Inflation can be avoided when using government spending to boost the economy as long as there is significant unemployment and the spending is directed properly. Google "full employment" and read the references in this post http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2643673&cid=38856331
Large ones don't really matter either; see the links in http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2643673&cid=38856331 for details. Government is not revenue (taxes) constrained. Most of it's debt is debt is not with the public or foreign entities but just a number existing as an accounting fiction between treasury and Fed. It doesn't need to be repaid. Macroecnomic "debt" is nothing like the usual concept of debt--this is a good example of the fallacy of composition. As to public and foreign-held debt, for the US that is not much of a concern either as it is enumerated in a currency of which the US is the monopoly issuer. As for inflation, how the deficit-creating government spending is directed can avoid it (google "full employment").
I'm saying the following as a software developer (among other things), which may or may not be ironic: I've always had the concern for the potential (often actualized) of information technology to be socially detrimental. From evolutionary psychology we know that despite the appearances of a very flexible psyche, significant components of most of our behaviors and thinking are hardwired by biology. Nurture only has so much leeway within the boundaries set by nature. Millions of years of evolution have created a social animal that is well fit to a specific environment of foraging tribalism. Civilization has already in a mere 10k years taken us quite far from that, and we've built a sort of human zoo for ourselves. For all the benefits this has brought, many detriments have come about as well, a lot of them having to do with people's actions today often influencing people with whom they have no personal relationships (contrast a tribe where everyone knows everyone else in the tribe and members rarely had influence outside the tribe), much more indirect links between appropriate behavior and reward (creating stress), and so on. Information technology is taking us further yet from our biologically optimal environment, and I have no confidence it will turn out well. Our social interactions have become a perverted version of what we've evolved for, and patterns of interaction through technology abuse the neurological mechanisms responsible for controlling communication and other social aspects of the mind, in the same way that spaghetti programming abuses the goto statement.
[This part of the post is a bit tangential and may be skipped.] Some people would say that everything will be fine because eventually technology and biotechnology will be used to directly enhance our minds and bodies, so that we can exceed our biological constraints. These people ignore the problem of our moral/ethical frameworks, which are grounded in the brain's evolutionary heritage, being incapable of guiding us in such a future as there is no precedent in the evolution of moral/ethical behavior. Simple example: 60 years in the future a person begins being slowly "enhanced" by replacing one by one his neurons, and then other cells, with artificial or bioengineered ones that initially duplicate function and then bring online enhanced functionality; eventually the whole person's consistence has been replaced; now contrast this to, instead, making a recording of all relevant information about the person, building an artificial copy, and killing the original; same result, yet the second version feels wrong to most people. Our morals/ethics are not equipped for situations that have no analogy whatsoever to anything in our evolutionary past. If we extend ourselves, we would have to extend our morals and ethics too, and the latter extension is basically arbitrary.
If you've ever designed a circuit board where you had to worry about isolation of interference between sections and using groundplanes and filtering correctly, you'd know the trivial answer as to what is going on here and why your post is totally wrong: interference from the processor will cause some small modulation in the phone's radio circuits. Despite any shielding, there are multiple channels through which such interference is coupled inside a cellphone.
The real challenge facing humanity is that biotechnology and information technology will create situations with which we are not equipped by our moral evolution to deal with on an ethical basis. A well known example is the following: suppose one by one your neurons and all other cells are replaced by artificial equivalents with function that is identical in the beginning and can then gradually provide enhanced functionality later. For most people this would be a winning proposition. However, consider now instead using a non-invasive scan to record the details and state of every cell, then assembling the artificial copy while killing the original person. In theory, the result is the same. Yet very few people would undertake this version of the process. There's no rational basis for that. People will take a position on the issue because of biological feeling that continuity of consciousness/life is "better", but explanation is not justification. So the direction of development that morals/ethics takes is necessarily arbitrary, and there's no better way:(
As is well known from evolutionary psychology, or even common sense, we're biologically predisposed to care more for those we have personal relations with (because for millions of years those close to us correspond to members of one's tribe, which are more likely to share some of the same genetic heritage--while this is no longer true in a globalized world, brain biology takes a lot longer to evolve corresponding changes than the current age of human civilization). This is not going to change unless we genetically or cybernetically engineer ourselves, regardless of any amount of left-wing cultural programming. So in the end, Canadians will care more about Canadians, and that is NOT aberrant behavior.
Your comment is ludicrous given that sex-based division of labor was already in existence in pre-civilization foraging societies, which is strong evidence for its biological underpinnings.
> And so the instant rebuttle to 'x is ethical' is generally, to whose ethics?
While morals are not an inherent aspect of the universe, in practice and despite outliers, there is significant clustering of moral worldviews throughout humanity due to the strong biological component of our thinking that we know of due to evolutionary psychology.
There are significant exceptions. There are enough deniers in number to make the presumption that most have an economic interest silly. It's not religion, but it's still mostly an issue of ideological predisposition. Also, the points of difference are more varied than implied by the usual discussion. For example, I'm not a denier, but the rational conclusions reached by published studies is that my northern country of Canada will _significantly benefit_ from global warming, as I discussed in this thread http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2625686&cid=38731928 and thus I am hoping for warming of around 3*C over the next few decades.
Indeed, in Canada the effects of global warming are mostly positive, according to a study done by (funny enough) a US university. An enormous increase in arable land due to melting of the permafrost in the northern regions is just one example, as was the longer growing seasons in the south and a spread of the population from its current concentration near the border with the US. The study in fact predicted that it will significantly boost Canada to world power status over the next 20 to 40 years. So, as a Canadian, how can I possibly say that climate change is a bad thing?
The fact that brain function related to intelligence is not identical in men and women is well established, despite similarities in generalized intelligence measurements and political correctness. It's more nature than nurture; don't blame society. This has been debated by the experts, and the nature side won: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.html (also note Pinker's references), as much as an inconvenience this is to some people. I expect to be modded down for this, as it's always easiest to shoot the messenger... cheers anyway, folks.
Download CCleaner and in the Options, go to the Applications tab, and under settings for Firefox/Thunderbird make sure you check the option to "compress databases".
Slashdot Mirror
Think those are bad? Look at what's next in the pipeline (makes them pale in comparison): https://www.eff.org/pages/trans-pacific-partnership-agreement
Oops wrong link. I meant http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2643673&cid=38856331
Inflation can be avoided when using government spending to boost the economy as long as there is significant unemployment and the spending is directed properly. Google "full employment" and read the references in this post http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2643673&cid=38856331
Everything you wrote completely flies in the face of the information in the links of this post http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2643673&cid=38858909
Large ones don't really matter either; see the links in http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2643673&cid=38856331 for details. Government is not revenue (taxes) constrained. Most of it's debt is debt is not with the public or foreign entities but just a number existing as an accounting fiction between treasury and Fed. It doesn't need to be repaid. Macroecnomic "debt" is nothing like the usual concept of debt--this is a good example of the fallacy of composition. As to public and foreign-held debt, for the US that is not much of a concern either as it is enumerated in a currency of which the US is the monopoly issuer. As for inflation, how the deficit-creating government spending is directed can avoid it (google "full employment").
It's worth noting here that Krugman and the MMTers have significant points of disagreement, and Krugman doesn't fully grasp MMT.
I'm saying the following as a software developer (among other things), which may or may not be ironic: I've always had the concern for the potential (often actualized) of information technology to be socially detrimental. From evolutionary psychology we know that despite the appearances of a very flexible psyche, significant components of most of our behaviors and thinking are hardwired by biology. Nurture only has so much leeway within the boundaries set by nature. Millions of years of evolution have created a social animal that is well fit to a specific environment of foraging tribalism. Civilization has already in a mere 10k years taken us quite far from that, and we've built a sort of human zoo for ourselves. For all the benefits this has brought, many detriments have come about as well, a lot of them having to do with people's actions today often influencing people with whom they have no personal relationships (contrast a tribe where everyone knows everyone else in the tribe and members rarely had influence outside the tribe), much more indirect links between appropriate behavior and reward (creating stress), and so on. Information technology is taking us further yet from our biologically optimal environment, and I have no confidence it will turn out well. Our social interactions have become a perverted version of what we've evolved for, and patterns of interaction through technology abuse the neurological mechanisms responsible for controlling communication and other social aspects of the mind, in the same way that spaghetti programming abuses the goto statement.
[This part of the post is a bit tangential and may be skipped.] Some people would say that everything will be fine because eventually technology and biotechnology will be used to directly enhance our minds and bodies, so that we can exceed our biological constraints. These people ignore the problem of our moral/ethical frameworks, which are grounded in the brain's evolutionary heritage, being incapable of guiding us in such a future as there is no precedent in the evolution of moral/ethical behavior. Simple example: 60 years in the future a person begins being slowly "enhanced" by replacing one by one his neurons, and then other cells, with artificial or bioengineered ones that initially duplicate function and then bring online enhanced functionality; eventually the whole person's consistence has been replaced; now contrast this to, instead, making a recording of all relevant information about the person, building an artificial copy, and killing the original; same result, yet the second version feels wrong to most people. Our morals/ethics are not equipped for situations that have no analogy whatsoever to anything in our evolutionary past. If we extend ourselves, we would have to extend our morals and ethics too, and the latter extension is basically arbitrary.
If you've ever designed a circuit board where you had to worry about isolation of interference between sections and using groundplanes and filtering correctly, you'd know the trivial answer as to what is going on here and why your post is totally wrong: interference from the processor will cause some small modulation in the phone's radio circuits. Despite any shielding, there are multiple channels through which such interference is coupled inside a cellphone.
The real challenge facing humanity is that biotechnology and information technology will create situations with which we are not equipped by our moral evolution to deal with on an ethical basis. A well known example is the following: suppose one by one your neurons and all other cells are replaced by artificial equivalents with function that is identical in the beginning and can then gradually provide enhanced functionality later. For most people this would be a winning proposition. However, consider now instead using a non-invasive scan to record the details and state of every cell, then assembling the artificial copy while killing the original person. In theory, the result is the same. Yet very few people would undertake this version of the process. There's no rational basis for that. People will take a position on the issue because of biological feeling that continuity of consciousness/life is "better", but explanation is not justification. So the direction of development that morals/ethics takes is necessarily arbitrary, and there's no better way :(
As is well known from evolutionary psychology, or even common sense, we're biologically predisposed to care more for those we have personal relations with (because for millions of years those close to us correspond to members of one's tribe, which are more likely to share some of the same genetic heritage--while this is no longer true in a globalized world, brain biology takes a lot longer to evolve corresponding changes than the current age of human civilization). This is not going to change unless we genetically or cybernetically engineer ourselves, regardless of any amount of left-wing cultural programming. So in the end, Canadians will care more about Canadians, and that is NOT aberrant behavior.
Why are you so bitter and negative, stanlyb?
> Lots of places they could have picked up those prefernences...
Yeah, such as their DNA. You know, just the way sex-based division of labor was present in pre-civilization foraging societies.
Your comment is ludicrous given that sex-based division of labor was already in existence in pre-civilization foraging societies, which is strong evidence for its biological underpinnings.
I understand the motivation behind many people around here being Ron Paul supporters, but trying to sycophantically whitewash the Ron Paul of the past as demonstrated by his newsletters, http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/12/how-did-we-get-here-or-why-do-20-year-old-newsletters-matter-so-damn-much/ , or to take attention away from his religious agenda http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/10/is_ron_paul_a_dominionist.php is intellectually dishonest at best.
I agree with your post for the most part, but
> And so the instant rebuttle to 'x is ethical' is generally, to whose ethics?
While morals are not an inherent aspect of the universe, in practice and despite outliers, there is significant clustering of moral worldviews throughout humanity due to the strong biological component of our thinking that we know of due to evolutionary psychology.
As Voltaire pointed out, "A witty saying proves nothing" (in b4 some dullard points out the obvious self-reference).
There are significant exceptions. There are enough deniers in number to make the presumption that most have an economic interest silly. It's not religion, but it's still mostly an issue of ideological predisposition. Also, the points of difference are more varied than implied by the usual discussion. For example, I'm not a denier, but the rational conclusions reached by published studies is that my northern country of Canada will _significantly benefit_ from global warming, as I discussed in this thread http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2625686&cid=38731928 and thus I am hoping for warming of around 3*C over the next few decades.
It is also not intelligent to imply that global warming is bad for everybody, which is clearly your stance from the tone of your post. See my post here for a counterpoint: http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2625686&cid=38731928
I forgot also to add the strategic benefits Canada gets from the opening of the northwest passage, which will end up being permanently free of ice.
Indeed, in Canada the effects of global warming are mostly positive, according to a study done by (funny enough) a US university. An enormous increase in arable land due to melting of the permafrost in the northern regions is just one example, as was the longer growing seasons in the south and a spread of the population from its current concentration near the border with the US. The study in fact predicted that it will significantly boost Canada to world power status over the next 20 to 40 years. So, as a Canadian, how can I possibly say that climate change is a bad thing?
Oh, how I wish I had mod points today!
I never said the male version is better. Troll better next time.
The fact that brain function related to intelligence is not identical in men and women is well established, despite similarities in generalized intelligence measurements and political correctness. It's more nature than nurture; don't blame society. This has been debated by the experts, and the nature side won: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.html (also note Pinker's references), as much as an inconvenience this is to some people. I expect to be modded down for this, as it's always easiest to shoot the messenger... cheers anyway, folks.
Download CCleaner and in the Options, go to the Applications tab, and under settings for Firefox/Thunderbird make sure you check the option to "compress databases".
In fact, war is supposed to be fair, to the extent that international law is fair: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war