Remember, prices are a component of Wages + Rent + Profit.
In the short run, prices are sticky due to contracts, and as inflation is considered a rise in the price of goods over a period of time, We would not see it in the short run, as you describe.
Instead, what you are describing is deflation harming existing contracts in the medium run. While in the first scenario, the widget would STILL sell for 1.50 in period N, but in period N+1 due to wage and rent restructuring (remember, Price = Wage + Rent + Profits), the price level will fall. In the modern Keynesian approach, the velocity of money has fallen, and because the price level is equal to the money supply, multiplied by the velocity of money divided by the quantity of goods and services purchased, and as V is not constant, the change in V does not have a negligible affect on deflation. (dp/p=dv/dm*dm/m)
Now, these contracts will, now that they can get "more for less", enable businesses to pay a smaller wage to the worker (one part of price) and allow the suppliers of the input to renegotiate their wage contracts, which then allows for a lower price to the final manufacturer.
Now, this is bad NOT because of what you say, but because it truly screws the consumer and any holder of debt. In a deflationary society, even though the price level is falling, the worker will receive a lower wage, as is natural. However, if he holds a significant portion of debt, he is STILL obligated to pay off the debt at the pre-deflationary rate, which, needless to say, is bad as the owner is now shouldered with a significant extra level of debt. Also note, that ALL interest transactions are calculated with the assumption of low, stable inflation, if this was not true, then banks would be forced, in order to protect their money, to charge a much higher real interest in order to protect their money from the risk of unexpected inflation. Therefore, these debts were created with the assumption of approximately a 3-5% inflation rate, and NOT a 1-2% deflation. This is what causes businesses to go under, NOT a change in the price level.
Big negative buddy. While the price has dropped, both supply and demand has increased. The magnitude is what has caused this drop in prices. They are making just as much, if not more money than they were in the 80's. Remember Profit = Price*Quantity - Total Costs. In this case Q has increased while P has fallen, but Q has increased by such an amount to more than offset the lack of $85 dollar games (adjusted for inflation).
Link for record Nintendo financials POST 1989
They are doing this because of the money making opportunities that are present in the cities. Akin to migrant workers. So the peasantry isn't exactly happy that the economic boom has seem to forgotten them.
Thats not quite true. Party membership in the countryside has decreased by 80% since 1990 and protests aren't as uncommon as you would think. The peasantry does not agree with the Chinese policy of land reclamation for the purposes of economic growth as they are not adequately compensated. Granted, the CCP has given the average Chinese person an unprecedented level of government control (with the Mass Line and whatnot) and it is a far cry better than what was given to them in the Imperial era, but, as you stated, there are segments which have traditionally spoken ill against the government (Teachers, Students, Literati...)
The Chinese government is able to stay in control because of its level of domination throughout society. Even though there were many reforms to open up China post Cultural Revolution, the fact remains that the CCP is able to exert a large amount of control over the population with its economic policy and if need be the PLA. Historically, no Chinese government could exist when the peasantry completely hated the government (see Ming overthrow and CCP victory in the civil war), so there is some support of the government, but don't paint such a rosy picture of the situation.
On your point about how the CCP is able to spark ill feelings about the West, be careful not to paint this as being unique to the CCP. The Qing sparked this mentality during the Boxer "rebellion" and felt the effects earlier during the Taiping rebellion. Furthermore, one of the core tenants of the October Revolution was the formation of a strong Chinese republic free from the control of other nations. The West seriously fucked up China, and any government, especially the CCP with their use of peasant nationalism (see Chalmers Johnson and his book "Peasant Nationalism and Communist Power") during and after WWII, would not have to try hard to spark the bitter feelings of Imperialism and foreign domination (see Frederic Wakeman and his book "Strangers at the Gate.")
But only the NSA, with its arsenal of waivers, loopholes, special authorizations (and heaven knows what else) is allowed to take down a U.S. network
Um, isn't the NSA part of the DoD? So they would not need anything special to take down a network as they are all under the same organization. Or, likewise, they would have consent which would allow them to attack the network. I really do not see the need for such a fear-mongering statement at the end of this summary.
First, it is very important to note that Tibet's current situation is completely due to the absolute incompetence of its leadership.
Your argument "Chinese oppressing the Tibet people for centuries" is invalid because the Chinese had a very minimal presence during the Qing and damn near none during the Ming. In fact, it has historically been when Tibet thought that it could overthrow the Chinese powers that the Chinese sent its armies in (see the Qing/Early CCP).
One point that must be said is that the Tibetans had a golden opportunity to modernize their country and make this entire issue moot during the chaotic period following the fall of the Qing Dynasty; however, being a religious monarchy (yes, the leader of Tibet is chosen by a group of people as a "reincarnation of the Dalai Lama"), the staunch Buddhist supporters decided that to modernize the country would interfere with its traditional Buddhist practices thus killing any hope of defending their sovereignty.
Furthermore, even Mao Zedong recognized the extreme cultural differences between Tibet and China and OFFERED them exactly what the Dalai Lama is requesting today after he "liberated Tibet." Hell, he even would not have enacted land reform or collectivization in Tibet! However, once again, Tibet thought that through rebellion that it could achieve sovereignty and dashed any hopes of a progressive introduction into China.
Even though you said "...like tor", please do not suggest using tor for p2p. It will slow the already congested network. It would be better to say "an encrypted vpn in a country with better privacy laws than "
the site is a bit long, but basically it says that they don't pick the best people, only those who will sell them the most music. Business wise, it makes perfect sense, however, the system does not let the best rise to the top, and those choices that the public is presented with are those which are cherry picked to sell the most records. The entire show is a ruse to line Simon's pockets anyway (his company owns the rights to the show and the contract of the performer).
1) The contestants are selected in a grueling process of elimination where actual performance is judged brutally by judges, like Simon who doesn't pull punches when the performance is sub-par, without regard to favoritism, who the contestant is connected with, or crap like that but rather solely upon whether or not, in the opinion of the judges, the contestant could earn the best return on their (Simon's) money if they sign them for a recording contract...
Fraid not bud. http://www.votefortheworst.com/auditions
They could take any old sap and make him into a star (see that horrible guy who sang shebang or whatever it was called)
What you are describing appears to be just competition over a limited resource pool. While the current competition may not be with foodstuffs, the competition is by no means gone. With limited resources, if multiple people are in need/want of said resource (i.e: Jobs, colleges, toys, whatever), any reasonable person will try and get it by hook or by crook. Its our very nature to do so. Without the drive for competition, we (humanity) would not have been able to survive in our younger years against our competitors.
***put on tin foil hat***
This company http://www.solfocus.com/technology_gen2.html seems to have a good idea of built in concentrators. And according to TFA the DOE came up with 30% efficient panels 12 years ago. My question is: why are these breakthrough technologies being exclusively sold to the space program and utilities? Are they just too expensive to be marketed to consumers? Or is there some sort of conspiriacy going on to keep this stuff out of our hands?
Slashdot Mirror
Remember, prices are a component of Wages + Rent + Profit.
In the short run, prices are sticky due to contracts, and as inflation is considered a rise in the price of goods over a period of time, We would not see it in the short run, as you describe.
Instead, what you are describing is deflation harming existing contracts in the medium run. While in the first scenario, the widget would STILL sell for 1.50 in period N, but in period N+1 due to wage and rent restructuring (remember, Price = Wage + Rent + Profits), the price level will fall. In the modern Keynesian approach, the velocity of money has fallen, and because the price level is equal to the money supply, multiplied by the velocity of money divided by the quantity of goods and services purchased, and as V is not constant, the change in V does not have a negligible affect on deflation. (dp/p=dv/dm*dm/m)
Now, these contracts will, now that they can get "more for less", enable businesses to pay a smaller wage to the worker (one part of price) and allow the suppliers of the input to renegotiate their wage contracts, which then allows for a lower price to the final manufacturer.
Now, this is bad NOT because of what you say, but because it truly screws the consumer and any holder of debt. In a deflationary society, even though the price level is falling, the worker will receive a lower wage, as is natural. However, if he holds a significant portion of debt, he is STILL obligated to pay off the debt at the pre-deflationary rate, which, needless to say, is bad as the owner is now shouldered with a significant extra level of debt. Also note, that ALL interest transactions are calculated with the assumption of low, stable inflation, if this was not true, then banks would be forced, in order to protect their money, to charge a much higher real interest in order to protect their money from the risk of unexpected inflation. Therefore, these debts were created with the assumption of approximately a 3-5% inflation rate, and NOT a 1-2% deflation. This is what causes businesses to go under, NOT a change in the price level.
Big negative buddy. While the price has dropped, both supply and demand has increased. The magnitude is what has caused this drop in prices. They are making just as much, if not more money than they were in the 80's. Remember Profit = Price*Quantity - Total Costs. In this case Q has increased while P has fallen, but Q has increased by such an amount to more than offset the lack of $85 dollar games (adjusted for inflation). Link for record Nintendo financials POST 1989
ASL?
Minor nitpicking for the fellows overseas:
Senators are elected in the United States every six years
Representatives are elected every two years
So it would be not senators who have to face their rivals every two years, but representatives
They are doing this because of the money making opportunities that are present in the cities. Akin to migrant workers. So the peasantry isn't exactly happy that the economic boom has seem to forgotten them.
Thats not quite true. Party membership in the countryside has decreased by 80% since 1990 and protests aren't as uncommon as you would think. The peasantry does not agree with the Chinese policy of land reclamation for the purposes of economic growth as they are not adequately compensated. Granted, the CCP has given the average Chinese person an unprecedented level of government control (with the Mass Line and whatnot) and it is a far cry better than what was given to them in the Imperial era, but, as you stated, there are segments which have traditionally spoken ill against the government (Teachers, Students, Literati...)
The Chinese government is able to stay in control because of its level of domination throughout society. Even though there were many reforms to open up China post Cultural Revolution, the fact remains that the CCP is able to exert a large amount of control over the population with its economic policy and if need be the PLA. Historically, no Chinese government could exist when the peasantry completely hated the government (see Ming overthrow and CCP victory in the civil war), so there is some support of the government, but don't paint such a rosy picture of the situation.
On your point about how the CCP is able to spark ill feelings about the West, be careful not to paint this as being unique to the CCP. The Qing sparked this mentality during the Boxer "rebellion" and felt the effects earlier during the Taiping rebellion. Furthermore, one of the core tenants of the October Revolution was the formation of a strong Chinese republic free from the control of other nations. The West seriously fucked up China, and any government, especially the CCP with their use of peasant nationalism (see Chalmers Johnson and his book "Peasant Nationalism and Communist Power") during and after WWII, would not have to try hard to spark the bitter feelings of Imperialism and foreign domination (see Frederic Wakeman and his book "Strangers at the Gate.")
But only the NSA, with its arsenal of waivers, loopholes, special authorizations (and heaven knows what else) is allowed to take down a U.S. network
Um, isn't the NSA part of the DoD? So they would not need anything special to take down a network as they are all under the same organization. Or, likewise, they would have consent which would allow them to attack the network. I really do not see the need for such a fear-mongering statement at the end of this summary.
Second rule: dont mod up the person talking about the first rule.
First, it is very important to note that Tibet's current situation is completely due to the absolute incompetence of its leadership.
Your argument "Chinese oppressing the Tibet people for centuries" is invalid because the Chinese had a very minimal presence during the Qing and damn near none during the Ming. In fact, it has historically been when Tibet thought that it could overthrow the Chinese powers that the Chinese sent its armies in (see the Qing/Early CCP).
One point that must be said is that the Tibetans had a golden opportunity to modernize their country and make this entire issue moot during the chaotic period following the fall of the Qing Dynasty; however, being a religious monarchy (yes, the leader of Tibet is chosen by a group of people as a "reincarnation of the Dalai Lama"), the staunch Buddhist supporters decided that to modernize the country would interfere with its traditional Buddhist practices thus killing any hope of defending their sovereignty.
Furthermore, even Mao Zedong recognized the extreme cultural differences between Tibet and China and OFFERED them exactly what the Dalai Lama is requesting today after he "liberated Tibet." Hell, he even would not have enacted land reform or collectivization in Tibet! However, once again, Tibet thought that through rebellion that it could achieve sovereignty and dashed any hopes of a progressive introduction into China.
I wholly recommend reading The Snow Lion and the Dragon: China, Tibet, and the Dalai Lama for a very good view on Chinese Imperialism in Tibet throughout the dynasties.
RTFA. Only NAZI's dont read articles.
meh, forgot about the html
"an encrypted vpn in a country with better privacy laws than [insert country here]"
Even though you said "...like tor", please do not suggest using tor for p2p. It will slow the already congested network. It would be better to say "an encrypted vpn in a country with better privacy laws than "
The second that the hot dog vendor is able to say those words INSIDE MY HEAD, then you have a point. Until then, stop with the strawmans.
Missing option: 1,000,000,000,000 High Quality Text files
wow, for a price like that how COULD I go wrong!
shill....
the site is a bit long, but basically it says that they don't pick the best people, only those who will sell them the most music. Business wise, it makes perfect sense, however, the system does not let the best rise to the top, and those choices that the public is presented with are those which are cherry picked to sell the most records. The entire show is a ruse to line Simon's pockets anyway (his company owns the rights to the show and the contract of the performer).
Its a crying shame that more officers do not mimic you. I hope you are trying to spread this message throughout the force.
Fraid not bud. http://www.votefortheworst.com/auditions
They could take any old sap and make him into a star (see that horrible guy who sang shebang or whatever it was called)
What you are describing appears to be just competition over a limited resource pool. While the current competition may not be with foodstuffs, the competition is by no means gone. With limited resources, if multiple people are in need/want of said resource (i.e: Jobs, colleges, toys, whatever), any reasonable person will try and get it by hook or by crook. Its our very nature to do so. Without the drive for competition, we (humanity) would not have been able to survive in our younger years against our competitors.
Radio Shack has cell phones to keep them afloat for now...
Not quite. If Russia was to push into west germany during the cold war, the battle plan was to use nuclear weapons to try and fend off the USSR.
The japanese are able to wipe their own culture (or change it on a whim) out quite well on their own...
http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/
***put on tin foil hat*** This company http://www.solfocus.com/technology_gen2.html seems to have a good idea of built in concentrators. And according to TFA the DOE came up with 30% efficient panels 12 years ago. My question is: why are these breakthrough technologies being exclusively sold to the space program and utilities? Are they just too expensive to be marketed to consumers? Or is there some sort of conspiriacy going on to keep this stuff out of our hands?
Cost maybe?
o the land of the free.....