HN user
There's no reply button for me underneath your threads initially until some time passes. I guess that's how HN works for some. I'll respond to your latest comment here.
> If you say things like "we have a lot of people, so wind power won't work for us,"
Don't you just hate it when people put words into your mouth? Yeah, point me specifically to where I said or implied that.
tiredofcareer, thanks for calling me stupid. This conversation has surely turned professional. It's quite funny when you espouse economically illiterate statements, then question the intelligence of others.
Electricity consumption depends on GDP. Just google those phrases, and you'll find a plethora of sources to confirm the relationship. I listed a graph for you [1]. Because China is growing at 7%, its electrical consumption will only continue to increase. Yes, if two countries of have similar GDPs, the one with the higher population will consume more electricity.
[1] http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Caryl1.gi...
This is completely economically illiterate. China is a developing country. As a result, it uses less electricity than its developed counterparts. As China grows, it will be using much more electricity. Just look at their energy consumption trend since the late 70s. That applies to India, Russia, Indonesia, and any other developing country in growth mode.
Oh, and guess what. China passed the USA in energy consumption in 2010.
Do you have a more objective source?
Calm down. No one put words into his mouth. You, however, did put words into my mouth, which I find quite astonishing.
Those windmills currently cover 1 million people. The world has 7 billion people and growing quickly. You really think windmills are feasible for Brazil, China, England, France, Germany, Russia, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, Iran, Japan, Mexico, Indonesia, South Africa, Spain, Argentina, Turkey, Colombia, Ukraine, or South Korea? (I can list several more if you want.)
Get real.
Denmark's population is smaller than New York City by a couple million. The US would need a massive, massive number of windmills.
What would incentivize people to actually go into research if that were the case? Our best would all be bankers, lawyers, and mobile app developers.
Are you serious? Just because you're not Keynesian, it doesn't mean you do not believe in a central bank. Milton Friedman believed in a central bank.
"mainstream media" != "mainstream economists"
I'd prefer the opinions of PhD economists with a special emphasis on currency transactions over yours or anyone else's, actually.
Mainstream economists aren't central planners. I don't mean just economists from both administrations. I meant mainstream economists from every school on the US News and beyond.
Can you elaborate on your thesis so I know what you're specifically referring to?
That's not how quantitative easing works. Quantitative easing doesn't fire up the printing presses. Bernanke can add $2 trillion into the system within 15 minutes, and no paper money is printed or manpower expensed aside from a few clicks on a computer mouse. Once you secure your financial system network, adding currency adds virtually no costs relative to the amount of currency you put into that system. You've already secured the network.
It's akin to Facebook's security system. It works the same regardless if it's 100 million users or 1 billion users.
"It is being used as a currency"
Do you have a source for this? As far as I know, and I know this is a theory but I suspect a good theory, people used bitcoin as a currency when it was relatively stable and before it skyrocketed in value, and became extremely volatile. I highly doubt they're using it as a currency now because the value of a bitcoin changes dramatically within a day. Say it stabilizes at this price (~$95), you won't be able to transact with everyday goods because the price of 1 bitcoin is close to $100. Who would buy a hamburger for 1 bitcoin right now?
Once you secure the system however, the costs of increasing currency into that system is trivial.
Krugman isn't being a political partisan hack here. Every mainstream economist from the Republican and Democratic administrations agree that a currency backed similarly to gold (as opposed to a central bank) is not a good idea.
How much does it cost to change bits of data on a computer? That's what happens with quantitative easing. Bernanke isn't calling up the printing presses to print $2 trillion in paper currency.
It's certainly not being used as a currency, its original intention. It's being used by speculators to get rich. Sure you might find a few examples of buyers and sellers using bitcoin currency, but you'll find a lot more speculators buying and selling bitcoins to profit from the spreads.
What specific law are you referring to that forces Main Street to invest in 401Ks?
That's how Wall Street works. You give money to Wall Street, and Wall Street in turn chooses to distribute the money to technology or research companies like Google or Merck (or even venture capital funds which in turn invest in start ups). Wall Street adds value by allocating resources.
How so?
"There are always 2 parties to each transaction and one makes the money that the other one loses."
Completely false. Wealth is not fixed. There can be two winners, which often happens.
Mainstream economists believe in free markets, and they also understand market failures and moral hazard. Government failure also exists.
Because for Wall Street to succeed, Main Street must fail? Why would Main Street transact with them at all if that were the case?
Well, you'd have to increase the salaries of Congress to that level, and that is probably politically unfeasible.
How is "regulation makes us less competitive" a straw man argument? If your Singaporean or European competitors operate under a set of different and less stringent rules, that wouldn't increase your costs to doing business (and in effect making you less competitive relative to foreign competitors)? Even the regulators know about the costs of Dodd-Frank.
Wealth is not fixed. Both parties can benefit from a trade, and often do. A party that wants cash now and another who wants more cash in the future both benefit from a trade (e.g. buying and selling a bond).
Seriously, what is with the blatantly biased sources? Why not link to a source from an unbiased top IP lawyer or professor instead?
I'm not lying. Don't call me a liar. Monsanto has the same claim on its website. You can read about the suits on Wikipedia. The suits are also public record. Sue them. Go for it. You'll rake in several hundreds of millions and billions of dollars if you can prove its supposedly blatantly misleading claim.
The better way of saying it is GMO meets the same safety requirements as non-GMO.
http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/Biotechnology/uc...
Science and law are on my side. I'll take that over your pseudo-intellectual opinion.