conservation of Euros
in [Design]
|
Prev: Which type of volatile RAM has the least duration of data remanencewhen power-offed?
Next: Analog Circuits (world class designs) B. Pease
From: dagmargoodboat on 18 May 2010 00:35 On May 17, 10:27 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Mon, 17 May 2010 13:48:28 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > wrote: > > > > >> >To the contrary--anti-trust should apply to labor, too. E.g. > >> >government unions. > > >> Agreed; all unions. > > >Sure. A union is nothing more than an attempt to monopolize labor. > > Sad day: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Antitrust_Act#Exemptions The AFL-CIO can only be seen as monopolists. They'd have taken over the country, except that they killed all their hosts. James
From: Bill Sloman on 18 May 2010 03:48 On May 17, 4:01 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > Bill Slomanwrote: > > On May 16, 1:11 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> Bill Slomanwrote: > >>> On May 13, 5:59 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >>>> Bill Slomanwrote: > >>>>> On May 13, 3:46 pm, John Larkin > >>>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 02:34:35 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > >>>>>> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >>>>>>> On May 12, 7:57 pm, John Larkin > >>>>>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 May 2010 10:13:56 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > >>>>>>>> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> I don't harvest; I think. > >>>>>>>>> An unconvincing claim. Your "thinking" reflects your indolent habit of > >>>>>>>>> picking up predigested nonsense that fits your fat-headed > >>>>>>>>> preconceptions. > >>>>>>>> I've been calling you a fathead for years. You can't even design > >>>>>>>> original insults. > >>>>>>>>> In this thread you've claimed that the euro can't be stable currency > >>>>>>>>> because it shared across several countries with different economic > >>>>>>>>> strengths and weaknessess, while failing to note that the US dollar is > >>>>>>>>> shared across the united states of America - running from Alaska to > >>>>>>>>> Wyoming (neither of whose economies look much like California's). > >>>>>>>> But we only have one government. > >>>>>>> Your states don't have legislatures and governors? > >>>>>> They aren't allowed to print money or regulate big financial > >>>>>> institutions. Most must balance their budgets. The trouble that > >>>>>> California is in now will be fixed by California. The trouble that > >>>>>> Greece is in now will be fixed by Germany. > >>>>> Do pay attention. The trouble that Greece is now in will be fixed by > >>>>> Greece. The EU - as a whole - will under-write Greek borrowing until > >>>>> that happens. The Germans have had quite a lot of influence on the > >>>>> requirements imposed on the Greeks in return for the guarantees, but > >>>>> the Greeks have to do the work. > >>>> Do pay attention: > >>>>http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2010/05/german-parliament-clears.... > >>>> Quote: "Members of the Bundestag, Germany's lower house, approved a > >>>> state-backed guarantee for the loan ..." > >>> It's you who needs to pay attention. The EU - as a whole - is under- > >>> writing the Greek borrowing. The individual memebers of the EU have to > >>> pass legislation to approve their particular country's part of the > >>> package. The Dutch lower house approved the Dutch component recently. > >>> It's still a collective decision. > >> So, what exactly does "state-backed" mean in your opinion? > > > That the individual states guarantee that their particular portion of > > the loan will be paid by that particular loan if Greece goes bankrupt? > > What else would it mean? > > Ah, now you are beginning to get it. You wrote above, quote "The EU - as > a whole - is underwriting the Greek borrowing". Which is wrong. For > example if Greece fails to service the debt it now has in Germany the EU > won't pay the Germans back. Their own taxpayers will. And those are > rather pissed right now and for good reason. Germany is part of the EU. If the Greeks fail to service the debt it has in Germany, it won't be servicing the debt held in France, the UK or the Netherlands either, and their taxpayers will be equally pissed. What is pising off the German taxpayers is that the rescue package is seen as a source of inflation, and the Germans have been terrified of inflation since 1923. > >> Your notion that "The trouble that Greece is now in will be fixed by > >> Greece" will IMHO not come to pass. > > > You are making a prediction, based on the little you know about the > > situation, heavily influenced by what you've read in the US mass > > media. As opinions go, it doesn't carry a lot of weight. > > Check the facts. Greece has no industry to write home about, tourism is > declining because countries like Turkey are cheaper, and they can't > print Euros. Did I forget anything? Guess not. Greece has the world's largest shipping fleet. This may not be an industry, but it is certaly a source of revenue. Try not to guess this sort of information - Wikipedia may not be perfect, but it's more reliable than your imagination. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece > >> They are unlikely to be able to fix the > >> damage that living beyond their means for years has done. > > > Why? The US - which has been running a hugge balance of payemnts > > deficit since Regan was president - would suggest that you might be > > right, but the money market hasn't yet got around to labelling US > > treasury bonds as risky investments. > > We have an industry. Greece doesn't. HUGE difference. You've exported a lot of your industry to China. Greece is a small country - about 11 million people - and it's industry, such as it is, isn't widely publicised. It is a developed country, and the GPD per head is about the same as that of France, Italy and Germany. > Open your PC or > whatever else electronic and see how many components in there are from > Greek companies. Open the hood of your car and do same. In fact, open > just about anything. So what? There's nothing there from Australia either, or Switzerland. > > The Greek credit rating has now gone through the floor, and they've > > got no option but reform. > > But torching the bank buildings isn't going to achieve that. Political theatre isn't all that productive, but that sort of thing is a lot cheaper than - say - invading Irak, which was equally rational. > >> It's other European countries who will fix it, also countries > >> overseas such as the US (via IMF). > > > The IMF has a one-size-fits all solution for every country that gets > > into serious debt. It does seem to be based on the prescriptions of a > > group of particularly unrealistic US economic theorists, and tends to > > do serious damage to the real economy in the process of restoring the > > credit rating, but international credit rating never did have much to > > do with reality, as we got to see when the sub-prime mortgage crisi > > hit the fan. > > And your alternative would be? I don't know of one. The IMF does seem to be the best available solution; it's pretty bad, but better than any available alterative in the world we have got, in much the same way that democracy - with all its defects - is the best way of running a country. > > Be that as it may, the Greeks have run out of options, and they will > > do what every other government has done when they fall into the hands > > of the IMF, which is to follow the - stupid - prescriptions. > > Obviously that will be much better than what they did so far, and what > got them into this mess in the first place. Obviously. But it's applying bang-bang control where proportional, integral and derivative control would let the economy transiton to the desired state rather faster. Because the IMF is run by American educated monetarist economists, whose "economic science" has very limited predictive power, they haven't a hope of implementing any kind of feed-forward control strategy. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 18 May 2010 04:20 On May 17, 5:18 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Mon, 17 May 2010 07:01:48 -0700, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> > wrote: > > > > >Bill Slomanwrote: > >> On May 16, 1:11 am, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >>> Bill Slomanwrote: > >>>> On May 13, 5:59 pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >>>>> Bill Slomanwrote: > >>>>>> On May 13, 3:46 pm, John Larkin > >>>>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 02:34:35 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > >>>>>>> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On May 12, 7:57 pm, John Larkin > >>>>>>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 12 May 2010 10:13:56 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > >>>>>>>>> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't harvest; I think. > >>>>>>>>>> An unconvincing claim. Your "thinking" reflects your indolent habit of > >>>>>>>>>> picking up predigested nonsense that fits your fat-headed > >>>>>>>>>> preconceptions. > >>>>>>>>> I've been calling you a fathead for years. You can't even design > >>>>>>>>> original insults. > >>>>>>>>>> In this thread you've claimed that the euro can't be stable currency > >>>>>>>>>> because it shared across several countries with different economic > >>>>>>>>>> strengths and weaknessess, while failing to note that the US dollar is > >>>>>>>>>> shared across the united states of America - running from Alaska to > >>>>>>>>>> Wyoming (neither of whose economies look much like California's). > >>>>>>>>> But we only have one government. > >>>>>>>> Your states don't have legislatures and governors? > >>>>>>> They aren't allowed to print money or regulate big financial > >>>>>>> institutions. Most must balance their budgets. The trouble that > >>>>>>> California is in now will be fixed by California. The trouble that > >>>>>>> Greece is in now will be fixed by Germany. > >>>>>> Do pay attention. The trouble that Greece is now in will be fixed by > >>>>>> Greece. The EU - as a whole - will under-write Greek borrowing until > >>>>>> that happens. The Germans have had quite a lot of influence on the > >>>>>> requirements imposed on the Greeks in return for the guarantees, but > >>>>>> the Greeks have to do the work. > >>>>> Do pay attention: > >>>>>http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2010/05/german-parliament-clears... > >>>>> Quote: "Members of the Bundestag, Germany's lower house, approved a > >>>>> state-backed guarantee for the loan ..." > >>>> It's you who needs to pay attention. The EU - as a whole - is under- > >>>> writing the Greek borrowing. The individual memebers of the EU have to > >>>> pass legislation to approve their particular country's part of the > >>>> package. The Dutch lower house approved the Dutch component recently.. > >>>> It's still a collective decision. > >>> So, what exactly does "state-backed" mean in your opinion? > > >> That the individual states guarantee that their particular portion of > >> the loan will be paid by that particular loan if Greece goes bankrupt? > >> What else would it mean? > > >Ah, now you are beginning to get it. You wrote above, quote "The EU - as > >a whole - is underwriting the Greek borrowing". Which is wrong. For > >example if Greece fails to service the debt it now has in Germany the EU > >won't pay the Germans back. Their own taxpayers will. And those are > >rather pissed right now and for good reason. > > >>> Your notion that "The trouble that Greece is now in will be fixed by > >>> Greece" will IMHO not come to pass. > > >> You are making a prediction, based on the little you know about the > >> situation, heavily influenced by what you've read in the US mass > >> media. As opinions go, it doesn't carry a lot of weight. > > >Check the facts. Greece has no industry to write home about, tourism is > >declining because countries like Turkey are cheaper, and they can't > >print Euros. Did I forget anything? Guess not. > > >>> They are unlikely to be able to fix the > >>> damage that living beyond their means for years has done. > > >> Why? The US - which has been running a hugge balance of payemnts > >> deficit since Regan was president - would suggest that you might be > >> right, but the money market hasn't yet got around to labelling US > >> treasury bonds as risky investments. > > >We have an industry. Greece doesn't. HUGE difference. Open your PC or > >whatever else electronic and see how many components in there are from > >Greek companies. Open the hood of your car and do same. In fact, open > >just about anything. > > >> The Greek credit rating has now gone through the floor, and they've > >> got no option but reform. > > >But torching the bank buildings isn't going to achieve that. > > Their option is to carry on as before, and let the Germans pay for > this round. Reform after this shot of money runs out, and party for a > few more years. That's not an option. The EU support ws condtional on painful and immediate reform, and if the Greek goverment doesn't deliver on that, the support goes away. > >>> It's other European countries who will fix it, also countries > >>> overseas such as the US (via IMF). > > >> The IMF has a one-size-fits all solution for every country that gets > >> into serious debt. It does seem to be based on the prescriptions of a > >> group of particularly unrealistic US economic theorists, and tends to > >> do serious damage to the real economy in the process of restoring the > >> credit rating, but international credit rating never did have much to > >> do with reality, as we got to see when the sub-prime mortgage crisi > >> hit the fan. > > >And your alternative would be? > > >> Be that as it may, the Greeks have run out of options, and they will > >> do what every other government has done when they fall into the hands > >> of the IMF, which is to follow the - stupid - prescriptions. > > >Obviously that will be much better than what they did so far, and what > >got them into this mess in the first place. > > Sloman doesn't approve of stupid prescriptions, like producing as much > as you consume. > > http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100517/D9FOHKGO0.html Although the article doesn't make this explicit, its all about the economics of "pump-priming" stimulation of the economy, to compensate for the damage done by the collapse of teh US housing price bubble, which had conjured up an immense amount of credit out of thin air. National governments have had to conjure up comparable amounts of credit by deficit financing to keep the economy running at a respectable fraction of its potential productivity. The alternative do-nothing approach, as practiced by Hoover in 1929, leads to vast tracts of industry standing idle with 25% unemployment, dramatically reducing production and consumption. The argument isn't about "producing as much as you consume" - it's about maintaining consumption and production under circumstances where both would otherwise collapse. Managing the transition back to balanced budgets without crimping the level of economic activity too much isn't a trivial job, and the banks don't help by bleating about financial responsiblity as if their US colleagues hadn't created the problem in the first place by being totally irresponsible. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 18 May 2010 04:37 On May 18, 12:47 am, Greegor <greego...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 17, 5:27 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > > > On May 15, 10:15 am, Greegor <greego...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > Sloman seems to be some kind of idealogue, > > > a sort of cartoon of liberal thought. > > > > What other people might easily recognize as > > > indoctrination and propaganda, he blithely > > > considers to be factual scientific education. > > > > Any ideological challenge is an assault on his religion. > > > Gregor post his opinions without reference to any external evidence, > > and complains that what I post - which does refer to objective and > > widely recognised facts, which I do point to - is "indoctrination and > > propaganda" while it is actually pointing out that his kind of opinion > > does reflect his exposure to precisely that kind of misinfomration. > > > > It seems like when liberals live in very liberal places > > > they start believing their own BS and they get > > > into the "crowd mentality" or "riot mentality" > > > where they presume they are superior and > > > they are large and in charge. Sometimes they get > > > so carried away with this they do outrageous > > > things. > > > Like invading Irak? > > > > It seems to be akin to "risky shift" in juries > > > or "confirmation bias" in scientific endeavors. > > > > Police routinely whack a few heads and it > > > breaks the mental spell. > > > Reality bashed Dubbya's head quite hard in Irak without breaking the > > mental spell that had taken hold of the neo-cons, and still seems to > > infest whatever it is that you use instead of a brain. > > > > Consider Sloman's advice and ""proof"" > > > almost as you would advice on US > > > economics from a Russian Stalinist. > > > Consider Gregor's advice and **proof** exactly was you would economic > > advice from a US monetarist. Not that Gregor bothers to point to > > anything remotely ressembling objective evidence to support his silly > > ideas. If I thought that he could think, I could claim that it was > > because he knows that such evidence doesn't exist, but in fact he > > doesn't understand the concept of evidence in the first place, and > > thinks that his delusions have to be true just because he believes > > them. > > > > Ask him how he likes capitalism! > > > Unbridled free market capitalism generates a series of booms and busts > > in the economic environment. The free market is a good device for > > matching supply and demand, but it does need a stabilising mechanism. > > Keynes described one such mechanism which works pretty well, though it > > can stall the economy in a state where it grows more slowly that it > > ideally could. His followers have worked out some improvements, but > > politicians don't like their prescriptions and prefer the plausible > > nonsense they get to hear from monetarists, so we get more booms and > > busts. > > > -- > >Bill Sloman, Nijmegen > > You praised Marx and Engels. > Are you not an outright Marxist, Sloman? I can praise Darwin's insights while believing in modern evolutionary theory, which includes all the stuff about DNA that Darwin couldn't imagine. I can similary approve of the useful parts of Marx and Engels work - their contributions to economic theory and practice - while noting that their political insights weren't all that useful. God only knows what an "outright Marxist" might be these days. Greegor might like to try and identify one as an example of the type. Chomsky isn't a Marxist - according to Wikipedia "he describes himself as a socialist who sympathizes with anarcho-syndicalism, but is strongly critical of Leninist branches of socialism", and Americans usually understand "Marxist" to represent somebody who endorses the Marxist-Lenin tradition, which I certainly don't, along with everybody else who has noticed how that panned out. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 18 May 2010 04:47
On May 17, 7:10 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Mon, 17 May 2010 03:40:11 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On May 17, 4:22 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >> On May 14, 5:07 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >> > On May 14, 10:42 pm, John Larkin > >> > > Productivity is the ultimate benevolence. Technology pushes > >> > > productivity. > > >> > Perfectly true. But it doesn't do a thing to ensure that the benefits > >> > of increased productivity are equally shared between capital and > >> > labour. > > >> Obviously it's extremely critical how and when those benefits are > >> shared. Labor does not deserve all the proceeds of my innovation, > >> risk, and investment simply because I hire them, guarantee them a > >> regular check when I get none, and insulate them from the predations > >> and petty ministration of their rulers. Showing up for a paycheck at > >> a factory does not entitle you to the factory. > > >> Freedom means you can start something yourself, if you want those > >> rewards and are prepared to take those risks; government means you > >> can't, to a larger and larger extent. > > >Society as whole provides the environment where you can hire > >technically educated employees, communicate with them, and have them > >travel around and get looked after when they get sick. > > >Your taxes support that society. Try setting up an innovative business > >in a third world country where the tax rates are lower (or easily > >evaded by bribing the right people). > > >Showing up for a paycheck at a factory doesn't entitle you to the > >whole factory, but the last hundred years has demonstrated that the > >optimum split for rewarding capital versus labour comes out at around > >fifty-fifty. > > My business spends a tad over 50% of revenues on salaries, retirement > funds, benefits, and insurance/other worker-related fees. 22 to 24% is > parts. Most of the rest is rent, professional services, utilities, > subcontracting, things like that. Then there's the heap of fees and > taxes. We're small enough that we can expense capital equipment > purchases, so we do. > > In a good year, that leaves a few per cent for profit, the return on > capital. > > Where's my 50:50 split? You are plowing it back into the business -"expense capital equipment" - which you presumably own. You don't seem to be exracting a commercial rate of return on the equity that you have built up in the business, but if the business is becoming more valuable, year by year, and you own it, the increase in value could be seen as your return on capital. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |