And it kind of depends on how you define “many”. Intel figured it only needed a single fab plant for its latest generation of chips to meet demand because the plants were getting to be very large, efficient, and costly. Of course they were going to build more than one to cut down on unforeseen risks. i.e. don’t put all of your eggs in one basket.
Much of the prosperity in today’s America can be traced back to the fact that we live in an era were nations resolve their differences in multilateral originations that are rules based. That free trade and openness have greatly expanded.
This has occurred, on balance, because of American leadership. You may not always get your way, and it might cost more in the short term (both in blood and money), but there are huge advantages in being able to set the priorities of the world.
But he wasn’t in 1964. That would come latter. I think at this point he was a secular non-practicing Jew. Beyond that nit I think you hit it square on.
Well, yes, that is a rich field of argument. I was trying to find something a bit more neutral to illustrate my point. In defense of religion, I can point to a lot of scientific thought (now debunked) showing men support to women. So that particular sin is not confined to religion.
Part of the issue is that the two systems of thought are designed to answer different questions. Science can answer how something happens. It does less well with questions of existences (why are we here) and morality (how should I live my live). And religion does a poor job of explaining how things work.
Take Genesis. Read it as a recipe and your going to fail. Read it as a metaphor and you get Man being stewards of the world with the according rewards and responsibilities.
Read up on Augustine of Hippo, a highly influential writer from the 4th century who argued that Genesis was a poetic or metaphysical statement, not a literal one. The “literalist” tend to form a very narrow – but loud – sliver of Christianity.
Or you could look up the Deist, who believe in a rational god who intervenes little in the world. The Alpha who kicked off the big bang knowing it would lead to humans.
There are large chunks of intelligent religionist out there. I still have memories of losing an “evolution game” in Sunday school because I assumed that a panda bear belonged to the bear family.
You are right that some aspects of economics have very crappy data, but it is important to distinguish between what we know, what we suspect, and what we can’t know. The parameters change over time. If you focus on one variable its predictive power drops as everybody else focuses on that variable and their behavior changes.
In the cases that I am suggesting, the link between money supply, deflation, and investment is clear – it swamps the other variables. This is something that we know.It has strong predictive powers.
Is it valid to argue the magnitude (either modest or strong) or the stickiness – yes.
About the only argument you can find against it is not that it is invalid, but that the pain caused by the dead hand of hard currency causes less damage then the central banks fooling around with the money supply.
The problem with that line of though is there is a wealth of empirical data to back up the theory. I can’t think of a case where it leads to a death spiral, but there are many examples where deflation has skewed the economy to the hoarding of cash, a reduction in investment, which is followed by a recession. These range from the financial crash of the 1870s to Japan of today.
And I have another thought. Inflation is the change of aggregate supply of money against the aggregated demand for money.
Frist, yes, the aggregated supply of currency can be estimated in advance. However, currency (M1) and money (M2) are not the same thing. The supply of money is something different. See this graph:
Second, you also need to estimate the aggregated demand for money. Partly this means estimating GNP but it also means estimating how much money, a riskless (more or less) asset will be demanded. For example, after the latest financial crisis the demand for money has greatly increased.
Personally, I feel the ability of a central bank to adjust the money supply under this much uncertainty outweighs the disadvantages.
Upward movement of price may not get you stability. The stock market has been trending upwards for over a 100 years and it is still not stable. Heck, I would argue that gold is currently too unstable to serer as a currency – though I know people will disagree.
BitCoin will remand unstable until it is much larger (i.e. more transactions) and more interconnected (for example, somebody takes out a year mortgage on their house denominated in BitCoins) with the real economy.
The problem with inflation / deflation is not with the units of currency – That the value of coins becomes too large under deflation and that you need wheelbarrows to cart around cash under inflation. If that were the issue government currency would be more effective because they can redecimalized.
The problem with inflation/deflation is the change of value of a unit of currency. i.e., it does not matter if your 1 BitCoin changes to 1.0 BitCoins, it that what it can buy is different.
No, I am a native speaker and I was using the word precisely. Partly because if you look up the thread the were connotations (at least in my mind) of the wealthy staying in top because of their wealth, not because of other qualities. The second reason is because I was trying to explicitly separate two things. The effect of wealth (as in cash) in the family can be measured and the effect is not that great. The other thing is this whole tangled mess interrelated things. Empirical studies have a very hard time pulling out the difference between the effects of DNA and the parent's culture because both were “inherited” from the parents. If it from the DNA that one thing (see eugenics), if it is from the culture it is another. Can you inherit your culture? Your peers? The studies are poor and the details are wooly.
On to your second point, I still contend that the US has a higher mobility rate. I have already mention that it is falling. Maybe to European standards but I don't think we are there yet. Dig into the numbers and you get a more nuanced story. For example, the upper 1% America has a much higher mobility rate, a type of economic dynamism which is good for society. Dig lower and the mobility drops. Why this is happening ranges from begin explanations to darker ones.
I believe America’s mobility, while falling, is still high. If you have a cite I would love to see it.
As for inheritance, I am talking strictly about wealth. Not income, but assets. Things one can actually inherit. We can measure this factor and it has a low predictive power.
Then there is a slug of other factors: parent’s income, social class, parent’s education, school quality, social competency, peers, etc. These factors are hard to pull apart and I would not call them inheritance. I have seen studies which suggest that your neighborhood’s level of education has a greater influence then the actual parent’s level of education. Is something a inheritance if the effects can be simulate using non-family proxies?
I am going to assume you are British. If so I think you are ahead. The British system is designed for deeply partisan parties and still work. This is less true for the US. The founding fathers had a strong fear of parties and rigged the system so that parties would have little power. This is causing issues today.
Which touches on your point on the US being on the right of the political spectrum. Being on the left or the right is a relative thing, and Americans are doing a better job at sorting themselves out, moving to states of likeminded individuals. It used to be that a southern democrat was on the right of northeasterner republicans. That lead to a fertile middle ground. Now this is no longer true.
No, it is used by people making a quick post using a small screen.
I would like to see your cite for Europe having higher mobility. Everything that I have seen shows American having a higher (but falling) rate of mobility.
And yes, IQ and social competency are 2 separate and independent factors – and each of these factors has a higher explanatory power of economic success then inheritance.
It is not garbage but it needs to be used with care. It is meant to be used as a starting point.
Name one other diagnostic tool which is as powerful as an IQ test that can be given by some who is only certificate in ½ a day. The next step up is normally a 5 day affair run by somebody who has a master’s degree.
I think you missed my point on grandchildren, not children. There are 2 broad strategies in propagating your genes. One can have a lot of children and hope that a few will make it. The other choice is to invest your resources in fewer children so they have a greater probability of thriving. Of course you can’t tell which strategy is better until you count the grandchildren. And in industrialized countries it is families that are having fewer kids that are having more grandchildren and thus winning the Darwinian race.
As for your other point, I am pretty sure that you’re wrong. Read up on Bayesian statistics. You are making the assumption that IQ and education achievement are 2 independent variables. They are not. 40% of educational performance can be traced back to IQ. That is most people with advance degrees have high IQs while few low IQs get in. And, of course, those with high IQs have other routes to prosperity. This is why education has a lower predictive power then IQ in forecasting economic success. If you have a some other different source I would like to hear it.
IIRC, I think 1 or 2 books or cartons slipped made it through the cracks back in the 70s. Disney and the publishers had a discussion where Disney mentioned that they still owned the trademark on Mickey. Cash was exchanged, the old books pulped, and new books were issued without Disney or Mickey on the covers.
Copyright gives value to a work, value dictates price, and price allocates scarce resources. If copyright expired with the death of the author, works made by people who die tragically young are worth less than those who just keep on going. Works written by older people – who have less life – are worth less than younger people.
There are older folks that I want to hear more of. There are older folks living off a one hit wonder from 50 years ago. This seems to me arbitrary and capricious. The value of a work should not be swayed by how much life is left in the author.
But the influence of inherence ranks below that of IQ. This is particularly true in America when compared to Europe. Education and social competency are higher than inherence. FYI, all of these things hold even after you subtract out the effect of the parent’s wealth.
And the opposite of what is happening America. IQ has been rising. Economically successfully families (which for myself implies higher IQs) have more grandchildren.
And I say this with a heavy heart, but the difference does matter. It shows a continuing split between left and right and the loss of center ground. I could probably find some poll where Democrats displayed a great ignorance, but I think this graph does a better job. A wee bit off topic, but I think it does illustrate the point.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not sure if that is true.
IIRC, most of the spy satellites uses a polar orbit, where latitude makes less of a difference.
And it kind of depends on how you define “many”. Intel figured it only needed a single fab plant for its latest generation of chips to meet demand because the plants were getting to be very large, efficient, and costly. Of course they were going to build more than one to cut down on unforeseen risks. i.e. don’t put all of your eggs in one basket.
I will take the opposite side.
Much of the prosperity in today’s America can be traced back to the fact that we live in an era were nations resolve their differences in multilateral originations that are rules based. That free trade and openness have greatly expanded.
This has occurred, on balance, because of American leadership. You may not always get your way, and it might cost more in the short term (both in blood and money), but there are huge advantages in being able to set the priorities of the world.
But he wasn’t in 1964. That would come latter. I think at this point he was a secular non-practicing Jew. Beyond that nit I think you hit it square on.
Well, yes, that is a rich field of argument. I was trying to find something a bit more neutral to illustrate my point. In defense of religion, I can point to a lot of scientific thought (now debunked) showing men support to women. So that particular sin is not confined to religion.
If you read the fine print of thhe article you will see it was not always so. Whcih mighty say more about may age then anything else.
Part of the issue is that the two systems of thought are designed to answer different questions. Science can answer how something happens. It does less well with questions of existences (why are we here) and morality (how should I live my live). And religion does a poor job of explaining how things work.
Take Genesis. Read it as a recipe and your going to fail. Read it as a metaphor and you get Man being stewards of the world with the according rewards and responsibilities.
Read up on Augustine of Hippo, a highly influential writer from the 4th century who argued that Genesis was a poetic or metaphysical statement, not a literal one. The “literalist” tend to form a very narrow – but loud – sliver of Christianity.
Or you could look up the Deist, who believe in a rational god who intervenes little in the world. The Alpha who kicked off the big bang knowing it would lead to humans.
There are large chunks of intelligent religionist out there. I still have memories of losing an “evolution game” in Sunday school because I assumed that a panda bear belonged to the bear family.
You are right that some aspects of economics have very crappy data, but it is important to distinguish between what we know, what we suspect, and what we can’t know. The parameters change over time. If you focus on one variable its predictive power drops as everybody else focuses on that variable and their behavior changes.
In the cases that I am suggesting, the link between money supply, deflation, and investment is clear – it swamps the other variables. This is something that we know.It has strong predictive powers.
Is it valid to argue the magnitude (either modest or strong) or the stickiness – yes.
About the only argument you can find against it is not that it is invalid, but that the pain caused by the dead hand of hard currency causes less damage then the central banks fooling around with the money supply.
The problem with that line of though is there is a wealth of empirical data to back up the theory. I can’t think of a case where it leads to a death spiral, but there are many examples where deflation has skewed the economy to the hoarding of cash, a reduction in investment, which is followed by a recession. These range from the financial crash of the 1870s to Japan of today.
And I have another thought. Inflation is the change of aggregate supply of money against the aggregated demand for money.
Frist, yes, the aggregated supply of currency can be estimated in advance. However, currency (M1) and money (M2) are not the same thing. The supply of money is something different. See this graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply
Second, you also need to estimate the aggregated demand for money. Partly this means estimating GNP but it also means estimating how much money, a riskless (more or less) asset will be demanded. For example, after the latest financial crisis the demand for money has greatly increased.
Personally, I feel the ability of a central bank to adjust the money supply under this much uncertainty outweighs the disadvantages.
Upward movement of price may not get you stability. The stock market has been trending upwards for over a 100 years and it is still not stable. Heck, I would argue that gold is currently too unstable to serer as a currency – though I know people will disagree.
BitCoin will remand unstable until it is much larger (i.e. more transactions) and more interconnected (for example, somebody takes out a year mortgage on their house denominated in BitCoins) with the real economy.
The problem with inflation / deflation is not with the units of currency – That the value of coins becomes too large under deflation and that you need wheelbarrows to cart around cash under inflation. If that were the issue government currency would be more effective because they can redecimalized.
The problem with inflation /deflation is the change of value of a unit of currency. i.e., it does not matter if your 1 BitCoin changes to 1.0 BitCoins, it that what it can buy is different.
No, I am a native speaker and I was using the word precisely. Partly because if you look up the thread the were connotations (at least in my mind) of the wealthy staying in top because of their wealth, not because of other qualities. The second reason is because I was trying to explicitly separate two things. The effect of wealth (as in cash) in the family can be measured and the effect is not that great. The other thing is this whole tangled mess interrelated things. Empirical studies have a very hard time pulling out the difference between the effects of DNA and the parent's culture because both were “inherited” from the parents. If it from the DNA that one thing (see eugenics), if it is from the culture it is another. Can you inherit your culture? Your peers? The studies are poor and the details are wooly.
On to your second point, I still contend that the US has a higher mobility rate. I have already mention that it is falling. Maybe to European standards but I don't think we are there yet. Dig into the numbers and you get a more nuanced story. For example, the upper 1% America has a much higher mobility rate, a type of economic dynamism which is good for society. Dig lower and the mobility drops. Why this is happening ranges from begin explanations to darker ones.
I believe America’s mobility, while falling, is still high. If you have a cite I would love to see it.
As for inheritance, I am talking strictly about wealth. Not income, but assets. Things one can actually inherit. We can measure this factor and it has a low predictive power.
Then there is a slug of other factors: parent’s income, social class, parent’s education, school quality, social competency, peers, etc. These factors are hard to pull apart and I would not call them inheritance. I have seen studies which suggest that your neighborhood’s level of education has a greater influence then the actual parent’s level of education. Is something a inheritance if the effects can be simulate using non-family proxies?
I am going to assume you are British. If so I think you are ahead. The British system is designed for deeply partisan parties and still work. This is less true for the US. The founding fathers had a strong fear of parties and rigged the system so that parties would have little power. This is causing issues today.
Which touches on your point on the US being on the right of the political spectrum. Being on the left or the right is a relative thing, and Americans are doing a better job at sorting themselves out, moving to states of likeminded individuals. It used to be that a southern democrat was on the right of northeasterner republicans. That lead to a fertile middle ground. Now this is no longer true.
No, it is used by people making a quick post using a small screen.
I would like to see your cite for Europe having higher mobility. Everything that I have seen shows American having a higher (but falling) rate of mobility.
And yes, IQ and social competency are 2 separate and independent factors – and each of these factors has a higher explanatory power of economic success then inheritance.
It is not garbage but it needs to be used with care. It is meant to be used as a starting point.
Name one other diagnostic tool which is as powerful as an IQ test that can be given by some who is only certificate in ½ a day. The next step up is normally a 5 day affair run by somebody who has a master’s degree.
I think you missed my point on grandchildren, not children. There are 2 broad strategies in propagating your genes. One can have a lot of children and hope that a few will make it. The other choice is to invest your resources in fewer children so they have a greater probability of thriving. Of course you can’t tell which strategy is better until you count the grandchildren. And in industrialized countries it is families that are having fewer kids that are having more grandchildren and thus winning the Darwinian race.
As for your other point, I am pretty sure that you’re wrong. Read up on Bayesian statistics. You are making the assumption that IQ and education achievement are 2 independent variables. They are not. 40% of educational performance can be traced back to IQ. That is most people with advance degrees have high IQs while few low IQs get in. And, of course, those with high IQs have other routes to prosperity. This is why education has a lower predictive power then IQ in forecasting economic success. If you have a some other different source I would like to hear it.
IIRC, I think 1 or 2 books or cartons slipped made it through the cracks back in the 70s. Disney and the publishers had a discussion where Disney mentioned that they still owned the trademark on Mickey. Cash was exchanged, the old books pulped, and new books were issued without Disney or Mickey on the covers.
I will bite. A fixed term for copyright is best.
Copyright gives value to a work, value dictates price, and price allocates scarce resources. If copyright expired with the death of the author, works made by people who die tragically young are worth less than those who just keep on going. Works written by older people – who have less life – are worth less than younger people.
There are older folks that I want to hear more of. There are older folks living off a one hit wonder from 50 years ago. This seems to me arbitrary and capricious. The value of a work should not be swayed by how much life is left in the author.
But the influence of inherence ranks below that of IQ. This is particularly true in America when compared to Europe. Education and social competency are higher than inherence. FYI, all of these things hold even after you subtract out the effect of the parent’s wealth.
And the opposite of what is happening America. IQ has been rising. Economically successfully families (which for myself implies higher IQs) have more grandchildren.
And I forgot to inculded the link:
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21591190-united-states-amoeba
And I say this with a heavy heart, but the difference does matter. It shows a continuing split between left and right and the loss of center ground. I could probably find some poll where Democrats displayed a great ignorance, but I think this graph does a better job. A wee bit off topic, but I think it does illustrate the point.