What? Spain was running a surplus during the good years. Then the real estate crisis happened, which sent tax receipts tumbling down and unemployment way up. A very bad thing for a country that has its own currency, but deadly to one that doesn't.
The Euro without a fiscal union doesn't make any sense, and no austerity will solve this.
Hardware that can run any OS will still be available, if just to fill the server market. There are tons of companies out there running on linux servers, and they have no interest in switching to either windows or being forced into very big hardware. As long as they exist and keep buying, you'll be able to run linux on the desktop, no matter what Microsoft wants.
Most of the things you eat have their DNA fiddled with, in many ways that occur in nature. Heck, chances are you have different DNA in different parts of you, because mitosis doesn't get a perfect result all the time. We also do hybridization across species using natural means: Just look at the fruit industry.
So, the issue then becomes if the cross-species genetic manipulations are done by sticking a branch of a tree into another, or by letting maize seeds spend time in contact with a slightly manipulated agrobacterium. Something that is done to tens of thousands of seeds, which are tested and traditionally bred for 6-8 years until they ever get sold to a farmer anywhere.
The natural order is for species to modify others: ask the HIV. All we have to do is regulate enough to make sure whatever we are fed is reasonably safe.
That's what Dota 2 is doing: They have an external player, and you can connect to games directly from the game too. There's player spots for official announcers, so you can listen to them, and use their camera view if you wish.
It provides all kinds of other advantages, like being able to see statistics that the announcer is not looking at, or even see the game for a player's perspective, which is great for learning high level play.
I have seen warehouses where the first step in the shipping station is a verification of the contents, including a picture. I guess Amazon thinks this step is too expensive for what it's worth?
The traveling salesman only becomes hell when the number of stops is very high, and it is relatively expensive to know the cheapest route before point A and point B. The thing is, neither of those is true in a warehouse.
I don't know how long a typical route is for an Amazon picker, but when I was writing warehouse software, pickers were only getting about a dozen items per trip: typically far larger than a book. With so few items, and a warehouse that is not really a random graph, we were able to get extremely good solutions for picking. As an approximation, just try to a mock traveling salesman problem in a square grid, where you can only travel on both axis.
The GPU and CPU are very powerful, but it's a great era for games: Just not $50, $60 games. On PC, the indie scene beats the pants out of most big budget games. And with systems like Steam and Desura, getting those very reasonably priced games is very easy.
Not really. There are many libertarians that have said views, but I'd not say that the Libertarian party embraces them. If anything, the problem the libertarians have is that they aren't in any way unified. There's a variety of people that vote libertarian: There's the freedom worshippers, that wouldn't even allow the state to set immigration laws. But in front of them are nativists, that hate immigrants. Some would leave a minimal army, and dismantle the rest of the state. Others would allow the state to do anything to foreign nationals to protect the freedom of US citizens. Unsurprisingly, when libertarians meet to come up with a program, they end up being unable to agree on much.
So to grow, they need a clear message, and to get a clear message, they will piss off a good chunk of their membership: Not a bad thing though, as being mostly a collection of white males will be as bad for their election choices as it will be for the Republicans.
Either way, no political party really stands against the torture and the executions. People do (like me, for instance), but this wars are won by public opinion, not by following a schizophrenic party.
The reason it's not working is pretty simple: Printing money today without the clear expectation that you'll keep printing money doesn't really affect markets all that much.
Think of the Chuck Norris example. We are at a large party, and Chuck Norris finds it's too crowded, So he goes, beats someone up, and kicks him out. Then he waits 20 minutes, and if it's still to crowded, he kicks someone else out. If he doesn't keep beating people up, most of us will not leave said party immediately (heck, watching Chuck pummel a party goes will make a cool story, so some people might even come in to see), and Chuck will end up kicking a ton of people out until his proper party density is achieved. Mysterious Chuck will do a lot of punching and kicking.
Now, imagine that instead, he says 'In 10 minutes, I'll start kicking people's asses until there's only 500 people in this party'. Do you really think that he'd have to spend as much time brawling? Knowing how many people will get beaten up, I'm pretty sure that people will leave to avoid being pummeled.
Markets work the same way. If Bernanke said he'd sell a US dollar for 1 south african Rand in 5 months, and we didn't think he'd be fired before that, the Rand would go up towards 1:1 today, not in 5 months. Same thing for the Fed: Given that the fed can print as much as they want, if they said: 'We'll print as much money as we want, for as long as we want, until NGDP is up 5% from last year, the market would change its tune pretty quickly.
Yes, there's been a lot of inflation during the Reagan years. That's where most of your parent's house appreciated the most. Inflation today is not high at all. If you really think it'll skyrocket, you can make a ton of money on the market like that.
It's not just the banks that fear deflation: It's pretty horrible for everyone. If you have debt, deflation means you probably won't be able to afford paying it. If you have cash, it means that keeping it in a safe becomes a valid investment strategy: Great for your local businesses, since it won't be spent. If it's under a mattress, it might as well not be M1, so we get more deflation, for the same reason that oil markets would not change if I found 5 trillion barrels of oil and I promised to never sell them or use them.
Macro classes uh? It sounds as if you slept through yours.
Companies are holding an inordinate amount of money because they don't want to spend it. If the Fed was really threatening the US with high inflation, why the heck would anyone hold cash reserves? You describe it in the next paragraph: Why would savers be punished while companies that are, in essence, saving, are not?
Also, if you really think that the government will debase the currency Weimar style, then you must expect very high inflation, at which point, you can happily purchase inflation indexed securities straight from the treasury. Why then, does the TIPS market project inflation under the Fed target for the forseeable future? Really, you could make a mint.
The difference was manufacturing and manpower capabilities: US factories could outproduce the Germans, and the US had plenty of manpower to man their air force. The Germans could never match that manufacturing capacity, and have trouble replacing pilots, so even when they had a technological advantage, it was all over. You'd have to be a fool to bet on4 P-51s beating 4 ME-262s in a dogfight, but the Germans deployed them very late and couldn't make enough to matter.
The eastern front is a similar story: The Germans wouldn't have done any better if you handed them Soviet T-34s tanks. Cheaper to make, and the Soviets could man tons of them just fine.
Economics just doomed the Nazis, unless they somehow managed to find a technology that made said industrial differences irrelevant. The problem is that the US got to it first, as Japan learned quickly enough.
Behind in the popular vote for most of the tally... sure, because the west coast has an very high population, and every state in the coast votes for the Democrats more often than not. Therefore, the popular vote will always look to favor the republican candidate, barring an absolute Dem. landslide that we've not seen in our lifetimes.
And really, complaining about a low turnout when most elections have a winner-take-all approach is rather naive. If a race is is not in a dead heat, chances that a presidential vote will matter in the slightest are near zero. Same thing when picking a congressman. How motivated are republicans to go vote in California? How about democrats in Utah? If anything, we are seeing too high a turnout for the electoral system being used.
Then again, complaining about low turnout is a great excuse when the end result of the election is something you do not like.
While I am not fond of Java's inability to define functions with a proper syntax, it's not as if the alternatives are noticeably better as far as not needing navigation. In the end, it all comes down to program complexity. A developer still has to know the code he needs to use, and for any program of reasonable complexity, you need to either remember it or use an IDE to easily access it. And given the ungodly number of libraries we use today, this happens even when you are coding in Javascript.
If anything, the fact that Java is statically typed makes it easier on IDEs to tell you all the details of available classes. IDE support for Scala will still have you remembering signatures that Java wouldn't have to. And we all know the fun of Javascript, where most IDEs will not be able to guess what properties a object has, because the only way to know is to run the app.
Don't get me wrong, I sure wish for at least Groovy-like function support, unlike, say, the horrible things people do to try to write functionally in Java (welcome Guava abuse!), but the only way some of those languages make you not 'need' and IDE is because IDEs can barely understand the languages. I'd not call that a good thing.
If your company doesn't sponsor green cards, the turnover of H1-Bs will actually be faster: They will jump through the hoops that they have to to change jobs into another one that does.
If anything, H1-Bs provide stability, because if you, say, start sponsor after the 3rd year, and it takes from 6 to 10 years to get a green card on top of that, you are talking about keeping the poor H1 there for 15 years: Just getting 3 years in the same position out of an American is hard.
Making green cards easier to get for H1s would make them much more mobile quicker, increasing their salaries.
America has not been reduced to a third world nation: it just happens that third world nations are growing extremely fast and catching up. Protectionism will not save you.
Foreign workers will for sure leave after their H1-B visas if it is too difficult to become permanent residents, and then citizens. Then they will compete with you remotely. Why wouldn't you want them to compete with you right here? Would you rather have them write business software from their home countries instead? I do not see how that is good for the American IT worker. Then you also have to take into account how good that is for Americans in general. Imagine the same thing with, say, doctors. Restrict access to foreigners, and make doctors make a whole lot more per hour. Imagine they now make $500 per hour in family practice. How do they make their money? Someone has to be paying them that much money, and that would be Americans that don't happen to be doctors. Lower salaries for doctors then become great for America. With IT, it's the same issue.
And if you are so afraid of the dollar being a shadow of its value 10 years ago, it's all very easy: Just hold your wealth in non-monetary assets. Currency is a method of exchange, but not a good way of holding wealth.
So I guess that the long lines for green cards have nothing to do with a ton of H1-Bs that qualify for an employment based green card, but are limited by the yearly visa limits? For people that want to work in IT in some form, the best road to move to the US is to study here. which hands you a 1 year permit, that is typically enough to get an H1-B, after which, one can actually get a green card. Typically an over 10 year process. I have many friends in that situation.
Want proof? just look at visa bulletin history: The number of visas for employment has not really changed in a couple of decades. See how long the queues were in 2002, and look at the lines you have now. Today, a european EB-3 has to wait 6 years in line to get permanent residency. Back then, there was no line. What's the difference? Tons of H1Bs that qualify for said permanent citizenship, but that have to wait in line for a visa number.
A whole lot of H1-Bs apply for green cards quite quickly: Most of them qualify for a green card just fine. The issue is that they remain temporary workers for many years, because the green card quotas are the same they were decades ago. Therefore, most stand in line from 5 to 10 years, depending on education and country of origin, until they get one. And every year, the line gets longer.
Maybe there's a lot of unemployed programmers somewhere, but that's not the case in most of the US. There are plenty of openings in most of the midwest. My current employer has positions open pretty much all the time, and the issue is not people asking for too much money, but people that pass the technical interview. It's amazing how many people claim to have 5 years of experience in software development and can't make simple modifications to a small codebase that they are handed a few days in advance, or couldn't tell a design pattern from spaghetti code.
Most of Europe is run by coalition governments, because they do not have winner-take-all elections for electing their equivalent to congressmen. To sit someone in Spain's Parlamento, for instance, you might need 5-10% of the vote in a state. To do the same in the US, I need a similar percentage of state votes, but the votes all have to come from the same congressional district, which is a far harder task: Libertarians would have to concentrate in a very small area to become that relevant, and even then, their district could get gerrimandered away.
Most stores sell pants using only the length of the legs and the length at the waist. That's nowhere near enough to fit many body types. If I want them to fit perfectly, I need to have them altered. Buying off the rack, most options in my size will fit very badly: At most I'll find one pair that is tolerable.
I'd love to be able to just skip all the styles that will not fit well at all without having to try them out, and a system like this could theoretically do it.
Your quantity is already suffering because doctors act like a guild. How many people that want to be a doctor in the US can't do so because they can't afford it, or can't pass entrance exams that are far more difficult than needed? Why do I need a doctor instead of a nurse for most run of the mill medical care? It's all as silly as needing a license to cut hair.
How many unemployed doctors are out there?
The US doesn't have either a good public system that cares about cutting costs, or anywhere near enough competition to use market forces in the customer's favor. Worst of both worlds.
Another important part of the free market is that if you don't want to pay more, you can do so and keep the position open.
When people aren't taking your offers, you should do your best to be more competitive, but maybe money isn't the problem. Now, there's such thing as an offer that is way too low, but there's plenty of reasons to choose a position that doesn't bring in the most money. This is especially true when looking for senior devs. I could get an extra 10K in some of the best paying employers of the city, but their company culture is toxic, so nobody that is any good wants to stay. Money is only very important if the difference is extraordinary and the employers are comparable otherwise.
So we have an economy inflated at 12% per year, and yet cars don't cost 12% more every year, nor does clothing, or food, or pretty much anything you'd consider actual inflation.
Your calculations make me think you are one of those that think that a fixed money supply is the way to go. As it happens, it's the fact that the US money supply is actually growing that is making sure that the US isn't in the same hole as Southern Europe does: Countries where there's a whole lot of debt, yet monetary policy keeps inflation at bay like a vise. What you get then is tax increases and government cuts, which slow down the economy, which bring in even more increases, creating the death spiral that we see in Greece and Spain.
There has been more borrowing that can be repaid. That's pretty darned clear. So the question is, who pays the piper. If you do not touch the money supply at all, those that pay are those that borrowed... except for the part that they can't, so you get massive bankruptcies and a sinking economy. Our good friend the Money Illusion makes it extremely difficult to make salaries go down, which a contracting economy needs. If instead you have a more expansive monetary policy, then inflation both makes sure that money is invested instead of stashed in a mattress, which is good for the economy, and makes it far easier to lower salaries with respect to the entire economy, which is temporarily needed in recessions.
Hard money didn't solve jack squat for centuries. It wouldn't solve anything now either.
Slashdot Mirror
What? Spain was running a surplus during the good years. Then the real estate crisis happened, which sent tax receipts tumbling down and unemployment way up. A very bad thing for a country that has its own currency, but deadly to one that doesn't.
The Euro without a fiscal union doesn't make any sense, and no austerity will solve this.
Hardware that can run any OS will still be available, if just to fill the server market. There are tons of companies out there running on linux servers, and they have no interest in switching to either windows or being forced into very big hardware. As long as they exist and keep buying, you'll be able to run linux on the desktop, no matter what Microsoft wants.
Most of the things you eat have their DNA fiddled with, in many ways that occur in nature. Heck, chances are you have different DNA in different parts of you, because mitosis doesn't get a perfect result all the time. We also do hybridization across species using natural means: Just look at the fruit industry.
So, the issue then becomes if the cross-species genetic manipulations are done by sticking a branch of a tree into another, or by letting maize seeds spend time in contact with a slightly manipulated agrobacterium. Something that is done to tens of thousands of seeds, which are tested and traditionally bred for 6-8 years until they ever get sold to a farmer anywhere.
The natural order is for species to modify others: ask the HIV. All we have to do is regulate enough to make sure whatever we are fed is reasonably safe.
That's what Dota 2 is doing: They have an external player, and you can connect to games directly from the game too. There's player spots for official announcers, so you can listen to them, and use their camera view if you wish.
It provides all kinds of other advantages, like being able to see statistics that the announcer is not looking at, or even see the game for a player's perspective, which is great for learning high level play.
El Pais tried it years ago in Spain. The competition ate their lunch, and haven't recovered the market share yet
I have seen warehouses where the first step in the shipping station is a verification of the contents, including a picture. I guess Amazon thinks this step is too expensive for what it's worth?
The traveling salesman only becomes hell when the number of stops is very high, and it is relatively expensive to know the cheapest route before point A and point B. The thing is, neither of those is true in a warehouse.
I don't know how long a typical route is for an Amazon picker, but when I was writing warehouse software, pickers were only getting about a dozen items per trip: typically far larger than a book. With so few items, and a warehouse that is not really a random graph, we were able to get extremely good solutions for picking. As an approximation, just try to a mock traveling salesman problem in a square grid, where you can only travel on both axis.
The GPU and CPU are very powerful, but it's a great era for games: Just not $50, $60 games. On PC, the indie scene beats the pants out of most big budget games. And with systems like Steam and Desura, getting those very reasonably priced games is very easy.
Not really. There are many libertarians that have said views, but I'd not say that the Libertarian party embraces them. If anything, the problem the libertarians have is that they aren't in any way unified. There's a variety of people that vote libertarian: There's the freedom worshippers, that wouldn't even allow the state to set immigration laws. But in front of them are nativists, that hate immigrants. Some would leave a minimal army, and dismantle the rest of the state. Others would allow the state to do anything to foreign nationals to protect the freedom of US citizens. Unsurprisingly, when libertarians meet to come up with a program, they end up being unable to agree on much.
So to grow, they need a clear message, and to get a clear message, they will piss off a good chunk of their membership: Not a bad thing though, as being mostly a collection of white males will be as bad for their election choices as it will be for the Republicans.
Either way, no political party really stands against the torture and the executions. People do (like me, for instance), but this wars are won by public opinion, not by following a schizophrenic party.
The reason it's not working is pretty simple: Printing money today without the clear expectation that you'll keep printing money doesn't really affect markets all that much.
Think of the Chuck Norris example. We are at a large party, and Chuck Norris finds it's too crowded, So he goes, beats someone up, and kicks him out. Then he waits 20 minutes, and if it's still to crowded, he kicks someone else out. If he doesn't keep beating people up, most of us will not leave said party immediately (heck, watching Chuck pummel a party goes will make a cool story, so some people might even come in to see), and Chuck will end up kicking a ton of people out until his proper party density is achieved. Mysterious Chuck will do a lot of punching and kicking.
Now, imagine that instead, he says 'In 10 minutes, I'll start kicking people's asses until there's only 500 people in this party'. Do you really think that he'd have to spend as much time brawling? Knowing how many people will get beaten up, I'm pretty sure that people will leave to avoid being pummeled.
Markets work the same way. If Bernanke said he'd sell a US dollar for 1 south african Rand in 5 months, and we didn't think he'd be fired before that, the Rand would go up towards 1:1 today, not in 5 months. Same thing for the Fed: Given that the fed can print as much as they want, if they said: 'We'll print as much money as we want, for as long as we want, until NGDP is up 5% from last year, the market would change its tune pretty quickly.
Yes, there's been a lot of inflation during the Reagan years. That's where most of your parent's house appreciated the most. Inflation today is not high at all. If you really think it'll skyrocket, you can make a ton of money on the market like that.
It's not just the banks that fear deflation: It's pretty horrible for everyone. If you have debt, deflation means you probably won't be able to afford paying it. If you have cash, it means that keeping it in a safe becomes a valid investment strategy: Great for your local businesses, since it won't be spent. If it's under a mattress, it might as well not be M1, so we get more deflation, for the same reason that oil markets would not change if I found 5 trillion barrels of oil and I promised to never sell them or use them.
Macro classes uh? It sounds as if you slept through yours.
Not really.
Companies are holding an inordinate amount of money because they don't want to spend it. If the Fed was really threatening the US with high inflation, why the heck would anyone hold cash reserves? You describe it in the next paragraph: Why would savers be punished while companies that are, in essence, saving, are not?
Also, if you really think that the government will debase the currency Weimar style, then you must expect very high inflation, at which point, you can happily purchase inflation indexed securities straight from the treasury. Why then, does the TIPS market project inflation under the Fed target for the forseeable future? Really, you could make a mint.
Go read some Sumner or something.
The difference was manufacturing and manpower capabilities: US factories could outproduce the Germans, and the US had plenty of manpower to man their air force. The Germans could never match that manufacturing capacity, and have trouble replacing pilots, so even when they had a technological advantage, it was all over. You'd have to be a fool to bet on4 P-51s beating 4 ME-262s in a dogfight, but the Germans deployed them very late and couldn't make enough to matter.
The eastern front is a similar story: The Germans wouldn't have done any better if you handed them Soviet T-34s tanks. Cheaper to make, and the Soviets could man tons of them just fine.
Economics just doomed the Nazis, unless they somehow managed to find a technology that made said industrial differences irrelevant. The problem is that the US got to it first, as Japan learned quickly enough.
Behind in the popular vote for most of the tally... sure, because the west coast has an very high population, and every state in the coast votes for the Democrats more often than not. Therefore, the popular vote will always look to favor the republican candidate, barring an absolute Dem. landslide that we've not seen in our lifetimes.
And really, complaining about a low turnout when most elections have a winner-take-all approach is rather naive. If a race is is not in a dead heat, chances that a presidential vote will matter in the slightest are near zero. Same thing when picking a congressman. How motivated are republicans to go vote in California? How about democrats in Utah? If anything, we are seeing too high a turnout for the electoral system being used.
Then again, complaining about low turnout is a great excuse when the end result of the election is something you do not like.
While I am not fond of Java's inability to define functions with a proper syntax, it's not as if the alternatives are noticeably better as far as not needing navigation. In the end, it all comes down to program complexity. A developer still has to know the code he needs to use, and for any program of reasonable complexity, you need to either remember it or use an IDE to easily access it. And given the ungodly number of libraries we use today, this happens even when you are coding in Javascript.
If anything, the fact that Java is statically typed makes it easier on IDEs to tell you all the details of available classes. IDE support for Scala will still have you remembering signatures that Java wouldn't have to. And we all know the fun of Javascript, where most IDEs will not be able to guess what properties a object has, because the only way to know is to run the app.
Don't get me wrong, I sure wish for at least Groovy-like function support, unlike, say, the horrible things people do to try to write functionally in Java (welcome Guava abuse!), but the only way some of those languages make you not 'need' and IDE is because IDEs can barely understand the languages. I'd not call that a good thing.
If your company doesn't sponsor green cards, the turnover of H1-Bs will actually be faster: They will jump through the hoops that they have to to change jobs into another one that does.
If anything, H1-Bs provide stability, because if you, say, start sponsor after the 3rd year, and it takes from 6 to 10 years to get a green card on top of that, you are talking about keeping the poor H1 there for 15 years: Just getting 3 years in the same position out of an American is hard.
Making green cards easier to get for H1s would make them much more mobile quicker, increasing their salaries.
America has not been reduced to a third world nation: it just happens that third world nations are growing extremely fast and catching up. Protectionism will not save you.
Foreign workers will for sure leave after their H1-B visas if it is too difficult to become permanent residents, and then citizens. Then they will compete with you remotely. Why wouldn't you want them to compete with you right here? Would you rather have them write business software from their home countries instead? I do not see how that is good for the American IT worker. Then you also have to take into account how good that is for Americans in general. Imagine the same thing with, say, doctors. Restrict access to foreigners, and make doctors make a whole lot more per hour. Imagine they now make $500 per hour in family practice. How do they make their money? Someone has to be paying them that much money, and that would be Americans that don't happen to be doctors. Lower salaries for doctors then become great for America. With IT, it's the same issue.
And if you are so afraid of the dollar being a shadow of its value 10 years ago, it's all very easy: Just hold your wealth in non-monetary assets. Currency is a method of exchange, but not a good way of holding wealth.
So I guess that the long lines for green cards have nothing to do with a ton of H1-Bs that qualify for an employment based green card, but are limited by the yearly visa limits? For people that want to work in IT in some form, the best road to move to the US is to study here. which hands you a 1 year permit, that is typically enough to get an H1-B, after which, one can actually get a green card. Typically an over 10 year process. I have many friends in that situation.
Want proof? just look at visa bulletin history: The number of visas for employment has not really changed in a couple of decades. See how long the queues were in 2002, and look at the lines you have now. Today, a european EB-3 has to wait 6 years in line to get permanent residency. Back then, there was no line. What's the difference? Tons of H1Bs that qualify for said permanent citizenship, but that have to wait in line for a visa number.
A whole lot of H1-Bs apply for green cards quite quickly: Most of them qualify for a green card just fine. The issue is that they remain temporary workers for many years, because the green card quotas are the same they were decades ago. Therefore, most stand in line from 5 to 10 years, depending on education and country of origin, until they get one. And every year, the line gets longer.
Maybe there's a lot of unemployed programmers somewhere, but that's not the case in most of the US. There are plenty of openings in most of the midwest. My current employer has positions open pretty much all the time, and the issue is not people asking for too much money, but people that pass the technical interview. It's amazing how many people claim to have 5 years of experience in software development and can't make simple modifications to a small codebase that they are handed a few days in advance, or couldn't tell a design pattern from spaghetti code.
Most of Europe is run by coalition governments, because they do not have winner-take-all elections for electing their equivalent to congressmen. To sit someone in Spain's Parlamento, for instance, you might need 5-10% of the vote in a state. To do the same in the US, I need a similar percentage of state votes, but the votes all have to come from the same congressional district, which is a far harder task: Libertarians would have to concentrate in a very small area to become that relevant, and even then, their district could get gerrimandered away.
Most stores sell pants using only the length of the legs and the length at the waist. That's nowhere near enough to fit many body types. If I want them to fit perfectly, I need to have them altered. Buying off the rack, most options in my size will fit very badly: At most I'll find one pair that is tolerable.
I'd love to be able to just skip all the styles that will not fit well at all without having to try them out, and a system like this could theoretically do it.
Your quantity is already suffering because doctors act like a guild. How many people that want to be a doctor in the US can't do so because they can't afford it, or can't pass entrance exams that are far more difficult than needed? Why do I need a doctor instead of a nurse for most run of the mill medical care? It's all as silly as needing a license to cut hair.
How many unemployed doctors are out there?
The US doesn't have either a good public system that cares about cutting costs, or anywhere near enough competition to use market forces in the customer's favor. Worst of both worlds.
Another important part of the free market is that if you don't want to pay more, you can do so and keep the position open.
When people aren't taking your offers, you should do your best to be more competitive, but maybe money isn't the problem. Now, there's such thing as an offer that is way too low, but there's plenty of reasons to choose a position that doesn't bring in the most money. This is especially true when looking for senior devs. I could get an extra 10K in some of the best paying employers of the city, but their company culture is toxic, so nobody that is any good wants to stay. Money is only very important if the difference is extraordinary and the employers are comparable otherwise.
I'd not put him in the top 5 most left leaning presidents the country has ever had. I'm not even sure he's to the left of Nixon.
If you want a left leaning president, try FDR.
So we have an economy inflated at 12% per year, and yet cars don't cost 12% more every year, nor does clothing, or food, or pretty much anything you'd consider actual inflation.
Your calculations make me think you are one of those that think that a fixed money supply is the way to go. As it happens, it's the fact that the US money supply is actually growing that is making sure that the US isn't in the same hole as Southern Europe does: Countries where there's a whole lot of debt, yet monetary policy keeps inflation at bay like a vise. What you get then is tax increases and government cuts, which slow down the economy, which bring in even more increases, creating the death spiral that we see in Greece and Spain.
There has been more borrowing that can be repaid. That's pretty darned clear. So the question is, who pays the piper. If you do not touch the money supply at all, those that pay are those that borrowed... except for the part that they can't, so you get massive bankruptcies and a sinking economy. Our good friend the Money Illusion makes it extremely difficult to make salaries go down, which a contracting economy needs. If instead you have a more expansive monetary policy, then inflation both makes sure that money is invested instead of stashed in a mattress, which is good for the economy, and makes it far easier to lower salaries with respect to the entire economy, which is temporarily needed in recessions.
Hard money didn't solve jack squat for centuries. It wouldn't solve anything now either.