"This is the absolute maximum amount of heat the card can dissipate under any circumstances (not counting overclocking). The nature and definition of TDP means it should be physically impossible for ANY software to ever cause the card to exceed TDP."
For example, Nissan LEAF is priced quite close to be a practical purchase even without tax credits. GM Volt is a little bit too expensive, but its price will certainly fall down in the future.
We actually have enough of existing technology to make electric cars work. Now it's a question of moving this technology into production. And various incentives are a great way to improve the uptake of new technologies.
" If trillions of dollars were infused into the economy then by definition inflation has already happened. If prices go up or not is irrelevant"
Sorry. That's not the definition of the word 'inflation'. Let me quote Wiki for you: "In economics, inflation is a rise in the general level of prices of goods and services in an economy over a period of time.".
And no, there's almost no inflation by any measure. We probably even have a slight deflation by now according to several ways to measure the inflation.
"If there is a shortage of money, that means that prices are too low, causing a surplus of goods i.e. a shortage of money. "
Nope. You're confusing cause and effect, during the 'shortage of money' prices HAVE to fall. Otherwise people just won't buy your products. This in turn causes other prices to fall, reducing profits (and incentives to invest money), so a vicious cycle is formed. And it's not a hypothesis, you just need to look at Japan.
And what's quite scary, it's really hard to terminate a deflationary cycle. Even with large infusions of cash.
You see, economy is counterintuitive. During the crises the _amount_ of money in the economy does not diminish. So everything should be OK, according to Austrians.
The only way to get a crisis according to Austrians is if your economy has skewed markets (for example, skewed towards construction industry) and once you fix this skew everything should be OK.
What happens in reality is quite simple. During a crisis economic agents do not want to spend/re-invest money. This reduces availability of credit, which further reinforces the crisis. So the total amount of money remains the same as before the crisis, but money spends more time as 'dead weight'. So the _effective_ amount of money decreases.
PS: Your link is mostly filled with incoherent blabber. Which is the usual state of things from 'Austrian' School. Please, read something better: Keynes and Friedman (they nicely complement each other), Krugman and others.
"You may not be exaggerating, but you're not right either. It was more than a banking collapse that caused the great depression in the 30s, it was a banking collapse, followed by runs on the bank due to the lack of an FDIC"
Not really. Large banks generally felt OK throughout the Great Depression. Small banks, however, were very susceptible.
In any case, FDIC can't help you during a massive bank run. It'll be bankrupt in a minute (well, it IS 'bankrupt' now) - it only has about 1.5% of the total deposit value. And you WILL get a massive bank run if you allow banks to start failing.
So you have two options: 1) Capitalize FDIC using government money. 2) Do not allow banks to fail by capitalizing them with the government money.
Both options have pretty much the same cost. Except that keeping banking system alive allows to unfreeze the credit market.
"The idea that the banks are too strongly inter-linked, and that the fall of AIG would have caused the fall of all banks has been debunked by now."
And that's wrong. For example, without AIG's money from the bailout the JPMorgan bank would have failed.
International banking system at one time was 1 millimeter away from crash. At one point of time, banks even stopped accepting letters of credit. SWIFT transactions began to fail because banks couldn't get enough money on correspondent accounts.
"(1) The bailout bill was for BANKERS not the workers."
And tax cuts are only for BANKERS and other parasites. Right?
You see, you have a model in your head, and you ignore anything that doesn't fit into it. For example, you ignore the fact that it won't be the BANKERS who will be hit first.
In fact, the Big BANKERS would have probably lived just fine, like in 1930-s. The first to suffer are invariably working people and small regional banks.
"It was Welfare for the Rich, and the Democrats voted unanimously for it. Think about that. The Democrats are the party for the rich."
I just love how you mangle the facts.
You might remember that Republicans forced a lot of their pork into the bill. And then tried to sink it.
"(2) I would still have unemployment benefits. I would be getting $50 less per weak (part of Obama's Feb 2009 Stimulus) but I'll still be getting unemployment benefits from the State government."
Nope. You won't, cause if the meltdown had happened, there won't be a Social Security to speak of. And individual States would have been the first to fall (probably, starting with Texas and California).
"No, the value of money changes over time. A price is an exchange ratio. If you inflate the money supply i.e. print money, it bids prices up, and causes price inflation, prices that are higher than they otherwise would be."
Except for situations when there's not enough money. Like, say, now.
Do you see gigantic inflation even though several trillions of dollars were infused into the economy? That's what is predicted by your model.
So if you are "reality-based" you have to admit that your simplistic model doesn't always work.
"This is what happens when you engage in price fixing of interest rates, it distorts the long-term production structure over time, since interest is the price of time. If you manipulate it, you are going to hurt production."
Again, there's no 'price fixing'. You're conflating two absolutely different things.
You seem to throw words like 'distortion of long term production structure' without saying exactly HOW it is distorted, and why it's bad.
"As it is, the bailout has softened the pain but also prolonged it, so it's liable to be worse overall, like trying to massage a broken arm. Unemployment is still ridiculous and state governments like California and Illinois are virtually insolvent."
As I've said, stimulus was too small to combat unemployment efficiently. And NOT doing a stimulus would have meant even greater unemployment.
"The link was about the fallacies of using gold as a standard. I do not understand the hoopla of conservatives of screaming gold. The price is very volatile and I do not like that."
'Tight fiscal policy' people usually like gold standard (which is the ultimate 'tight' policy - quantity of financial gold does not change much).
"The 401Ks and economy that would fizzle would be bets to enslave the world in unsustainable debt. The derivatives market is higher than ever with people betting with everyone else s money."
? Derivate trading now is way less than several years ago. Mostly because the CDS market has collapsed.
"Prices of oil, homes, and even college education are all tied to banks trying to raise and manipulate prices. Eventually people will have no money to spend left which is where we are now because we have to pay back."
But without banks businesses will be hard-pressed to finance new development. So you can either have an economy with growing 'debt' or economy without grwoth. It's that simple.
"0. The plan below would be publicly communicated, so that everybody knows the implications of a "bailout.""
There was no time, literally. A couple of weeks more, maximum.
I totally agree with other ideas. But still, the bailout would be necessary, you just call it "Bank could draw upon federal loans as needed to operate in the interim".
"Some economists from MIT state that FDR extended the great depression by using our current monetary policy of bailouts and socialism to hire people where the private did not."
Also, look closely at 1937 when FDR had cut fiscal support.
"1. Use the $700 billion as lines of credits for businesses instead of banks (let them fail)"
Bad idea. It would have, essentially, created a big government-run bank, while destroying 401k investments of millions of people.
"2. Use what Eisenhower did when he authorized the highway act. Every penny invested returned more in private sector dollars. It enhanced commerce. Obama's plan does the opposite."
And this is a GOOD idea. Obama's plan tried to do the same, actually, but half-heartedly.
"People are too much in debt and letting the banks which hold the debt collapse would be beautiful leaving the small credit unions left and businesses could still borrow.":) You have a very naive idea about the way economy works. Dissolving the debt would mean dissolving the economy.
"This is not a recession. Its a whole depression. Look at the economic news today? Chicago and Atlanta are going back into recession and during the 1930s the stock market and GDP went up and down many times before it finally ended."
That's because the stimulus was not big enough. We're repeating 1937 now. And this WAS predicted by commonly used economy models.
"We still got burned and crushed. Wall Street is not an ER patient more than they are the criminals who started this."
So? Shooting them will still make life works for all of us. Not that I'm against it, we just need to make sure it won't hurt us first.
"All the bailout did was put money for them more to gamble and create another derivative bubble and bet on Greek treasury bonds losing value. I need a job and do not care about what they do."
Nope. Derivative bubbles are over, CDS market had essentially disappeared. Bailout helped to start de-leveraging process.
Your ideas about Greek bonds are not based on facts.
"Banks need to be illegally prohibited from moving money into the stock market. Glass-steagall needs to come back at all costs and I would love to see these guys fall as it would help the economy overall."
It probably won't really help much, there were ways around it before it had been repealed. It's probably better just to regulate the maximum leverage. Say, limit it to 12 (which is a historical mean).
"The depression would not be that bad as FDIC insurers no runs on the bank like in the 1930s."
FDIC is broke right now. If there were bank runs, it would have needed government bailout, probably approaching the original bailout in its size.
Moreover, Glass-Steagal can't be reinstated instantaneously. It'll require many years for banks to restructure their investments.
"Debt would be forgiven on many $400k loans for $200k houses and the market could return to normal supply and demand curves not distorted by artificial manipulated debt."
That would mean the economy is foobared completely by the time you start dissolving credit obligations.
So let's shoot all ER patients. After all, they are already ill.
Yes, without bailout money some of the worst Wall Street speculators would have crashed and burned. But all the economy would have crashed and burned along with them.
Now we have time to reform and contain badness in the global financial markets (not only Wall Street is guilty). However, a curious thing happens - conservatives do not want to apply tough regulations to financial players. Because it's bad for business.
"The reduction in revenue would have been the same as the stimulus cost... except that cutting taxes would been FAR better for the economy and employment."
Nope. A lie.
Taxes and employment are not directly linked. US had 3-4% unemployment during the periods of very high taxes, for example.
Also, cutting taxes works much worse than direct stimuli.
"Every dollar that government spends must necessarily take away from other productive capacity - every dollar government spends must necessarily be taxes, either directly, through inflation, or through borrowing (borrowing takes away from private investment, where else does the money come from?)."
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The price of money CHANGES over the time. During the depression it's EASY to print money because it doesn't increase the inflation. And in fact it ADDS to the productive capacity.
Please, read Krugman's analyses. He correctly predicted the economy's response to the stimulus, and I'm willing to bet he correctly predicts the coming deflation (unless no spending).
Arguments about the housing bubble are irrelevant. We're not trying to recreate it, we're trying to make economy grow again.
First, 'communism' is an ideal like 100% laissez-faire pure ideal capitalism. So there were no true communistic countries. So the phrase 'the economic side of communism' does not really mean what you think it means. As ideals go, communism is OK (personally, I'd like to live in a communist world). Of course, communism turned out to be perfectly unachievable in the real world:)
Next, the word 'socialism' is waaaay overburdened. It can mean USSR-style command economy OR it can mean a form of society oriented towards well-being of its members. For example, Sweden is often characterized as 'socialistic' even though most of social services there are provided by private for-profit companies.
"I love when people leave out the September 11th attacks, as if the economic impact of that disaster and the and subsequent military response against the Taliban didn't have any impact on the deficit whatsoever."
I love when people leave out the Iraq war as if the economic impact of that disaster (which had nothing to do with 9/11) didn't have any impact on the deficit whatsoever.
"People's voices are amplified because we're in a recession, and Obama's stimulus packages haven't worked to address the high unemployment rate or low consumer confidence."
Obama's package HAD worked. We're out of depression now (i.e. the economy grows). It hadn't worked well enough because it was _small_.
"I posted often and frequently that the Bailout Bill was stupid, and that I was happy the Republicans voted it down. Then the Republicans turned-around and voted for the second, revised bill Nancy Pelosi came-up with, and I started calling them Bastards instead of Republicans."
Except that without the bailout you'd probably be out of the job, without unemployment benefits and in the middle of The Greatest Depression Ever. And I'm not exaggerating a bit. Without the bailout money the banking system would have collapsed.
But don't worry! Tea party stupidity has won in the end. And instead of more stimulus spending (which IS needed) USA has budget cuts and 'deficit reduction'. So look forward to enjoying deflation and stagnation! Cause that's what you were asking for.
Slashdot Mirror
"This is the absolute maximum amount of heat the card can dissipate under any circumstances (not counting overclocking). The nature and definition of TDP means it should be physically impossible for ANY software to ever cause the card to exceed TDP."
In theory.
That's totally wrong.
For example, Nissan LEAF is priced quite close to be a practical purchase even without tax credits. GM Volt is a little bit too expensive, but its price will certainly fall down in the future.
We actually have enough of existing technology to make electric cars work. Now it's a question of moving this technology into production. And various incentives are a great way to improve the uptake of new technologies.
Alas, there's no way around the Rayleigh criterion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution
We're not going to construct one-hundred-kilometer size telescopes any time soon.
"How can there possibly be "not enough money"?!?"
Quite easily.
" If trillions of dollars were infused into the economy then by definition inflation has already happened. If prices go up or not is irrelevant"
Sorry. That's not the definition of the word 'inflation'. Let me quote Wiki for you: "In economics, inflation is a rise in the general level of prices of goods and services in an economy over a period of time.".
And no, there's almost no inflation by any measure. We probably even have a slight deflation by now according to several ways to measure the inflation.
"If there is a shortage of money, that means that prices are too low, causing a surplus of goods i.e. a shortage of money. "
Nope. You're confusing cause and effect, during the 'shortage of money' prices HAVE to fall. Otherwise people just won't buy your products. This in turn causes other prices to fall, reducing profits (and incentives to invest money), so a vicious cycle is formed. And it's not a hypothesis, you just need to look at Japan.
And what's quite scary, it's really hard to terminate a deflationary cycle. Even with large infusions of cash.
You see, economy is counterintuitive. During the crises the _amount_ of money in the economy does not diminish. So everything should be OK, according to Austrians.
The only way to get a crisis according to Austrians is if your economy has skewed markets (for example, skewed towards construction industry) and once you fix this skew everything should be OK.
However, this argument is stupid: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/the-work-of-depressions/
What happens in reality is quite simple. During a crisis economic agents do not want to spend/re-invest money. This reduces availability of credit, which further reinforces the crisis. So the total amount of money remains the same as before the crisis, but money spends more time as 'dead weight'. So the _effective_ amount of money decreases.
PS: Your link is mostly filled with incoherent blabber. Which is the usual state of things from 'Austrian' School. Please, read something better: Keynes and Friedman (they nicely complement each other), Krugman and others.
"You may not be exaggerating, but you're not right either. It was more than a banking collapse that caused the great depression in the 30s, it was a banking collapse, followed by runs on the bank due to the lack of an FDIC"
Not really. Large banks generally felt OK throughout the Great Depression. Small banks, however, were very susceptible.
In any case, FDIC can't help you during a massive bank run. It'll be bankrupt in a minute (well, it IS 'bankrupt' now) - it only has about 1.5% of the total deposit value. And you WILL get a massive bank run if you allow banks to start failing.
So you have two options:
1) Capitalize FDIC using government money.
2) Do not allow banks to fail by capitalizing them with the government money.
Both options have pretty much the same cost. Except that keeping banking system alive allows to unfreeze the credit market.
"The idea that the banks are too strongly inter-linked, and that the fall of AIG would have caused the fall of all banks has been debunked by now."
And that's wrong. For example, without AIG's money from the bailout the JPMorgan bank would have failed.
International banking system at one time was 1 millimeter away from crash. At one point of time, banks even stopped accepting letters of credit. SWIFT transactions began to fail because banks couldn't get enough money on correspondent accounts.
"(1) The bailout bill was for BANKERS not the workers."
And tax cuts are only for BANKERS and other parasites. Right?
You see, you have a model in your head, and you ignore anything that doesn't fit into it. For example, you ignore the fact that it won't be the BANKERS who will be hit first.
In fact, the Big BANKERS would have probably lived just fine, like in 1930-s. The first to suffer are invariably working people and small regional banks.
"It was Welfare for the Rich, and the Democrats voted unanimously for it. Think about that. The Democrats are the party for the rich."
I just love how you mangle the facts.
You might remember that Republicans forced a lot of their pork into the bill. And then tried to sink it.
"(2) I would still have unemployment benefits. I would be getting $50 less per weak (part of Obama's Feb 2009 Stimulus) but I'll still be getting unemployment benefits from the State government."
Nope. You won't, cause if the meltdown had happened, there won't be a Social Security to speak of. And individual States would have been the first to fall (probably, starting with Texas and California).
"No, the value of money changes over time. A price is an exchange ratio. If you inflate the money supply i.e. print money, it bids prices up, and causes price inflation, prices that are higher than they otherwise would be."
Except for situations when there's not enough money. Like, say, now.
Do you see gigantic inflation even though several trillions of dollars were infused into the economy? That's what is predicted by your model.
So if you are "reality-based" you have to admit that your simplistic model doesn't always work.
"This is what happens when you engage in price fixing of interest rates, it distorts the long-term production structure over time, since interest is the price of time. If you manipulate it, you are going to hurt production."
Again, there's no 'price fixing'. You're conflating two absolutely different things.
You seem to throw words like 'distortion of long term production structure' without saying exactly HOW it is distorted, and why it's bad.
"I'd take a few years of depression"
Like, 20 years? And it still won't help much.
"As it is, the bailout has softened the pain but also prolonged it, so it's liable to be worse overall, like trying to massage a broken arm. Unemployment is still ridiculous and state governments like California and Illinois are virtually insolvent."
As I've said, stimulus was too small to combat unemployment efficiently. And NOT doing a stimulus would have meant even greater unemployment.
I completely agree with that objection.
However, the chance of implementing them was exactly zero. Democrats are too craven to do _anything_ and Republicans are completely sold out.
"The link was about the fallacies of using gold as a standard. I do not understand the hoopla of conservatives of screaming gold. The price is very volatile and I do not like that."
'Tight fiscal policy' people usually like gold standard (which is the ultimate 'tight' policy - quantity of financial gold does not change much).
"The 401Ks and economy that would fizzle would be bets to enslave the world in unsustainable debt. The derivatives market is higher than ever with people betting with everyone else s money."
? Derivate trading now is way less than several years ago. Mostly because the CDS market has collapsed.
"Prices of oil, homes, and even college education are all tied to banks trying to raise and manipulate prices. Eventually people will have no money to spend left which is where we are now because we have to pay back."
But without banks businesses will be hard-pressed to finance new development. So you can either have an economy with growing 'debt' or economy without grwoth. It's that simple.
Tertium non datur.
"0. The plan below would be publicly communicated, so that everybody knows the implications of a "bailout.""
There was no time, literally. A couple of weeks more, maximum.
I totally agree with other ideas. But still, the bailout would be necessary, you just call it "Bank could draw upon federal loans as needed to operate in the interim".
"Some economists from MIT state that FDR extended the great depression by using our current monetary policy of bailouts and socialism to hire people where the private did not."
Or "ome economists are idiots". It's rather easy to falsify their assumption: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/modified-goldbugism-at-the-wsj/
Also, look closely at 1937 when FDR had cut fiscal support.
"1. Use the $700 billion as lines of credits for businesses instead of banks (let them fail)"
Bad idea. It would have, essentially, created a big government-run bank, while destroying 401k investments of millions of people.
"2. Use what Eisenhower did when he authorized the highway act. Every penny invested returned more in private sector dollars. It enhanced commerce. Obama's plan does the opposite."
And this is a GOOD idea. Obama's plan tried to do the same, actually, but half-heartedly.
"People are too much in debt and letting the banks which hold the debt collapse would be beautiful leaving the small credit unions left and businesses could still borrow." :) You have a very naive idea about the way economy works. Dissolving the debt would mean dissolving the economy.
"This is not a recession. Its a whole depression. Look at the economic news today? Chicago and Atlanta are going back into recession and during the 1930s the stock market and GDP went up and down many times before it finally ended."
That's because the stimulus was not big enough. We're repeating 1937 now. And this WAS predicted by commonly used economy models.
"We still got burned and crushed. Wall Street is not an ER patient more than they are the criminals who started this."
So? Shooting them will still make life works for all of us. Not that I'm against it, we just need to make sure it won't hurt us first.
"All the bailout did was put money for them more to gamble and create another derivative bubble and bet on Greek treasury bonds losing value. I need a job and do not care about what they do."
Nope. Derivative bubbles are over, CDS market had essentially disappeared. Bailout helped to start de-leveraging process.
Your ideas about Greek bonds are not based on facts.
"Banks need to be illegally prohibited from moving money into the stock market. Glass-steagall needs to come back at all costs and I would love to see these guys fall as it would help the economy overall."
It probably won't really help much, there were ways around it before it had been repealed. It's probably better just to regulate the maximum leverage. Say, limit it to 12 (which is a historical mean).
"The depression would not be that bad as FDIC insurers no runs on the bank like in the 1930s."
FDIC is broke right now. If there were bank runs, it would have needed government bailout, probably approaching the original bailout in its size.
Moreover, Glass-Steagal can't be reinstated instantaneously. It'll require many years for banks to restructure their investments.
"Debt would be forgiven on many $400k loans for $200k houses and the market could return to normal supply and demand curves not distorted by artificial manipulated debt."
That would mean the economy is foobared completely by the time you start dissolving credit obligations.
So let's shoot all ER patients. After all, they are already ill.
Yes, without bailout money some of the worst Wall Street speculators would have crashed and burned. But all the economy would have crashed and burned along with them.
Now we have time to reform and contain badness in the global financial markets (not only Wall Street is guilty). However, a curious thing happens - conservatives do not want to apply tough regulations to financial players. Because it's bad for business.
"The reduction in revenue would have been the same as the stimulus cost... except that cutting taxes would been FAR better for the economy and employment."
Nope. A lie.
Taxes and employment are not directly linked. US had 3-4% unemployment during the periods of very high taxes, for example.
Also, cutting taxes works much worse than direct stimuli.
"Every dollar that government spends must necessarily take away from other productive capacity - every dollar government spends must necessarily be taxes, either directly, through inflation, or through borrowing (borrowing takes away from private investment, where else does the money come from?)."
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The price of money CHANGES over the time. During the depression it's EASY to print money because it doesn't increase the inflation. And in fact it ADDS to the productive capacity.
Please, read Krugman's analyses. He correctly predicted the economy's response to the stimulus, and I'm willing to bet he correctly predicts the coming deflation (unless no spending).
Arguments about the housing bubble are irrelevant. We're not trying to recreate it, we're trying to make economy grow again.
Actually, you're wrong.
First, 'communism' is an ideal like 100% laissez-faire pure ideal capitalism. So there were no true communistic countries. So the phrase 'the economic side of communism' does not really mean what you think it means. As ideals go, communism is OK (personally, I'd like to live in a communist world). Of course, communism turned out to be perfectly unachievable in the real world :)
Next, the word 'socialism' is waaaay overburdened. It can mean USSR-style command economy OR it can mean a form of society oriented towards well-being of its members. For example, Sweden is often characterized as 'socialistic' even though most of social services there are provided by private for-profit companies.
"I love when people leave out the September 11th attacks, as if the economic impact of that disaster and the and subsequent military response against the Taliban didn't have any impact on the deficit whatsoever."
I love when people leave out the Iraq war as if the economic impact of that disaster (which had nothing to do with 9/11) didn't have any impact on the deficit whatsoever.
"People's voices are amplified because we're in a recession, and Obama's stimulus packages haven't worked to address the high unemployment rate or low consumer confidence."
Obama's package HAD worked. We're out of depression now (i.e. the economy grows). It hadn't worked well enough because it was _small_.
Read here: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/how-did-we-know-the-stimulus-was-too-small/
"if he weren't a big-spending, Chicago-style-deal-making Liberal. Which, unfortunately, he is."
Obama has NOT spent much enough. Read Krugman's excellent analysis: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/how-did-we-know-the-stimulus-was-too-small/
"I posted often and frequently that the Bailout Bill was stupid, and that I was happy the Republicans voted it down. Then the Republicans turned-around and voted for the second, revised bill Nancy Pelosi came-up with, and I started calling them Bastards instead of Republicans."
Except that without the bailout you'd probably be out of the job, without unemployment benefits and in the middle of The Greatest Depression Ever. And I'm not exaggerating a bit. Without the bailout money the banking system would have collapsed.
But don't worry! Tea party stupidity has won in the end. And instead of more stimulus spending (which IS needed) USA has budget cuts and 'deficit reduction'. So look forward to enjoying deflation and stagnation! Cause that's what you were asking for.
"No what's "wrong" is that I am being forced to pay a $950 Fine because I exercised my Pro-Choice right not to buy hospital insurance."
That'd be OK if you also forfeit your right to call ER if you have, say, a sudden heart attack.
Muphry's law strikes again :)
"found a formulae that works" is incorrect.
It should either be "found a formula that works" or "found formulae that work".
KDE can use XRender and/or OpenGL 2.1.
ATMs are sold 'over the counter'.
They aren't even that expensive, it's possible to get a new ATM for about $2000 (though realistically a good ATM costs about $5000).