Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Modern monetary theory (Score 1) 270

Let's consider history and debt. The economies of the world have passed through several stages. Prior to the gold standard things could only scale so far before it failed. The gold standard reintroduced stability and fostered even more international trade. The principle of the gold standard was to maintain the peg of a currency to gold. This worked really well up till world war one. Its weaknesses had started to become carat before that where the need for currency expansion could not be satisfied till the next unpredictable gold rush discovery. As a result under capitalized banks became at risk and eventually their were crises that led into world war 1 and utterly failed after it leading to the great depression

We got out of the Great Depression largely in part ti temporary suspension of the gold standard.
A new way of pegging currency emerged with the Brettin woods agreement. All countries would peg to the us dollars and use treasuries as the medium of international money transfer not gold. The us would remain on the gold standard because it could afford to buy gold with all those treasury purchases.

But eventually this too saturated and limited growth. Under Nixon the us left the good standard.

The goal of the fed central bank was not to maintain the dollar per se since the dollar stood alone as the international benchmark. But instead the goal of the Fed was to curb inflation and curb unemployment. The weakness is the Fed only can use monetary policy not fiscal policy. As a result those two goals are in conflict since they cannot be decoupled with a single point of control ( monetary policy without fiscal policy)

But somehow we've done a great job using that system.

But now the international system has again scaled to a new problem which is deficit spending is reaching a point where debt service is a burden.

The next evolution of this is well known. It was beta tested in The depression when the us both went off the gold standard briefly but also excersized both monetary policy abs fiscal policy in concert.

The approach is called modern monetary theory. It has its critics but critics fixate on sound bite summaries of mmt and really fail to grasp that actually it not only can work but has worked in all the instances it has been tried ( us, Italy, Venezuela all recovered from crises under mmt approaches)

The fact that Europe is having problems is in fact due to the euro not allowing fiscal policy since states can't control their own money supply any longer.

The Fed not true problem with mmt is tgat one cannot actually trust politicians to conduct proper discipline in fiscal policy. That has to be solved before it can be implemented. What allowed its implementation in the past was the automatic and not political and transient spending needed to meet crises like the Great Depression. But to do it outside of unemployment periods is dangerous unless it can be done by an apolitical entity -- something similar to the Fed but with different powers and madates.

In any case the bottom line is this, under mmt a debt equal to your gdp is not a bad thing! No need to panic.

Comment Modern monetary theory. (Score 1) 270

The economies of the world have passed through several stages. Prior to the gold standard things could only scale so far before it failed. The gold standard reintroduced stability and fostered even more international trade. The principle of the gold standard was to maintain the peg of a currency to gold. This worked really well up till world war one. Its weaknesses had started to become carat before that where the need for currency expansion could not be satisfied till the next unpredictable gold rush discovery. As a result under capitalized banks became at risk and eventually their were crises that led into world war 1 and utterly failed after it leading to the great depression

We got out of the Great Depression largely in part ti temporary suspension of the gold standard.
A new way of pegging currency emerged with the Brettin woods agreement. All countries would peg to the us dollars and use treasuries as the medium of international money transfer not gold. The us would remain on the gold standard because it could afford to buy gold with all those treasury purchases.

But eventually this too saturated and limited growth. Under Nixon the us left the good standard.

The goal of the fed central bank was not to maintain the dollar per se since the dollar stood alone as the international benchmark. But instead the goal of the Fed was to curb inflation and curb unemployment. The weakness is the Fed only can use monetary policy not fiscal policy. As a result those two goals are in conflict since they cannot be decoupled with a single point of control ( monetary policy without fiscal policy)

But somehow we've done a great job using that system.

But now the international system has again scaled to a new problem which is deficit spending is reaching a point where debt service is a burden.

The next evolution of this is well known. It was beta tested in The depression when the us both went off the gold standard briefly but also excersized both monetary policy abs fiscal policy in concert.

The approach is called modern monetary theory. It has its critics but critics fixate on sound bite summaries of mmt and really fail to grasp that actually it not only can work but has worked in all the instances it has been tried ( us, Italy, Venezuela all recovered from crises under mmt approaches)

The fact that Europe is having problems is in fact due to the euro not allowing fiscal policy since states can't control their own money supply any longer.

The Fed not true problem with mmt is tgat one cannot actually trust politicians to conduct proper discipline in fiscal policy. That has to be solved before it can be implemented. What allowed its implementation in the past was the automatic and not political and transient spending needed to meet crises like the Great Depression. But to do it outside of unemployment periods is dangerous unless it can be done by an apolitical entity -- something similar to the Fed but with different powers and madates.

In any case the bottom line is this, under mmt a debt equal to your gdp is not a bad thing! No need to panic.

Comment Just acquire the Overture (Score 1) 73

If Boeing is looking for something more innovative than their existing designs, they should consider acquiring Boom Technology to obtain their Overture supersonic plane, and then scale the production of it to reduce costs and improve revenue passenger miles. There's already an order backlog for the Overture as well.

Here's a video of the final XB-1 demonstrator test flight: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3F...

Comment Re:Throw money in the drain? (Score 1) 79

Intel needs to improve their fabs quickly, irrespective of Trump. Apple could assign a minor chip to Intel with a three year contract, to appease Trump, but unless Intel improves, then Apple would fail to renew if Trump has left office.

Apple was once in a bad place and got money from Bill Gates, but since turned around. Maybe this is Intel’s turn, but they need more than money. They need good leadership and shareholders who aren’t looking for a short term fix.

Comment Re:Its about manufacturing process, not CPU arch (Score 1) 79

how are intel and apple not competitors?

It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that they clearly are.

I think the relationship is potentially more like that of Samsung where they are both competitor in one segment and supplier in another.

I’d imagine an “Intel Manufacturing” division being a supplier, while an “Intel Design” division being a competitor. If “Intel Manufacturing” got their shit together, then they could be a viable supplier. As for “Intel Design”, they’d need to accept that the writing is on the wall for the x86 architecture, unless they do something radicle. When you have ARM chips running x86 apps as if they were native, then you have something that should be sounding alarm bells.

Right now Intel feels like Boeing and just being a poor competitor due too much focus on short term profits and not enough on long term growth.

Comment Re:LOL! (Score 1) 79

Considering how Apple has been been progressing this seems like a desperate move by Intel. They are throwing out FUD in hopes that Apple will cave. However, if TSMC goes dark then everyone is fucked. Trump isn't going to be in power much longer, so that's a not a winning argument either. I'm telling you, this smacks of desperation.

At this point, it may not matter, due the damage he’ll have caused. Also, there are a number of people who believe he’ll try to avoid an election in 2028. I don’t want to believe that, but given how much of Project 2025 is apparently being realised, I’m not sure.

Comment Re:Its about making chips, not return to x64-64 (Score 1) 79

I don’t think Apple would say “screw power consumption”, given its history and that it was one reason for moving from PowerPC to Intel.

Apple is a priority customer for TSMC and I believe Apple has likely been organised and signed contracts ensuring that they keep those slots.

Intel needs to work out how TSMC is able to improve its fab process at such a high pace, while Intel seems to be failing to do so. Aren’t both companies getting their lithograph machines from ASML?

Comment "Smaller than a hair" - no (Score 1) 15

If you read the article carefully, they are talking about lenses THINNER than a hair. I see several of the posts here thinking the width/radius of the lenses is this small, a reasonable mistake given the way this was written. Having a radius that small would severely reduce their light gathering ability, requiring very bright light or very dim images or very long exposure times.

-

Slashdot Top Deals

Decaffeinated coffee? Just Say No.

Working...