REVIEW: An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12111/f...
Forget about the bees, it doesn't sound like something i would like to have on my food...
237 karma · joined February 26, 2009
REVIEW: An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12111/f...
Forget about the bees, it doesn't sound like something i would like to have on my food...
Medical Marijuana for Treatment of Chronic Pain and Other Medical and Psychiatric Problems: A Clinical Review
https://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2338266
Cannabidiol: Pharmacology and potential therapeutic role in epilepsy and other neuropsychiatric disorders
If you want a fun list of topics, here are some off the top of my head that i might look at in your situation:
- fully homomorphic encryption
- recurrent neural networks & machine learning
- proving computer programs correct & computer-aided mathematical proofs
Just look at all the social "safety nets" that many European countries have. That money then gets relabled "basic income". Pensions, unemployment benefits, paid sick leave, child support money, etc...
For people who are working full-time and don't get anything at the moment, the taxes would have to be increased slightly to offset their "basic income" on average, so maybe with a low wage you would have a small gain, with a big wage you would have slightly less than before.
The advantage could be a massive reduction in bureaucracy. The disadvantage in Europe at least is that many people prefer perceived "fairness" over efficiency, i.e. they are more worried that someone who "should not get that money" will get it than they are worried about their social systems wasting money and peoples' time.
Here's a rough guide: be willing to spend lots of $$$ on politicians, and more than the other Johns. Own media companies so you can influence what people think. Work together with other rich people with similar goals, it will take some time.
The charts are remarkably similar for
Greece http://sdw.ecb.europa.eu/quickview.do?SERIES_KEY=129.RPP.Q.G...
Spain http://sdw.ecb.europa.eu/quickview.do?SERIES_KEY=129.RPP.Q.E...
Portugal http://sdw.ecb.europa.eu/quickview.do?SERIES_KEY=129.RPP.Q.P...
But i would still claim that in the case of Greece, the (masked) public debt crisis preceded the asset bubble whereas in Spain, Portugal and Ireland the public debt crisis followed the asset bubble.
Structural deficit is a poorly-defined term, in the sense that there are many reasonable values for it. If you define austerity this way, then we can't even agree if we have austerity or not.
It's also not what most creditors care about. What does it matter if you don't get your money back because of cyclical or structural deficits?
Perhaps you misunderstood me, i didn't mean to imply that austerity is equivalent to a balanced budget. I used austerity in the sense of "increasing revenues and reducing spending" to balance a budget that is in the red.
Interest rate convergence was one of the criteria for introduction of the Euro:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_convergence_criteria#Crit...
Point 5, long-term interest rates
The ECB's mandate is to worry about price-stability, not the German economy
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/mopo/intro/objective/html/index.en...
Practice may of course deviate from theory, but i don't think it did much here.
German unification was 1990, we are talking about the time around 2000. Many central banks in the world lowered interest rates after the dot-com crash & 9-11 and the economic slowdown that followed.
You might argue that this caused asset bubbles, and i would tend to agree.
If it were up to me, i would add "avoiding asset bubbles" to the ECB mandate, if you want to you could regard it as a kind of price-stability mandate for assets.
The details are here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_R...
Budget cuts, when they are made, are done in the places where they will minimise the political damage to the party making the cuts.
It's not that nobody can come up with saving money in the bureaucracy, military&secret services, government subsidies, etc. It's just that they are costly in terms of political power and therefore not discussed at all. And the easiest things to slash are things your own voters don't care about and the easiest taxes to increase those that your voters don't pay.
I doubt that any kind of economic thinking goes into these decisions.
The whole reason for all that austerity was that some countries were unable to refinance their debt and other countries are afraid they might not be able to refinance in the future. Refinancing debt in hard times becomes harder yet if it is externally financed.
You need to convince someone to lend you money if you want to run a deficit.
Love it or hate it, the Germans don't like a soft currency. The reason is probably the prelude to the rise of Hitler, which was marked by hyperinflation from printing too much money. It has been in their "DNA" since WW2, and no amount of economic handwaving is going to change that, at least in the forseeable future. In practice Germany has had a budget deficit nearly every year of course (such is politics), they just aren't that big.
The reason Germany joined the Eurozone was the absence of debt mutualisation. The Bundesbank warned that this was hard/impossible without political union, but they were ignored. And so, here we are.
Are GDP numbers a good indicator of the success of economic policies? They aren't that useful if you ignore all the details.
Here is an example when comparing US and Japan GDP growth numbers:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/es/article/10011
"In summary, three structural factors seem to account for the difference in GDP growth between Japan and the United States in the post-1990 period: (i) the slow population growth in Japan, (ii) the employment rate, and (iii) the decline of average hours worked in Japan from a very high level to the level in the United States. It seems useful to consider these findings when Japan’s experience is used to draw policy conclusions for the United States."
And yet we have been lectured by numerous economists (sometimes with Nobel medals on them) about the implications these raw GDP growth numbers supposedly have for economic policy.
Many people arguing against balancing budgets (or 'austerity' if you will) do so because the first budgets to be slashed are usually things where the benefits are long-term, such as education. But it's a false dichotomy that these are the only choices.
Then there's the economists, who will pull out some toy model and claim xyz is good/bad. Too me it seems more like religions (being a Keynesian, Austrian, etc), where people search for facts that confirm their positions.
The problem with most macroeconomic theories is that they ignore too many important details.
So for example, you can borrow money to invest in the future which is usually good in the long run, or you can spend it on things you don't need such as hosting international sports competitions, ineffective military equipment, ... This means you can come to completely different conclusions as to the effectiveness of government spending. In the words of Warren Buffet, we don't talk about 'quality' of GDP enough.
There's a nice paper by Mankiw on the topic of science vs engineering in economics:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/nov/20/economics-gh...
http://www.stern.de/panorama/sauerland-zelle-mutmasslicher-c...
Quick summary: The person the people in the Sauerland cell called "boss" and who organised the fuses for them was a "contact person" for MİT (Turkish intelligence org.) and CIA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Intelligence_Organiza...
Background:
http://www.dw.de/few-entrepreneurs-in-new-german-parliament/...
More than half are administrators (probably civil servants i think), teachers, lawyers.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bodysphere/feat...
Some of the comments are interesting as well, such as that Homer might have been blind.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/29/serious-frau...
Tesco also has a hard time competing with Aldi and Lidl:
http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/news/1317297/why-tesco-cant...