Recent comments by RE

We need to pay off all debt then there is no money and we will have a HOT economy.

Rob Dawg wrote:

WTF? This isn't right. That isn't even wrong.

From the BoE if you are interested:

... just as taking out a new loan creates money, the repayment of bank loans destroys money. For example, suppose a consumer has spent money in the supermarket throughout the month by using a credit card. Each purchase made using the bill in full at the end of the month, its bank would reduce the amount of deposits in the consumer's account by the value of the credit card bill, thus destroying all of the newly created money.

Rob Dawg wrote:

WTF? This isn't right. That isn't even wrong.

See....

Rob Dawg wrote:

What's worse than finding a Keynesian in your economic policy?

says a guy who until a few days ago wasn't even aware that money gets predominantly destroyed via paying back loans...

Cinco-X wrote:

But is wanna be sans-Keynes...

He was early on a proponent of the gold standard, too. He never stopped learning.

robj wrote:

Austrian Monopoly: Do not pass Go. Do not collect fiat.

and coin is just around the corner.

Outsider wrote:

We're all Ken'sians here.

Yes, if you want to understand the system. Otherwise you can always go back to Hayek's 1930s views that he later regretted. Austrians still do.

Pigged JP wrote:

Britain to repay First World War bonds - MarketWatch

The bonds were also used to refinance debt stretching back as far as the South Sea Bubble financial crisis in the 18th century and debt used to fund the Napoleonic and Crimean Wars, the treasury said.

Now THAT is long term debt

The U.K. is not alone but due to roll-overs it really is not relevant.

Fox News' Andrew Napolitiano says U.S. is still paying interest on World War I costs | PolitiFact

...But this is not the case. When we contacted the Treasury Department for this story, officials did some digging and found that there are actually still eight Liberty Bonds and two Victory Notes that haven’t yet been redeemed. However, these financial instruments have been mature since 1947, so they haven’t earned any interest for almost 70 years. (Their total value, however, isn’t shabby -- almost $4.2 million.)

..."The initial debt issued to pay for the war no longer exists," Hooks said. "However, Treasury debt gets ‘rolled over.’ That is, the Treasury sells new bonds to pay off the old bonds that are maturing. So those bonds did mature and get paid off, but the Treasury sold new bonds to pay them off, and then sold new bonds when the second batch matured, and so on."

So, Hooks said, "in that sense, you could say the debt is still out there. However, it would be very hard to assign any specific current bond to that specific historical incident."

sm_landlord wrote:

I don't watch sports, so low bitrates don't bother me that much. But if you look at a football game, for example, the grass turns to green goo when the camera even shakes, let alone pans. What really bothers me are frozen frames, broken pictures, and out-of-sync audio.

I record basically all transmitted football games with very few quality issues.

sm_landlord wrote:

My experience in SM was not good - lots of dropouts and freezes, even with an amplified antenna in the attic. Signal strength is not the problem, maybe it's multipath or something. I also noted that the broadcasters are only using a fraction of their bandwidth for their main channels, using the rest for secondary channels and other services.

Mine works incredibly well since I switched to HDHomeRuns.

I have an old antenna on a pole. Las Vegas area.

I understand the subchannel issue but on most channels it is a non-issue.

Wilberforce wrote:

i'm confused, the HDHomeRun is primarily for use within one's home, correct? So why would bandwidth be an issue streaming HD to a tablet vs a PC?

Bandwidth on a reasonable home network isn't an issue. Modem for OTA is irrelevant.

Wilberforce wrote:

I see some models only support HD for computers and not mobile. Is this a technological or licensing limitation? For example, Amazon Prime Video doesn't do HD on PCs for many movies.

It depends on the station and client.

I use Mediaportal and its TV server.

edit: 90% are HD.

sm_landlord wrote:

Hoocoodanode that Taibbi could be "difficult"?

Smile

sm_landlord wrote:

On a topic I posted about previously - more moves in the direction of unbundling television:

Over-The-Air with one or more HDHomeRuns combined with the Net gives you a pretty good start.

Rickkk wrote:

My two cents, you found someone with profound intellligence. Don't waste it.

I like the Wikipedia approach to find accuracy better by far than most others. Closest to peer review.

arthur_dent wrote:

the probability of dying from the flu once infected is 0.45%, and 90% of those cases are people over the age of 65. The probability of dying from ebola once infected is 50%.

BS

1918 flu pandemic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

,,,Most influenza outbreaks disproportionately kill juvenile, elderly, or already weakened patients; in contrast the 1918 pandemic predominantly killed previously healthy young adults. Modern research, using virus taken from the bodies of frozen victims, has concluded that the virus kills through a cytokine storm (overreaction of the body's immune system). The strong immune reactions of young adults ravaged the body, whereas the weaker immune systems of children and middle-aged adults resulted in fewer deaths among those groups.[7]

The global mortality rate from the 1918/1919 pandemic is not known, but an estimated 10% to 20% of those who were infected died. With about a third of the world population infected, this case-fatality ratio means 3% to 6% of the entire global population died.[31] Influenza may have killed as many as 25 million people in its first 25 weeks. Older estimates say it killed 40–50 million people,[4] while current estimates say 50–100 million people worldwide were killed.[32]

yuan wrote:

people who volunteer to fight an ebola epidemic are not the the kind of people who "lie back and think of england" while their civil rights are illegally violated by anti-science ignoramuses.

I agree.

arthur_dent wrote:

the market for divas is pretty slim.

Divas/primadonnas are tougher to manage but often are the best producers. In any tough business you NEED them.

Nemo wrote:

Another bastion of conservatism implements mandatory quarantines:

California issues quarantine policy for Ebola exposure - LA Times

Populism isn't confined to a particular section of the political spectrum.

But it's good to know that conservatives consider California lawmakers yardsticks of policy reasonableness.

Belmont wrote:

Cool. I'm sure you have tight pants and poor work ethic but I still like you mainly because yogi doesn't.

Your xenophobia is telling.

Nemo wrote:

When was the last time we saw a dove dissent?

Kocherlakota is not a dove.

FED FOCUS-How a Fed inflation hawk changed his mind
| Reuters

arthur_dent wrote:

It is why WS and neo-bankers hate physical money, because it makes the real meaning of money explicit, and more difficult to inflate your way out of a credit bubble. Economists hate physical money for a different reason. It makes their necessity much less valuable, because no arcane mathematics(financial engineering) is necessary to jigger around with the monetary yardstick and decide who the winners and losers will be.

Austrians are blind as bats and ignorant of history. Non-physical money has been around a long, LONG time.

Wikipedia for fractional reserve banking systems 

Fractional-reserve banking predates the existence of governmental monetary authorities and originated many centuries ago in bankers' realization that generally not all depositors demand payment at the same time.[5]

In the past, savers looking to keep their coins and valuables in safekeeping depositories deposited gold and silver at goldsmiths, receiving in exchange a note for their deposit (see Bank of Amsterdam). These notes gained acceptance as a medium of exchange for commercial transactions and thus became an early form of circulating paper money.[6] As the notes were used directly in trade, the goldsmiths observed that people would not usually redeem all their notes at the same time, and they saw the opportunity to invest their coin reserves in interest-bearing loans and bills. This generated income for the goldsmiths but left them with more notes on issue than reserves with which to pay them. A process was started that altered the role of the goldsmiths from passive guardians of bullion, charging fees for safe storage, to interest-paying and interest-earning banks. Thus fractional-reserve banking was born.

However, if creditors (note holders of gold originally deposited) lost faith in the ability of a bank to pay their notes, many would try to redeem their notes at the same time. If in response a bank could not raise enough funds by calling in loans or selling bills, it either went into insolvency or defaulted on its notes. Such a situation is called a bank run and caused the demise of many early banks.[6]

Starting in the late 1600s nations began to establish central banks which were given the legal power to set the reserve requirement and to specify the form in which such assets (called the monetary base) are required to be held.[7] In order to mitigate the impact of bank failures and financial crises, central banks were also granted the authority to centralize banks' storage of precious metal reserves, thereby facilitating transfer of gold in the event of bank runs, to regulate commercial banks, impose reserve requirements, and to act as lender-of-last-resort if any bank faced a bank run. The emergence of central banks reduced the risk of bank runs which is inherent in fractional-reserve banking, and it allowed the practice to continue as it does today.[2]Fractional-reserve banking predates the existence of governmental monetary authorities and originated many centuries ago in bankers' realization that generally not all depositors demand payment at the same time.[5]

In the past, savers looking to keep their coins and valuables in safekeeping depositories deposited gold and silver at goldsmiths, receiving in exchange a note for their deposit (see Bank of Amsterdam). These notes gained acceptance as a medium of exchange for commercial transactions and thus became an early form of circulating paper money.[6] As the notes were used directly in trade, the goldsmiths observed that people would not usually redeem all their notes at the same time, and they saw the opportunity to invest their coin reserves in interest-bearing loans and bills. This generated income for the goldsmiths but left them with more notes on issue than reserves with which to pay them. A process was started that altered the role of the goldsmiths from passive guardians of bullion, charging fees for safe storage, to interest-paying and interest-earning banks. Thus fractional-reserve banking was born.

However, if creditors (note holders of gold originally deposited) lost faith in the ability of a bank to pay their notes, many would try to redeem their notes at the same time. If in response a bank could not raise enough funds by calling in loans or selling bills, it either went into insolvency or defaulted on its notes. Such a situation is called a bank run and caused the demise of many early banks.[6]

Starting in the late 1600s nations began to establish central banks which were given the legal power to set the reserve requirement and to specify the form in which such assets (called the monetary base) are required to be held.[7] In order to mitigate the impact of bank failures and financial crises, central banks were also granted the authority to centralize banks' storage of precious metal reserves, thereby facilitating transfer of gold in the event of bank runs, to regulate commercial banks, impose reserve requirements, and to act as lender-of-last-resort if any bank faced a bank run. The emergence of central banks reduced the risk of bank runs which is inherent in fractional-reserve banking, and it allowed the practice to continue as it does today.[2]

Denial is not a virtue.

Jackdawracy wrote:

It's hard to describe the drought other than a glacially slow disaster movie that you'd love to have Charlton Heston doing the voiceover to, 'cept he's dead.

Heston would deny the drought with a Rob like passion.

Ed S. wrote:

Dawg, I give broadly based employer provided health coverage in the Fortune 500 10 years max. Suspect the transition will be to "offer" younger employees cash to buy insurance on the open market. It will be a sweet deal for the first few years.

Employer-sponsored health insurance coverage continues to decline in a new decade | Economic Policy Institute

In 2011, the share of non-elderly Americans with employer-sponsored health insurance declined for the 11th year in a row, falling from 58.6 percent in 2010 to 58.3 percent. Since the ESI coverage rate in 2000 was 69.2 percent, the total decline from 2000 to 2011 was 10.9 percentage points. In 2011, 14.2 million fewer non-elderly Americans had ESI than in 2000.

Rajesh wrote:

Amazon is like Microsoft in the 90's. Patiently bringing late to market products, quite a few of which fail. The first Kindle was a failure but now it is an established product line. Expanding the line into phones isn't working yet but they can afford to miss because it's a small fraction of their business.

I agree in large part but failures are mounting and shareholders are getting impatient.

sm_landlord wrote:

They did almost everything wrong, IMHO. I was in the market for a new phone when it was announced, and it took me about 2 minutes of reading to decide that it made no sense for me. Of course, that's just me, but...

I think the Amazon teflon is finally cracking.

Bubblisimo Gerkinov wrote:

Rob or Nate?

Nate in this case.

Cinco-X wrote:

Also note that Rob now references Nate regularly, whereas he once scorned Nate and his analysis. I've always likes Nate despite his obvious and admitted liberal leanings.

He's been exposed as a crank.

vtcodger wrote:

Desire not to lose market share to shia dominated Iran and Iraq

In the 80s, one of the KSA's key objectives was to preserve political power and influence alongside price.

skk wrote:

he loved women, he loved life. but most of all he loved to kick the ball around and in the end he never blamed anybody else but himself.

Immortal: the Approved Biography of George Best, by Duncan Hamilton, review - Telegraph 

It is this naive perfectionism, argues Hamilton, which was fundamental to Best’s undoing. His failure to match his outsized expectations dulled every success, and when Manchester United began to slide towards mediocrity, his world fell apart.

“The misconception about George Best is that alcohol alone wrecked him and his career,” Hamilton writes. “It ignores the reason why he drank. The football was to blame.”

dilbert dogbert wrote:

And the elite view is they should rule. Democracy is the theory of government that the common man should get what he wants and get it Hard!

He states it quite explicitly.

burnside wrote:

I've heard this nonsense all my life.

Warrants a repeat from George Will:

ABC commentator and columnist George Will quite bluntly states the overall elite view. “The fundamental human right,” Will claims, is not to the vote, but to “good government.” Why, Will asks, should people who are more interested in watching TV soap operas, and who are likely uninformed, be urged to vote at all? Why should we be distressed if they don’t vote? Will also fears the passions of a highly mobilized citizenry, recalling the high turnout and polarization in Germany that led to the rise to power of the Nazi Party.

In general, proponents of the elite view believe that American democracy fares well when compared to the democratic ideal. Indeed, it may be a good thing that nonvoters leave the voting to others—elite thinkers argue, with views reminiscent of the Federalists—because they lack the talent, interest, and independence to do so wisely. In Will’s words, “Thought must be given to generating a satisfactory (let us not flinch from the phrase) governing class. That there must be a class is, I think, beyond peradventure.” High levels of nonvoting allow such a “governing class" to form.

bearly wrote:

He prefers the bullshit screenings that have been proven to be a complete failure already.

But you are the expert.....

Little Green Footballs

Today on CNN, Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases had some words to say about the ill-advised and unscientific mandatory quarantines instituted by New York and New Jersey.

Fauci pointed out that the best way to prevent the spread of Ebola is to stop it at the source, in West Africa — and we need qualified doctors and nurses to do this. Fauci stressed that treating these health professionals as if they were criminals or lepers will be a strong disincentive for them to volunteer for these hazardous tasks.

Whiskey wrote:

I might get worked up over this if I wasn't used to dealing with people who didn't know maintenance costs exist.

Smile

skk wrote:

and you do.

On large projects, it's essential IMO.

skk wrote:

great.. so how is a unit of functionality delivered ? by a class right ?

A Web service doesn't have to be OO.

skk wrote:

ok so I ( like without banging my gong like sm_landlord) was writing SOA stuff. in my case its the ability of Java intrinsicaly to recreate objects in a different Java machine, with defined loss of fidelity.. What I'd call the serialization framework in Java.

are we agreed that's what we both mean, in concept, when we say SOA ?

No. There is no object serialization involved. Imagine the security issues.

Service-oriented architecture (SOA) is a software design and software architecture design pattern based on distinct pieces of software providing application functionality as services to other applications. This is known as service-orientation. It is independent of any vendor, product or technology.[1]

A service is a self-contained unit of functionality, such as retrieving an online bank statement.[2] Services can be combined by other software applications to provide the complete functionality of a large software application.[3] SOA makes it easy for computers connected over a network to cooperate. Every computer can run an arbitrary number of services, and each service is built in a way that ensures that the service can exchange information with any other service in the network without human interaction and without the need to make changes to the underlying program itself.

skk wrote:

what's services ? if you drop that I have no problem with agreeing with that definition. I know what class means in this context and what a library means in this context.

SOA or SAAS.

skk wrote:

Look I know rhetoric. I was taught. I do eschew it.

A framework includes class libraries and services.

skk wrote:

Nowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww yer talking, necessarily frameworks and design patterns automatically constrict innovation.

Are you saying that every programmer on the team should develop his/her own class libraries and services?

skk wrote:

Hmm, I don't mean the how we see software evolves, I don't mean a historians view of software systems.. I mean the belief that its actually architected in, designed in, strategy, 7 years plans.. why I had the pain and pleasure of sitting through what "our systems" will be in 6 years time from a gnome in Zurich two months back.

How many person years do you estimate does it take to develop a comprehensive software framework?

If you want real innovation the framework doesn't exist.

skk wrote:

so what was your role in these projects that your survived ?

Chief architect and PM on the last four.

skk wrote:

there are no large projects. successful ones at least.

As a happy survivor of several, I disagree.

Disruptive innovation today doesn't come in small packages.

skk wrote:

Anybody who's been thru the miserable IT project life-cycle, that truly awful thing called SDLC totally hears the sub-text.

I loved it. On large projects it separated the men from the boys.