And I was arguing about countries - not continents - which had relatively l ow Gini indices. Because you can't think straight or argue honestly, you tr ied to transpose the argument into a discussion of the US versus Europe as a whole, which is to say you missed the point.
I'd say that it is unlikely that you can think well enough to have ever got a Ph.D., not that he people who got their Ph.D.s when I did were uniformly clever or always willing to contemplate political questions rationally.
Ha Ha. Rise of the Robots. Recalls Jesse Jackson. I tried to make point that government intervention to raise minimum wage will inevitably destroy jobs, because of an overhead factor described by Libertarians. The prime example is Russia's planned economy. They had to abandon it as unworkable. I was in Moscow recently, and I have never seen a mote bitter and disillusioned people. But, the country has been through a lot for many reasons, so I can't judge.
be is plagarised from Kurt Vonnegut. The Gini index just measures the exten t of inequality in the economy. Socialists - amongst others - have noticed that if there's too much (and anything over 0.4 in an advanced industrial e conomy seems to be too much), the economy doesn't work as well as it does w ith Gini indices from 0.25 to about 0.32.
r of the population - and was not far behind China which has almost sixty t imes as many people as Germany and pays them a lot less.
erman health care is at least as good, cheaper and universal, so this is pr obably bad accounting rather than any kind of real US superiority.
1 to Finland at 7.618, they all beat the US at 7.615 - and Germany isn't fa r behind at 7.48. I'd trust that number better if Ireland wasn't at the top of the list at 8.333.
Good points. I will study them. However, if I detect the odor of freshly scrubbed social planning, I will cackle like the Geese at Rome. BTW, Vonneg ut plaged the idea from Jonathon Swift, Gulliver's Travels. In any case, schools hand out PhD's and other degrees like pop corn these d ays. A kind of Hungarian aristocracy has arisen, to plage Dostoevsky.
o be is plagarised from Kurt Vonnegut. The Gini index just measures the ext ent of inequality in the economy. Socialists - amongst others - have notice d that if there's too much (and anything over 0.4 in an advanced industrial economy seems to be too much), the economy doesn't work as well as it does with Gini indices from 0.25 to about 0.32.
ter of the population - and was not far behind China which has almost sixty times as many people as Germany and pays them a lot less.
German health care is at least as good, cheaper and universal, so this is probably bad accounting rather than any kind of real US superiority.
051 to Finland at 7.618, they all beat the US at 7.615 - and Germany isn't far behind at 7.48. I'd trust that number better if Ireland wasn't at the t op of the list at 8.333.
egut
Perhaps. It's a long time since I read Gulliver's Travels, and Swift didn't have any centrally planned economies to satirise.
days.
Not the ones I've had any contact with. Any suggestion that their degrees m ight be bought rather than earned would make them much less attractive to p otential students, because the degrees would not be seen as valuable by the student's potential employers. There is the point that a Ph.D. is supposed to present unique and original research, which means that they are all sup posed to be different, and can't possibly be of exactly the same quality. A nd if you aren't interested in the kind of question being studied, you may not think much of the answers.
If you hire a Ph.D. without finding out what they've actually done, you may not like what you get.
low Gini indices. Because you can't think straight or argue honestly, you tried to transpose the argument into a discussion of the US versus Europe a s a whole, which is to say you missed the point.
Well I believe it is you that can't think straight. The U.S. is composed o f states which are roughly the size of European countries. So it is rather ridiculous to compare the U.S. as a country to say Liechtenstein. Europe i s about the same size as the U.S. and like the U.S. has areas that doing we ll as far as the economy and other areas that are not doing well. So compa ring the U.S. to Europe makes more sense than comparing the U.S. to portuga l.
ot a > Ph.D.,
That's right. When losing on logic, go right for ad hominem.
Dan
not that he people who got their Ph.D.s when I did were uniformly clever o r always willing to contemplate political questions rationally.
ly low Gini indices. Because you can't think straight or argue honestly, yo u tried to transpose the argument into a discussion of the US versus Europe as a whole, which is to say you missed the point.
of states which are roughly the size of European countries. So it is rathe r ridiculous to compare the U.S. as a country to say Liechtenstein. Europe is about the same size as the U.S. and like the U.S. has areas that doing well as far as the economy and other areas that are not doing well. So com paring the U.S. to Europe makes more sense than comparing the U.S. to Portu gal.
Wrong. I'm currently reading "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" by Thoma s Piketty
formatting link
He has a Ph.D. so The Economist should be calling him Dr. Piketty, rather t han Mr. Piketty.
Piketty makes the point that the US has always had more more land that it c an use, which made capital accumulation in the US very different from capit al accumulation in Europe. Size isn't important, structure is, and US state s haven't had the time or the necessity to build up much in the way of stru cture.
Comparing the US to Europe as a whole doesn't make any sense at all, and im plicitly equating Portugal - which is a very poor country which was run as a right-wing dictatorship, like Spain, until the Carnation Revolution of 19
74 - with Germany, which is a rather rich country, which was a democracy fr om 1948, is utterly moronic.
More to the point, I was talking about equality and Gini-indices, which do differ significantly from European country to European country.
They also differ between US States
formatting link
but not nearly as much - from 0.419 in Utah to 0.532 in the District of Col umbia (which is where all the fattest cats in Utah go to lobby for their in terests in Utah).
Your post that I was reacting to, started off "I do not have a phd. , but I always thought Germany was part of Europe, not all of Europe. "
Which is - strictly speaking - ad hominem, because my Ph.D. is not in the a rea we are arguing about. And I'd made no reference to it in putting my cas e.
Your post was also extremely weak on logic, as I was pointing out. Your cla im that I'm "losing on logic" is completely insane, and reinforces my point about you not being able to think straight.
This might put you in line for a Ph.D. from the Bob Jones University, where not being able to think straight is an entry requirement, but you don't se em able to master the level of logical consistency that even they would req uire.
can use, which made capital accumulation in the US very different from cap ital accumulation in Europe. Size isn't important, structure is, and US sta tes haven't had the time or the necessity to build up much in the way of st ructure.
When Dr. Piketty sas the U.S. has more land than it can use, just what part of the U.S. is he referring to? Rhode Island? Or Alaska? And when he s ays the U.S. hasn't had the time, it he referring to say Massachusetts or H awaii?
/
implicitly equating Portugal - which is a very poor country which was run a s a right-wing dictatorship, like Spain, until the Carnation Revolution of
1974 - with Germany, which is a rather rich country, which was a democracy from 1948, is utterly moronic.
o differ significantly from European country to European country.
olumbia (which is where all the fattest cats in Utah go to lobby for their interests in Utah).
er
I always thought Germany was part of Europe, not all of Europe. "
area we are arguing about. And I'd made no reference to it in putting my c ase.
laim that I'm "losing on logic" is completely insane, and reinforces my poi nt about you not being able to think straight.
I am sure you feel better after posting this.
Dan
re not being able to think straight is an entry requirement, but you don't seem able to master the level of logical consistency that even they would r equire.
it can use, which made capital accumulation in the US very different from c apital accumulation in Europe. Size isn't important, structure is, and US s tates haven't had the time or the necessity to build up much in the way of structure.
rt of the U.S. is he referring to? Rhode Island? Or Alaska? And when he says the U.S. hasn't had the time, it he referring to say Massachusetts or Hawaii?
Read the book.
formatting link
000X
d implicitly equating Portugal - which is a very poor country which was run as a right-wing dictatorship, like Spain, until the Carnation Revolution o f 1974 - with Germany, which is a rather rich country, which was a democrac y from 1948, is utterly moronic.
do differ significantly from European country to European country.
Columbia (which is where all the fattest cats in Utah go to lobby for thei r interests in Utah).
ever got a Ph.D.,
ut I always thought Germany was part of Europe, not all of Europe. "
he area we are arguing about. And I'd made no reference to it in putting my case.
claim that I'm "losing on logic" is completely insane, and reinforces my p oint about you not being able to think straight.
Indulging in flame wars with half-wits doesn't make me feel much better. Th ere's a certain satisfaction in squashing a bug, but finding a fly-screen t hat worked would make me a lot happier.
. There's a certain satisfaction in squashing a bug, but finding a fly-scre en that worked would make me a lot happier.
Why should I bother? And in any case, the analogy is imperfect. Bugs probab ly do notice when they have been squashed. The targets in flame wars haven' t got much credibility to start with, and don't miss what they lose. Krw re mains perfectly confident that his opinion counts around here, when even th e other right-wing nitwits have noticed that he's a waste of bandwidth.
Your PhD in some area of applied chemistry doesn't exactly qualify you as an economist. :) I myself value hands-on experience: For example, Marx never ran a Gulag, so how can we expect that he knew about the workings of communism? Further, if I were to indulge in Ad Hominem, Marx never worked for a living, so he had little direct experience of the value of labor. He was an alcoholic who sponged off relatives. And Keynes - that idiot who pontificated on many things he knew nothing about - beloved by left wing politicians because he puts cash in their hands. As Marx legitimized mass murder, so Keynes legalized the theft that Progressive leftist government is. Now we have Krugman, that maniac with the wild eyes and Nobel Prize who vomits opinion in the NYT that no one reads.
Now Pinketty - to think he has a handle on capital growth is absurd. You could say he's the "global warming" guy in economics - all fake scientism, with leftist ideology slipped into the toxic mess on the sly.
The leftist academics have made a mess of everything they've touched - a kind of leprosy of the body politic. A real toxic sump of spoiled ideas.
I read some of the reviews of Piketty and what he says is worthwhile. Capital grows faster than economic growth. So anyone with any sense ought to be collecting capital. Of course I realized that years ago, probably before Piketty was born.
I can not do much about changing income inequity, but I can do things so that I get capital. And I did.
Roughly my attitude. But the Ph.D. wasn't in any area of applied chemistry. Nobody wanted to know how fast nitrosyl bromide decomposed back then, and I've not seen any evidence of any interest since then.
so how can we expect that he knew about the workings of communism?
Gulags aren't essential features of communism, and in fact look more like a common by-product of every kind of tyranny.
ng, so he had little direct experience of the value of labor. He was an alc oholic who sponged off relatives.
Marx doesn't seem to have been an alcoholic, and he does seem to have been estranged from any relatives who might have had enough money to support him . He did get a lot of financial help from Frederich Engels, who was well-of f, but the evidence is that Engels valued what Marx was doing, so Marx was scarcely sponging off him.
Marx did work for a living as a journalist, though it doesn't seem to have paid him enough to cover his cost of living. The Neew york Daily Tribune pu blished quite a few of his articles over the years.
formatting link
une.htm
bout - beloved by left wing politicians because he puts cash in their hand s.
Keynes was a remarkably clever and well-informed man. His claims to experti se in economics were backed up by the money he made out of the stock market , both for himself and for King's College in Cambridge, whose investments h e controlled for many years.
formatting link
essive leftist government is.
There's nothing in Marx that legitimises mass murder - his support for the leading role of the communist party was a mistake, and lead to political si tuations that psychopaths like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot did exploit - but he certainly didn't legitimise what they did.
Keynes was never any kind of legislator, so he can't be claimed to have leg alised anything. He wasn't against taxes, and at one point seems to have ad vocated the occasional capital levy sort out particularly serious economic problems. Libertarians do describe any kind of taxation as theft, but they are a bunch of lunatics.
omits opinion in the NYT that no one reads.
Then the New York Times wouldn't print them, and you wouldn't waste your ti me complaining about them.
ould say he's the "global warming" guy in economics - all fake scientism, w ith leftist ideology slipped into the toxic mess on the sly.
Clearly you haven't read his book. It's mostly about presenting detailed da ta obtained from sources that have previously been ignored. He certainly do esn't worship Marx.
kind of leprosy of the body politic. A real toxic sump of spoiled ideas.
As opposed to the Chicago School economists, who helped make Chile the para dise that it is today? Or rather the "paradise" that it was before Pinochet got eased out in 1989?
formatting link
If you want a toxic sump of spoiled ideas, take a close look at the Tea Par ty.
On Saturday, 12 April 2014 07:23:03 UTC+10, Maynard A. Philbrook Jr. wrote :
tter. There's a certain satisfaction in squashing a bug, but finding a fly- screen that worked would make me a lot happier.
obably do notice when they have been squashed. The targets in flame wars ha ven't got much credibility to start with, and don't miss what they lose. Kr w remains perfectly confident that his opinion counts around here, when eve n the other right-wing nitwits have noticed that he's a waste of bandwidth.
You do make a habit of it. But then again, every breath you take is useful oxygen wasted.
a kind of leprosy of the body politic. A real toxic sump of spoiled ideas.
pital grows faster than economic growth. So anyone with any sense ought to be collecting capital. Of course I realized that years ago, probably befo re Piketty was born.
that I get capital. And I did.
The fact that you could is a trifle depressing. It would be better if that economic power were in the hands of somebody who had a better grasp of real ity.
What Piketty doesn't seem to say - at least not explicitly - is that the te ndency of capital to concentrate in ever fewer hands puts society at risk.
The people who first accumulate capital may have been able to do it because they were clever - though luck clearly plays a major role. The kids that i nherit are rarely as clever. Piketty does make the point that eventually ev ery monied dynasty throws up the kind of extravagant idiot who dissipates t he fortune, but so far he's been less explicit on the kinds of idiots - lik e the Koch brothers - who merely misuse it.
With Obama wanting to raise the minimum wage to $10/hr, the machine is going to be rather popular.
40 years ago, I worked for a company (name withheld) that was going to produce automated cafeteria equipment. I worked on a machine internally called "Compu-burger". Punch various buttons on the front panel to select the size of the burger, level of incineration, and added condiments. The target audience was large company, government, or skool cafeterias that wanted to offer something better than a re-heated prefab hamburger. Incidentally, since this was before the microprocessor, the control and sequencing logic was on 3 large PCB's with hundreds of TTL chips. Timing using pneumatic and thermal timers. While stone age by todays standards, it was standard practice at the time. There was also an internal refrigerator and a microwave oven. Cleaning and sterilization was handled by modular construction which separated the parts that needed to be cleaned, from those that would not touch the food.
Compu-burger actually worked with only a few glitches. What killed it was the lack of sufficient speed to justify the expense. It took about 5 minutes for the user to punch the buttons, and for the machine to assemble and cook a typical hamburger. That's only about 24 hamburgers for a typical 2 hr lunch window, which would price a hamburger well above acceptable limits. We didn't have to wait until management killed the project. The phony Energy Crisis of 1973-74 did that for us.
My guess(tm) is that Momentum Machines will face many of the same problems and try many of the obvious solutions before they discover that pre-cooked, pre-frozen, and fast microwaved taste awful. They'll also find that serial assembly is too slow. If the burger is maxed out with condiments and options, delivery and packaging becomes major problems. Looking at the photos, I see much the same as what we were doing 40 years ago (and some of the mistakes we made).
This should be interesting...
Incidentally, I gave up on hamburgers after a triple bypass in 2001.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
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.