tensor_rank_0

it has happened to me once or twice as well :(

> And that is not analogy.

technically analogy has a broad definition that applies anytime you compare two things.

> Because China is doubling down on solutions and we really need the US to be doing the same.

I hadn't heard this. can you give some examples, please?

yes that is more parsimonious however in non-technical language the term "radiator" is associated with heat exchangers. if you put heat exchangers on the sides of your spacecraft they would function as radiators so I suppose it doesn't matter anyway, arguing semantics is a waste of time.

> It gives me hope that it could be passed knowing that opinion, not a cabal of interests, stands in the way.

as I've become more open to other people's political worldviews, I've come to understand that any extant political 'movement' (for lack of a better term) has advocates (and opposition) in both categories you mention: interested beneficiaries and prescriptive advocates.

take pre-calculus and do every assignment immediately as it is assigned. then review before the next class. pre-calculus is designed to give people like you the tools to move onto the maths you want to learn.

after that, echoing another top-level comment: take calculus and physics. take 2 semesters of each.

after those 3 classes, you'll know more math than 90% of the world's population. more importantly you'll be prepared to move on to differential equations, linear algebra, and vector calculus.

> Black bodies are theoretical, they do not exist. Apollo had radiators, they might have been black but they were not a black body.

they were, as I said, "black body radiators" which are not theoretically ideal black bodies, but still manage to radiate black body radiation.

they will be IR visible, but what do you mean they don't exist? Apollo used them to bleed off excess heat.

> If it helps read here:

that doesn't support your novel assertion.

> Unfortunately this "nonsense" is the explanation that any economist would give you.

lots of people running around hn espousing their own particular viewpoint as mainstream econ. are you guys working together or is it just a few guys attempting to take advantage on a non-econ crowd?

> Maybe you can be the first one to propose a revolutionary alternative theory, but I haven't read it :)

well you're obviously not very well read if you think commodity money is a revolutionary alternative theory :). I'd suggest starting with introductory econ textbooks and setting your own prejudices aside until you're better informed.

I think you could use black body radiators on the other 5 sides to bleed the heat from the side facing the sun.

> "rich" people in vast amounts of debt aren't rich, they're broke.

not necessarily. if you have a lot of debt, but you hold the title to capital goods that produce income, then you can be very wealthy.

> Rich people are owed money. They have money to spare so they lend it out for interest, see?

indeed, there are rich lendors and rich debtors. that doesn't mean a person who owns factories who has issued a lot of bonds is broke. far from it.

> people who live paycheck to paycheck, minus a few exceptions, do so because their cost of living equals their salary.

cost of living for many people is variable. if you are incentivized to spend your money before it depreciates, that changes the calculus on many decisions, such as how much to spend on housing.

> Your concern for the "poor savers" is touching albeit misguided.

how is it misguided?

> Inflation caused by bad monetary policy is indeed bad, but that's only one particular case of inflation.

yes, the textbook case.

> Indeed, maybe you should give it a try!

indeed I have and thats how I know you're either ignorant or engaging in sophistry. good day.

money doesn't have a yield, so it can't have an interest rate. also consider that the interest rate is denominated in a ratio of currency units. its nonsensical to reify currency as a special case of a loan of itself.

money is a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value. a loan is an obligation. its a value with negative valence.

> So what happened when the risk is the lowest possible? The interest rates goes to zero or even negative. Makes sense?

the risk premium is not the same as the interest paid the lender by the debtor for the privilege of having something now and paying it back later. in this case, the interest rate is the price of money, denominated in money, arbitraged over time.

look at it another way, why would anyone make a loan if they didn't stand to gain anything? why would I loan you $5 in order to get $5 back at a later date? I already have $5. now if you give me $5.05 back tomorrow, then I have gained 1% for my sacrifice of letting you hold the money for a day.

> nflation is good not because of inflation itself, but because of what it signals: a growth in demand outpacing the growth in supply.

price inflation is a signal of monetary inflation. you appear to be confusing price inflation with an increase in prices due to increased demand.

> If supply is not outpacing demand, there are no investments in additional capacity.

actually as long as marginal profit is positive there is an incentive to invest in capital goods.

> No, that's how gains in productivity work.

malinvestment is not productive, in fact it is destructive.

> But not vice versa, you don't need monetary policy to have inflation, you don't even need a monetary system, or even "money" or currency. Inflation is just a continuous change in value between two goods due to a difference in supply/demand between the two. If there were only two commodities in the world, A and B, both with the same demand, but A is being produced at faster rates than B, there would be inflation.

'monetary inflation' as defined in basic economics is an increase in the money supply. no one said you need monetary policy for the money supply to increase.

> even need a monetary system, or even "money" or currency.

thats very interesting, do you have a citation?

> As demand increases, multiple agents will invest independently to supply that demand, leading to oversupply, leading to reduction in prices, leading to trimming out of inefficient capacity and a new equilibrium at a higher efficiency than before.

thats how price signals work in a normal market. now consider what happens if a counterfeiter creates a bunch of fake dollars and spends them. people see the influx of cash, interpret it as effective demand, and invest in capital goods. then the counterfeiter gets caught and the money dries up, and all these businesses have excess capacity that shouldn't have been built in the first place. textbook malinvestment.

the same thing occurs when the government inflates the money supply, except the "counterfeiting" is legal and "we as society" accept this because the money is spent in "politically acceptable" purposes. it still causes malinvestment. which is something you can find in an intro to macro textbook.

> That's not a condescension, it is basic economics.

actually its quite condescending and it would help if you guys would educate yourselves on basic econ before presuming to lecture others on the subject. reading a basic macroeconomics textbook would do wonders for your perspective.