Let us note that part of the reason for this thread getting to where it is now was some whiny snippet about why Karmashock never reads AC posts by someone who couldn't be bothered to check if they were replying to Karmashock and assumed I was Karmashock. Now, we see the number one problem with posting AC, no one can tell AC apart. An AC wrote that quote and an AC is verbally abusing me now. If you really were different from the previous AC, then you should have said something.
Do you honestly think no one notices that you lopped off the first part of that quote
You mean the weasel phrase "there are very very few places in the US that are 'proper' urban settings." that preceded the universal statement? I sure hope people notice, now that you've brought attention to it. Aside from the very very few cases where I fail hard, I always win these sorts of arguments. Heh.
Listing a few large cities doesn't refute the above argument, and that's all you did. You haven't demonstrated anything other than your ignorance. Now you're trying to say that you refuted an argument that clearly was not made. Not only that, you're posting that BS elsewhere in this thread. Pretty weak, dude. Weak and dishonest.
Again, universal statements are disproved by counterexamples. And concerning someone's, possibly your, weaseling, these "very very few large cities" though few in number are naturally enormous counterexamples. We are speaking of a lot of people in these urban centers. It is dishonest to say there's only a few ("very very few" seems to indicate something much more scarce than just a few, doesn't it?) while neglecting the size of them.
You are intentionally evading the nature of the business they are in, and choose to underestimate/wave off the influence that particular company has over the DOJ.
I think that's a good call. You know who has a lot more influence over the DOJ than a lobbyist? The Attorney General.
Seriously, why are you still posting? It's nonsense to claim that being a moderately well-connected lawyer in a lobbyist firm is somehow more influential than heading the Department of Justice (including among other things, six law enforcement agencies!).
Okay... you seem to know all about it... guess we'll just have to take your word... for what is:-)
Or we could think and reason. Attorney General is a far more powerful position than whatever lawyer job he's doing now. And really, I think he's just carrying water for the administration here.
Citing a few examples of dense urban centers in the US doesn't mean the country as a whole isn't predominated by sprawl.
Most of the US is predominated by much lower population densities than suburban sprawl. And I was replying to a universal assertion not a predominate one:
The whole friggn' cuntry is a "and sort of sprawly place".
Now we see that the assertion was false.
And really, we don't need everyone on board with urban farming in order for there to be a market for it. For example, not everyone surfs, yet somehow there are plenty of surfboard businesses out there. It'll depend on how profitable these urban farming businesses are (which in turn depends on the pricing of the products they sell) as to how large a market will be needed to sustain them.
For example, there's been a lot of joking about "herbs" and "basil" (namely, the marijuana plant) in this discussion. But in a high population density area where marijuana is legalized and hypothetically for sale at current legalized marijuana prices, then an urban farm would easily be supported - that is, it should be able to command a high profit per area/volume used.
The whole friggn' cuntry is a "and sort of sprawly place".
As I demonstrated, that is not true. There's at least 5% of the US (in the areas I mentioned) which lives or works in areas with much higher population density than suburban sprawl. A counterexample trumps a universal assertion.
Further, we haven't even discussed that the vast majority of the US by land area doesn't even have the "sort of sprawly" population density of suburban sprawl. By the argument you've put out before, that means we don't need to consider any sort of high density technology at all. After all, most of the US is farms, wilderness, and water.
You've also genuinely engaged in the sort of "re-writing" that you futilely accuse me of. Perhaps you recall this rewrite of a few replies ago:
Yeah, the US isn't the only place in the world. It is, however, the biggest market in the world.
You are ignoring 80-85% of the world's economic activity and around 95% of the world's population by brushing off the rest of the world.
In addition, when bandying around claims of "biggest market", we need to consider biggest market for what? For example, I think we can all agree that the US probably will be punching well below its weight for urban farming due to the moderate sprawl of most of the US population. China, Japan, and the EU won't. I would consider each of those regions taken separately bigger markets for urban farming than the US.
And one doesn't need hundreds of millions of customers in order to successfully install and operate an urban farm. If urban farming is practical, then it'll be practical on the very ample US markets I already mentioned, which have around 10-15 million people in total. If it isn't practical, then it doesn't matter if the market is 10 million people or 350 million people.
That number is merely the nominal value of bonds that the Fed purchased. I don't know how much fake liquidity that actually translates into. But given that inflation is fairly stable, it doesn't appear to be very much.
Well then it's your comment that doesn't matter, because GGGP's contention is about the suitability of this tech is based on density.
And I rattled off a few large markets that achieve that density. Game, set, match. I don't care that the markets only cover a modest fraction rather than all of the US's population.
makes no mention of markets, large or otherwise. You specifically use the phrase "dense urban centers".
Now, you know that I intended all along to imply the existence of the markets.
I'd say it's kinda hard to tell the difference between you, given how you're trying to re-write your words. Maybe you should hang out at a site that allows you to edit your posts. You might be better able to hide putting your foot in your mouth.
I imagine you have that trouble with everyone. Just because we disagree and I have elaborated at your request doesn't mean that I'm rewriting my words or even trying to. I simply filled you on why I wrote what I wrote.
And really, this is why having an account is useful. I could then read your account name and decide for myself whether it was worth the trouble to respond to you.
Just because you can rattle off a few high density urban areas in the US doesn't prove squat. The fact is the vast majority of population centers in the US are "sprawly" places.
That would be fine, if your comment mattered. It isn't the number of high density urban areas that creates the market, but the many millions of people in those spots. I didn't rattle off a few high density urban areas, I rattled off a few large markets.
BTW, thanks for proving your inability to resist replying to ACs. We all knew you wouldn't be able to show any discipline with regard to your stupid, ill conceived sig.
I'm not Karmashock, but maybe he's got a really good point.
At some point the lack of natural gas to make fertilizer is going to kill billions.
Even if we ignore that most nitrogen in developed world crops comes from nitrogen-fixing bacteria, it's still going to be a while before methane becomes scarce enough that we stop using it for fertilizer. After all, methane is cheap enough now that they burn it for electricity!
The US isn't the only place in the world and even if we do restrict our attention to the US, there are a number of dense urban centers (eg, New York City, Chicago, and Philadelphia).
What's hyperbolic about it? There are examples in various posts of people who stopped communicating with their loved ones because they couldn't figure out the new interface or who stopped receiving services for the elderly because someone put in a automated voice messenging system. We're turning into a society where computers are becoming essential for both getting things done and for connecting with each other. Bad and arbitrary UI changes break that.
How much fake liquidity? I think it's reasonable to ask at this point whether things would be different in the absence of a large pile of QE by the US Fed and other central banks. I note that when Japan tried QE in the 90s, they didn't get anywhere with it.
Oh, I see, it's about farmers using water for their business, not individuals collecting water in a barrel under their roof.
No, it doesn't sound like you understand. No one in the US prevents you from using a rain barrel. Further, please recall that this thread was originally about the up and coming water-based hydraulic empire. I merely pointed out why that assertion was flawed.
The cause as much grief as possible argument fails since he was not arrested or charged with anything.
What is your reasoning for that argument? What would be the point of arresting the researcher, if you didn't have anything to charge him with at the time?
Its way premature to cry censorship, its crying wolf as things stand at the moment.
Again, what is the basis for your argument especially given that you admit this is a tremendous imposition requiring such things as "buying new computers".
My proposal: have the Fed fund a basic income at zero cost to taxpayers. The Fed could structure it under Section 13 (13) of the Federal Reserve Act, as loans to individuals with negative interest. Thus, people would be paid to borrow.
Inflation is how taxpayers would pay for this "zero cost" proposal and it wouldn't be zero cost in reality.
Indexation of all incomes to price rises eliminates any potential inflation tax.
My take is that it would just create elevated inflation, perhaps even hyperinflation - where the money in question has no use as a store of value.
Now the Fed should apply that power of creating unlimited liquidity
That's my point, with the caveat that its not really censorship since the goal is not to silence anyone but to investigate a crime.
Unless, of course, the intent of the effort was to silence the researcher in question. Then it is.
Again, all I'm saying is that its premature to claim censorship. As I said in the beginning all we can say for sure at this point is that it was rude to seize the equipment without asking for cooperation. Facts and opinions may change as more info unfolds.
But a kind of rudeness that routinely shows up when authorities want to make an example of someone.
Might be standard procedure to seize evidence without warning to prevent tampering.
It also might be standard procedure to cause as much grief as possible when someone gets inconvenient to the powers-that-be. What more could they be doing to this guy given their current powers?
Slashdot Mirror
which I didn't write, BTW
Let us note that part of the reason for this thread getting to where it is now was some whiny snippet about why Karmashock never reads AC posts by someone who couldn't be bothered to check if they were replying to Karmashock and assumed I was Karmashock. Now, we see the number one problem with posting AC, no one can tell AC apart. An AC wrote that quote and an AC is verbally abusing me now. If you really were different from the previous AC, then you should have said something.
Do you honestly think no one notices that you lopped off the first part of that quote
You mean the weasel phrase "there are very very few places in the US that are 'proper' urban settings." that preceded the universal statement? I sure hope people notice, now that you've brought attention to it. Aside from the very very few cases where I fail hard, I always win these sorts of arguments. Heh.
Listing a few large cities doesn't refute the above argument, and that's all you did. You haven't demonstrated anything other than your ignorance. Now you're trying to say that you refuted an argument that clearly was not made. Not only that, you're posting that BS elsewhere in this thread. Pretty weak, dude. Weak and dishonest.
Again, universal statements are disproved by counterexamples. And concerning someone's, possibly your, weaseling, these "very very few large cities" though few in number are naturally enormous counterexamples. We are speaking of a lot of people in these urban centers. It is dishonest to say there's only a few ("very very few" seems to indicate something much more scarce than just a few, doesn't it?) while neglecting the size of them.
You are intentionally evading the nature of the business they are in, and choose to underestimate/wave off the influence that particular company has over the DOJ.
I think that's a good call. You know who has a lot more influence over the DOJ than a lobbyist? The Attorney General.
Seriously, why are you still posting? It's nonsense to claim that being a moderately well-connected lawyer in a lobbyist firm is somehow more influential than heading the Department of Justice (including among other things, six law enforcement agencies!).
You don't have to. Events speak for themselves...
There are no such events.
His influence as a lobbyist is every bit as powerful
Sorry, I'm not willing to take your word for it.
Okay... you seem to know all about it... guess we'll just have to take your word... for what is :-)
Or we could think and reason. Attorney General is a far more powerful position than whatever lawyer job he's doing now. And really, I think he's just carrying water for the administration here.
Citing a few examples of dense urban centers in the US doesn't mean the country as a whole isn't predominated by sprawl.
Most of the US is predominated by much lower population densities than suburban sprawl. And I was replying to a universal assertion not a predominate one:
The whole friggn' cuntry is a "and sort of sprawly place".
Now we see that the assertion was false.
And really, we don't need everyone on board with urban farming in order for there to be a market for it. For example, not everyone surfs, yet somehow there are plenty of surfboard businesses out there. It'll depend on how profitable these urban farming businesses are (which in turn depends on the pricing of the products they sell) as to how large a market will be needed to sustain them.
For example, there's been a lot of joking about "herbs" and "basil" (namely, the marijuana plant) in this discussion. But in a high population density area where marijuana is legalized and hypothetically for sale at current legalized marijuana prices, then an urban farm would easily be supported - that is, it should be able to command a high profit per area/volume used.
Every city sprawls to some degree. That doesn't mean that the urban centers have suburban population densities.
The whole friggn' cuntry is a "and sort of sprawly place".
As I demonstrated, that is not true. There's at least 5% of the US (in the areas I mentioned) which lives or works in areas with much higher population density than suburban sprawl. A counterexample trumps a universal assertion.
Further, we haven't even discussed that the vast majority of the US by land area doesn't even have the "sort of sprawly" population density of suburban sprawl. By the argument you've put out before, that means we don't need to consider any sort of high density technology at all. After all, most of the US is farms, wilderness, and water.
You've also genuinely engaged in the sort of "re-writing" that you futilely accuse me of. Perhaps you recall this rewrite of a few replies ago:
Yeah, the US isn't the only place in the world. It is, however, the biggest market in the world.
You are ignoring 80-85% of the world's economic activity and around 95% of the world's population by brushing off the rest of the world.
In addition, when bandying around claims of "biggest market", we need to consider biggest market for what? For example, I think we can all agree that the US probably will be punching well below its weight for urban farming due to the moderate sprawl of most of the US population. China, Japan, and the EU won't. I would consider each of those regions taken separately bigger markets for urban farming than the US.
And one doesn't need hundreds of millions of customers in order to successfully install and operate an urban farm. If urban farming is practical, then it'll be practical on the very ample US markets I already mentioned, which have around 10-15 million people in total. If it isn't practical, then it doesn't matter if the market is 10 million people or 350 million people.
1.2 trillion per year.
That number is merely the nominal value of bonds that the Fed purchased. I don't know how much fake liquidity that actually translates into. But given that inflation is fairly stable, it doesn't appear to be very much.
Well then it's your comment that doesn't matter, because GGGP's contention is about the suitability of this tech is based on density.
And I rattled off a few large markets that achieve that density. Game, set, match. I don't care that the markets only cover a modest fraction rather than all of the US's population.
makes no mention of markets, large or otherwise. You specifically use the phrase "dense urban centers".
Now, you know that I intended all along to imply the existence of the markets.
I'd say it's kinda hard to tell the difference between you, given how you're trying to re-write your words. Maybe you should hang out at a site that allows you to edit your posts. You might be better able to hide putting your foot in your mouth.
I imagine you have that trouble with everyone. Just because we disagree and I have elaborated at your request doesn't mean that I'm rewriting my words or even trying to. I simply filled you on why I wrote what I wrote.
And really, this is why having an account is useful. I could then read your account name and decide for myself whether it was worth the trouble to respond to you.
Just because you can rattle off a few high density urban areas in the US doesn't prove squat. The fact is the vast majority of population centers in the US are "sprawly" places.
That would be fine, if your comment mattered. It isn't the number of high density urban areas that creates the market, but the many millions of people in those spots. I didn't rattle off a few high density urban areas, I rattled off a few large markets.
BTW, thanks for proving your inability to resist replying to ACs. We all knew you wouldn't be able to show any discipline with regard to your stupid, ill conceived sig.
I'm not Karmashock, but maybe he's got a really good point.
At some point the lack of natural gas to make fertilizer is going to kill billions.
Even if we ignore that most nitrogen in developed world crops comes from nitrogen-fixing bacteria, it's still going to be a while before methane becomes scarce enough that we stop using it for fertilizer. After all, methane is cheap enough now that they burn it for electricity!
The US isn't the only place in the world and even if we do restrict our attention to the US, there are a number of dense urban centers (eg, New York City, Chicago, and Philadelphia).
What's hyperbolic about it? There are examples in various posts of people who stopped communicating with their loved ones because they couldn't figure out the new interface or who stopped receiving services for the elderly because someone put in a automated voice messenging system. We're turning into a society where computers are becoming essential for both getting things done and for connecting with each other. Bad and arbitrary UI changes break that.
This is brilliant social engineering. There is no way out of this situation, the enemies of the West has already won.
"Brilliant social engineering" that does what? If I don't give a shit, then it doesn't work on me.
How much fake liquidity? I think it's reasonable to ask at this point whether things would be different in the absence of a large pile of QE by the US Fed and other central banks. I note that when Japan tried QE in the 90s, they didn't get anywhere with it.
Oh, I see, it's about farmers using water for their business, not individuals collecting water in a barrel under their roof.
No, it doesn't sound like you understand. No one in the US prevents you from using a rain barrel. Further, please recall that this thread was originally about the up and coming water-based hydraulic empire. I merely pointed out why that assertion was flawed.
Reminds me of the adjacent story, "Harbingers of Failure".
So is QE a basic income scheme? Why mention it?
The cause as much grief as possible argument fails since he was not arrested or charged with anything.
What is your reasoning for that argument? What would be the point of arresting the researcher, if you didn't have anything to charge him with at the time?
Its way premature to cry censorship, its crying wolf as things stand at the moment.
Again, what is the basis for your argument especially given that you admit this is a tremendous imposition requiring such things as "buying new computers".
My proposal: have the Fed fund a basic income at zero cost to taxpayers. The Fed could structure it under Section 13 (13) of the Federal Reserve Act, as loans to individuals with negative interest. Thus, people would be paid to borrow.
Inflation is how taxpayers would pay for this "zero cost" proposal and it wouldn't be zero cost in reality.
Indexation of all incomes to price rises eliminates any potential inflation tax.
My take is that it would just create elevated inflation, perhaps even hyperinflation - where the money in question has no use as a store of value.
Now the Fed should apply that power of creating unlimited liquidity
The Fed doesn't have that power.
That's my point, with the caveat that its not really censorship since the goal is not to silence anyone but to investigate a crime.
Unless, of course, the intent of the effort was to silence the researcher in question. Then it is.
Again, all I'm saying is that its premature to claim censorship. As I said in the beginning all we can say for sure at this point is that it was rude to seize the equipment without asking for cooperation. Facts and opinions may change as more info unfolds.
But a kind of rudeness that routinely shows up when authorities want to make an example of someone.
Might be standard procedure to seize evidence without warning to prevent tampering.
It also might be standard procedure to cause as much grief as possible when someone gets inconvenient to the powers-that-be. What more could they be doing to this guy given their current powers?
Why not give Greece the same courtesy?
Because Greece doesn't have anything to offer. Why shouldn't I be given the same "courtesy"?
Why not give Greece the same courtesy?
Because Greece doesn't have anything to offer.