He's also claiming that obese individuals will add body mass in absence of excess calories based on self-reporting of calorie intake.
The critical word here is "excess" and how that's defined and determined. The two of you likely have different equally valid definitions for this word, which result in your two different conclusions, and which invalidates the "mass appearing from nothing" conclusion.
I purposefully take no position on this particular comment thread, so I can attempt to see if either of those laws had been broken, and I certainly don't see a violation of the laws of thermodynamics nor the laws of conservation of mass. Given you impose your definition, and supposes it is the objective definition, it is still at best a weak violation of those laws.
If he does mean type 2 diabetes, then this does not provide support for sugar being toxic. As it is not the sugar making this happen, but instead it is a problem with the bodies internal ability to correctly produce insulin.
Most people assume the body is some amazing machine, which produces the correct, accurate, amounts of what we need, and what we don't need. If you start from this axiom, then any problem is due to use tampering with it. The problem being, our bodies, and in fact, how we come to be, is more of a probabilistic system. Where the body produces the correct amount of insulin, merely by estimation, and via an elaborate internal system.
What this means is that, on average, over the entire population, it will produce the correct amount. Much as on average, over the entire population, we have 8 fingers, and 2 thumbs. Some people will be outside of this average. The difference being, having fewer/more fingers/thumbs is very noticeable and shocking/debilitating, where as having an internal system which doesn't correctly produce the right amount of insulin, is far more subtle.
I saw that, but I was more concerned with his background in research/education on this topic, which seems to be lacking. Else, amongst those authorities I should count Jenny Craig, Martha Stewart, and Jamie Oliver. None of which are real authorities on this subject, but all of which work in "nutrition/health/lifestyle".
When ever I see someone quoting the laws of thermodynamics in relation to health/weight/dieting, they are always badly applied, and without any understanding of how the body works.
So, what is his "carb hypothesis", and how does it violate the laws of thermodynamics and how does it violate the laws of conservation of mass?
The only slightly relevant thing I see he has to do with topics of this matter, is that he created some software to help people with disabilities, and others which attempted to help people learn about medicine.
Am I missing something here? He seems like the most random possible choice for someone to consider an "authority" on the topic.
MATLAB is BETTER than R? Holy shit, R must look fucking terrible, because even in MATLAB 2010b, after a bit of editing, the result is still fucking hideous.
If a server like this was put in by them, and knowing that nobody really wants to maintain their own servers, it's likely that the organizations beaurocracy, or the IT departments managerial skills, are so bad that departments need to take control of these sorts of things.
I've seen it in other places. If IT for whatever reason doesn't get their shit together, people find ways around it.
Excellent, I studied CS originally, and worked as a programmer for years, before going to back and studying economics/finance/accounting, as this is more my passion. At the moment, I'm well on track to (if my grades stay where they are) be in an extremely good position to get a job at a central bank. Hopefully doing this exact sort of analysis.
So, lemme try cover this quickly, and be less cunty.:-) Sorry, I was just a bit of an asshole before.
Have a read of the Sanya Declaration, while it does talk about central banks and similar, this regulation is intended for banks and large financial institutions. This is why they are talking about "...the risks of massive cross-border capital flows...", if they were talking about their own central banks, this problem would be easily dealt with.
When making loans to entities, government or elsewise, which are denominated in a foreign countries currency, you expose yourself to exchange rate risk, this risk plays both loosely (uncovered) and strongly (covered) with the interest rates seen in the local economies. As such when large "cross-border capital flows" shift the exchange rates, effects are seen in the capital markets. The more exposed a country is, the greater these effects are. This can induce a crisis in a country, based on a crisis in another country.
As such, this declaration is that they will attempt to regulate the asset side of the balance sheet of banks and large financial institutions, which essentially stops them from making loans denominated in a foreign currency. However, while this is one side of the effect, the other side is created by the liabilities side of the balance sheet, where banks and financial institutions are able to receive finance from other organizations, and it can be denominated in a foreign currency. This ensures that they CAN still be exposed to this risk, and actually might be MORE at risk, because they are unable to match their liabilities and assets in that currency.
Now, even if they did denominate their assets and liabilities in the local currency, they would have merely traded exchange rate risk, for interest rate risk and default risk. While this does change the dynamic, it does not eliminate the risk. This risk is inherent in a global, inter-connected world. You may change the way you look at it, but it will never go away.
Here's why it doesn't matter, the countries listed have very small, capital markets, on the whole. Their debt is most likely raised in markets in countries and from countries such as the United States, and the United Kingdom, where this declaration makes absolutely no change. As it only affects them when dealing with BRICS countries, this makes the declaration even more toothless. It would be like the United States passing a resolution to allow no more H1N1 Visas from Liberia.
This means, the actual declaration is totally a irrelevant. At best, it does not change anything. At worst, it opens them up to a situation where their banks could be more risky than before.
As far as I can tell, the only thing this does, is provide the leadership with PR, and make people think they are doing something about the reliance on the USD. When in actual fact, it does nothing of the kind.
LOL. Now while I am waving my appeal to authority, and appeal to accomplishment, it is because these days, I operate in a sector where absolutely EVERYONE is an expert. I regularly have red necks telling me "they knows the economicses", and professing to understand extremely complex systems, which even honest economists would not say they totally understand them. So, I tend to get quite angered when someone who obviously hasn't studied the topic, essentially says that they understand it, and that I've got it all wrong. I find that they usually have little grasp of th
It was never implied they needed USD anyway. If you have a look at this policy, it explicitly states that this is ONLY when dealing with other BRICS (The S is for South Africa, not a plural) countries. Hence that doesn't change that situation. Also, they could have been operating in this way if they wanted to, already.
It doesn't even mean when trading with each other, that they need deal in their own currencies. All it states is that when making loans to entities in other BRICS countries, the loans need be denominated in their local currency.
Debt doesn't make money valuable, the unlikelihood of the double coincidence of wants creates the need for money, and is specifically designed for being a store of value, and as a mechanism of trade, and many other things. In a fiat economy, it is the same, the possibility of inflation and a devaluation of money, changes this in no way. However, if there were an uncertainty in the future value of dollars, this would reduce the value of dollars, and of debt.
The BRICS countries will still have debt in dollars, this policy does not change that, it only changes what happens when dealing with each other. Additionally, I believe it is only binding on the banks, and not necessarily the central bank.
This policy, in absolutely no way, affects how they deal with the US.
If this policy did say anything binding about their holding US denominated assets, then China would have to drop approximately $1 trillion in debt.
I can't emphasize this enough, and I can't understand why it keeps getting repeated. It's the fucking first line of the article for fucks sake.
Thursday signed an agreement to use their own currencies instead of the predominant US dollar in issuing credit or grants to each other.
What you said above, is totally irrelevant. Now that you know what it does, what does this actually do?
The only thing I see it doing, is providing them with positive PR, from the people who don't understand what policies like this do. As it stands, they can still take on foreign denominated liabilities with each other, they just can't take on foreign denominated assets, as such, they essentially tie their hands with regards to exchange rate risk hedging. Which seems extremely odd, except for the fact that they likely have very little liabilities and assets form either side.
it is no longer dependent on the current or the future state of US economy, nor does it have a reason to care about possible changes it may create there.
Well, that's not right. Just because they aren't directly dealing with the US, doesn't mean the US has no affect. It would still affect trade, the non-BRICS loans (C-I, I-C), it would affect their partners, the other banks they deal with, etc.
They take out a loan from each other to import goods
If you're talking about the underwriting services provided by banks, such as bank bills so when trading with international companies, they can be assured the deal will go through, then you're wrong. First of all, bank bills and these notes (as far as I have seen) have always been denominated in the local currency. The bank isn't protecting them from exchange rate risk, only default risk.
Additionally, trade can be done without this, and is up to whatever the trading partners wish to engage in. The defacto currency generally being the USD.
The article even states "this will not affect trade". This policy regards only loans made by banks, to entities in a BRICS country.
The rest of your response is babbling nonsense, and from what I can tell its still about trade, and is mostly addressed by the above. Are you sure you studied this at university?
I didn't consider the monetary policy angle, however that doesn't stop them making international loans. First it only affects BRICS loans, nothing else. So, that point is moot regardless. However, even with BRICS loans, it doesn't stop them making them, only that they need be denominated in local currency. This doesn't mean they have to do anything different in the currency markets, their contracts just stipulate that they're paid in local currency. This sort of reduced exchange rate risk, but not really, as its now shifted to default risk.
Also, their liabilities are still able to be foreign currency denominated.
So, I don't think this changes anything. They don't have more control over monetary policy, their money demand and supply will still work just as ineffectively. Fiscal policy it doesn't change at all either, since their money multiplier will be just as ineffective. The result being little to no change.
However, yes, national pride is likely the only reason. But not because they're standing up to the big bully, since nothing has changed which could possibly affect them. The only thing I see benefiting them, is that the average person, THINKS this did something. Which will possibly get them re-elected. So, it's basically just a marketing ploy. Something to get more votes, without doing... anything.
(Side note: I am currently studying a double degree a bachelor (honours) in economics, and bachelor of finance, while picking up all the units required for a bachelor of accounting, so feel free not to dumb it down, especially if you work in the area)
As someone who seems to like what was done, for a reason which makes no sense, you should really go read the article again.
It doesn't change trade.
It doesn't change anything when they're NOT dealing with BRICS countries.
It doesn't change the banks liabilities side.
It only restricts how they can make loans (banks assets side) to other BRICS countries.
That's it. It's the most toothless "reform" ever. It's so toothless, it doesn't actually do ANYTHING, EXCEPT expose them to more interest/exchange rate risk when dealing with other BRICS countries.
LOL. So before you go celebrating, you should first read what they actually did, and then study what this actually means.
You essentially just celebrated the marginal weakening of your banking system, as they can now, no longer, ensure that their liabilities and assets are matched, in any fashion. However, I say marginal, because it's likely that NONE of their liabilities are held in BRICS foreign denominated loans. So... at best, nothing has changed. At worst, they just exposed you to more risk.
So... Enjoy your now more convoluted economy! K TNX BAI!
Interesting, though this doesn't mean much. Trade will still be in USD, it's just loans will only be made in their own currencies. Even more so, it will only be made in their respective currencies WHEN dealing with each other. Though, you can see why they limited it to "only when dealing with each other", since China would be forced to drop $1 trillion of its USD assets. Which would be hilarious... chaotic, but still hilarious.
This seems less of a "lets get rid of the USD" and more of a "lets stop our banks from being exposed to external interest rate risk, but only when we're dealing with each other, lets not go crazy now". The idea behind this change, I am in favour of, the idea of it being implemented by government, I'm not.
First of all, when dealing with loans to other countries, it doesn't change anything. Since all of these countries aren't particularly awesome currencies to lend in anyway, it's not a big deal. Off the top of my head, the biggest finance markets are America, UK, and everything else is much smaller.
So effectively if they had made it such that they couldn't lend or borrow in BRICS currencies, then they'd have taken away the interest rate/exchange rate risk, or more so, they'd have shifted it to default risk.
But they haven't done that, they only made this restriction on the asset side, which does... absolutely fucking nothing. Except, it does expose them to the possibility of forcing their banks into more risky positions, given they took on foreign denominated liabilities. They would be restricted from ever issuing foreign denominated assets, in an attempt to match them, and reduce the exchange/interest rate risk.
This really seems like a "we meant to make reasonable reform, till we realized that this would totally fuck us, and the world, so we just made it nonsense reform, which we can show our constituents, and hopefully get re-elected".
It doesn't change much, and the only changes it does make, only hurts it in many situations.
Can anyone (WHO HAS STUDIED THIS TOPIC AT A UNIVERSITY) shed some light on possible reasons for doing this?
You've either never read Slashdot before, and you didn't read the other posts of THIS EXACT SAME QUESTION, or you're an idiot.
Please, please, please. Stop asking this question. I've read so many responses to this, I'm almost an expert on low level routing protocols, completely against my will.
Yeah, while I hate being the part of the internet to first go through the crunch (though I've seen this coming for years), I am happy that IPv6 is finally going to be pushed through. Now that the Great Address Space Crunch is here!
I don't like your definition of out, since that's like saying "There's food in this cage, you can't eat it, but you're not out of food". To the hungry person, their effective quantity of available food, is nothing. Additionally, if we then implement APNIC's policy "Okay, it's not that you can't eat it. But we're going to give a tiny portion, to a few people, every now and then, such that this food may last an amazingly long time". By your measure, IPv4 may never run out. Sure, we can't get any more addresses, but there are addresses there, so, we're not out... right?
Their policy is to keep these allocations small, to provide for IPv4 to IPv6 services, so they are rationed out, this means that, IPv4 may NEVER run out, because by the time they go to allocate the last/22, which might be quite a long time from now (due to how slow this pool will drop), then IPv6 may be implemented and demand for IPv4 may dwindle.
But by your measure, we're not out. Sure, we're starving, but we're not out of food, it's just in that cage over there.
Read the APNIC article on it. Yes they have a/8 remaining, and this/8 will last for fucking ages. Why? Because they are going to be rationed out. To ensure that ISP's can provide IPv4 to IPv6 tunnels and so that these aren't centralized with a few providers.
Ergo, they are out, in the old sense. Just because they are there, doesn't mean you can get them. Each network is limited to 1,/22.
I don't know about you, but given your ability to get them is greatly reduced, they are out effectively out. As my ISP (I live in Australia) will no longer be able to obtain more IPv4's (after their last lot that is).
The reason why they often want you to arrive at a specific result, even if it was an exact answer (they want it simplified), purely because they have hundreds of these to mark (more so at university), and if each has used a slightly different method, perhaps one you're not expecting, yet arrived at the answer, but not simplified it for you, you may not realize it.
It increases their already strained work load immensely.
I need a calculator as I can generally do the more advanced stuff, but give me simple addition, multiplication, etc, and I totally fuck it up. Quite annoying. It's like, because it's so simple, my mind decides not to devote ANY effort towards it. In comparison, something more challenging, I could stare at for hours on end, perhaps even spend an entire night working on it. (It's bad when I get this hyperfocus in exams, I end up spending too much time on one challenging problem, instead of moving on to the easier ones)
I knew a machinist, who upon getting his final certification, went "fuck this job". CNC, while it adds a layer of abstraction, is quite easy. I've seen the code he deals with. It's basic math, basic operations, and takes little to learn. Now, I do know that SOME, machinist jobs require an extreme amount of knowledge and education. A different friend of did a Bachelor of Engineering and works in that field. Though I'm sure there's an amazingly small percentage which didn't take that route.
Auto-Technician? That's a shitty job, and while it requires some knowledge, it doesn't require much. You wouldn't say that's a particularly hard job to train for, would you?
Welder? My father is a welder, he did his trade in sheet metal work, hadn't done much welding at all, and hadn't touched metal in 20 years. He then went back to a factory and learnt to weld in 2 weeks at his new job. Now, I did work experience at BAE Systems, where I met some welders who were welding parts of battle ships. These were amazingly long giant pieces of metal, with beading that was something like 2 feet wide, and so amazingly consistent all the way along. That was brilliant. That I would concede was an amazing job, however they were in the extreme minority, they were lucky to get those positions, and many people could learn them quite easily.
Wait... what... architects? When I think about white collar workers, I scarcely think about "house drawers". If you want to think about people who produce, you should think about engineers, physicists, mathematicians, etc. In fact, the people who setup the welding guys at BAE Systems (above) were engineers who I was with. They were the ones who defined how it would be welded, to what tolerances, designed the setup, and managed the man who did the work.
One of my uncles builds roads, and recently he did an airport runway. Even though he's a blue collar worker, and hates how much money his manager makes, he does concede, that while he does the back breaking labour, he's not really building the runway. That's what his manager, the engineer is doing. The guy who designs, plans, implements, measures, and manages the entire process. The rest of the guys, while they do have skill (eg, driving the various custom machinery), they could all be replaced, quite easily, by a hundred other people. Sure initially the guy might not be that good, and you wouldn't want to replace everyone at one instance, however the learning curve is small, and it requires little effort. Hell, my uncle was in the military (rifleman), then worked as a screw, then walked into this job with absolutely no training.
Now, I'm not saying EVERYONE needs to educate themselves, however those who can, especially those in industries which have an over supply of workers, who can be so easily replaced, they should be using the luck they've got, growing up in a country like this, to educate themselves. While the rest of the world vies for those jobs, we should aspire to higher ones, as we are afforded the benefit of doing so. In this way, we can work WITH the rest of the world, not against (I know, a crazy concept), to provide the things we all need, and to progress our civilization.
Unfortunately, we see people instead argue that their shitty, low paying, easy way out career should be propped up by those of us who didn't take their path? More so, they often argue this out of some nationalistic pride, which is what really gets me, the idea that because they look like me, that I should support them, more than I should support someone who doesn't look like me. It's an absurd proposition. I've more respect for the immigrants who take a risk, and do something to provide for their family, by "taking their jobs", than I do for the workers who don't take the same initiative. I've even more respect for the immigrants who are risking everything on getting a valuable education. Those people, are coming from worse situations, than you and I could ever imagine, yet striving and aspiring to do things greater than the blue collar workers could be bothered to do.
I'll assume you're one of the "knuckle dragging blue collar workers". I assume this because of the vitriol in your post, and partially because of the absurd logic trap you built for yourself.
My post was saying "blue collar workers keep complaining about their jobs going over seas, and complaining about the price their skills can demand, going down".
Your post is saying "the knuckle dragging blue collar worker has a leg up on the debt saturated graduate".
So, this is in contrast to my statement. If they have a leg up, why would my statement make you angry? It would be totally irrational. If they have a leg up, then why would they want us to subsidise and regulate their wages? If they have a leg up, then I would never have the opportunity to post the reference I gathered above.
Just for kicks, and just in case I was imagining everything, I decided to look up cities which are principally associated with blue collar work. Such as Detroit, Buffalo, Cleveland, St. Louis. It was amazing to see exactly how much negative growth they've had. Negative economically, and population wise.
Now, I'm a recent graduate, and the only friends who have had trouble finding work, are those that studied a BA. The rest got them almost straight away. So, I'm not sure how many are drowning in debt. If you're talking about the marketing students, the art students, and similar easy programs. While they do invest in their education, they are, to some extent, guilty of the same problem. Picking an easier way. Which turns out to not be a good long term strategy.
Lastly I came from a working class family, and the greatest thing they instilled in me was "GET EDUCATED, DON'T SETTLE!"
These blue collar workers, especially the ones who aren't in a job, should take the luck they've received, by being born in a country with a reasonable education system, and put it to good use.
Yeah. I do agree with that. You should be allowed to specialize more, and earlier. Even at the risk that you perhaps acted hasty, and go back to study something else later.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it's hard sometimes. He could be serious, there's enough information to suggest he might be, but he shouldn't be.
Good troll is good!
He's also claiming that obese individuals will add body mass in absence of excess calories based on self-reporting of calorie intake.
The critical word here is "excess" and how that's defined and determined. The two of you likely have different equally valid definitions for this word, which result in your two different conclusions, and which invalidates the "mass appearing from nothing" conclusion.
I purposefully take no position on this particular comment thread, so I can attempt to see if either of those laws had been broken, and I certainly don't see a violation of the laws of thermodynamics nor the laws of conservation of mass. Given you impose your definition, and supposes it is the objective definition, it is still at best a weak violation of those laws.
Thanks for the links!
If he does mean type 2 diabetes, then this does not provide support for sugar being toxic. As it is not the sugar making this happen, but instead it is a problem with the bodies internal ability to correctly produce insulin.
Most people assume the body is some amazing machine, which produces the correct, accurate, amounts of what we need, and what we don't need. If you start from this axiom, then any problem is due to use tampering with it. The problem being, our bodies, and in fact, how we come to be, is more of a probabilistic system. Where the body produces the correct amount of insulin, merely by estimation, and via an elaborate internal system.
What this means is that, on average, over the entire population, it will produce the correct amount. Much as on average, over the entire population, we have 8 fingers, and 2 thumbs. Some people will be outside of this average. The difference being, having fewer/more fingers/thumbs is very noticeable and shocking/debilitating, where as having an internal system which doesn't correctly produce the right amount of insulin, is far more subtle.
I saw that, but I was more concerned with his background in research/education on this topic, which seems to be lacking. Else, amongst those authorities I should count Jenny Craig, Martha Stewart, and Jamie Oliver. None of which are real authorities on this subject, but all of which work in "nutrition/health/lifestyle".
LOL Yes he was, and as such, he must be.
When ever I see someone quoting the laws of thermodynamics in relation to health/weight/dieting, they are always badly applied, and without any understanding of how the body works.
So, what is his "carb hypothesis", and how does it violate the laws of thermodynamics and how does it violate the laws of conservation of mass?
Really? Ask Ray Kurzweil? Really?
The only slightly relevant thing I see he has to do with topics of this matter, is that he created some software to help people with disabilities, and others which attempted to help people learn about medicine.
Am I missing something here? He seems like the most random possible choice for someone to consider an "authority" on the topic.
changing mind on specs and ideas almost daily
He was taking the "and now for something completely different" approach.
Or perhaps he was just practising for the "upper class twit of the year" contest?
MATLAB is BETTER than R? Holy shit, R must look fucking terrible, because even in MATLAB 2010b, after a bit of editing, the result is still fucking hideous.
If a server like this was put in by them, and knowing that nobody really wants to maintain their own servers, it's likely that the organizations beaurocracy, or the IT departments managerial skills, are so bad that departments need to take control of these sorts of things.
I've seen it in other places. If IT for whatever reason doesn't get their shit together, people find ways around it.
Excellent, I studied CS originally, and worked as a programmer for years, before going to back and studying economics/finance/accounting, as this is more my passion. At the moment, I'm well on track to (if my grades stay where they are) be in an extremely good position to get a job at a central bank. Hopefully doing this exact sort of analysis.
So, lemme try cover this quickly, and be less cunty. :-) Sorry, I was just a bit of an asshole before.
Have a read of the Sanya Declaration, while it does talk about central banks and similar, this regulation is intended for banks and large financial institutions. This is why they are talking about "...the risks of massive cross-border capital flows...", if they were talking about their own central banks, this problem would be easily dealt with.
When making loans to entities, government or elsewise, which are denominated in a foreign countries currency, you expose yourself to exchange rate risk, this risk plays both loosely (uncovered) and strongly (covered) with the interest rates seen in the local economies. As such when large "cross-border capital flows" shift the exchange rates, effects are seen in the capital markets. The more exposed a country is, the greater these effects are. This can induce a crisis in a country, based on a crisis in another country.
As such, this declaration is that they will attempt to regulate the asset side of the balance sheet of banks and large financial institutions, which essentially stops them from making loans denominated in a foreign currency. However, while this is one side of the effect, the other side is created by the liabilities side of the balance sheet, where banks and financial institutions are able to receive finance from other organizations, and it can be denominated in a foreign currency. This ensures that they CAN still be exposed to this risk, and actually might be MORE at risk, because they are unable to match their liabilities and assets in that currency.
Now, even if they did denominate their assets and liabilities in the local currency, they would have merely traded exchange rate risk, for interest rate risk and default risk. While this does change the dynamic, it does not eliminate the risk. This risk is inherent in a global, inter-connected world. You may change the way you look at it, but it will never go away.
Here's why it doesn't matter, the countries listed have very small, capital markets, on the whole. Their debt is most likely raised in markets in countries and from countries such as the United States, and the United Kingdom, where this declaration makes absolutely no change. As it only affects them when dealing with BRICS countries, this makes the declaration even more toothless. It would be like the United States passing a resolution to allow no more H1N1 Visas from Liberia.
This means, the actual declaration is totally a irrelevant. At best, it does not change anything. At worst, it opens them up to a situation where their banks could be more risky than before.
As far as I can tell, the only thing this does, is provide the leadership with PR, and make people think they are doing something about the reliance on the USD. When in actual fact, it does nothing of the kind.
LOL. Now while I am waving my appeal to authority, and appeal to accomplishment, it is because these days, I operate in a sector where absolutely EVERYONE is an expert. I regularly have red necks telling me "they knows the economicses", and professing to understand extremely complex systems, which even honest economists would not say they totally understand them. So, I tend to get quite angered when someone who obviously hasn't studied the topic, essentially says that they understand it, and that I've got it all wrong. I find that they usually have little grasp of th
It was never implied they needed USD anyway. If you have a look at this policy, it explicitly states that this is ONLY when dealing with other BRICS (The S is for South Africa, not a plural) countries. Hence that doesn't change that situation. Also, they could have been operating in this way if they wanted to, already.
It doesn't even mean when trading with each other, that they need deal in their own currencies. All it states is that when making loans to entities in other BRICS countries, the loans need be denominated in their local currency.
Debt doesn't make money valuable, the unlikelihood of the double coincidence of wants creates the need for money, and is specifically designed for being a store of value, and as a mechanism of trade, and many other things. In a fiat economy, it is the same, the possibility of inflation and a devaluation of money, changes this in no way. However, if there were an uncertainty in the future value of dollars, this would reduce the value of dollars, and of debt.
The BRICS countries will still have debt in dollars, this policy does not change that, it only changes what happens when dealing with each other. Additionally, I believe it is only binding on the banks, and not necessarily the central bank.
This policy, in absolutely no way, affects how they deal with the US.
If this policy did say anything binding about their holding US denominated assets, then China would have to drop approximately $1 trillion in debt.
I can't emphasize this enough, and I can't understand why it keeps getting repeated. It's the fucking first line of the article for fucks sake.
Thursday signed an agreement to use their own currencies instead of the predominant US dollar in issuing credit or grants to each other.
What you said above, is totally irrelevant. Now that you know what it does, what does this actually do?
The only thing I see it doing, is providing them with positive PR, from the people who don't understand what policies like this do. As it stands, they can still take on foreign denominated liabilities with each other, they just can't take on foreign denominated assets, as such, they essentially tie their hands with regards to exchange rate risk hedging. Which seems extremely odd, except for the fact that they likely have very little liabilities and assets form either side.
it is no longer dependent on the current or the future state of US economy, nor does it have a reason to care about possible changes it may create there.
Well, that's not right. Just because they aren't directly dealing with the US, doesn't mean the US has no affect. It would still affect trade, the non-BRICS loans (C-I, I-C), it would affect their partners, the other banks they deal with, etc.
They take out a loan from each other to import goods
If you're talking about the underwriting services provided by banks, such as bank bills so when trading with international companies, they can be assured the deal will go through, then you're wrong. First of all, bank bills and these notes (as far as I have seen) have always been denominated in the local currency. The bank isn't protecting them from exchange rate risk, only default risk.
Additionally, trade can be done without this, and is up to whatever the trading partners wish to engage in. The defacto currency generally being the USD.
The article even states "this will not affect trade". This policy regards only loans made by banks, to entities in a BRICS country.
The rest of your response is babbling nonsense, and from what I can tell its still about trade, and is mostly addressed by the above. Are you sure you studied this at university?
I didn't consider the monetary policy angle, however that doesn't stop them making international loans. First it only affects BRICS loans, nothing else. So, that point is moot regardless. However, even with BRICS loans, it doesn't stop them making them, only that they need be denominated in local currency. This doesn't mean they have to do anything different in the currency markets, their contracts just stipulate that they're paid in local currency. This sort of reduced exchange rate risk, but not really, as its now shifted to default risk.
Also, their liabilities are still able to be foreign currency denominated.
So, I don't think this changes anything. They don't have more control over monetary policy, their money demand and supply will still work just as ineffectively. Fiscal policy it doesn't change at all either, since their money multiplier will be just as ineffective. The result being little to no change.
However, yes, national pride is likely the only reason. But not because they're standing up to the big bully, since nothing has changed which could possibly affect them. The only thing I see benefiting them, is that the average person, THINKS this did something. Which will possibly get them re-elected. So, it's basically just a marketing ploy. Something to get more votes, without doing ... anything.
(Side note: I am currently studying a double degree a bachelor (honours) in economics, and bachelor of finance, while picking up all the units required for a bachelor of accounting, so feel free not to dumb it down, especially if you work in the area)
As someone who seems to like what was done, for a reason which makes no sense, you should really go read the article again.
It doesn't change trade.
It doesn't change anything when they're NOT dealing with BRICS countries.
It doesn't change the banks liabilities side.
It only restricts how they can make loans (banks assets side) to other BRICS countries.
That's it. It's the most toothless "reform" ever. It's so toothless, it doesn't actually do ANYTHING, EXCEPT expose them to more interest/exchange rate risk when dealing with other BRICS countries.
LOL. So before you go celebrating, you should first read what they actually did, and then study what this actually means.
You essentially just celebrated the marginal weakening of your banking system, as they can now, no longer, ensure that their liabilities and assets are matched, in any fashion. However, I say marginal, because it's likely that NONE of their liabilities are held in BRICS foreign denominated loans. So... at best, nothing has changed. At worst, they just exposed you to more risk.
So... Enjoy your now more convoluted economy! K TNX BAI!
Interesting, though this doesn't mean much. Trade will still be in USD, it's just loans will only be made in their own currencies. Even more so, it will only be made in their respective currencies WHEN dealing with each other. Though, you can see why they limited it to "only when dealing with each other", since China would be forced to drop $1 trillion of its USD assets. Which would be hilarious... chaotic, but still hilarious.
This seems less of a "lets get rid of the USD" and more of a "lets stop our banks from being exposed to external interest rate risk, but only when we're dealing with each other, lets not go crazy now". The idea behind this change, I am in favour of, the idea of it being implemented by government, I'm not.
First of all, when dealing with loans to other countries, it doesn't change anything. Since all of these countries aren't particularly awesome currencies to lend in anyway, it's not a big deal. Off the top of my head, the biggest finance markets are America, UK, and everything else is much smaller.
So effectively if they had made it such that they couldn't lend or borrow in BRICS currencies, then they'd have taken away the interest rate/exchange rate risk, or more so, they'd have shifted it to default risk.
But they haven't done that, they only made this restriction on the asset side, which does... absolutely fucking nothing. Except, it does expose them to the possibility of forcing their banks into more risky positions, given they took on foreign denominated liabilities. They would be restricted from ever issuing foreign denominated assets, in an attempt to match them, and reduce the exchange/interest rate risk.
This really seems like a "we meant to make reasonable reform, till we realized that this would totally fuck us, and the world, so we just made it nonsense reform, which we can show our constituents, and hopefully get re-elected".
It doesn't change much, and the only changes it does make, only hurts it in many situations.
Can anyone (WHO HAS STUDIED THIS TOPIC AT A UNIVERSITY) shed some light on possible reasons for doing this?
Fuck me! You serious? This post. Again?
You've either never read Slashdot before, and you didn't read the other posts of THIS EXACT SAME QUESTION, or you're an idiot.
Please, please, please. Stop asking this question. I've read so many responses to this, I'm almost an expert on low level routing protocols, completely against my will.
Yeah, while I hate being the part of the internet to first go through the crunch (though I've seen this coming for years), I am happy that IPv6 is finally going to be pushed through. Now that the Great Address Space Crunch is here!
I don't like your definition of out, since that's like saying "There's food in this cage, you can't eat it, but you're not out of food". To the hungry person, their effective quantity of available food, is nothing. Additionally, if we then implement APNIC's policy "Okay, it's not that you can't eat it. But we're going to give a tiny portion, to a few people, every now and then, such that this food may last an amazingly long time". By your measure, IPv4 may never run out. Sure, we can't get any more addresses, but there are addresses there, so, we're not out... right?
Their policy is to keep these allocations small, to provide for IPv4 to IPv6 services, so they are rationed out, this means that, IPv4 may NEVER run out, because by the time they go to allocate the last /22, which might be quite a long time from now (due to how slow this pool will drop), then IPv6 may be implemented and demand for IPv4 may dwindle.
But by your measure, we're not out. Sure, we're starving, but we're not out of food, it's just in that cage over there.
Read the APNIC article on it. Yes they have a /8 remaining, and this /8 will last for fucking ages. Why? Because they are going to be rationed out. To ensure that ISP's can provide IPv4 to IPv6 tunnels and so that these aren't centralized with a few providers.
Ergo, they are out, in the old sense. Just because they are there, doesn't mean you can get them. Each network is limited to 1, /22.
I don't know about you, but given your ability to get them is greatly reduced, they are out effectively out. As my ISP (I live in Australia) will no longer be able to obtain more IPv4's (after their last lot that is).
Have YOU seen a TI-NSpire lately?
You linked to something way harder, the NSpire, I can just upload my notes over USB. I can also hide them amongst built in calculator example!
Boulder dash, and poppy cock!
Are you saying you don't write reusable, readable, rrrrrrcommented code?
How dare you suggest that we programmers are anything but a flawless digital artist, with extreme foresight, and supreme intellect!
Fie for shame!
The reason why they often want you to arrive at a specific result, even if it was an exact answer (they want it simplified), purely because they have hundreds of these to mark (more so at university), and if each has used a slightly different method, perhaps one you're not expecting, yet arrived at the answer, but not simplified it for you, you may not realize it.
It increases their already strained work load immensely.
I need a calculator as I can generally do the more advanced stuff, but give me simple addition, multiplication, etc, and I totally fuck it up. Quite annoying. It's like, because it's so simple, my mind decides not to devote ANY effort towards it. In comparison, something more challenging, I could stare at for hours on end, perhaps even spend an entire night working on it. (It's bad when I get this hyperfocus in exams, I end up spending too much time on one challenging problem, instead of moving on to the easier ones)
I knew a machinist, who upon getting his final certification, went "fuck this job". CNC, while it adds a layer of abstraction, is quite easy. I've seen the code he deals with. It's basic math, basic operations, and takes little to learn. Now, I do know that SOME, machinist jobs require an extreme amount of knowledge and education. A different friend of did a Bachelor of Engineering and works in that field. Though I'm sure there's an amazingly small percentage which didn't take that route.
Auto-Technician? That's a shitty job, and while it requires some knowledge, it doesn't require much. You wouldn't say that's a particularly hard job to train for, would you?
Welder? My father is a welder, he did his trade in sheet metal work, hadn't done much welding at all, and hadn't touched metal in 20 years. He then went back to a factory and learnt to weld in 2 weeks at his new job. Now, I did work experience at BAE Systems, where I met some welders who were welding parts of battle ships. These were amazingly long giant pieces of metal, with beading that was something like 2 feet wide, and so amazingly consistent all the way along. That was brilliant. That I would concede was an amazing job, however they were in the extreme minority, they were lucky to get those positions, and many people could learn them quite easily.
Wait... what... architects? When I think about white collar workers, I scarcely think about "house drawers". If you want to think about people who produce, you should think about engineers, physicists, mathematicians, etc. In fact, the people who setup the welding guys at BAE Systems (above) were engineers who I was with. They were the ones who defined how it would be welded, to what tolerances, designed the setup, and managed the man who did the work.
One of my uncles builds roads, and recently he did an airport runway. Even though he's a blue collar worker, and hates how much money his manager makes, he does concede, that while he does the back breaking labour, he's not really building the runway. That's what his manager, the engineer is doing. The guy who designs, plans, implements, measures, and manages the entire process. The rest of the guys, while they do have skill (eg, driving the various custom machinery), they could all be replaced, quite easily, by a hundred other people. Sure initially the guy might not be that good, and you wouldn't want to replace everyone at one instance, however the learning curve is small, and it requires little effort. Hell, my uncle was in the military (rifleman), then worked as a screw, then walked into this job with absolutely no training.
Now, I'm not saying EVERYONE needs to educate themselves, however those who can, especially those in industries which have an over supply of workers, who can be so easily replaced, they should be using the luck they've got, growing up in a country like this, to educate themselves. While the rest of the world vies for those jobs, we should aspire to higher ones, as we are afforded the benefit of doing so. In this way, we can work WITH the rest of the world, not against (I know, a crazy concept), to provide the things we all need, and to progress our civilization.
Unfortunately, we see people instead argue that their shitty, low paying, easy way out career should be propped up by those of us who didn't take their path? More so, they often argue this out of some nationalistic pride, which is what really gets me, the idea that because they look like me, that I should support them, more than I should support someone who doesn't look like me. It's an absurd proposition. I've more respect for the immigrants who take a risk, and do something to provide for their family, by "taking their jobs", than I do for the workers who don't take the same initiative. I've even more respect for the immigrants who are risking everything on getting a valuable education. Those people, are coming from worse situations, than you and I could ever imagine, yet striving and aspiring to do things greater than the blue collar workers could be bothered to do.
Hrmmm... well that rant took an interesting turn.
I'll assume you're one of the "knuckle dragging blue collar workers". I assume this because of the vitriol in your post, and partially because of the absurd logic trap you built for yourself.
My post was saying "blue collar workers keep complaining about their jobs going over seas, and complaining about the price their skills can demand, going down".
Your post is saying "the knuckle dragging blue collar worker has a leg up on the debt saturated graduate".
So, this is in contrast to my statement. If they have a leg up, why would my statement make you angry? It would be totally irrational. If they have a leg up, then why would they want us to subsidise and regulate their wages? If they have a leg up, then I would never have the opportunity to post the reference I gathered above.
Just for kicks, and just in case I was imagining everything, I decided to look up cities which are principally associated with blue collar work. Such as Detroit, Buffalo, Cleveland, St. Louis. It was amazing to see exactly how much negative growth they've had. Negative economically, and population wise.
Now, I'm a recent graduate, and the only friends who have had trouble finding work, are those that studied a BA. The rest got them almost straight away. So, I'm not sure how many are drowning in debt. If you're talking about the marketing students, the art students, and similar easy programs. While they do invest in their education, they are, to some extent, guilty of the same problem. Picking an easier way. Which turns out to not be a good long term strategy.
Lastly I came from a working class family, and the greatest thing they instilled in me was "GET EDUCATED, DON'T SETTLE!"
These blue collar workers, especially the ones who aren't in a job, should take the luck they've received, by being born in a country with a reasonable education system, and put it to good use.
Yeah. I do agree with that. You should be allowed to specialize more, and earlier. Even at the risk that you perhaps acted hasty, and go back to study something else later.