petrocrat

By hydrogen-air battery do you just mean a water electrolyzer system paired with some kind of hydrogen fuel cell?

If so, the metal-air systems have a major advantage on the discharging side of things by avoiding the need of a fuel cell and being able to harvest electrons directly via galvanic current.

Is the mass measurement of electrons an abberation then in the QFT interpretation of the empirical data? Or is it that energy can have mass prior to being converted under some conditions?

It seems like it hangs or fails when processing the Genessee River watershed path.

Can you share a link to the Fourier Transform page that you mentionted, please?

You seemed to stop mid-thought... was there a point you were making here?

These companies don't have the legal means to put your body in a cage, end your life or take you into custody by force until you answer to their accusations like a government does. That's why comparing this to government jackboots is a very weak argument.

Since it is not obvious why calling someone by their name would be offensive, did they explain why using their name was offensive?

I don't understand... How is referring to someone by their name offensive?

The payments system (along with the ISPs) need to become a public utility. For ISPs, the least "socialistic" way is for them to operate like Energy Utilities, but IMO, the would be better off being a single provider, fully publicly provided for free.

For payment systems: also easy... everyone has an account at the Federal Reserve offered free as a public service (but with no overdraught or lending services). Payments are processed via SWIFT/ACH for the banks right now and that service should be opened up to all Americans without a bank or Card Services intermediary.

The progressive left has advocated for things like this for decades. Now it is affecting the right, but it's hard to have sympathy as they have been corporate sycophants for decades.

ISPs should be a public utility. They would need to have a guarantee of protection from revocation of service due to speech as they will be a public entity at that point.

npx create-snowpack-app

Is this a custom <Canvas/> widget or is it using a library to create the canvas? If so, which library?

yes, jets are composed of thousands of components, each attached to each other in assemblies. The assemblies are then integrated in such a way as to perform the functions of a jet: providing thrust, providing lift, steering, holding fuel, etc.

The word market loses all meaning without people. Markets are inherently a trade relationship between people.

The Treasury simply issues the bonds. It isn't analogous to borrowing money, as there is no collateral to put up and no other entity in the economic system needs to have any savings in order for the US Treasury to issue the bonds. The bonds are traded one-to-one for reserves at the maturity dollar value, so this is not borrowing. It is a swap.

Merely having a different purchase value from maturity value is not enough to qualify a bond purchase as borrowing either, because Bond issuing is not restricted by any economic opportunity cost. The amount of Bonds issued is an simply edict by Congress, when it passes a Budget resolution.

Just noting that in your scenario here, you are admitting that the private sector is not able to correct it's own abuses, but rather needs the elected government to do so.

>market misbehaving is punished by the market through the consumer.

Can you explain how the consumer punishes private sector entities engaged in human trafficking, for example? It seems there's plenty of evidence that deception and cutting corners is the most market competitive behavior that corporations can employ which allows them to offer the most appealing prices. Therefore market misbehavior is rewarded, not punished by consumers because the price signal is too reductionist to capture all of that.

>And the history agrees with me.

That is debate-able

And to you does human trafficking indict the private sector in the same manner or not?

We can elect legislators who are opposed to abuses like Guantanamo Bay and campaign on fixing it.

What can we or the private sector do about abuses in the private sector?

Quite a straw man you put forward here.

First of all, You seem to be confused because you are mistaking what happens in Russia, Venezuela and China for actual elections. Whatever happens in those places is certainly not what I meant by the term "elections."

Second, You point to "three" (or are those 3 things really the same thing?) successes in competition, each of which were aided by investment authorized by elected legislators. Then you point to one failure of elections and proceed to conclude that competition is the better of the two. It doesn't follow, I'm afraid.

As for Trump, yes, that was the elections mechanism failing. I never said it was perfect. But the Market competition mechanism fails more often, in my estimation. Neither is perfect, but competition seems to create much higher probability for imperfection, abuse, flaws, and suffering.

> The efficient market theorem can be untrue without elections necessarily being better at determining efficiency.

Can you go into more detail on how that could be for me? If the EMH is untrue, then there must be some other mechanism besides competition that checks the private sector, no? What would that be?

I'm implicitly lumping "regulation" as part of the Elections mechanism, btw, so I'm assuming you didn't mean regulation as the mechanism.

If the government could do that it would mean that legislators were elected that passed such a law. It's not a credible hypothetical, IMO. And even if it were, there would be recourse in the form of electing different legislators at the next opportunity.

But there are no substantial distinctions between employers in terms of how the utilize the coercive leverage that they have. So this is an illusory "safety-net".

So the proposition is which "check/balance" is better: Market competition or Elections.

Modern economics research shows that the efficient markets hypothesis is not true and definitely requires government regulation to operate in the way that Chicago School econ describes it. So that leaves Elections as the better balance mechanism by default.

>We don’t want to have what they had in the old “second world” where the state could bend the will of the people because it held all the cards.

Isn't it apparent, though, that this type of leverage is inevitable in any societal structure? Some party will have a level of power where it can coerce many others to basically do their bidding at threat of witholding some essential sustenance. In the private sector, witholding employment means poverty and the resulting wretched consequences to health and status.

The proposition that government should be the only one with that leverage is the lesser of many evils, because at least there is electoral recourse against a government that abuses it.

This is opposed to leaving that leverage with the private sector, where there is no recourse, other that not participating, which is exactly their leverage in the first place, as you will be left with no income and in poverty.

I quite like them as well. They are just time series smoothed line charts with a pleasing. but nonessential gradient. But they do bear a strong resemblance to a graph type called "sparklines." Sparklines usually dispense with the axes, so these graphs have a minimalist x-axis of sorts, which distinguishes them from true sparklines, but not by a lot.

I tend to agree with you there.

I am starting to think that ultimately, though, the answer is one that no one particularly wants to admit because it boils down to two unpalatable options, one distributed and unregulated; the other centralized and regulated.

1) Unregulated: No one is the arbiter of truth, in which case a haphazard group of marketers, propagandists and psyops peddlers reign supreme. This eventually/inevitably consolidates into an organized propaganda outlet.

2) Regulated: A group is selected based on some credential or merit and you end up with essentially a Technocracy. More or less what the "Elites" boogeyman is. If the Technocracy is staffed by scientists and engineers, then it might be the best possibility available. But this also eventually consolidates and leads to an erosion of the eligibility credentials and then non-expert people will gain positions within it for ulterior motives.

If the technocratic group is limited in scope of what "truths" it can decide on, then that is potentially a reasonable compromise.

Deflation causes demand destruction by reducing income because deflation causes (or maybe is more a symptom of) layoffs. A consumer doesn't need to check the price of pizza if their income drops to zero. They will instantly change their spending behavior when they lose their job.

> rejected by most mainstream economists

The mainstream econ record is lately not one to be boasting about.

>The major proponents are politicians.

Incorrect, You'll find the major proponents are academics at University of Kansas City Missouri, The Levy Institute and Bard College in NY.

The analogy to the US public debt is a bad one, since the US public debt is simply the private sector savings. It should be called the National Savings Account or something to that effect.

It's only debt in the sense that it eventually refluxes back to the issuer (the US Gov) after a substantial dwell time in the private sector, which is where it serves its actual purpose: to be the unit of account and denomination which private commercial transactions are settled in.

The US Gov is never at risk of being insolvent or defaulting on the thing that it alone can issue. Read more about MMT economics if you're curious.

I have definitely started a job search after a superior joked about us being "replaceable". It wasn't even directed at me particularly, but there was a chance it was in reference to either the departments performance in general or possibly financial constraints of the department. The risk analysis on that from an employee perspective is a no-brainer: start making contingency plans.

The organization is funded by taxpayers and any awarded damages would be covered by taxpayers... so it's not a disincentive for the Police.