Demand does not create wealth. Production does. A beggar has unlimited demand for every material good, but nothing he can trade for them.
Exactly, he has no money with which to turn his demand (desires) into economic activity. A part is missing or broken from the usual cycle.
Same with somebody who would have had a job if a robot didn't take it: they have no money in which to buy the products the robots help produce.
Surveys of businesses consistency say lack of purchases is the main thing keeping them from expanding, NOT lack of capital.
Never heard of luxury goods?
Yes, but that's not enough to drive the entire economy. Plus, the wealthy tend to spend it on 3rd-word factory investments instead of the USA, or pack it away per inheritance in the future.
There's no "redo" in this mission, and the probe could have encountered local particles where a sand-sized grain could have killed the probe during its dive past Pluto, perhaps part of a thin or ex-ring. There was a lot to be worried about during that "silent" main encounter.
It's kind of like sending your kid to college, but not hearing anything from or about him/her until her final report card comes in the mail.
Wonks have not fared well in the profession. A Los Angeles paper once had a long interview with Obama, and he spelled out fairly detailed plans and the careful reasoning behind them. But it's not the same kind of presentation he uses in front of crowds or at press conferences. He knows better.
Spock is more logical, but Kirk makes a better ambassador and negotiator because he thinks more like those he's working with.
It essentially allows the same worker to do more per hour. However, unless somebody actually purchases the output, the factory is limited to the amount of extra widgets it can actually sell.
The bottleneck in the cyber-age economy is consumers, so far. The same or fewer workers can produce more, meaning the proportion of jobs that increase to absorb the extra products are not there to match the output increase.
Nobody has figured out how to get more and bigger spending-consumers. Most of the revenue and profits are log-jammed at the 1%, who don't need 500 iPhones each.
Taxing the rich seems the only known way to free the revenue and profits to flow back into the middle- and lower-class consumer. If you have a another way to balance that part of the system of economic flow, I'm all ears.
Don't fight them, ignore them. Even if we squashed them, a new group of radicals will form to replace it. Trying to fix the M.E. is playing unwinnable Whack-A-Mole.
If we ignore them, they'll eventually ignore us. It may take a generation or two for them to forget about us, but it will happen if we just have the patience.
The M.E. will be a mess with us or without us (cue U2 tune). Let's stop pretending we can fix it. After we've failed 25 times what makes you think #26 is the trick?
It's interesting how China has mixed communism and capitalism to create de-facto slavery. Workers have almost no political say and are thus stuck being corporate slaves.
One can argue that "at least they are not starving", but is that the best they can do, and should we try to compete with such a system by emulating the ugly side of it, or tariff their exports to encourage them to create a middle class of consumers?
Many were both landowners and lawyers. Back then it was easier to be a polymath because the total knowledge needed to be competitive in each topic was smaller.
The rate at which new pictures are being released is very disappointing.
That's because of the extreme distance and because New Horizons has limited power
Comcast customers can relate.
On a Sirius note, I wonder how Voyager II dealt with similar conditions at Neptune. It did have a tape recorder. I think it had more power and a bigger antenna than NH. But probably in or near the same order of magnitude. Once Voyager left Neptune, it didn't have a new target such that it had plenty of time for data relay.
The last "Design Pattern" movement, per "GOF" and OOP, was overall a disaster. People started shoe-horning their code into these patterns without rhyme or reason.
A good book on code and system design collects a thorough list of points to discuss, typically the pro's and con's of each design choice. But, ultimately lets the reader plug in their organization's own goals and priorities to select the best choice.
In other words, "here's a list of things to consider and questions to ask."
Any design methodology that says "Always do X" should taken with a boulder of salt.
And ultimately, keep K.I.S.S. in mind. Don't build an eBureaucracy unless you really need one.
Or, just have more direct federal issue votes instead of relying so much on representatives.
"Should we go to war with [insert country], Yes/No".
"Should we increase border security funding by 10%, Yes/No."
Many states have these for state issues. The hard part is keeping cruft out of them, though. Have a fairly high barrier to including things on the issue ballet.
I suppose anything big enough to have U-turn gravity that's within 200 years or so away probably would radiate enough to be detected by now. However, a cluster of smaller bodies may be able to do the job. Suppose we invent better detection technology and find such clusters.
I know, it's a long-shot. But just imagine a Beowulf cluster of...
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly, he has no money with which to turn his demand (desires) into economic activity. A part is missing or broken from the usual cycle.
Same with somebody who would have had a job if a robot didn't take it: they have no money in which to buy the products the robots help produce.
Surveys of businesses consistency say lack of purchases is the main thing keeping them from expanding, NOT lack of capital.
Yes, but that's not enough to drive the entire economy. Plus, the wealthy tend to spend it on 3rd-word factory investments instead of the USA, or pack it away per inheritance in the future.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There's no "redo" in this mission, and the probe could have encountered local particles where a sand-sized grain could have killed the probe during its dive past Pluto, perhaps part of a thin or ex-ring. There was a lot to be worried about during that "silent" main encounter.
It's kind of like sending your kid to college, but not hearing anything from or about him/her until her final report card comes in the mail.
Wonks have not fared well in the profession. A Los Angeles paper once had a long interview with Obama, and he spelled out fairly detailed plans and the careful reasoning behind them. But it's not the same kind of presentation he uses in front of crowds or at press conferences. He knows better.
Spock is more logical, but Kirk makes a better ambassador and negotiator because he thinks more like those he's working with.
I put the hyphen in the wrong place. It should be "more and bigger-spending consumers".
Some smart-aleck would make a joke about already having enough fat consumers.
It essentially allows the same worker to do more per hour. However, unless somebody actually purchases the output, the factory is limited to the amount of extra widgets it can actually sell.
The bottleneck in the cyber-age economy is consumers, so far. The same or fewer workers can produce more, meaning the proportion of jobs that increase to absorb the extra products are not there to match the output increase.
Nobody has figured out how to get more and bigger spending-consumers. Most of the revenue and profits are log-jammed at the 1%, who don't need 500 iPhones each.
Taxing the rich seems the only known way to free the revenue and profits to flow back into the middle- and lower-class consumer. If you have a another way to balance that part of the system of economic flow, I'm all ears.
"You are wearing it wrong."
Don't fight them, ignore them. Even if we squashed them, a new group of radicals will form to replace it. Trying to fix the M.E. is playing unwinnable Whack-A-Mole.
If we ignore them, they'll eventually ignore us. It may take a generation or two for them to forget about us, but it will happen if we just have the patience.
The M.E. will be a mess with us or without us (cue U2 tune). Let's stop pretending we can fix it. After we've failed 25 times what makes you think #26 is the trick?
It's interesting how China has mixed communism and capitalism to create de-facto slavery. Workers have almost no political say and are thus stuck being corporate slaves.
One can argue that "at least they are not starving", but is that the best they can do, and should we try to compete with such a system by emulating the ugly side of it, or tariff their exports to encourage them to create a middle class of consumers?
My wife's cooking
Your Kuiper gets belted.
Many were both landowners and lawyers. Back then it was easier to be a polymath because the total knowledge needed to be competitive in each topic was smaller.
Comcast customers can relate.
On a Sirius note, I wonder how Voyager II dealt with similar conditions at Neptune. It did have a tape recorder. I think it had more power and a bigger antenna than NH. But probably in or near the same order of magnitude. Once Voyager left Neptune, it didn't have a new target such that it had plenty of time for data relay.
A double dwarf? That's twice the insult. Rub it in, why dontcha.
EU: "We won't lend you money unless you make several structural reforms, slackers!"
Greece: "Fine, we'll file bankruptcy and leave the UE. That's too many reforms all at once."
EU: "But you can't bail, it will destabilize the markets and hurt the EU!"
Greece: "So? That's your problem. Either lend us the money or we bail and go our own way."
EU: "(Sigh), okay, here's the check..."
The last "Design Pattern" movement, per "GOF" and OOP, was overall a disaster. People started shoe-horning their code into these patterns without rhyme or reason.
A good book on code and system design collects a thorough list of points to discuss, typically the pro's and con's of each design choice. But, ultimately lets the reader plug in their organization's own goals and priorities to select the best choice.
In other words, "here's a list of things to consider and questions to ask."
Any design methodology that says "Always do X" should taken with a boulder of salt.
And ultimately, keep K.I.S.S. in mind. Don't build an eBureaucracy unless you really need one.
Or, just have more direct federal issue votes instead of relying so much on representatives.
"Should we go to war with [insert country], Yes/No".
"Should we increase border security funding by 10%, Yes/No."
Many states have these for state issues. The hard part is keeping cruft out of them, though. Have a fairly high barrier to including things on the issue ballet.
And streamline the voting process.
If you outsource or automate farming, nobody cares except the displaced farmers.
If you outsource or automate factory work, nobody cares except the displaced factory workers.
If you outsource coders nobody cares except the displaced coders.
If you outsource or automate lawyers, all hell breaks lose because they have the power to stop it by erecting legal barriers and suing.
This country was founded by lawyers for lawyers.
But I thought they disappeared when......nevermind.
I don't believe an honest, non-spinning politician would make it through the process far enough to become a viable candidate. It's a sound-bite world.
So it's a Toyota probe?
[X] I am a wigger
Why be down wi dat, troll boi?!
or, "Warning, there be humans about! They taste terrible."
I suppose anything big enough to have U-turn gravity that's within 200 years or so away probably would radiate enough to be detected by now. However, a cluster of smaller bodies may be able to do the job. Suppose we invent better detection technology and find such clusters.
I know, it's a long-shot. But just imagine a Beowulf cluster of...
Do you have a related link or study on that?
Pluto's embarrassed by its age spots, and so is showing its good side to the probe.