It's obvious that you don't have any consistent concept of either deflation or inflation.
It's obvious that you don't care about my opinion on the matter short of me disagreeing. Well then, a simple (and therefore incomplete) definition. Deflation is when the market price of goods and services traded exceeds the amount of money available to the market and causes the price of the goods and services to drop. Inflation is the exact opposite.
Even if it were, say, a billion dollars? No deflation? What, in your opinion, does cause deflation? How about technical progress, or productivity improvements? Does that cause deflation?
Almost all of that is answered above, I mean come on, large quantity of money burned was covered right next to what you quoted.... As for technical progress, depends on the natre of said technical progress, how it's practically implemented and the money supply.
So, you're upset that your "work" rewards other people, but you don't consider that "theft?"
No, I consider it life. But I'm not particularly fond of a system that rewards people in such manner for the simple act of chocking the money supply and don't consider it part of a healthy economy.
Why are you upset then?
People who waste my time by cherry picking random spinets from my posts to ask things that were answered in the same post. I'm not upset by people spreading "inflation is theft" memes, but if they are going to advocate for deflation (bitcoin is such by design) I'm going to point out that they are merely advocating another form of what they consider theft. The long and short of it is put your savings in hard assets (modern dollars are by design not meant for that, it's a feature) and stop spreading silliness.
So let's say I burn a $100 bill; that would be deflation.
No, that would be a drop in a bucket that doesn't even send a ripple. If you somehow manage to take out a significant quantity it is easily counteracted by the same monetary policies that you find so offensive. So no, burning money will not cause deflation.
Am I interpreting you correctly? Or perhaps is there some subtle nuance that you have so far failed to mention.
You couldn't be further. There is no subtlety in this it is more or less a straight reversal of the claim that inflation is theft and I didn't expect anyone who seriously argues that position to miss the point, apparently I still wasn't quite explicit enough. You liked the story approach, here's a story of deflation.
Let's assume a small autonomous community (it scales) established on a clearing in the middle of the woods. The residents get together, elect a representative government that in turn establishes a monetary policy based on a commodity (as a completely random example we will use silver here). To ease trade between the residents it is decided to mint coins (lugging around a scale and equipment to cut silver is a pain), The residents bring whatever silver they brought to the mint (aka Bob, he's into metal working) and get it turned into coins for 10% of its weight (Bob made mint).
We now have a stable currency that isn't subject to inflation barring sudden influx of large (relatively to the current supply) quantities of silver or large decreases in economic activity. Hurray, no one gets to chip 3% off of anyone's savings (Bob holds 10% of the currency supply, this works out well for him). The settlement grows (think rabbits), more land is cleared for agriculture, the trees are used to construct new buildings, more businesses offer more services, etc (ie. the economy grew). The community being insular (and lacking a silver mine) the silver supply never increased (save for some people digging up extra forks to convert into coins), so each coin had to cover a larger and larger portion of the economy. Long story short, a coin that could buy a chicken, at the beginning of the thought experiment can now buy four, say over the timespan of 20 years. Now that's deflation.
Bob being a frugal fellow never touched his savings, he supported himself by crafting metal items for his fellow residents. So when he dies 20 years later he left the same 10% (give or take a fraction) to his son Bob Jr. The other 90% were more or less constantly on the move to support the exchange of goods and services between all the residents, so no one managed to save up more than a 1% or so of all the coins. What this means is that Bob Jr inherited a tenth of everything of value produced during those 20 years (that is, his coin supply would be able to buy that much at current prices) up and above the initial 10% of everything that they represented at the beginning, even though Bob didn't produce nearly that much with his metalworking, nor did he have to take any risks with the 10% of the coins he had, as long as he could get enough business in (and he could, the settlement was expanding), or really did anything with them at all. 10% of the result of 20 years worth of productivity by everyone else, just like that. That's how deflation is theft, if you believe that the reverse is theft.
That's why I strongly dislike deflation (well, that and the economic effects of everyone optimizing for such a scenario, but that's another story and apparently quite arguable with certain people), even though I don't actually believe that theft is involved on either side of the inflation/deflation coin. Have I been explicit enough yet (why yes, I was trying to be terse appealing to existing understanding of inflation/deflation)?
Yeah, how dare those cautious people who save money actually reap any benefit at all from their savings.
Correct, monetary savings are not investments, if there is a reward, that is if the money is worth more just by sitting around, your system is broken. And as the unquoted part stated, that reward comes from everyone who is working to expand the economy, justify that part instead of spewing cheap rhetoric.
The argument that the economy would come to a stop under deflation is ridiculous [..]
The argument I didn't even touch on? Keep on topic, that is on whether or deflation pumps wealth from those producing it to those who sit on their money in a fucking growing economy. Bringing up unrelated shit that actively runs counter to the argument presented is what's ridiculous.
Under the current system it's spend now because tomorrow your money will be worthless anyway.
If you believe that hyperinflation is happening right now and can't manage finances that might be correct. As it stands money is still worth almost all of its value a year later and there is a variety of stable options that will retain the value long term, is retaining enough for you? Some people need stupid excuses for spending but they are just that.
Under deflation it's spend because we can afford it. I know which world I would like to live in.
The world where you can afford to spend because everyone else is working their asses of to make your pile more valuable? Or do you just need an excuse that makes you feel better about spending. Money is part of a larger market dynamic, accept that and maybe you can feel better about the real world.
Just remember that when the money deflates your work to grow the market has rewarded people sitting on said money. But please, do continue to condescend me onto your side.
That's what rdiff is all about. The technology itself is useful, treating rsync itself, not a system (and that's not a handful of scripts) built on top of rsync/rdiff, (which I originally responded to) as backup tool is silly.
That's not rsync, that's a half-baked backup system (it might be useful in many contexts, but that's what it is as a backup system) hacked on top of rsync. There are proper backup solutions using the tech behind rsync without abusing the tool for something it's not optimally suited for.
Just like cryptographic hashes are bound to have collisions without necessarily diminishing their usefulness, duplicate fingerprint detection is unlikely to cause misidentification if fingerprints are used in an appropriate context.
They also went up by some tiny amount. So I guess that makes you just as "wrong", not that your tangential nitpicking could be right considering the context was nothing but inflated stats and how those would have significant impact across the board barring massive coincidences. Now move along unless you have something useful to add.
Go over to statcounter and take a look at the fine graph. IE is markedly down, FF is more or less stable durring the time period IE started seriously declining and has actually bumped up recently. This would not be the case if Chrome's stats were merely inflated. Make your argument based on facts, not a preconceived notion of what they should be.
No, silly. The private sector is perfectly willing to put their record profits in line to further a high risk venture with uncertain returns since the tech is well understood. Why the only reason that it was not the private sector that launched Sputnik is because the Soviets didn't have a private sector!
Should the programmer ask for the potentially confidential agreements with all possible, likely and unlikely rights holders? It's legal's job to make sure the rights have been secured, it's a programmer's job to code to requirements. Personally hold programmers to to use GPL code accountable if someone decides not to comply further down the line? Madness.
You might as well blame everything else for not using Emacs shortcuts, since they were there and used in other software (yes, those bash shortcuts are Emacs shortcuts). I mean really, holding shift to select text? Madness.
That is one possible explanation, however I was asking in the context of technical Chrome features skewing the numbers. For the graphs to come out like that if it was so Firefox would have to have gained almost precisely the marketshare that such a skew would introduce, at exactly the right time.
Whether or not specialize would map onto methods would depend entirely upon context (I was just trying to improve the back-translation there, not necessarily claim that the original was justified) but, more importantly, it's a trailer, it needn't be accurately translated, just accurately (as much as usual anyway) describe the movie or whatever they are advertising. Fully agreed on the second part though, I prefer to watch/read/listen to the original whenever possible and think that everything that TV shows and other 'perishable' media should have a world-wide digital release along with whatever traditional method is used in the core market (in this case, the initial broadcast), localized versions can still be provided when they are done for those who prefer them.
Slashdot Mirror
To me? Should I redefine it to fit your sensibilities?
You are the one who thinks that rising prices are theft, this is getting comical, I'm done.
It's obvious that you don't care about my opinion on the matter short of me disagreeing. Well then, a simple (and therefore incomplete) definition. Deflation is when the market price of goods and services traded exceeds the amount of money available to the market and causes the price of the goods and services to drop. Inflation is the exact opposite.
Almost all of that is answered above, I mean come on, large quantity of money burned was covered right next to what you quoted.... As for technical progress, depends on the natre of said technical progress, how it's practically implemented and the money supply.
No, I consider it life. But I'm not particularly fond of a system that rewards people in such manner for the simple act of chocking the money supply and don't consider it part of a healthy economy.
People who waste my time by cherry picking random spinets from my posts to ask things that were answered in the same post. I'm not upset by people spreading "inflation is theft" memes, but if they are going to advocate for deflation (bitcoin is such by design) I'm going to point out that they are merely advocating another form of what they consider theft. The long and short of it is put your savings in hard assets (modern dollars are by design not meant for that, it's a feature) and stop spreading silliness.
Freedom trumps alles... except for townships, which trump freedom in a sort of sick paper-rock-scissors game of political grandstanding.
No, that would be a drop in a bucket that doesn't even send a ripple. If you somehow manage to take out a significant quantity it is easily counteracted by the same monetary policies that you find so offensive. So no, burning money will not cause deflation.
You couldn't be further. There is no subtlety in this it is more or less a straight reversal of the claim that inflation is theft and I didn't expect anyone who seriously argues that position to miss the point, apparently I still wasn't quite explicit enough. You liked the story approach, here's a story of deflation.
Let's assume a small autonomous community (it scales) established on a clearing in the middle of the woods. The residents get together, elect a representative government that in turn establishes a monetary policy based on a commodity (as a completely random example we will use silver here). To ease trade between the residents it is decided to mint coins (lugging around a scale and equipment to cut silver is a pain), The residents bring whatever silver they brought to the mint (aka Bob, he's into metal working) and get it turned into coins for 10% of its weight (Bob made mint).
We now have a stable currency that isn't subject to inflation barring sudden influx of large (relatively to the current supply) quantities of silver or large decreases in economic activity. Hurray, no one gets to chip 3% off of anyone's savings (Bob holds 10% of the currency supply, this works out well for him). The settlement grows (think rabbits), more land is cleared for agriculture, the trees are used to construct new buildings, more businesses offer more services, etc (ie. the economy grew). The community being insular (and lacking a silver mine) the silver supply never increased (save for some people digging up extra forks to convert into coins), so each coin had to cover a larger and larger portion of the economy. Long story short, a coin that could buy a chicken, at the beginning of the thought experiment can now buy four, say over the timespan of 20 years. Now that's deflation.
Bob being a frugal fellow never touched his savings, he supported himself by crafting metal items for his fellow residents. So when he dies 20 years later he left the same 10% (give or take a fraction) to his son Bob Jr. The other 90% were more or less constantly on the move to support the exchange of goods and services between all the residents, so no one managed to save up more than a 1% or so of all the coins. What this means is that Bob Jr inherited a tenth of everything of value produced during those 20 years (that is, his coin supply would be able to buy that much at current prices) up and above the initial 10% of everything that they represented at the beginning, even though Bob didn't produce nearly that much with his metalworking, nor did he have to take any risks with the 10% of the coins he had, as long as he could get enough business in (and he could, the settlement was expanding), or really did anything with them at all. 10% of the result of 20 years worth of productivity by everyone else, just like that. That's how deflation is theft, if you believe that the reverse is theft.
That's why I strongly dislike deflation (well, that and the economic effects of everyone optimizing for such a scenario, but that's another story and apparently quite arguable with certain people), even though I don't actually believe that theft is involved on either side of the inflation/deflation coin. Have I been explicit enough yet (why yes, I was trying to be terse appealing to existing understanding of inflation/deflation)?
Correct, monetary savings are not investments, if there is a reward, that is if the money is worth more just by sitting around, your system is broken. And as the unquoted part stated, that reward comes from everyone who is working to expand the economy, justify that part instead of spewing cheap rhetoric.
The argument I didn't even touch on? Keep on topic, that is on whether or deflation pumps wealth from those producing it to those who sit on their money in a fucking growing economy. Bringing up unrelated shit that actively runs counter to the argument presented is what's ridiculous.
If you believe that hyperinflation is happening right now and can't manage finances that might be correct. As it stands money is still worth almost all of its value a year later and there is a variety of stable options that will retain the value long term, is retaining enough for you? Some people need stupid excuses for spending but they are just that.
The world where you can afford to spend because everyone else is working their asses of to make your pile more valuable? Or do you just need an excuse that makes you feel better about spending. Money is part of a larger market dynamic, accept that and maybe you can feel better about the real world.
If he happened to be discovered sleeping on the couch the guard might be a tad suspicious.
Just remember that when the money deflates your work to grow the market has rewarded people sitting on said money. But please, do continue to condescend me onto your side.
That's what rdiff is all about. The technology itself is useful, treating rsync itself, not a system (and that's not a handful of scripts) built on top of rsync/rdiff, (which I originally responded to) as backup tool is silly.
Which is why you use something designed for backups, not something designed for synchronization.
That's not rsync, that's a half-baked backup system (it might be useful in many contexts, but that's what it is as a backup system) hacked on top of rsync. There are proper backup solutions using the tech behind rsync without abusing the tool for something it's not optimally suited for.
Just like cryptographic hashes are bound to have collisions without necessarily diminishing their usefulness, duplicate fingerprint detection is unlikely to cause misidentification if fingerprints are used in an appropriate context.
Rsync would have dutifully replaced the so called backup with blank files.
If you consider deflation, the slow, persistent, and inexorable theft of your productivity is certain.
They also went up by some tiny amount. So I guess that makes you just as "wrong", not that your tangential nitpicking could be right considering the context was nothing but inflated stats and how those would have significant impact across the board barring massive coincidences. Now move along unless you have something useful to add.
Go over to statcounter and take a look at the fine graph. IE is markedly down, FF is more or less stable durring the time period IE started seriously declining and has actually bumped up recently. This would not be the case if Chrome's stats were merely inflated. Make your argument based on facts, not a preconceived notion of what they should be.
The government has, the Estonian government that is. Now for the hard part, getting everyone else to adopt a sane, user friendly system like that.
The others didn't go down, only IE did. That's the point.
No, silly. The private sector is perfectly willing to put their record profits in line to further a high risk venture with uncertain returns since the tech is well understood. Why the only reason that it was not the private sector that launched Sputnik is because the Soviets didn't have a private sector!
Should the programmer ask for the potentially confidential agreements with all possible, likely and unlikely rights holders? It's legal's job to make sure the rights have been secured, it's a programmer's job to code to requirements. Personally hold programmers to to use GPL code accountable if someone decides not to comply further down the line? Madness.
You might as well blame everything else for not using Emacs shortcuts, since they were there and used in other software (yes, those bash shortcuts are Emacs shortcuts). I mean really, holding shift to select text? Madness.
That is one possible explanation, however I was asking in the context of technical Chrome features skewing the numbers. For the graphs to come out like that if it was so Firefox would have to have gained almost precisely the marketshare that such a skew would introduce, at exactly the right time.
You should format your code that way for the same reason that you shouldn't print normal sized text landscape on letter/A4 paper. Readability.
Are you comparing to XUL extensions or Add-on SDK extensions?
That hardly explains why Chrome's gains match up with IE loses with Firefox staying about the same.
Whether or not specialize would map onto methods would depend entirely upon context (I was just trying to improve the back-translation there, not necessarily claim that the original was justified) but, more importantly, it's a trailer, it needn't be accurately translated, just accurately (as much as usual anyway) describe the movie or whatever they are advertising. Fully agreed on the second part though, I prefer to watch/read/listen to the original whenever possible and think that everything that TV shows and other 'perishable' media should have a world-wide digital release along with whatever traditional method is used in the core market (in this case, the initial broadcast), localized versions can still be provided when they are done for those who prefer them.