You are going to have hiccups with any new system – that’s a given. Combine that with tight deadlines & budgets imposed from above, the regulators and safety inspectors are not independent from the organization running the train, the mandatory use of state contractors, and graft from below – well serious accidents will occur.
And if high speed passenger rail made sense, trust me, the railroads would be on it.
You nailed ½ the question when it comes to population density – but only ½. I think high speed rail would work in some locations within the US. I think local politics play en equally important role.
I have been a residence who was directly affected by a rail expansion (freight, upgrade from 1 track to 2) and a commuter rail project. Every place that would be affected put in its own request for harm mitigation that required its own environmental impact studies, etc.
Projects that make sense on a grand scale are killed by parochial concerns. As an example, I think Chris Christie killed a subway expansion not because it was a bad idea but because he felt New York and the DOT should kick in more.
He probably meant pseudo anonymously – so let’s not be pedantic. Anybody can set up an account pretending to be anything. You, on the other side, have no way of verifying the other’s id. Ergo it is effectively anonymous. Sure, with a warrant one can get an I.P. address and go from there, but that’s beyond the reach of most folks.
Is it better to be lucky than good? Do smart people make their own luck? Or are they just smart enough to open the door when opportunity knocks? Tangling out smarts and luck is hard.
I think Cuban is smarter than he is lucky. I also think smarts and luck form a positive feedback loop. The more smart risks you take the more big wins you make – allowing you to take more smart risks.
I think you post is a bit confusing. As you said, if the patents had real value Google et. al. would be buying them – which they are via a 3rd party – ergo they have real value.
Let me posit a question – why would you spend time, money, and energy developing a innovated new product when a competitor can copy it for pennies on the dollar? You suggest that inventors should sell their ideas to monetize them. What happens when they are stolen? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns)
However, poor execution is not going to make a brilliant idea a success – which was Kodak’s problem. Cell phones is an interesting category. It got a wide range of patents covering hardware, software, networking, signal processing, computer applications, etc.
There are 2 choices. Fix the current system so only high quality patents get in – my preferred option. We would still have “patent trolls”, but at least they would not be pursing abusive overly wide patents. The other is to come up with a new system – and I have not heard a good one yet.
Mountains tend to have steady predicable wind patterns. There are additional engineering problems since the wind moves parallel to the ground. Since you can’t tip the towers by 30 degrees you need to try something else - but Japan is experimenting with the technology.
You know, for all the flack that the “first past the post” voting system takes in Slashdot you have hit on one of the strengths of FPP – landslides gives the winning party the power to rule and to execute their party platform.
In this case LDP won 294 seats of 480, giving it a majority. With New Kometio 31 seats it has a super majority. I don’t know all the nuances in Japanese politics, but sometimes it’s necessary to have a super majority to prevent the minority party for blocking legislation. (Looking at California and the US Senate in the U.S.)
You have 2 trends. On one side there is a lot of energy expended into theoretical safeguards to appease the NIMBYs who – by definition – can never be appeased. On the other hand there engineers who, though the use of theory, think they can make safe proof designs.
The end results are very expensive bespoke nuclear power plants. Because of this customization, lessons learned at one plant can’t be translated to the next plat. What society needs is a frank discussion of what we want and the risks we are willing to take. Roll out a dozen plants and figure out what works and what does not – and apply those practical lessons (as well as any ideas that theory has) and build the next dozen.
Per capita per human - probably it has dropped. Per capita per horse - I would guess a increase but it would be just that - a guess.
And in the old days there was a lot of cross over between a blacksmith and a farrier. Most blacksmiths could shoe a horse. Farriers are really a subclass of blacksmiths. Even today at contests farriers are judge on their ability to forge their own tools.
What you are saying is that deflation occurs when aggregated supply outstrips aggregated demand (with a constant money supply), which is what would happen if capital and energy approached zero. If this did happen then, yes, for a short time period we would have deflation.
However, one of the assumptions of economics is that people have an insatiable demand. I have confidence that the status seeking humans will figure something to spend their money on even if energy and capital were free. There are many things that we pay for that have intangible values. Things that are limited (collectable beanie babies. A Harvard education. A day on a deserted beach), require labor (a MLB game, live music), or require choices (do we preserve the equatorial rain forest – or build some big massive space elevators).
I would say that welders are today’s blacksmiths. Also, there are more ferries (blacksmiths that work on horses) working today in the US then there were 100 years ago.
You looking at the wrong data. You want to find a 20 year run of 1. Inflation adjusted GDP 2. The working age population and 3. The total hours worked. What you will find is a stagnant economy, frighten off the twin evils of the 90’s property bubble and a declining population. The reason why the rates are low is because you are looking at a recent, 1 year chart. It fails to capture the underemployed and the discouraged.
I am missing a line of argument here – but how would that lead to deflation?
To put this in context, if we have a stable GNP, a stable monetary policy, what would force the price index to go down? Now mind you, the conditions would be bleak and dickensesque – I just don’t see how that inherently leads to deflation.
Well, one could pull out Marx, but his theories have a couple of holes. I will give you 2 flip reasons and hopefully something to chew over.
First, who cares? In the very long run (25+ years) workers would go back to it’s normal 70% to 50% . In the short run – well technology distribution is distribution. Old capitalist out, new capitalist in. Turnover over the soil. All is good.
Second, who cares? If you are a worker and you had a choice of either between enjoy a $1 pop or waiting a year to get a $2,500 (which is the value of the robot) – which would you chose? If you look at developing economies (those which have finial gotten the technology, education system, regulations, capital, etc.) their economy is heavily weighted towards capital development and consumption. Take a look a China today. (Which might lead to questions about income distribution, but there are better solutions then stepping on the breaks for progress.)
What you are asking is why society would want to invest in something that would make it radically richer? Don’t worry about that – it will happen. I think the question you want to ask is how do we limit the plutocracies to promote a meritocracy?
My argument was a narrow technical argument on hard skills and not fluffy stuff like self-esteem. Human capital is like a person’s physical body – If it is not continuously worked it gets weak and flabby. I don’t care what a marathon’s self-esteem is – if they been a couch potatoes for 10 years they will not turn in a record time.
For a poor analogy – if a windows developer has been out of work for 1 year gets rehired their productivity is going to be lower as they try to figure out Windows8 since the only know Windows7 (insert Windows8 jokes here). If a person has been out for 10 years the jump is going to be from XP. Their skills will be rusty and out of date.
Before you get to excited I suggest that you read some history and text books. Top down (which is what I think you are implying) attempts to defang capitalism tend to come out poorly. Wealth redistribution, retraining programs, work regulations tend to have negative unforeseen effects that outweigh the benefits.
I think Denmark might have the right answer. Employers can fire people at the drop of the hat – but everybody contributes to unemployment insurance. The unemployment insurance is generous but time limited. It takes the edge off of displaced workers, giving them room to take risks, but not so insular as to become forever residence of the dole.
The original OP was using simplified logic – I just took it to the logical conclusion.
I will grant you that the real work is a bit more complex as I have posted elsewhere here. Some of the workers will find themselves flipping burgers and be worse off. Others with find themselves as independent artists creating custom works on 3D printers and be better off. In the long run things work themselves out.
Even if only 10% of the employees where kept, overall productivity and wealth would increase. In the long run these things tend to sort themselves out. In the short run this brings up questions like income disparity.
I am for technology – besides you can’t put the genie back in the bottle. Manage the impact – don’t try to stop it.
Slashdot Mirror
That they build unsafe systems.
You are going to have hiccups with any new system – that’s a given. Combine that with tight deadlines & budgets imposed from above, the regulators and safety inspectors are not independent from the organization running the train, the mandatory use of state contractors, and graft from below – well serious accidents will occur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenzhou_train_collision#Investigation
And if high speed passenger rail made sense, trust me, the railroads would be on it.
You nailed ½ the question when it comes to population density – but only ½. I think high speed rail would work in some locations within the US. I think local politics play en equally important role.
I have been a residence who was directly affected by a rail expansion (freight, upgrade from 1 track to 2) and a commuter rail project. Every place that would be affected put in its own request for harm mitigation that required its own environmental impact studies, etc.
Projects that make sense on a grand scale are killed by parochial concerns. As an example, I think Chris Christie killed a subway expansion not because it was a bad idea but because he felt New York and the DOT should kick in more.
That would be like sending in the army to end racism in the south so that you can hand out bottled water.
Well, sometimes you do need to send in the 101 Airborne.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine#Armed_escort
Not saying that this is the case here – but it’s not something you want to dismiss outright.
MURDERD.
Killed could mean anything - from an accidental car death to dying from bullets falling from the sky after a round of celebratory gunfire.
He probably meant pseudo anonymously – so let’s not be pedantic. Anybody can set up an account pretending to be anything. You, on the other side, have no way of verifying the other’s id. Ergo it is effectively anonymous. Sure, with a warrant one can get an I.P. address and go from there, but that’s beyond the reach of most folks.
Let’s be fair – most of the issues can be traced back to Washington – both state and district.
Is it better to be lucky than good? Do smart people make their own luck? Or are they just smart enough to open the door when opportunity knocks? Tangling out smarts and luck is hard.
I think Cuban is smarter than he is lucky. I also think smarts and luck form a positive feedback loop. The more smart risks you take the more big wins you make – allowing you to take more smart risks.
I think you post is a bit confusing. As you said, if the patents had real value Google et. al. would be buying them – which they are via a 3rd party – ergo they have real value.
Let me posit a question – why would you spend time, money, and energy developing a innovated new product when a competitor can copy it for pennies on the dollar? You suggest that inventors should sell their ideas to monetize them. What happens when they are stolen? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns)
However, poor execution is not going to make a brilliant idea a success – which was Kodak’s problem. Cell phones is an interesting category. It got a wide range of patents covering hardware, software, networking, signal processing, computer applications, etc.
Look – the patent system is broken. After all, one can patent toast. http://www.google.com/patents?id=IpwDAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q&f=false
There are 2 choices. Fix the current system so only high quality patents get in – my preferred option. We would still have “patent trolls”, but at least they would not be pursing abusive overly wide patents. The other is to come up with a new system – and I have not heard a good one yet.
Mountains tend to have steady predicable wind patterns. There are additional engineering problems since the wind moves parallel to the ground. Since you can’t tip the towers by 30 degrees you need to try something else - but Japan is experimenting with the technology.
Which is a reason why to have it in Japan. Much easier to sight the LC when the beasts are in visual range.
France would be a bad idea. You don't know where you will end up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Another_World_(video_game)
You know, for all the flack that the “first past the post” voting system takes in Slashdot you have hit on one of the strengths of FPP – landslides gives the winning party the power to rule and to execute their party platform.
In this case LDP won 294 seats of 480, giving it a majority. With New Kometio 31 seats it has a super majority. I don’t know all the nuances in Japanese politics, but sometimes it’s necessary to have a super majority to prevent the minority party for blocking legislation. (Looking at California and the US Senate in the U.S.)
It’s not more engineering per say that is needed.
You have 2 trends. On one side there is a lot of energy expended into theoretical safeguards to appease the NIMBYs who – by definition – can never be appeased. On the other hand there engineers who, though the use of theory, think they can make safe proof designs.
The end results are very expensive bespoke nuclear power plants. Because of this customization, lessons learned at one plant can’t be translated to the next plat. What society needs is a frank discussion of what we want and the risks we are willing to take. Roll out a dozen plants and figure out what works and what does not – and apply those practical lessons (as well as any ideas that theory has) and build the next dozen.
The Economist did a good special report earlier this year. Here is the first of 6 articles.
http://www.economist.com/node/21549098
2 meltdowns is what I think you wanted to say. 3 Mile Island was only a partial meltdown. (being pedantic, of course.)
Per capita per human - probably it has dropped. Per capita per horse - I would guess a increase but it would be just that - a guess.
And in the old days there was a lot of cross over between a blacksmith and a farrier. Most blacksmiths could shoe a horse. Farriers are really a subclass of blacksmiths. Even today at contests farriers are judge on their ability to forge their own tools.
Yes - thanks for the catch
I kind of disagree with you.
What you are saying is that deflation occurs when aggregated supply outstrips aggregated demand (with a constant money supply), which is what would happen if capital and energy approached zero. If this did happen then, yes, for a short time period we would have deflation.
However, one of the assumptions of economics is that people have an insatiable demand. I have confidence that the status seeking humans will figure something to spend their money on even if energy and capital were free. There are many things that we pay for that have intangible values. Things that are limited (collectable beanie babies. A Harvard education. A day on a deserted beach), require labor (a MLB game, live music), or require choices (do we preserve the equatorial rain forest – or build some big massive space elevators).
I would say that welders are today’s blacksmiths. Also, there are more ferries (blacksmiths that work on horses) working today in the US then there were 100 years ago.
You looking at the wrong data. You want to find a 20 year run of 1. Inflation adjusted GDP 2. The working age population and 3. The total hours worked. What you will find is a stagnant economy, frighten off the twin evils of the 90’s property bubble and a declining population. The reason why the rates are low is because you are looking at a recent, 1 year chart. It fails to capture the underemployed and the discouraged.
I am missing a line of argument here – but how would that lead to deflation?
To put this in context, if we have a stable GNP, a stable monetary policy, what would force the price index to go down? Now mind you, the conditions would be bleak and dickensesque – I just don’t see how that inherently leads to deflation.
Well, one could pull out Marx, but his theories have a couple of holes. I will give you 2 flip reasons and hopefully something to chew over.
First, who cares? In the very long run (25+ years) workers would go back to it’s normal 70% to 50% . In the short run – well technology distribution is distribution. Old capitalist out, new capitalist in. Turnover over the soil. All is good.
Second, who cares? If you are a worker and you had a choice of either between enjoy a $1 pop or waiting a year to get a $2,500 (which is the value of the robot) – which would you chose? If you look at developing economies (those which have finial gotten the technology, education system, regulations, capital, etc.) their economy is heavily weighted towards capital development and consumption. Take a look a China today. (Which might lead to questions about income distribution, but there are better solutions then stepping on the breaks for progress.)
What you are asking is why society would want to invest in something that would make it radically richer? Don’t worry about that – it will happen. I think the question you want to ask is how do we limit the plutocracies to promote a meritocracy?
Wow. You took my argument and turned a sharp 180.
My argument was a narrow technical argument on hard skills and not fluffy stuff like self-esteem. Human capital is like a person’s physical body – If it is not continuously worked it gets weak and flabby. I don’t care what a marathon’s self-esteem is – if they been a couch potatoes for 10 years they will not turn in a record time.
For a poor analogy – if a windows developer has been out of work for 1 year gets rehired their productivity is going to be lower as they try to figure out Windows8 since the only know Windows7 (insert Windows8 jokes here). If a person has been out for 10 years the jump is going to be from XP. Their skills will be rusty and out of date.
Before you get to excited I suggest that you read some history and text books. Top down (which is what I think you are implying) attempts to defang capitalism tend to come out poorly. Wealth redistribution, retraining programs, work regulations tend to have negative unforeseen effects that outweigh the benefits.
I think Denmark might have the right answer. Employers can fire people at the drop of the hat – but everybody contributes to unemployment insurance. The unemployment insurance is generous but time limited. It takes the edge off of displaced workers, giving them room to take risks, but not so insular as to become forever residence of the dole.
No, Hell's tempure is 444c. Let’s try to be scientific here.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hell.htm
Salt is good for setting up a barrier against evil spirits.
However, I have found a BFG 9000 a better offensive weapon.
No – it was 2005 years ago – give or take a few days for the Georgian calendar conversion.
The original OP was using simplified logic – I just took it to the logical conclusion.
I will grant you that the real work is a bit more complex as I have posted elsewhere here. Some of the workers will find themselves flipping burgers and be worse off. Others with find themselves as independent artists creating custom works on 3D printers and be better off. In the long run things work themselves out.
Even if only 10% of the employees where kept, overall productivity and wealth would increase. In the long run these things tend to sort themselves out. In the short run this brings up questions like income disparity.
I am for technology – besides you can’t put the genie back in the bottle. Manage the impact – don’t try to stop it.