https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html

We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 1:33:13 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html
>
> We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
> damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

Really? You think this is Bang-Bang control? Perhaps you don't know what the term means? Or much more likely you have such little understanding of economics you don't know what the Fed does or how it does it?

What do you think the Fed should do?

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 2022-01-25, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
>
> https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html
>
> We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
> damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

many think this is intentional.

--
Jasen.

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 20:36:57 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
<usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:

>On 2022-01-25, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
>>
>> https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html
>>
>> We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
>> damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.
>
>many think this is intentional.

Probably is.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

On 1/25/2022 12:33 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
> https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html
>
> We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
> damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

Ever done if voltage too high: duty cycle = 20%, if voltage too low:
duty cycle = 80% on a boost topology?

If the load is like a Nixie tube or something seems to work alright.
Stand by for my economy = Nixie tube formal presentation

On 1/25/2022 12:33 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
> https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html
>
> We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
> damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.
>
>
>

Speaking of control theory ever seen the optimized minimum-time-to-climb
path for e.g. a jet fighter aircraft using the minumum-energy-state
optimization methods?

It's friggin' weird like go straight up. Go sideways. Dive for a while
at 45 degrees down. Pull up 45 degrees. Pull straight up again. Invert
the aircraft and fly at 45 degrees inverted to the first dive.

How the pilot keeps their lunch in the process is the other
control-theory problem

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 16:19:04 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

>On 1/25/2022 12:33 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>
>> https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html
>>
>> We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
>> damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.
>
>
>Ever done if voltage too high: duty cycle = 20%, if voltage too low:
>duty cycle = 80% on a boost topology?

I've done something like that, a boost converter where the control
element is a schmitt trigger gate. Hysteretic boost. Maybe I can find
the schematic.

>
>If the load is like a Nixie tube or something seems to work alright.
>Stand by for my economy = Nixie tube formal presentation
>
>

It would show on the nixie if the voltage jumped around erratically
about 2:1.

I wonder if economists have something like Spice to play with. When I
took economics there was no mention of time-domain effects, leads and
lags and loops, or of nonlinearities. But those were undergrad
courses.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

On 1/25/2022 5:09 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 13:44:54 -0800, John Larkin
> <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 16:19:04 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/25/2022 12:33 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html
>>>>
>>>> We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
>>>> damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ever done if voltage too high: duty cycle = 20%, if voltage too low:
>>> duty cycle = 80% on a boost topology?
>>
>> I've done something like that, a boost converter where the control
>> element is a schmitt trigger gate. Hysteretic boost. Maybe I can find
>> the schematic.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> If the load is like a Nixie tube or something seems to work alright.
>>> Stand by for my economy = Nixie tube formal presentation
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It would show on the nixie if the voltage jumped around erratically
>> about 2:1.
>>
>> I wonder if economists have something like Spice to play with. When I
>> took economics there was no mention of time-domain effects, leads and
>> lags and loops, or of nonlinearities. But those were undergrad
>> courses.
>
> Me too. Econ does use systems of ODEs, but solve for steady-state.
> The key in Econ is to find a mathematically simple way to plausibly
> capture human behavior. It kinda works, so long as one does not push
> one's luck.
>
> A key assumption is that the various economic actors being modeled are
> statistically independent, which is true until it isn't - like in a
> bubble and/or crash, when everybody tries to do the same thing.
>
> In the Financial world, Economists are not listened to.
>
> Joe Gwinn

True facts, I have an acquaintance who's a PhD academic macroeconomist.

He doesn't try to model entire economies, more like small subsets say a
particular industry like textile manufacturing, and its interactions
with its host country's commodities market.

Often the thrust being that the particular industry could make more
profit with the resources they already have by doing something
non-intuitive. But industry is often very stodgy.

On 1/25/2022 4:44 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 16:19:04 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>
>> On 1/25/2022 12:33 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>
>>> https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html
>>>
>>> We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
>>> damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.
>>
>>
>> Ever done if voltage too high: duty cycle = 20%, if voltage too low:
>> duty cycle = 80% on a boost topology?
>
> I've done something like that, a boost converter where the control
> element is a schmitt trigger gate. Hysteretic boost. Maybe I can find
> the schematic.
>
>
>>
>> If the load is like a Nixie tube or something seems to work alright.
>> Stand by for my economy = Nixie tube formal presentation
>>
>>
>
> It would show on the nixie if the voltage jumped around erratically
> about 2:1.

You can build a hysteric buck converter that can line and load-regulate
fairly well but AFAIK a naive hysteric boost will always wander without
more advanced tactics, even with a constant load.

But for an approximately resistive or constant current load I think you
can make the wandering arbitrarily small and the good news is that type
of loop can never go into severe oscillations, it's already unstable by
its nature.

> I wonder if economists have something like Spice to play with. When I
> took economics there was no mention of time-domain effects, leads and
> lags and loops, or of nonlinearities. But those were undergrad
> courses.

The programmers who built the first massively multiplayer online games
like Ultima Online were very optimistic they could build a world with
its own "real" economy and virtual ecosystem of e.g. forests and oceans
and mines and monsters with their own life-cycle, that would run itself
without having to resort to dumb hacks to keep the game interesting.

This was impossible, the virtual worlds were too small, like your little
player-guy could travel across the whole of the world at a fast jog in a
half hour of real time. A few hundred players together in that virtual
environment left to their own devices could strip the whole world bare
of resources in days.

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
news:8uc0vg5tpgr83ao6rjbum39d0bp8dv4u1u@4ax.com:

>
> https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-si
> gnal-a-march-rate-hike.html
>
> We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds
> much damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.
>
We will see perturbations from Nixon's devaluing the Gold Standard
for decades to come.

Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote in
news:sspn19$t96$1@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org:

> On 2022-01-25, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
> <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:
>>
>> https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-s
>> ignal-a-march-rate-hike.html
>>
>> We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds
>> much damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.
>
> many think this is intentional.
>

Every move they make is.

Big business does not want the change which is coming. They are
going to try to squeeze everything.

Progress in the US is stifled by dopes like Mitch McConnell and the
republicans, because somewhere along the way they decided that getting
rid of previous adminstration progress was a good move. Mitch let
hundreds of bills sit on his desk for YEARS.

We have a boatload of oath ignoring bastards whom should all be
sitting in cells scratching their heads right now, wondering why they
made such stupid choices, and Mitch to blame for it..

Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote in
news:ljs0vg1sueskc6clq8ti9mmj13li3m8mns@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 13:44:54 -0800, John Larkin
> <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 16:19:04 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 1/25/2022 12:33 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to
>>>> -signal-a-march-rate-hike.html
>>>>
>>>> We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds
>>>> much damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.
>>>
>>>
>>>Ever done if voltage too high: duty cycle = 20%, if voltage too
>>>low: duty cycle = 80% on a boost topology?
>>
>>I've done something like that, a boost converter where the control
>>element is a schmitt trigger gate. Hysteretic boost. Maybe I can
>>find the schematic.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>If the load is like a Nixie tube or something seems to work
>>>alright. Stand by for my economy = Nixie tube formal presentation
>>>
>>>
>>
>>It would show on the nixie if the voltage jumped around
>>erratically about 2:1.
>>
>>I wonder if economists have something like Spice to play with.
>>When I took economics there was no mention of time-domain effects,
>>leads and lags and loops, or of nonlinearities. But those were
>>undergrad courses.
>
> Me too. Econ does use systems of ODEs, but solve for
> steady-state. The key in Econ is to find a mathematically simple
> way to plausibly capture human behavior. It kinda works, so long
> as one does not push one's luck.
>
> A key assumption is that the various economic actors being modeled
> are statistically independent, which is true until it isn't - like
> in a bubble and/or crash, when everybody tries to do the same
> thing.
>
> In the Financial world, Economists are not listened to.
>
> Joe Gwinn
>

Like Al Pacino said "The Big Bang Threw us all out here, and the
Big Slam is gonna pull us all right back in."

<https://youtu.be/UneS2Uwc6xw?t=54>

Or as Dr. Frederick Frankenstein said "Entropy, entropy, no
escaping that for we!"

We are all having a 'Nachtmere'. Just ask Teri Garr.
Nice Knockers!

<https://youtu.be/P0WapDCR9fg?t=7>

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 17:43:41 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

>On 1/25/2022 5:09 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 13:44:54 -0800, John Larkin
>> <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 16:19:04 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/25/2022 12:33 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html
>>>>>
>>>>> We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
>>>>> damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ever done if voltage too high: duty cycle = 20%, if voltage too low:
>>>> duty cycle = 80% on a boost topology?
>>>
>>> I've done something like that, a boost converter where the control
>>> element is a schmitt trigger gate. Hysteretic boost. Maybe I can find
>>> the schematic.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If the load is like a Nixie tube or something seems to work alright.
>>>> Stand by for my economy = Nixie tube formal presentation
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> It would show on the nixie if the voltage jumped around erratically
>>> about 2:1.
>>>
>>> I wonder if economists have something like Spice to play with. When I
>>> took economics there was no mention of time-domain effects, leads and
>>> lags and loops, or of nonlinearities. But those were undergrad
>>> courses.
>>
>> Me too. Econ does use systems of ODEs, but solve for steady-state.
>> The key in Econ is to find a mathematically simple way to plausibly
>> capture human behavior. It kinda works, so long as one does not push
>> one's luck.
>>
>> A key assumption is that the various economic actors being modeled are
>> statistically independent, which is true until it isn't - like in a
>> bubble and/or crash, when everybody tries to do the same thing.
>>
>> In the Financial world, Economists are not listened to.
>>
>> Joe Gwinn
>
>True facts, I have an acquaintance who's a PhD academic macroeconomist.

They are all macroeconomists. That's glamorous and powerful.

Of course, macroeconomics is just the sum of all the microeconomics.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html
>
> We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
> damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

Or none that John Larkin can understand.

The real economy is nonlinear and not all that mathematically tractable - as John Maynard Keynes pointed out in the 1930's and Dan Kahneman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman

has explained in more detail, more recently, for which he was awarded the 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

John's friend James Arthur prefers the Monetarist's mathematically tractable models of the economy, even though they are unrealistic.

Naomi Klein - in "Shock Doctrine"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine

suggests that this a deliberate choice - bad theory makes for bad control, and people with lots of money do well out of picking up the pieces after the economy has crashed.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 26/01/22 01:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC+11,
> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html
>>
>>
>>
We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
>> damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.
>
> Or none that John Larkin can understand.
>
> The real economy is nonlinear and not all that mathematically tractable - as
> John Maynard Keynes pointed out in the 1930's and Dan Kahneman
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman
>
> has explained in more detail, more recently, for which he was awarded the
> 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences
>
> John's friend James Arthur prefers the Monetarist's mathematically tractable
> models of the economy, even though they are unrealistic.
>
> Naomi Klein - in "Shock Doctrine"
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine
>
> suggests that this a deliberate choice - bad theory makes for bad control,
> and people with lots of money do well out of picking up the pieces after the
> economy has crashed.

"Disaster capitalism" is a pain at whatever scale it occurs.

The deregulation of the banks under Clinton and Blair lead to
short-term release of cash and therefore a feeling of well
being which delights politicians. But it also set the scene
for the 2008 crash.

I remember being somewhat uneasy that banks were allowed to
lend 8 times the assets they held. I was horrified to find that
limit had been removed, and that some were lending ridiculous
amounts, e.g. Northern Crock 42(!) times.

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

>
>https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html
>
>We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
>damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

Cryptos add a nice (ie nasty) destabilizer to the system.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/crypto-collapse-erases-more-than-1-trillion-in-wealth-forcing-a-reckoning-for-everyday-investors/ar-AAT8lXj

The Fed deliberately zeroed interest rates and pushed savings and
productive investment into the fantasy stock market. A return to sane
policy risks being justly blamed for a historic crash. They are riding
the tiger's back.

Even rumors about possible Fed decisions swing trillions in stock
value. That is macroeconomic power madness. That's insane.

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 08:24:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 26/01/22 01:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC+11,
>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
>>> damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.
>>
>> Or none that John Larkin can understand.
>>
>> The real economy is nonlinear and not all that mathematically tractable - as
>> John Maynard Keynes pointed out in the 1930's and Dan Kahneman
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman
>>
>> has explained in more detail, more recently, for which he was awarded the
>> 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences
>>
>> John's friend James Arthur prefers the Monetarist's mathematically tractable
>> models of the economy, even though they are unrealistic.
>>
>> Naomi Klein - in "Shock Doctrine"
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine
>>
>> suggests that this a deliberate choice - bad theory makes for bad control,
>> and people with lots of money do well out of picking up the pieces after the
>> economy has crashed.
>
>"Disaster capitalism" is a pain at whatever scale it occurs.

What's worse is disaster socialism; that asserts single-player
control... lacks "diversity."

>
>The deregulation of the banks under Clinton and Blair lead to
>short-term release of cash and therefore a feeling of well
>being which delights politicians. But it also set the scene
>for the 2008 crash.
>
>I remember being somewhat uneasy that banks were allowed to
>lend 8 times the assets they held. I was horrified to find that
>limit had been removed, and that some were lending ridiculous
>amounts, e.g. Northern Crock 42(!) times.

Banks became yet another gambler in the already crowded casinos.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 5:51:49 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 08:24:03 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >On 26/01/22 01:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

> >We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
> >>> damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.
> >>
> >> Or none that John Larkin can understand.
> >>
> >> The real economy is nonlinear and not all that mathematically tractable - as
> >> John Maynard Keynes pointed out in the 1930's and Dan Kahneman
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman
> >>
> >> has explained in more detail, more recently, for which he was awarded the
> >> 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences
> >>
> >> John's friend James Arthur prefers the Monetarist's mathematically tractable
> >> models of the economy, even though they are unrealistic.
> >>
> >> Naomi Klein - in "Shock Doctrine"
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine
> >>
> >> suggests that this a deliberate choice - bad theory makes for bad control,
> >> and people with lots of money do well out of picking up the pieces after the
> >> economy has crashed.
> >
> >"Disaster capitalism" is a pain at whatever scale it occurs.
>
> What's worse is disaster socialism; that asserts single-player control... lacks "diversity."

Like all American right-wingers, John Larkin confuses communism with socialism.

Karl Marx got thrown out of the international socialist movement in 1871 because his enthusiasm for "the leading role of the party" was seem as undemocratic, and likely to lead to tyranny, as indeed it did.

China and Russia have exactly the same problem as the US - a small minority run the country for their own advantage.

Genuinely socialist countries, like most of the northern European countries are much more diverse, have less economic inequality, and offer a better standard of living for most of the population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult

The US is at 26 with $79.274. China is at 43 with $24,067, and Russia is at 91 with $5,431 . Australia is a number 2 with $238,072 - we aren't famously socialist, but we do have universal health care and long history of trade union activism.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 1/26/2022 1:51 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 08:24:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 26/01/22 01:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC+11,
>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>> https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
>>>> damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.
>>>
>>> Or none that John Larkin can understand.
>>>
>>> The real economy is nonlinear and not all that mathematically tractable - as
>>> John Maynard Keynes pointed out in the 1930's and Dan Kahneman
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman
>>>
>>> has explained in more detail, more recently, for which he was awarded the
>>> 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences
>>>
>>> John's friend James Arthur prefers the Monetarist's mathematically tractable
>>> models of the economy, even though they are unrealistic.
>>>
>>> Naomi Klein - in "Shock Doctrine"
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine
>>>
>>> suggests that this a deliberate choice - bad theory makes for bad control,
>>> and people with lots of money do well out of picking up the pieces after the
>>> economy has crashed.
>>
>> "Disaster capitalism" is a pain at whatever scale it occurs.
>
> What's worse is disaster socialism; that asserts single-player
> control... lacks "diversity."

Hey remember that time Richard Nixon was obviously enjoying shaking
hands and chatting it up with the supreme leader of the second-most
powerful communist country in the world at the time, and meanwhile the
US was bombing one of the poorest countries on the planet with B-52s and
thousands of US soldiers were being killed and maimed because if we
didn't, y'know, communism would get too powerful and have undue
influence on the so-called "free world"?

Lot of sense that made from an economic perspective, much less any
other. If the Vietnam war ever had any sense it sure never made a lick
of sense after 1972, and yet the US kept at it for another three years...

>> The deregulation of the banks under Clinton and Blair lead to
>> short-term release of cash and therefore a feeling of well
>> being which delights politicians. But it also set the scene
>> for the 2008 crash.
>>
>> I remember being somewhat uneasy that banks were allowed to
>> lend 8 times the assets they held. I was horrified to find that
>> limit had been removed, and that some were lending ridiculous
>> amounts, e.g. Northern Crock 42(!) times.
>
> Banks became yet another gambler in the already crowded casinos.
>

On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 2:29:00 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
> On 1/26/2022 1:51 PM, John Larkin wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 08:24:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
> > <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On 26/01/22 01:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC+11,
> >>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >>>> https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >> We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
> >>>> damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.
> >>>
> >>> Or none that John Larkin can understand.
> >>>
> >>> The real economy is nonlinear and not all that mathematically tractable - as
> >>> John Maynard Keynes pointed out in the 1930's and Dan Kahneman
> >>>
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman
> >>>
> >>> has explained in more detail, more recently, for which he was awarded the
> >>> 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences
> >>>
> >>> John's friend James Arthur prefers the Monetarist's mathematically tractable
> >>> models of the economy, even though they are unrealistic.
> >>>
> >>> Naomi Klein - in "Shock Doctrine"
> >>>
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine
> >>>
> >>> suggests that this a deliberate choice - bad theory makes for bad control,
> >>> and people with lots of money do well out of picking up the pieces after the
> >>> economy has crashed.
> >>
> >> "Disaster capitalism" is a pain at whatever scale it occurs.
> >
> > What's worse is disaster socialism; that asserts single-player
> > control... lacks "diversity."
> Hey remember that time Richard Nixon was obviously enjoying shaking
> hands and chatting it up with the supreme leader of the second-most
> powerful communist country in the world at the time, and meanwhile the
> US was bombing one of the poorest countries on the planet with B-52s and
> thousands of US soldiers were being killed and maimed because if we
> didn't, y'know, communism would get too powerful and have undue
> influence on the so-called "free world"?
>
> Lot of sense that made from an economic perspective, much less any
> other. If the Vietnam war ever had any sense it sure never made a lick
> of sense after 1972, and yet the US kept at it for another three years...

Yeah, what's your point? Are you thinking bang-bang control is a military term?

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 5:55:40 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 5:51:49 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 08:24:03 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > >On 26/01/22 01:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
> > >We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
> > >>> damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.
> > >>
> > >> Or none that John Larkin can understand.
> > >>
> > >> The real economy is nonlinear and not all that mathematically tractable - as
> > >> John Maynard Keynes pointed out in the 1930's and Dan Kahneman
> > >>
> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman
> > >>
> > >> has explained in more detail, more recently, for which he was awarded the
> > >> 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences
> > >>
> > >> John's friend James Arthur prefers the Monetarist's mathematically tractable
> > >> models of the economy, even though they are unrealistic.
> > >>
> > >> Naomi Klein - in "Shock Doctrine"
> > >>
> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine
> > >>
> > >> suggests that this a deliberate choice - bad theory makes for bad control,
> > >> and people with lots of money do well out of picking up the pieces after the
> > >> economy has crashed.
> > >
> > >"Disaster capitalism" is a pain at whatever scale it occurs.
> >
> > What's worse is disaster socialism; that asserts single-player control... lacks "diversity."
> Like all American right-wingers, John Larkin confuses communism with socialism.
>
> Karl Marx got thrown out of the international socialist movement in 1871 because his enthusiasm for "the leading role of the party" was seem as undemocratic, and likely to lead to tyranny, as indeed it did.
>
> China and Russia have exactly the same problem as the US - a small minority run the country for their own advantage.
>
> Genuinely socialist countries, like most of the northern European countries are much more diverse, have less economic inequality, and offer a better standard of living for most of the population.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult
>
> The US is at 26 with $79.274. China is at 43 with $24,067, and Russia is at 91 with $5,431 . Australia is a number 2 with $238,072 - we aren't famously socialist, but we do have universal health care and long history of trade union activism.
>
> --
> SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

I have a hard time believing that, SNIPPERMAN. The median Australian income is LESS than the US:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-income-by-country
while the income tax rates are HIGHER:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates#cite_note-28

On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:28:57 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 5:55:40 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 5:51:49 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
> > > On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 08:24:03 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > > >On 26/01/22 01:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > >> On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >
> > > >We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
> > > >>> damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.
> > > >>
> > > >> Or none that John Larkin can understand.
> > > >>
> > > >> The real economy is nonlinear and not all that mathematically tractable - as
> > > >> John Maynard Keynes pointed out in the 1930's and Dan Kahneman
> > > >>
> > > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman
> > > >>
> > > >> has explained in more detail, more recently, for which he was awarded the
> > > >> 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences
> > > >>
> > > >> John's friend James Arthur prefers the Monetarist's mathematically tractable
> > > >> models of the economy, even though they are unrealistic.
> > > >>
> > > >> Naomi Klein - in "Shock Doctrine"
> > > >>
> > > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine
> > > >>
> > > >> suggests that this a deliberate choice - bad theory makes for bad control,
> > > >> and people with lots of money do well out of picking up the pieces after the
> > > >> economy has crashed.
> > > >
> > > >"Disaster capitalism" is a pain at whatever scale it occurs.
> > >
> > > What's worse is disaster socialism; that asserts single-player control... lacks "diversity."
> > Like all American right-wingers, John Larkin confuses communism with socialism.
> >
> > Karl Marx got thrown out of the international socialist movement in 1871 because his enthusiasm for "the leading role of the party" was seem as undemocratic, and likely to lead to tyranny, as indeed it did.
> >
> > China and Russia have exactly the same problem as the US - a small minority run the country for their own advantage.
> >
> > Genuinely socialist countries, like most of the northern European countries are much more diverse, have less economic inequality, and offer a better standard of living for most of the population.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult
> >
> > The US is at 26 with $79.274. China is at 43 with $24,067, and Russia is at 91 with $5,431 . Australia is a number 2 with $238,072 - we aren't famously socialist, but we do have universal health care and long history of trade union activism.
>
> I have a hard time believing that, Sloman. The median Australian income is LESS than the US:
>
> https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-income-by-country

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income

says much the same thing. but I was talking about wealth.

> while the income tax rates are HIGHER:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates#cite_note-28

If you've got universal health, you live in a country where income tax rates are higher. In assessments of well-being universal health care and an education system that does well for the children of the least well off are worth quite a lot. The US doesn't have either. If one of your relatives gets sick and you have to cough up to cover their medical bills, you don't get much of a chance to turn that slightly larger income into persistent wealth.

Wealth is more heritable than height in the US, and in no other advanced industrial country. The US is run for the benefit of people who already have money, and it's gross income inequality makes for some stark differences in opportunity.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 1/27/2022 3:24 PM, Rick C wrote:
> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 2:29:00 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
>> On 1/26/2022 1:51 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 08:24:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 26/01/22 01:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC+11,
>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>> https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
>>>>>> damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or none that John Larkin can understand.
>>>>>
>>>>> The real economy is nonlinear and not all that mathematically tractable - as
>>>>> John Maynard Keynes pointed out in the 1930's and Dan Kahneman
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman
>>>>>
>>>>> has explained in more detail, more recently, for which he was awarded the
>>>>> 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences
>>>>>
>>>>> John's friend James Arthur prefers the Monetarist's mathematically tractable
>>>>> models of the economy, even though they are unrealistic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Naomi Klein - in "Shock Doctrine"
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine
>>>>>
>>>>> suggests that this a deliberate choice - bad theory makes for bad control,
>>>>> and people with lots of money do well out of picking up the pieces after the
>>>>> economy has crashed.
>>>>
>>>> "Disaster capitalism" is a pain at whatever scale it occurs.
>>>
>>> What's worse is disaster socialism; that asserts single-player
>>> control... lacks "diversity."
>> Hey remember that time Richard Nixon was obviously enjoying shaking
>> hands and chatting it up with the supreme leader of the second-most
>> powerful communist country in the world at the time, and meanwhile the
>> US was bombing one of the poorest countries on the planet with B-52s and
>> thousands of US soldiers were being killed and maimed because if we
>> didn't, y'know, communism would get too powerful and have undue
>> influence on the so-called "free world"?
>>
>> Lot of sense that made from an economic perspective, much less any
>> other. If the Vietnam war ever had any sense it sure never made a lick
>> of sense after 1972, and yet the US kept at it for another three years...
>
> Yeah, what's your point? Are you thinking bang-bang control is a military term?
>

Oh, nah sometimes I just talk about whatever I feel like talking about
on OT threads like this one, everyone else seems to do it.

I think it is tangentially relevant to the term "disaster capitalism"
but "bang-bang control" as a metaphor for US foreign policy? No I didn't
think of that, but lol that's a good one and not a bad metaphor for the
Sixty Years War, 1965-2022.

A three-word summary of the "free world's" behavior in that respect
during this period could be "what a waste" but "bang-bang control" is
also grimly amusing; the US has had the bang-bang part down pretty good
but reliable control has always seemed elusive, relative to the amount
of bang-bang being applied.

Military might can't solve social/societal problems, or the problem of a
very large set of people just being extremely poor compared to the others.

And I think sometimes military-people tend to understand this better
than politicians. As I recall Donald Trump seemed to feel similarly
about it, and that was one of the few topics I agreed with him on. What
a waste.

On 1/27/2022 3:24 PM, Rick C wrote:
> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 2:29:00 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
>> On 1/26/2022 1:51 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 08:24:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>> <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 26/01/22 01:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC+11,
>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>> https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
>>>>>> damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or none that John Larkin can understand.
>>>>>
>>>>> The real economy is nonlinear and not all that mathematically tractable - as
>>>>> John Maynard Keynes pointed out in the 1930's and Dan Kahneman
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman
>>>>>
>>>>> has explained in more detail, more recently, for which he was awarded the
>>>>> 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences
>>>>>
>>>>> John's friend James Arthur prefers the Monetarist's mathematically tractable
>>>>> models of the economy, even though they are unrealistic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Naomi Klein - in "Shock Doctrine"
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine
>>>>>
>>>>> suggests that this a deliberate choice - bad theory makes for bad control,
>>>>> and people with lots of money do well out of picking up the pieces after the
>>>>> economy has crashed.
>>>>
>>>> "Disaster capitalism" is a pain at whatever scale it occurs.
>>>
>>> What's worse is disaster socialism; that asserts single-player
>>> control... lacks "diversity."
>> Hey remember that time Richard Nixon was obviously enjoying shaking
>> hands and chatting it up with the supreme leader of the second-most
>> powerful communist country in the world at the time, and meanwhile the
>> US was bombing one of the poorest countries on the planet with B-52s and
>> thousands of US soldiers were being killed and maimed because if we
>> didn't, y'know, communism would get too powerful and have undue
>> influence on the so-called "free world"?
>>
>> Lot of sense that made from an economic perspective, much less any
>> other. If the Vietnam war ever had any sense it sure never made a lick
>> of sense after 1972, and yet the US kept at it for another three years...
>
> Yeah, what's your point? Are you thinking bang-bang control is a military term?
>

Also for pet-lovers there's the theory of "mess with the meow meow, you
get the peow peow":

<https://wingstee.com/wp-content/uploads/You-Mess-With-The-Meow-Meow-You-Get-The-Peow-Peow-Shirt-1.jpg>

Bang-bang control.

On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 9:58:41 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:28:57 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 5:55:40 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 5:51:49 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 08:24:03 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder..co.uk> wrote:
> > > > >On 26/01/22 01:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > >> On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > >We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
> > > > >>> damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Or none that John Larkin can understand.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The real economy is nonlinear and not all that mathematically tractable - as
> > > > >> John Maynard Keynes pointed out in the 1930's and Dan Kahneman
> > > > >>
> > > > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman
> > > > >>
> > > > >> has explained in more detail, more recently, for which he was awarded the
> > > > >> 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences
> > > > >>
> > > > >> John's friend James Arthur prefers the Monetarist's mathematically tractable
> > > > >> models of the economy, even though they are unrealistic.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Naomi Klein - in "Shock Doctrine"
> > > > >>
> > > > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine
> > > > >>
> > > > >> suggests that this a deliberate choice - bad theory makes for bad control,
> > > > >> and people with lots of money do well out of picking up the pieces after the
> > > > >> economy has crashed.
> > > > >
> > > > >"Disaster capitalism" is a pain at whatever scale it occurs.
> > > >
> > > > What's worse is disaster socialism; that asserts single-player control... lacks "diversity."
> > > Like all American right-wingers, John Larkin confuses communism with socialism.
> > >
> > > Karl Marx got thrown out of the international socialist movement in 1871 because his enthusiasm for "the leading role of the party" was seem as undemocratic, and likely to lead to tyranny, as indeed it did.
> > >
> > > China and Russia have exactly the same problem as the US - a small minority run the country for their own advantage.
> > >
> > > Genuinely socialist countries, like most of the northern European countries are much more diverse, have less economic inequality, and offer a better standard of living for most of the population.
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult
> > >
> > > The US is at 26 with $79.274. China is at 43 with $24,067, and Russia is at 91 with $5,431 . Australia is a number 2 with $238,072 - we aren't famously socialist, but we do have universal health care and long history of trade union activism.
> >
> > I have a hard time believing that, SNIPPERMAN. The median Australian income is LESS than the US:
> >
> > https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-income-by-country
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income
>
> says much the same thing. but I was talking about wealth.

You have to have income to create wealth, SNIPPERMAN. Lower income implies lower wealth - where did the large difference come from?

> > while the income tax rates are HIGHER:
>
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates#cite_note-28
> If you've got universal health, you live in a country where income tax rates are higher. In assessments of well-being universal health care and an education system that does well for the children of the least well off are worth quite a lot. The US doesn't have either. If one of your relatives gets sick and you have to cough up to cover their medical bills, you don't get much of a chance to turn that slightly larger income into persistent wealth..

That bullshit says nothing about the unexplained Australian wealth. Much of the US has health insurance thru their employer. And there are other government supplied health insurance plans.

>
> Wealth is more heritable than height in the US, and in no other advanced industrial country. The US is run for the benefit of people who already have money, and it's gross income inequality makes for some stark differences in opportunity.

More libtard bullshit - you don't have inheritance in OZ? I really doubt it.. Especially if your suspect wealth figures are true (a couple would have nearly half a million dollars to give to their kids). Does the OZ government give you a car or a house? Income inequality comes from differences in education, training and motivation. Anyone in the US who can't afford college and doesn't want to borrow the money can enlist in the military, get trained and earn the G.I. bill (college tuition).

>
> --
> SNIPPERMAN, Sydney