but increasingly the prevalence of regional climate events can be indicated.
Venuzuela is currently being casigated, especially by those that espouse social democracy, for being undemocratic.
But you are still confusing social democracy with democratic socialism, and its less democratic cousins. Denmark is a social democracy, for example, but has little in common with, say, the system(s) used in the USSR, even NEP.
No, the lamp-posts are public chargers available on a first-come, first-served basis. Same as street parking -- and like street parking, no-one in London has an expectation of being able to park outside their house.
The person who threatened me with physical harm when I parked outside their house in London must have been an illusion, then.
That's not a given. Costs would rise, as you can't employ 2 50% workers for the cost of one. It assumes sufficient discretionary spending from 50% workers to support the current economy.
But how is half the population at 100% employment and half the population at 0% employment any better than all the population at 50% employment? At least with all the population at 50% employment everyone is kindof all in it together. UBI just sounds like some horrible dystopia where the people who can fight for the few remaining jobs get to live like kings while everyone else lives on the scraps. A gradual reduction in the workweek would allow everyone to get used to working less and having more leisure and wouldn't create a bloodbath of people fighting for fewer and fewer jobs.
Assume you have five potential workers, A to E. E doesn't work. A to D earn 100 units each, and contribute 5 units of tax to pay E's benefts of 20 units. Basic household costs are 45 units, so A to D have 50 units for fun. A to D each produce 25 unit.s of profit, based on 200 units of output, their 100 units of pay, and 75 units of cost, 25 for staff overheads, 50 for materials. Aggregate demand for higher value goods is 200, basic goods 200 units, 400 total.
E joins, and hours are rebalanced, as is pay, and E lives better. A to D now get 80 units of pay, but no tax to pay. They have 35 units of money for fun, so 175 units total, for basics 225. Overall demand is still 400 units, but the 225 basic units need fewer people. to satisfy F is now out of a job, so A to E now have to pay 4 units each to support F. They have 1 day extra off a week, but are down 40% on their spending for fun stuff, so spend the weekend at home. Meanwhile, the cost of resources is the same, but staff overheads per worker are only 10% less, and company profitability is affected. The company cuts wages by 2.5 units, and now their pay for fun has almost halved. This causes a loss of consumer confidence and G loses their job as a result. A to E now have to pay another 4 units each to support G, and the loss in demand means H loses their job. There is now a demand for a three day week to keep everyone employed.
It would be nice to work less, but the issue is pay, and how to manage the transitions.
We either plan for it now or start buying pitchforks and torches. And oiling up the guillotines because we _will_ eat the rich.
UBI is a terrible idea. How exactly does it solve the problem of the haves vs the have nots? It's basically another name for welfare. The people who are lucky to have good paying jobs will be fine and everyone else will get the bare minimum to survive. It will not prevent the pitchforks at all.
A solution that would work much better would be to slowly reduce the legal work week. If the legal work week was only 20 hours a week, there would be double the number of jobs. We are already seeing a situation where the richer 50% of the population are working more hours per week than the poorer 50%, if we slowly reduced the work week then we could both equalize the amount of work and the amount of leisure. It would also put in motion the ability to continue to drop the workweek from 38 to 36 to 20 to 10 or to however low we need it to maintain full employment for everyone.
Personally, I would rather see government work programs to clean up parks, etc... before UBI. UBI just doesn't make any sense to me at all.
That's not a given. Costs would rise, as you can't employ 2 50% workers for the cost of one. It assumes sufficient discretionary spending from 50% workers to support the current economy.
Learn the difference between social democracies and the USSR, then post. Essentially, the GP said "Apples are delicious" and you said "Ah, but what about these lemons?".
"Man adapts" seems rather a collectivist statement. Man may, a man may not. Certainly, during climate shifts about 800 years ago, many native Americans in the South West USA starved. Dying is not how I would personally like to adapt.
Climate change may render certain parts of the US grain belt unsuitable much sooner than 10,000 years. If the change is slow enough that you can let former farmers there die off, then the pace may be reasonable. Modelling regional scenarios is important for planning.
It's only garbage if there is something systematically different in patients. Clustering could show this is or is not the case. However, that does assume that the characteristics used in the clustering are sufficiently complete. I'd certainly want to see more testing on a larger population (number of humans). In my own work I was sometimes surprised during a check by clustering that there was sometimes unexpected information within the data that even domain experts were surprised by.
.
Given peer review, and splitting sets up is such a basic thing to do, I can only assume that must have been done.
Determination of cancer from images is hardly new - we were showing excellent FP and FN rates for breast cancer in research we were doing ~15 years ago. It's nice to see another useful application, though.
In terms of the use of subdivision of samples, I'd like to see evidence of a clustering of those samples, to ensure there is not hidden information. Given it's peer reviewed, I assume that will have been done.
I return to my previous points. Who builds the roads? Who drains the swamps to make roads and fields even possible? Forested areas might not be so boggy, but the land is much less suitable,for agriculture. Do those who live in countries where heat stress is now too great and it is too dry to grow staple crops get to move to where it might be possible?
If the world was one country where people could move to areas that are now productive, and capital flowed as easily, you might have a point, but that is not the world we live in.
More farmland where? Is the current soil structure viable? How will it be improved? Can it be improved? Are there support infrastructures there? Can they be built? Is the farmland in the same country? What if the people in the country with the farmland don't want to sell you the crops, or you can't afford it? Do the people currently in country A, farming, get to move to country B to farm. or do they go on welfare in country A?
Slashdot Mirror
Banks make money when there is a sufficient spread between deposit and loan interest, and sufficient appetite for loans. This can occur in low central bank interest rate environments, and is harder when interest rates are high as appetite for credit is reduced.
Given that I read that US mining is to restart, it must be at least allowed. I suspect the mining will be highly automated.
Scandanavians are taking out loans to pay their taxes?
It baffles me too.
If a government steps in to say your working too hard there is likely to be an ulterior motive. What could it be?
Reducing burn out and ill-health among its workers, reducing errors and replacement issues are likely reasons,
An improvement due to a move from extreme poverty to a better state over the last 80 years is not necessarily to be repeated. You can't simply extrapolate from past trends, you have to model actual, and likely eventualities. Otherwise my parents would, when I was 2, have to conclude I would be 30 feet tall by now, based on the trend then. Such modellng is very hard, though, as the technology changes or distribution of wealth is unknown, but increasingly the prevalence of regional climate events can be indicated.
Do you have a link from a credible source?
Nissan is closely linked to Renault, so I would assume this would be available in the USA as an updated Nissan Leaf.
There is no skynet.
Don't tell the British army.
Venuzuela is currently being casigated, especially by those that espouse social democracy, for being undemocratic.
But you are still confusing social democracy with democratic socialism, and its less democratic cousins. Denmark is a social democracy, for example, but has little in common with, say, the system(s) used in the USSR, even NEP.
Croydon.
AFAIK the Renault EV is around £12,000, which is a bit more than the ICE version, but not outrageous.
No, the lamp-posts are public chargers available on a first-come, first-served basis. Same as street parking -- and like street parking, no-one in London has an expectation of being able to park outside their house.
The person who threatened me with physical harm when I parked outside their house in London must have been an illusion, then.
That's not a given. Costs would rise, as you can't employ 2 50% workers for the cost of one. It assumes sufficient discretionary spending from 50% workers to support the current economy.
But how is half the population at 100% employment and half the population at 0% employment any better than all the population at 50% employment? At least with all the population at 50% employment everyone is kindof all in it together. UBI just sounds like some horrible dystopia where the people who can fight for the few remaining jobs get to live like kings while everyone else lives on the scraps. A gradual reduction in the workweek would allow everyone to get used to working less and having more leisure and wouldn't create a bloodbath of people fighting for fewer and fewer jobs.
Assume you have five potential workers, A to E. E doesn't work. A to D earn 100 units each, and contribute 5 units of tax to pay E's benefts of 20 units. Basic household costs are 45 units, so A to D have 50 units for fun. A to D each produce 25 unit.s of profit, based on 200 units of output, their 100 units of pay, and 75 units of cost, 25 for staff overheads, 50 for materials. Aggregate demand for higher value goods is 200, basic goods 200 units, 400 total.
E joins, and hours are rebalanced, as is pay, and E lives better. A to D now get 80 units of pay, but no tax to pay. They have 35 units of money for fun, so 175 units total, for basics 225. Overall demand is still 400 units, but the 225 basic units need fewer people. to satisfy F is now out of a job, so A to E now have to pay 4 units each to support F. They have 1 day extra off a week, but are down 40% on their spending for fun stuff, so spend the weekend at home. Meanwhile, the cost of resources is the same, but staff overheads per worker are only 10% less, and company profitability is affected. The company cuts wages by 2.5 units, and now their pay for fun has almost halved. This causes a loss of consumer confidence and G loses their job as a result. A to E now have to pay another 4 units each to support G, and the loss in demand means H loses their job. There is now a demand for a three day week to keep everyone employed.
It would be nice to work less, but the issue is pay, and how to manage the transitions.
We either plan for it now or start buying pitchforks and torches. And oiling up the guillotines because we _will_ eat the rich.
UBI is a terrible idea. How exactly does it solve the problem of the haves vs the have nots? It's basically another name for welfare. The people who are lucky to have good paying jobs will be fine and everyone else will get the bare minimum to survive. It will not prevent the pitchforks at all.
A solution that would work much better would be to slowly reduce the legal work week. If the legal work week was only 20 hours a week, there would be double the number of jobs. We are already seeing a situation where the richer 50% of the population are working more hours per week than the poorer 50%, if we slowly reduced the work week then we could both equalize the amount of work and the amount of leisure. It would also put in motion the ability to continue to drop the workweek from 38 to 36 to 20 to 10 or to however low we need it to maintain full employment for everyone.
Personally, I would rather see government work programs to clean up parks, etc... before UBI. UBI just doesn't make any sense to me at all.
That's not a given. Costs would rise, as you can't employ 2 50% workers for the cost of one. It assumes sufficient discretionary spending from 50% workers to support the current economy.
Learn the difference between social democracies and the USSR, then post. Essentially, the GP said "Apples are delicious" and you said "Ah, but what about these lemons?".
The EU is quite democratic..
Sympathy=0
You'd be happy if your child, not well-versed in road diiscipline, was run over and killed?
"Man adapts" seems rather a collectivist statement. Man may, a man may not. Certainly, during climate shifts about 800 years ago, many native Americans in the South West USA starved. Dying is not how I would personally like to adapt.
Climate change may render certain parts of the US grain belt unsuitable much sooner than 10,000 years. If the change is slow enough that you can let former farmers there die off, then the pace may be reasonable. Modelling regional scenarios is important for planning.
To some extent, that can be controlled for.
.
Given peer review, and splitting sets up is such a basic thing to do, I can only assume that must have been done.
I wish summaries would include FP and FN rates,
Determination of cancer from images is hardly new - we were showing excellent FP and FN rates for breast cancer in research we were doing ~15 years ago. It's nice to see another useful application, though.
In terms of the use of subdivision of samples, I'd like to see evidence of a clustering of those samples, to ensure there is not hidden information. Given it's peer reviewed, I assume that will have been done.
I return to my previous points. Who builds the roads? Who drains the swamps to make roads and fields even possible? Forested areas might not be so boggy, but the land is much less suitable,for agriculture. Do those who live in countries where heat stress is now too great and it is too dry to grow staple crops get to move to where it might be possible?
If the world was one country where people could move to areas that are now productive, and capital flowed as easily, you might have a point, but that is not the world we live in.
More farmland where? Is the current soil structure viable? How will it be improved? Can it be improved? Are there support infrastructures there? Can they be built? Is the farmland in the same country? What if the people in the country with the farmland don't want to sell you the crops, or you can't afford it? Do the people currently in country A, farming, get to move to country B to farm. or do they go on welfare in country A?