As the federal reserve increases rates and engages in QT (directly removing money from the economy by selling bonds it bought off the open market during QE), the interest rates for government debt rises. This is a huge problem because the US and other governments around the world have been relying on massive government deficits for decades now, and could afford it because interest rates were being driven down by central bank policy. As the cost of that debt rises, it's just like the adjustable rate mortgages in the 2008 great financial crisis -- suddenly affordable payments become impossible to pay.
And what happens after that? Well, they might try issuing more and more debt for a while, but eventually you have a no-bid situation -- literally nobody else on earth wants to buy a government bond. It has happened in the past for countries, so it's not unprecedented. At that point, there's exactly one choice: Raise taxes, and eliminate government programs en masse. At that point it stops being "But this is such a good thing to do for people" and the reality starts being "There's literally no money, we just can't do this thing".
Of course, some people would just go "Well, just go back to QE! Problem solved!" -- and that would work, but the cost would be much higher inflation that we're seeing even now. Inflation now hurts, but if we don't get it under control, it will start having systemic effects. I've got every denomination of old zimbabwean currency from 1 dollar to 100 Trillion dollars hanging on my wall as a warning to what can happen. Incidentally, hyperinflation was the environment under which Adolf Hitler rose to power, which is another example of why we might not want to go there.
The UK is experiencing a taste of this right now, and they're schizophrenically raising interest rates and engaging in QE to limit the costs of their bonds which isn't really going to help. They were among the first, but they won't be the last.
And what happens after that? Well, they might try issuing more and more debt for a while, but eventually you have a no-bid situation -- literally nobody else on earth wants to buy a government bond. It has happened in the past for countries, so it's not unprecedented. At that point, there's exactly one choice: Raise taxes, and eliminate government programs en masse. At that point it stops being "But this is such a good thing to do for people" and the reality starts being "There's literally no money, we just can't do this thing".
Of course, some people would just go "Well, just go back to QE! Problem solved!" -- and that would work, but the cost would be much higher inflation that we're seeing even now. Inflation now hurts, but if we don't get it under control, it will start having systemic effects. I've got every denomination of old zimbabwean currency from 1 dollar to 100 Trillion dollars hanging on my wall as a warning to what can happen. Incidentally, hyperinflation was the environment under which Adolf Hitler rose to power, which is another example of why we might not want to go there.
The UK is experiencing a taste of this right now, and they're schizophrenically raising interest rates and engaging in QE to limit the costs of their bonds which isn't really going to help. They were among the first, but they won't be the last.
My Amazfit bip died in the pool, tragically. It's surprising to see that Amazfit isn't really making anything like it anymore. Had to import one from another country because all the new amazfit watches don't have always on screens, don't have a month of battery life, and are generally way too expensive, and nobody else seems to have picked up the slack.
Am I the only one who wants a watch that's a bit smart instead of a smart that's a bit watch?
Am I the only one who wants a watch that's a bit smart instead of a smart that's a bit watch?
How exactly are you going to o impose price caps when every member of the g7 already banned or cannot receive Russian oil and gas?
"UPS" is actually an acronym for "Unreliable Power Supply". Those lead acid batteries die with a shocking regularity.
Just think -- according to der fuhrer Trudeau, the demands of the trucker convoy were so extreme, so racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, and so horrible that the same government would implement the requested policies a mere 8 months later.
https://insight-quality.com/what-is-fcc-part-15/
If EVs produce so much harmful interference that AM radios do not function, that would be really illegal. Devices are not supposed to create harmful interference.
If EVs produce so much harmful interference that AM radios do not function, that would be really illegal. Devices are not supposed to create harmful interference.
"I know that free OTA AM radio was an option, but instead go with a 100/mo unlimited data plan on your phone!"
From the same people who are saying "Just buy an electric car"
From the same people who are saying "Just buy an electric car"
That's true. I probably could have left that part out, but given the irony of such people relying on them so strongly and the baggage of the term I couldn't help myself.
I watched the video when it came out, and a bunch of the way through, I came to realize that the question is wrong. There's an implicit fallacy built into it.
The logical fallacy is as such:
V has property W
X has property W
Therefore, X must also have property Y.
This can be proven with the ideologically neutral comparison between an automobile and a rail car.
An automobile is called a car
A rail car is called a car
Therefore, a rail car can drive on the highway.
Of course, that's not true at all. The fact that two things arguably share one attribute does not necessarily mean it shares all attributes.
The sophists use the logical fallacy to win losing arguments. If they can get you to accept one arguable link, they argue that you must then accept every other potential link.
We have a word for it that the people making such arguments should know: "Stereotype". Sometimes stereotypes are a useful heuristic to reduce the complexity of infinitely complex problems, but something being a useful heuristic doesn't necessarily make it a good argument.
The logical fallacy is as such:
V has property W
X has property W
Therefore, X must also have property Y.
This can be proven with the ideologically neutral comparison between an automobile and a rail car.
An automobile is called a car
A rail car is called a car
Therefore, a rail car can drive on the highway.
Of course, that's not true at all. The fact that two things arguably share one attribute does not necessarily mean it shares all attributes.
The sophists use the logical fallacy to win losing arguments. If they can get you to accept one arguable link, they argue that you must then accept every other potential link.
We have a word for it that the people making such arguments should know: "Stereotype". Sometimes stereotypes are a useful heuristic to reduce the complexity of infinitely complex problems, but something being a useful heuristic doesn't necessarily make it a good argument.
Yeah there was lots of hype for stadia, and now it's dead. That's another thing that I think society is quickly learning, just because someone is very loud doesn't mean that they have the most widely held or the most valid opinion.
Seems to me that there are parallels to be made between stadia and the current situation with paypal.
Tech companies grew so fast that they never had to understand that over time the primary commodity in business is trust. It's very difficult to build trust, but it's even more difficult to maintain it, because it's very easy to get too big for your britches and start thinking that because the group trusts you they will never not trust you.
Ironically, I think that the so-called trust and safety departments in these companies have been leading the diminishing trust. Not just in terms of people who look at speech police and decide that they don't trust a big website to be the speech police, but also in terms of people who look at a promise of speech police, and that promise isn't kept because it can't be kept.
In all these ways, it's entirely possible that we've already passed the point of peak social media, of peak big Tech. I suspect that gen alpha and the generation that comes after it may be raised with the knowledge that social media is a dangerous vice perhaps to be tolerated, but not to be fully embraced. The stories that we see of cancel culture do work as allegory for the upcoming generations, they get to see what happens when you share just a little bit too much with your big and best friend, the internet.
Tech companies grew so fast that they never had to understand that over time the primary commodity in business is trust. It's very difficult to build trust, but it's even more difficult to maintain it, because it's very easy to get too big for your britches and start thinking that because the group trusts you they will never not trust you.
Ironically, I think that the so-called trust and safety departments in these companies have been leading the diminishing trust. Not just in terms of people who look at speech police and decide that they don't trust a big website to be the speech police, but also in terms of people who look at a promise of speech police, and that promise isn't kept because it can't be kept.
In all these ways, it's entirely possible that we've already passed the point of peak social media, of peak big Tech. I suspect that gen alpha and the generation that comes after it may be raised with the knowledge that social media is a dangerous vice perhaps to be tolerated, but not to be fully embraced. The stories that we see of cancel culture do work as allegory for the upcoming generations, they get to see what happens when you share just a little bit too much with your big and best friend, the internet.
No kidding. I'm strongly leaning towards homeschooling, and the schools *wish* my problems were something as neat and tidy as the things politicians of either stripe complain about.
Imagine your house has a broken window and your husband has a bleeding leg, and you're calling the thing that did that unprovoked innocent.
This is a good example of how you can be focusing on the hypothetical victims while ignoring the actual victims... Typical reddit.
This is a good example of how you can be focusing on the hypothetical victims while ignoring the actual victims... Typical reddit.
I could come to agree on a structure stronger than a mere nuclear family, such as a multi generational home (I grew up with my grandma living with us, it was great), but as long as they're actually throwing us in radioactive waste that's the problem.
I dunno. Will one parent have to become the expert on every issue or hustler or on every xxx porn novel?
If we can't come to agree that some books are appropriate and some are not, then maybe it's time to end the public school system altogether and do something similar to Arizona so parents can choose where to send their kids and the money follows the student. If you have multiple mutually exclusive standards of what's ok for kids I don't see how you can bring everyone into one system without offending everyone somehow...
If we can't come to agree that some books are appropriate and some are not, then maybe it's time to end the public school system altogether and do something similar to Arizona so parents can choose where to send their kids and the money follows the student. If you have multiple mutually exclusive standards of what's ok for kids I don't see how you can bring everyone into one system without offending everyone somehow...
The state says a lot of things that arent true. Just look at "don't worry, we aren't spying on our own citizens" or "we really hate racism" or "we are temporarily suspending convertibility of the dollar to gold"
Actions speak louder than words.
Actions speak louder than words.