Interestingly enough, the normal drag paradigm does not apply, however.
It is more accurate to look at it as if the air molecules wander over, attach to the satellite for a while, and then wander away. The key difference being that the side of the object facing orthogonal to the orbit "drags" almost as much as the front. So a cube is actually better than a cylinder or cone! (Not better than a sphere, though)
Any claim the economic output can be divorced from physical resource constraints is fantasy
Ok, I will prove this wrong. I invent the cheese dog.
I have not changed anything physically. I took existing cheese, and an existing dog. I assembled them in a new way, and created value! Before, there was only boring hot dogs, now there is infinite flavor.
As we get more stuff, the possible combinations of that stuff increases exponentially. Forever. Regardless of limits on amount of stuff. Infinite complexity.
Economy is not the amount of stuff we have. It is the value of that stuff to humans.
No, it depends on the quality of the design/plan. A perfect design would require only that a butterfly flap its wings, and the umbrella would fall out of a mountain, fully formed.
An economy is NOT a circle of bankers doing anything. It is a circle of engineers. One says, lets add a button to the umbrella, to make it stay open easier. The next says, lets add a loop, to hold it shut when not needed.
As a businessman, it really bugs me when people assume that an economy is made by bankers et al. The bankers simplify some transactions, that is all.
This is complete BS. The basic assumptions are incorrect. The economy is not driven by efficiency or energy. The economy is driven by humans getting better at helping other humans. Sometimes that's energy or efficiency based, but most often it is knowledge based. Umbrellas use no energy, but improve life dramatically.
While Japan presumably does not need money, they do need help. For example, they need experienced teams of rescue workers scouring the countryside finding still-living victims. They need food, water, and supplies delivered to areas suddenly unreachable through normal means. They need crews to rip apart buildings to rescue those trapped inside.
Those teams are predominately run by volunteer organizations such as the Red Cross, LDS Church, etc. Japan will not pay those organizations for the help they receive - just as no one else has to pay. So those organizations will need additional funds to cover operations in Japan.
So in answer to your question, "does Japan need the money?"
I don't know if it has changed in the few decades since I lived there, but back in the day the police just took care of the minor crimes - organized crime eliminated the perpetrators of the big stuff, like murder or looting. Bad for business!
No, you misunderstand me. The official US position is that if you were born in the US, the IRS has claim on you for life. Regardless of multiple / changed citizenship - they will extradite you if you don't pay them taxes on income earned anywhere.
It is not difficult to find a new home country for those of us that create businesses. We just are forced to examine only the smaller set of countries that will not extradite on tax evasion charges, and then we can never visit the US again. I believe the US is fairly unique in that respect.
They don't have to pay, they could move to another country.
Not true - the US taxes all income earned by people born in the US, regardless of where they live / have citizenship. To avoid this, you have to:
1) Renounce your US citizenship
AND
2) Convince the IRS that you did not renounce your citizenship to avoid paying taxes
I am not kidding. If the IRS thinks it is possible that you renounced your citizenship to avoid paying taxes, they will annul your renunciation. And remember, the IRS does not require any proof, and your have no appeal outside of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax court. After which they will probably win anyway, because in tax court you are considered guilty until proven innocent. Please see the relevant legal part of the tax code.
No known material can withstand the temperatures in a LH/LOX rocket engine either. Rockets work by actively cooling the walls - unfortunately, if you use that method for fusion containment the fusion goes out!
First, as an academic, you have difficulty predicting the actions of businessmen. You don't know what they care about, you can't predict their actions. They just about do the opposite of what you think they do. So non-empirical branches of economics like Keynesian theories start at a major disadvantage anyway. As a businessman, I know what drives my hiring decisions. I know why I have hired no new people since the government "stimulated" my competition. The government only chooses a single winner, and stimulates them. The economy lets everyone win a different race - so we all can see a reason to go forward.
Second, your phrase here really says it all: "BECAUSE ZERO INTEREST ***** NEARLY ANY ECONOMIC EQUILIBRIUM EQUATION". You believe in an equilibrium equation. When someone shows you empirical data (the study I mentioned), you reply that it couldn't possibly be true because of your faith in a magic formula. Sorry - reality trumps magic formulas, regardless of whether your magic formula involves prayer or interest rates.
This is a study that reports data findings. It does not report "we think x", it reports "the economy does x". You are then saying "well, this is a different time!" even faced with the study reporting a wide agreement with the finding no matter how they split the data up across economies and decades.
You are wrong. If you want to further the belief in Keynesian theories, it is no longer enough to tell a good story.
You must show it empirically. Good luck with that.
Well, Analogies are really more fun than helpful - but by your own admission the governments response to an accident by the company with the worst safety record was to punish everyone, even the ones with the best safety record. Maybe that has merit, but it does raise the bar somewhat.
Wow, I've never seen the shoot the messenger approach taken against an actual peer reviewed paper before - well done. Your only substantial comment, on interest rates, must apply to some other paper. This paper does not deal with inflation or interest rates. The best you could claim is that this is a special time in history, where the rules no longer apply. That is a pretty weak argument, especially based on a non-empirical theory.
Yes, Keynesian economic policies were recently practically killed by - believe it or not - a group of Harvard economists. Here is a link to the paper. It turns out that if you measure the economic effect of government spending, that effect is net lower employment, net lower commerce, and net lower investment.
Essentially, no one in their right mind competes with someone supported by the government.
Slashdot Mirror
Interestingly enough, the normal drag paradigm does not apply, however.
It is more accurate to look at it as if the air molecules wander over, attach to the satellite for a while, and then wander away. The key difference being that the side of the object facing orthogonal to the orbit "drags" almost as much as the front. So a cube is actually better than a cylinder or cone! (Not better than a sphere, though)
Weird stuff!
Obviously you do not understand Emacs - nor do you understand the laws of physics.
Any claim the economic output can be divorced from physical resource constraints is fantasy
Ok, I will prove this wrong. I invent the cheese dog.
I have not changed anything physically. I took existing cheese, and an existing dog. I assembled them in a new way, and created value! Before, there was only boring hot dogs, now there is infinite flavor.
As we get more stuff, the possible combinations of that stuff increases exponentially. Forever. Regardless of limits on amount of stuff. Infinite complexity.
Economy is not the amount of stuff we have. It is the value of that stuff to humans.
No, it depends on the quality of the design/plan. A perfect design would require only that a butterfly flap its wings, and the umbrella would fall out of a mountain, fully formed.
An economy is NOT a circle of bankers doing anything. It is a circle of engineers. One says, lets add a button to the umbrella, to make it stay open easier. The next says, lets add a loop, to hold it shut when not needed.
As a businessman, it really bugs me when people assume that an economy is made by bankers et al. The bankers simplify some transactions, that is all.
But the value of the umbrella is not proportional to the energy it takes to make it. That is the point.
This is complete BS. The basic assumptions are incorrect. The economy is not driven by efficiency or energy. The economy is driven by humans getting better at helping other humans. Sometimes that's energy or efficiency based, but most often it is knowledge based. Umbrellas use no energy, but improve life dramatically.
The classic one is slavery - you cannot sell yourself into slavery because of constitutional law.
No one alive stole it. No one alive was stolen from. Let it go.
You won't find oxygen in an atmosphere without life already on the planet. Oxygen is too reactive.
While Japan presumably does not need money, they do need help. For example, they need experienced teams of rescue workers scouring the countryside finding still-living victims. They need food, water, and supplies delivered to areas suddenly unreachable through normal means. They need crews to rip apart buildings to rescue those trapped inside.
Those teams are predominately run by volunteer organizations such as the Red Cross, LDS Church, etc. Japan will not pay those organizations for the help they receive - just as no one else has to pay. So those organizations will need additional funds to cover operations in Japan.
So in answer to your question, "does Japan need the money?"
Japan, no. Red Cross, yes.
I don't know if it has changed in the few decades since I lived there, but back in the day the police just took care of the minor crimes - organized crime eliminated the perpetrators of the big stuff, like murder or looting. Bad for business!
No, you misunderstand me. The official US position is that if you were born in the US, the IRS has claim on you for life. Regardless of multiple / changed citizenship - they will extradite you if you don't pay them taxes on income earned anywhere.
It is not difficult to find a new home country for those of us that create businesses. We just are forced to examine only the smaller set of countries that will not extradite on tax evasion charges, and then we can never visit the US again. I believe the US is fairly unique in that respect.
They don't have to pay, they could move to another country.
Not true - the US taxes all income earned by people born in the US, regardless of where they live / have citizenship. To avoid this, you have to:
1) Renounce your US citizenship
AND
2) Convince the IRS that you did not renounce your citizenship to avoid paying taxes
I am not kidding. If the IRS thinks it is possible that you renounced your citizenship to avoid paying taxes, they will annul your renunciation. And remember, the IRS does not require any proof, and your have no appeal outside of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax court. After which they will probably win anyway, because in tax court you are considered guilty until proven innocent. Please see the relevant legal part of the tax code.
No known material can withstand the temperatures in a LH/LOX rocket engine either. Rockets work by actively cooling the walls - unfortunately, if you use that method for fusion containment the fusion goes out!
I'm not the one with a conspiracy theory...
Ooookay, I didn't realize that you were so out of touch. Google can tell you everything:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CBwQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fhostednews%2Fap%2Farticle%2FALeqM5hKWWJdTrfALpbYfWB6fM58p6u-pwD9I4I32G0&rct=j&q=burn%20the%20Koran%20FBI&ei=bkqOTM2ZLdO3ngezlsX5Cw&usg=AFQjCNFQGRg36usT2Qe8-bhw2j2zE8dRqA&sig2=u4MRMGpVULmPf3ka7HyaYw&cad=rja
Is the associated press also part of the conspiracy against your worldview?
The US is a country built on ideals.
Unless someone wants to burn the Koran. Then the FBI is sent to "convince" them to change their minds.
No! That will crash my sql database!
OK, a few points:
First, as an academic, you have difficulty predicting the actions of businessmen. You don't know what they care about, you can't predict their actions. They just about do the opposite of what you think they do. So non-empirical branches of economics like Keynesian theories start at a major disadvantage anyway. As a businessman, I know what drives my hiring decisions. I know why I have hired no new people since the government "stimulated" my competition. The government only chooses a single winner, and stimulates them. The economy lets everyone win a different race - so we all can see a reason to go forward.
Second, your phrase here really says it all: "BECAUSE ZERO INTEREST ***** NEARLY ANY ECONOMIC EQUILIBRIUM EQUATION". You believe in an equilibrium equation. When someone shows you empirical data (the study I mentioned), you reply that it couldn't possibly be true because of your faith in a magic formula. Sorry - reality trumps magic formulas, regardless of whether your magic formula involves prayer or interest rates.
This is a study that reports data findings. It does not report "we think x", it reports "the economy does x". You are then saying "well, this is a different time!" even faced with the study reporting a wide agreement with the finding no matter how they split the data up across economies and decades.
You are wrong. If you want to further the belief in Keynesian theories, it is no longer enough to tell a good story.
You must show it empirically. Good luck with that.
Well, Analogies are really more fun than helpful - but by your own admission the governments response to an accident by the company with the worst safety record was to punish everyone, even the ones with the best safety record. Maybe that has merit, but it does raise the bar somewhat.
Wow, I've never seen the shoot the messenger approach taken against an actual peer reviewed paper before - well done. Your only substantial comment, on interest rates, must apply to some other paper. This paper does not deal with inflation or interest rates. The best you could claim is that this is a special time in history, where the rules no longer apply. That is a pretty weak argument, especially based on a non-empirical theory.
Obviously, you never read the paper. Inflation is never even mentioned! The report is about government spending,, not interest rates.
Actually, a major breakthrough has confirmed what that 1/3rd of economists is saying. It seems government spending kills economic growth.
Yes, Keynesian economic policies were recently practically killed by - believe it or not - a group of Harvard economists. Here is a link to the paper. It turns out that if you measure the economic effect of government spending, that effect is net lower employment, net lower commerce, and net lower investment.
Essentially, no one in their right mind competes with someone supported by the government.