If the gov't lived with in its means, it wouldn't need "financing."
Creating money (1 & 2) faster than the rate of the creation of real value is simply a dishonest way of confiscating wealth.
Cheers, James Arthur
e it never was true.
Thomas Piketty would beg to differ.
s off Craigslist. I still have better circuits and better products.
That's most unlikely to be true. The problem for them would be recovering t he capital invested from the sales they'd make into the rather small market that you exploit.
What you do is good enough for the rather restricted and specialised market you've made your own. It may help your sales to pretend that what you make it "insanely good" and you may even be silly enough to believe your own pr opaganda, but there's not much objective evidence that you are anything mor e than competent (but that's rare enough).
Design for the automative market - even just the top end of the automotive market - can support much more careful design and optimisation than can any thing aimed at the scientific instrument market.
One of my friends designed the current control circuit for the arc lamps th at BMW puts into their top-of-the-line head-lights ...
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
ers off
the capital invested from the sales they'd make into the rather small mark et that you exploit.
et you've made your own. It may help your sales to pretend that what you ma ke it "insanely good" and you may even be silly enough to believe your own propaganda, but there's not much objective evidence that you are anything m ore than competent (but that's rare enough).
e market - can support much more careful design and optimisation than can a nything aimed at the scientific instrument market.
I've ripped apart, designed, and redesigned lots of gear of all types. I've seen it all.
I've seen John's stuff and been to his shop. It's full of innovation and cleverness, every nook and cranny. And I've known John professionally over three decades.
John's stuff is indeed designed to a very high standard: clean, brutal, precise, and tough. His highly-demanding customers love it, and his crew has fun building it. That's his business. You can't appreciate it, I'm not sure why.
Maybe you just can't or don't want to appreciate quality, especially in someone else.
Cheers, James Arthur
Government expenditure does go into the economy, and depending on the sector, the net cost is much less than headline as much is recouped in taxes.
But you're right that the current "quantitative easing" does go into the financial system with little benefit to direct investment.
-- Mike Perkins Video Solutions Ltd www.videosolutions.ltd.uk
Then you'd better be quick, because I fear 'they' are going to change the constitution (
Even genocide is an option, as most government initiated genocides (and there are many of those) started with gun confiscation by the state.
joe
I beg to differ. There are also things like increasing productivity and population, both of which imply an increase in the amount of money flowing around, if you want to keep price levels stable.
For that case, so even if the govt doesn't overspend, the two options mentioned above still go. Where option 2 still leads to exponential growth in interest burden, were it to be financed by additional borrowing. If not, and the loans are intended to be paid back, then where is the money coming from to pay the interest? It has never been created in the first place, so paying back the loans in option 2 would lead to a shrinking money supply with huge _deflation_ as a result.
No, only option 1 is viable.
joe
It's already here. It's called "choice". See: Margaret Sanger
That's working well in CT. People will be far less enthusiastic in TX. It's not going to happen.
well buy
bankers
bike
had
bike
places.
Please remember that they claim to have models for macroeconomics. That is a BIG LIE. The models are all made of silly putty with no relationship to reality, which explains why the results they get have no relationship to the levers they move and the knobs they twist.
?-)
non-solution did.
shouldn't
productive...
Maybe, but it is NOT the business of any government. There are charities, many of them churches, to do that. Plus many individuals do it simple and direct.
?-)
parasites
Creating wealth (not printing notes) can do it, but governments can only print notes; thus inflation.
interest.
If you follow the original definition of inflation (increase in money supply), then yes. If you differentiate between monetary and price inflation, then printing notes _could_ support the economy if well done: Print (or destroy) as many notes as is necessary to keep up with changes in production, so price inflation and deflation will not occur. This was common practice in the early days of the US and worked very well.
Please note that your comment also applies to option 2. below.
regards, joe
Right. Modern economics has zero predictive ability. Weeks before the big dot-com and real estate crashes, the great majority of economists thought everything was fine. Even today, they think we're in a slow recovery, everything is fine.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology Inc www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com Precision electronic instrumentation
Microeconomics would be too hard to monitor beyond the broad brush needed for use by macroeconomic models. You drown in meaningless detail unless you can distil it down to a dozen or so key numbers.
Microeconomics is to macroeconomics as statistical mechanics is to thermodynamics but without the full mathematical rigour. Their methods are not all that bad. I have had the chance to play with the UK economic model once and it preforms pretty well if you start it at some previous point and then make suitable decisions. You quickly learn that economies handle like a supertanker with almost no effect for six months or so and then you find out what the lever actually had or not.
Mostly it is the bankers shuffling emoney around the world on Forex speculation buying ahead of their customers and syphoning off a profit. A large proportion of world GDP is traded daily on Forex $5T out of a real global GDP of $40T. In a year they trade 45x multiple of real GDP.
They do have models but the models are only as good as the data that you can put into them and that data isn't very good. Watch how often inflation or monthly figures like employement get massaged further down the line. Some of it is genuine corrections to imprecise incomplete data and some it political meddling to placate the electorate.
The problem is that the models cannot adequately take into account the "too big to fail" culture that led to the arrogant heads we win tails you lose culture at the likes of Casino bankers Lehman and their ilk.
I find it odd that I should have to stand up for economists but some of what they do is useful and founded on sound mathematics. The problems arise when the suits think that their whizz kid mathematicians have eliminated risk and so ever more complicated speculative derivative instruments can be constructed to milk more profit from the punters. They end up trading things that they can neither understand nor value!
This has incidentaly been going on essentially forever or at least since there have been banks, loan sharks and usurers. The Mississippi bubble funded by French paper money is a pretty good example of what unrestrained irrational exhuberance can do and far enough back to be able to see the consequences:
I could easily have picked tulip mania or the South Sea bubble they all hinge on persuading people they can get rich quick with no effort. And the ones that sell at the peak (typically insiders) do make a killing.
-- Regards, Martin Brown
It is possible to grow like that but only if the products that the company makes are high value relative to the input materials. It also only works if there is a relatively low cost of entry to the business and not too many competitors. Even cash rich companies may have to borrow sometimes to expand their premises or buy large capital kit. If you wait until you have saved up enough money to do it for cash the business opportunity will have already been snatched up by someone prepared to take a risk on borrowing money to exploit it quicker.
You would not for instance be able to start a semiconductor fab line in your back bedroom without borrowing money. Neither could you double the capacity of an existing fab line facility without a sizeable loan.
It will help some companies that could expand if they had the funds to do so. Banks have becomes inclined not to lend money to perfectly sound firms and one UK bank (now publicly owned) has been caught red handed deliberately bankrupting companies on its books so as to generate larger bonuses for its employees handling the bankruptcy proceedings.
That isn't entirely clear in the USA. If there was a decent national health service then you wouldn't have such insanely high medical insurance costs most of which goes to funding the exotic lifestyle of middlemen in the huge pyramid of private insurers and hospitals.
-- Regards, Martin Brown
Bubble for sure but there is an unending flow of speculative hard cash into London bricks and mortar. I understated the annual increase too - latest figures suggest +20% per annum in the hotspots and +18% for London overall. Mostly cash buyers and only half are resident in the UK.
I expect Google itself will survive. The thing about software is that the material costs are essentially zero and now the cost of delivery is also negligible with a free global distribution online infrastructure. Google has some very powerful servers and indexing software and generates plenty of revenue from advertisers too.
Candy Crush Saga is an example of the newest business model (and a cute puzzle game too). They seem to get a lot of $1 or 69p payments...
-- Regards, Martin Brown
"Stable prices" is moving the goal posts. A government that lives within its means doesn't need to borrow money ("financing") or dilute savers' savings by printing.
If you want add the "stable prices" criterion, you can print money at the rate of population growth plus productivity growth, replacing deflation with ham-fisted artificial busts and booms.
That's not what we're doing these days--we're waayyyy off the rails.
Those aren't the only options. Why can't the government just collect more revenue as a result of the economy doing well? When crops are good, the government reaps too--no "printing" or borrowing required.
And, it has the virtue making sure that things good for the people are good for their rulers, giving the latter group some interest in the former. As it should be.
Cheers, James Arthur
8:1 seems to work. Software is even better.
It also
But you could design a killer chip, pitch it to a customer, have him run it through a foundry, and get rich.
Maybe. Our health care cost is annoying but a fraction of our corporate taxes.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology Inc www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com Precision electronic instrumentation
-- John Larkin Highland Technology Inc www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com Precision electronic instrumentation
The lower bound is about 4:1 anything lower is very likely to fail.
Materials cost in software is negligible today although I do recall big
ones that the programmer really didn't like. Light emitting EPROMs were something of a novelty but they didn't work afterwards.
Turned out the programming voltage was ringing with the faster parts but
before it occurred to them to ask R&D for some help.
This may explain at least one reason why the European perspective is different. France and Belgium are best avoided though.
UK corporation tax regime is so favourable that people set up single person service companies and Pfizer recently tried to buy AstraZeneca merely as a tax dodge to avoid paying US corporation tax on its overseas profits. Their takeover move failed spectacularly in part because nobody likes an asset stripping tax dodger. Pfizer had ripped the heart out of its own UK research centre just over two years ago.
-- Regards, Martin Brown
Back when I was in highschool I also believed that. Not anymore.
This is what I expect federal reserve folks to see. That's what we the taxpayers pay them for and give them fat pensions for. Why is it that I could foresee the bubble years earlier and they could not? Here is proof:
Now I am certainly not a great economy whizkid but when the fed chairperson says in an interview that they didn't see it coming then that really takes the cake.
Same for all these government bankers in Europe that started whining how "the Americans" duped them. While the simple fact is that they acted stupidly when buying mortgage-backed securities. Hard words but true.
[...]-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.