Macroeconomic debt is not real. Why would US worry about debt enumerated in a currency of which it is the monopoly issuer? The mistake the politicians have made is using public and international borrowing, which is not necessary. It's better to stop selling Treasury bonds. http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=5098
The government can run a deficit without public (or international) borrowing, and the "debt" registered between the Treasury and the Fed is an accounting fiction. It's as simple as that. It can simply credit accounts and hire people to create a net amount of money in the system, then when there is recovery and the private sector picks up the slack, increase taxation to remove the excess money. http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary-system
Banks are a government-private sector joint operation, due to banks' reserve accounts at the Fed, and capital ratio regulation. The efficiency does come exactly from banks' work in determining who are creditworthy borrowers to lend to. But grandparent isn't even at this point yet, he needs to get the basics right, such as that there is no really a money multiplier. http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=1623
You keep talking nonsense. Banks are not really limited in lending out by reserve ratios! This is because during the day they lend out AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, and then if their reserve accounts at the Fed are insufficient, they borrow on the overnight market you hear mentioned frequently in such discussions. Banks are only constrained by their captial/asset ratio.
Grandparent's is a common misconception. People need to learn MMT and stop spreading this myth that banks create a net increase in money in the system. Government is the monopoly issuer. The whole issue of reserves seems to be covered in misconception. Banks are capital constrained, not reserve constraned, since they lend out as much as they can and then borrow on the overnight market to make their reserves at the Fed correspond.
Mod parent down for perpetuating the myth of the money multiplier. "When banks create money by extending credit (loans create deposits), this occurs completely within the banking system and results in a liability for the bank (the deposit) and a corresponding asset (the loan). The customer has an asset (the deposit) and a corresponding liability (the loan). This nets to zero." Get it? You completely forgot that any money banks loan out are deposited at other banks. Deposits are a liability for the bank, and cancels out the lent out money exactly. Only government deficit spending creates a net amount of money (and taxation creates a net negative amount). http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary-system
Absolutely the wrong way to look a this. Macroeconomic debt does not mean what you think it does; it's not real, just an accounting fiction registered between the Treasury and the Fed. And banks don't really create money, since any money loaned out are deposited in other banks, and the latter is a liability that precisely cancels out the debt of the former. Only government creates net money through deficit spending, and removes it through taxation. http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary-system
Your comment makes no sense because macroeconomic debt is categorically different from private sector debt. You're committing the fallacy of composition, one of the most basic in economics, and your analogy is a cardinal sin in economics. The government is not revenue constrained and doesn't have to borrow from the public or other countries in order to spend. http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary-system
MMT shows that the government is not revenue constrained. The government should simply stop doing public and international borrowing and the only government "debt" then would be the accounting fiction registered with the Fed. There's no reason not to do this, and every reason to do it since deficit spending is the best way to stimulate the economy as it generates net money in the system (quantitative easing did not, since all money injected were offset by corresponding liabilities).
Can you post the calculation of the 120 MeV? Keep in mind the possibility of the beam crossing something that we haven't noticed yet, if you know what I mean. Depending on how well the new MINOS results agree with this, we shall see.
On a related topic: how to build a neutrino communications device that is fairly compact (as in, portable)?
It's been known ever since Popper's time that the sort of inductive reasoning implicit in "is still a strong indicator that they aren't" is not scientifically valid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_rationalism
Due to the fallacy of composition, many politicians fail to realize that macroeconomic debt is completely unlike private sector debt. So they freak out about debt and impose austerity measures, which is the worst thing you can do in an economic slump.
TheImmutable, don't forget that the government doesn't need to do public and intergovernmental borrowing in order to "fund" its spending. There's little reason for government borrowing, other than the inertia of neoliberal economics thinking still mired in the pre-Nixon days of commodity-based currency. http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=5098
Giving up one's ability to issue currency is giving up a significant chunk of one's rights as a sovereign. The effective result of the Euro is that Germany has economically subjugated swathes of Europe with its massive trade surplus, and the countries in the monetary union cannot fight back with monetary means. Germany's modus operandi seems to be "beggar thy neighbor".
Dunbal, read the link I posted. Government doesn't have to borrow from other countries or the public in order to spend. It simply credits bank accounts, but that money doesn't have to be borrowed from anywhere (it is accounted for in the central bank, but see http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=11218 as to why this doesn't matter, as well as, again, the link I had posted). The problem with quantitative easing and why it didn't do anything has in part to do with the fact that the way it was carried out, liabilities were created that offset the credits, and no net money was created in the system. Also, why was I modded Troll?
Every time this is discussed on slashdot, we get comments from people asking if neutrinos are tachyonic, why did the supernova SN 1987a ones not arrive earlier. The answer is very simple: neutrino oscillations, where only some (probably muon type) are superluminal. http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6055
PS I still think experimental error is the most likely explanation, but I'm tired of hearing the invalid criticism of the SN 1987a observations. Stop it, it's getting fucking annoying!
Listen bro, if we assume that only muon neutrinos are tachyonic, there's a trivial explanation as to why the neutrinos from SN 1987a did not arrive faster: lorentz-violating neutrino oscillations. First of all, the tachyonic neutrino's speed would only be very slightly above c, and every time it changes, it's speed would be slightly below c. Note that any initial acceleration of a tachyonic neutrino while going through the star's gravity field (due to its imaginary mass it goes along a spacelike geodesic) would be erased when it changes type. Not so for a neutrino in the Earth-based experiment, because most of them complete the trip quickly enough before they change type.
ARM still has a serious weakness versus x86 and x86-64: it uses a weak memory consistency model. For single-threaded applications that's no issue, but the overwhelming majority of programmers cannot effectively utilize the potential compute power in a multicore environment. In x86-64 it's quite easy because there's very limited reordering (with the exception of some SSE operations) and it is possible to reason about it efficiently after some experience. Sure, you can rely on locking for 100% of your synchronization, but you'll kill performance.
Government debt doesn't mean what you think it does, since government is the monopoly issuer of its own currency. Government debt is an accounting fiction. Unlike private debt, government debt doesn't really have to be repaid; that's a common fallacy. http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary-system
Slashdot Mirror
Macroeconomic debt is not real. Why would US worry about debt enumerated in a currency of which it is the monopoly issuer? The mistake the politicians have made is using public and international borrowing, which is not necessary. It's better to stop selling Treasury bonds. http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=5098
The government can run a deficit without public (or international) borrowing, and the "debt" registered between the Treasury and the Fed is an accounting fiction. It's as simple as that. It can simply credit accounts and hire people to create a net amount of money in the system, then when there is recovery and the private sector picks up the slack, increase taxation to remove the excess money. http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary-system
<3 :)
Banks are a government-private sector joint operation, due to banks' reserve accounts at the Fed, and capital ratio regulation. The efficiency does come exactly from banks' work in determining who are creditworthy borrowers to lend to. But grandparent isn't even at this point yet, he needs to get the basics right, such as that there is no really a money multiplier. http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=1623
Complete refutation of everything you wrote in your post: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=1623
3 swalve, thanks for bursting that idiot's bubble.
You keep talking nonsense. Banks are not really limited in lending out by reserve ratios! This is because during the day they lend out AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, and then if their reserve accounts at the Fed are insufficient, they borrow on the overnight market you hear mentioned frequently in such discussions. Banks are only constrained by their captial/asset ratio.
Grandparent's is a common misconception. People need to learn MMT and stop spreading this myth that banks create a net increase in money in the system. Government is the monopoly issuer. The whole issue of reserves seems to be covered in misconception. Banks are capital constrained, not reserve constraned, since they lend out as much as they can and then borrow on the overnight market to make their reserves at the Fed correspond.
Mod parent down for perpetuating the myth of the money multiplier. "When banks create money by extending credit (loans create deposits), this occurs completely within the banking system and results in a liability for the bank (the deposit) and a corresponding asset (the loan). The customer has an asset (the deposit) and a corresponding liability (the loan). This nets to zero." Get it? You completely forgot that any money banks loan out are deposited at other banks. Deposits are a liability for the bank, and cancels out the lent out money exactly. Only government deficit spending creates a net amount of money (and taxation creates a net negative amount). http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary-system
This is about as rigorous as the Zeitgeist movies *rolleyes*
If lazy slashdotters insist on videos rather than a rigorous description, a place to start would be http://pragcap.com/resources/media-section
Also, a summary by one of the core experts on modern monetary theory in an interview: http://hir.harvard.edu/debt-deficits-and-modern-monetary-theory
And how to fix things: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=5098 and http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=4656
Note that MMT is pretty much the only rational approach and is derived mathematically.
Absolutely the wrong way to look a this. Macroeconomic debt does not mean what you think it does; it's not real, just an accounting fiction registered between the Treasury and the Fed. And banks don't really create money, since any money loaned out are deposited in other banks, and the latter is a liability that precisely cancels out the debt of the former. Only government creates net money through deficit spending, and removes it through taxation. http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary-system
Your comment makes no sense because macroeconomic debt is categorically different from private sector debt. You're committing the fallacy of composition, one of the most basic in economics, and your analogy is a cardinal sin in economics. The government is not revenue constrained and doesn't have to borrow from the public or other countries in order to spend. http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary-system
MMT shows that the government is not revenue constrained. The government should simply stop doing public and international borrowing and the only government "debt" then would be the accounting fiction registered with the Fed. There's no reason not to do this, and every reason to do it since deficit spending is the best way to stimulate the economy as it generates net money in the system (quantitative easing did not, since all money injected were offset by corresponding liabilities).
Can you post the calculation of the 120 MeV? Keep in mind the possibility of the beam crossing something that we haven't noticed yet, if you know what I mean. Depending on how well the new MINOS results agree with this, we shall see.
On a related topic: how to build a neutrino communications device that is fairly compact (as in, portable)?
It's been known ever since Popper's time that the sort of inductive reasoning implicit in "is still a strong indicator that they aren't" is not scientifically valid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_rationalism
Why was I modded Troll?
Due to the fallacy of composition, many politicians fail to realize that macroeconomic debt is completely unlike private sector debt. So they freak out about debt and impose austerity measures, which is the worst thing you can do in an economic slump.
TheImmutable, don't forget that the government doesn't need to do public and intergovernmental borrowing in order to "fund" its spending. There's little reason for government borrowing, other than the inertia of neoliberal economics thinking still mired in the pre-Nixon days of commodity-based currency. http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=5098
The Greeks are not a fully sovereign country, since they do not have their own currency. Your comment further strengthens mine; thank you.
Giving up one's ability to issue currency is giving up a significant chunk of one's rights as a sovereign. The effective result of the Euro is that Germany has economically subjugated swathes of Europe with its massive trade surplus, and the countries in the monetary union cannot fight back with monetary means. Germany's modus operandi seems to be "beggar thy neighbor".
Dunbal, read the link I posted. Government doesn't have to borrow from other countries or the public in order to spend. It simply credits bank accounts, but that money doesn't have to be borrowed from anywhere (it is accounted for in the central bank, but see http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=11218 as to why this doesn't matter, as well as, again, the link I had posted). The problem with quantitative easing and why it didn't do anything has in part to do with the fact that the way it was carried out, liabilities were created that offset the credits, and no net money was created in the system. Also, why was I modded Troll?
Every time this is discussed on slashdot, we get comments from people asking if neutrinos are tachyonic, why did the supernova SN 1987a ones not arrive earlier. The answer is very simple: neutrino oscillations, where only some (probably muon type) are superluminal. http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6055 PS I still think experimental error is the most likely explanation, but I'm tired of hearing the invalid criticism of the SN 1987a observations. Stop it, it's getting fucking annoying!
Listen bro, if we assume that only muon neutrinos are tachyonic, there's a trivial explanation as to why the neutrinos from SN 1987a did not arrive faster: lorentz-violating neutrino oscillations. First of all, the tachyonic neutrino's speed would only be very slightly above c, and every time it changes, it's speed would be slightly below c. Note that any initial acceleration of a tachyonic neutrino while going through the star's gravity field (due to its imaginary mass it goes along a spacelike geodesic) would be erased when it changes type. Not so for a neutrino in the Earth-based experiment, because most of them complete the trip quickly enough before they change type.
ARM still has a serious weakness versus x86 and x86-64: it uses a weak memory consistency model. For single-threaded applications that's no issue, but the overwhelming majority of programmers cannot effectively utilize the potential compute power in a multicore environment. In x86-64 it's quite easy because there's very limited reordering (with the exception of some SSE operations) and it is possible to reason about it efficiently after some experience. Sure, you can rely on locking for 100% of your synchronization, but you'll kill performance.
Government debt doesn't mean what you think it does, since government is the monopoly issuer of its own currency. Government debt is an accounting fiction. Unlike private debt, government debt doesn't really have to be repaid; that's a common fallacy. http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary-system