bang-bang control loop (2023 Update)

many think this is intentional.

Really? You think this is Bang-Bang control? Perhaps you don't know what the term means? Or much more likely you have such little understanding of economics you don't know what the Fed does or how it does it?

What do you think the Fed should do?

Ever done if voltage too high: duty cycle = 20%, if voltage too low: duty cycle = 80% on a boost topology?

If the load is like a Nixie tube or something seems to work alright. Stand by for my economy = Nixie tube formal presentation

Speaking of control theory ever seen the optimized minimum-time-to-climb path for e.g. a jet fighter aircraft using the minumum-energy-state optimization methods?

It's friggin' weird like go straight up. Go sideways. Dive for a while at 45 degrees down. Pull up 45 degrees. Pull straight up again. Invert the aircraft and fly at 45 degrees inverted to the first dive.

How the pilot keeps their lunch in the process is the other control-theory problem

I've done something like that, a boost converter where the control element is a schmitt trigger gate. Hysteretic boost. Maybe I can find the schematic.

It would show on the nixie if the voltage jumped around erratically about 2:1.

I wonder if economists have something like Spice to play with. When I took economics there was no mention of time-domain effects, leads and lags and loops, or of nonlinearities. But those were undergrad courses.

Me too. Econ does use systems of ODEs, but solve for steady-state. The key in Econ is to find a mathematically simple way to plausibly capture human behavior. It kinda works, so long as one does not push one's luck.

A key assumption is that the various economic actors being modeled are statistically independent, which is true until it isn't - like in a bubble and/or crash, when everybody tries to do the same thing.

In the Financial world, Economists are not listened to.

Joe Gwinn

True facts, I have an acquaintance who's a PhD academic macroeconomist.

He doesn't try to model entire economies, more like small subsets say a particular industry like textile manufacturing, and its interactions with its host country's commodities market.

Often the thrust being that the particular industry could make more profit with the resources they already have by doing something non-intuitive. But industry is often very stodgy.

You can build a hysteric buck converter that can line and load-regulate fairly well but AFAIK a naive hysteric boost will always wander without more advanced tactics, even with a constant load.

But for an approximately resistive or constant current load I think you can make the wandering arbitrarily small and the good news is that type of loop can never go into severe oscillations, it's already unstable by its nature.

The programmers who built the first massively multiplayer online games like Ultima Online were very optimistic they could build a world with its own "real" economy and virtual ecosystem of e.g. forests and oceans and mines and monsters with their own life-cycle, that would run itself without having to resort to dumb hacks to keep the game interesting.

This was impossible, the virtual worlds were too small, like your little player-guy could travel across the whole of the world at a fast jog in a half hour of real time. A few hundred players together in that virtual environment left to their own devices could strip the whole world bare of resources in days.

snipped-for-privacy@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

We will see perturbations from Nixon's devaluing the Gold Standard for decades to come.

Joe Gwinn snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Like Al Pacino said "The Big Bang Threw us all out here, and the Big Slam is gonna pull us all right back in."

Or as Dr. Frederick Frankenstein said "Entropy, entropy, no escaping that for we!"

We are all having a 'Nachtmere'. Just ask Teri Garr. Nice Knockers!

They are all macroeconomists. That's glamorous and powerful.

Of course, macroeconomics is just the sum of all the microeconomics.

Just in time for their 100th birthday.

Sanity would be repealing every law involving money from the past 100 years.

One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up to a fixed multiple of their assets.

At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill.

Repealing laws only works when people are decent and honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren't, or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going beyond them into the impossible.

Repealing laws works whenever the law was a bad idea, which was true in most cases since the progressive era began. The progressive's most consistent behavior is refusal to believe anything they do could have been a mistake.

The law you speak of can't hold a candle to the destabilising effect of threatening banks with civil rights prosecution if they didn't lend to people who couldn't afford to pay it back. Of course that wasn't a new law, just a misuse of one.

Northern Rock had some reason to expect Fannie, Freddie, Goldman, Lehman, et al, to buy the debt. But they could have loaned 1000 times assets if the loans were repaid. The left steadfastly refuses to see that it was the policies of the left that were the overriding factor.

The last paragraph briefly alludes to the work of then HUD secretary Andrew Cuomo. As an aside, in SED 16 months ago I mentioned his work as New York governor that caused the deaths of 10-15k elderly in 2020, which you and Bill Sloman were quick to dismiss as right wing propaganda as if you know more about what happens in New York than I do. Democrats were quick to remove him on weak sexual harrassment charges to prevent a serious look into that, because it would cast doubt on all their COVID policies.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Yeah let's not pressure them to remain solvent. Instead let's pressure them to loan to the poor and then declare there weren't enough regulations. And let's not regulate government entities like Fannie and Freddie - just private companies because they cause all the trouble.

The late 1800s in the US aren't well-known for a high degree of economic stability, either, the panic if 1893 set off the second largest depression in US history next to the Great Depression.

Almost like your typical American conservative is pretty far from anything resembling the concepts of "decent" or "honest", and knows full well what type of environment he thinks he'll be the most prosperous in.

"Are you questioning my honor?" "I'm not questioning your honor, I am denying its existence..."

note that incidentally, I can't say I've ever met an atypical one.

That was a popular explanation of the sub-prime mortgage crisis shortly after it happened. James Arthur peddled it here with some enthusiasm.

When people looked into what had actually happened, the guaranteed loans made to people in low income areas hadn't been abandoned any more often than usual during the crisis, and the problem was all about irresponsible lending by fringe banks.

It's just right-wing propaganda. George W. Bush Jnr tried to use the expanding house price bubble as an excuse to cut back the guaranteed loans, but Congress correctly rejected his proposal (which clearly hadn't addressed the actual problem) so he just let the bubble blow up and burst.

<snipped the rest>

The idea that banks lent to everyone with a pulse because they were somehow afraid of "civil rights prosecution" seems pretty absurd. Who were they so afraid of and what consequences. Major lenders settle class actions by citizens all the time for chump change, they're not afraid of this it's a cost of doing business.

Only times they get really hit hard is when they f*ck with the federal government itself like in tax evasion, money laundering, and anti-trust suits, that is to say the big gangsters got the impression the little gangsters were trying to screw them over on their cut. They were never afraid of violating anyone's "civil rights", come on.

"Upon closer examination, the recent string of bank prosecutions, while noteworthy, fails to address persistent concerns that deterrent fines are not routinely imposed, that compliance terms designed to rehabilitate firms are not used effectively, and that individuals remain largely un-prosecuted."

They're not afraid of shit