tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post8382139689592849879..comments2024-03-19T05:35:07.296-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: More marvels from space!David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-19411358275733261412017-06-21T05:47:54.551-07:002017-06-21T05:47:54.551-07:00Just saw this mentioned in the comments to an arti... Just saw this mentioned in the comments to an article on the Parker Solar <br />Probe on Centauri-dreams.org:<br /><br />April 6, 2017<br />Solar Surfing<br />Robert Youngquist<br />NASA Kennedy Space Center<br />[quote]<br />Description<br />We propose to develop a novel high temperature coating that will reflect up <br />to 99.9 % of the Sun’s total irradiance, roughly a factor of 80 times better <br />than the current state-of-the-art. This will be accomplished by leveraging <br />off of our low temperature coating, currently being developed under NIAC <br />funding. We will modify our existing models to determine an optimal high <br />temperature solar reflector, predict its performance, and construct a <br />prototype version of this coating. This prototype will be sent to our <br />partner at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory where it will be <br />tested in an 11 times solar simulator. The results of this modeling/testing <br />will be used to design a mission to the Sun, where we hope to come to within <br />one solar radius of the Sun’s surface, 8 times closer than the closest <br />distance planned for the upcoming Solar Probe Plus. This project will <br />substantially advance the current capabilities of solar thermal protection <br />systems, not only potentially allowing “Solar Surfing”, but allowing better <br />thermal control of a future mission to Mercury.[/quote]<br />https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2017_Phase_I_Phase_II/Solar_Surfing<br /><br /> At a solar radius of 700,000 km away from the Sun, based on the light <br />intensity going inversely by the square of the distance, and with 1,360 <br />watts per sq. meter (in space) at the Earth’s distance, or 1.36 gigawatts <br />per sq. km., I estimate this should give 60 terawatts per sq. km. when only a <br />solar radius away from the Sun.<br /><br /> But in the calculation in the above comment, I had estimated that fully <b>on</b> the Sun’s surface we could collect 60 terawatts per sq. km. of power. Anyone have an explanation of this discrepancy?<br /><br /> In any case, if this research team succeeds in producing this ultra high <br />reflective, high temperature material, then a mirror smaller than a <br />kilometer across a solar radius away from the Sun could collect enough <br />energy for the total energy usage from all sources for the entire human population of the <br />Earth.<br /><br /> Also, interesting is 16 solar collectors a kilometer across could provide a <br />petawatt of power. But these are power levels long dreamed about in science <br />fiction for doing beamed propulsion of large-scale, *manned* spacecraft on <br />relativistic, interstellar flights.<br /><br /> Even more remarkably we might be at that stage within just a few decades.<br /><br /> Bob ClarkRobert Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16114043697010364282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-37483475521442640872017-06-21T05:45:28.038-07:002017-06-21T05:45:28.038-07:00 At the distance of the Parker Solar Probe, a 1 km... At the distance of the Parker Solar Probe, a 1 km sq. mirror could collect a<br />terawatt of power for beamed propulsion or space solar power beamed to<br />Earth.<br /><br />But could we put the mirror actually on the surface of the Sun? The Sun puts<br />out 3.86X10^26 watts of power,<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Core<br /><br /> Given its 700,000 km radius, this amounts to over 60 terawatts per sq. km.<br />This is 3 times the total energy usage of humans on Earth from all sources.<br />Could we have a station on the Sun’s surface that would persist long term?<br />The Sun’s surface is at about 5,500 C. The highest temperature ceramic we<br />have is at about 4,000 C:<br /><br />Rediscovered ceramic Hafnium Carbide can withstand temperatures three times<br />hotter than lava at 4050 celsius and could help enable hypersonic planes.<br />brian wang | September 17, 2014<br />https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2014/09/rediscovered-ceramic-hafnium-carbine.html<br /><br />However, there are cases such as with rocket engine combustion chambers<br />where the operating temperature is well above the melting point of the<br />material composing the engine. The reason this is possible is that in order<br />for a material to undergo a phase change from solid to liquid not only does<br />it have to be at the melting point but a sufficient quantity of heat known<br />as the heat of fusion has to be supplied to it.<br /><br />So with high performance rocket engines such as the SSME’s a cooling<br />techniques known as regenerative cooling is used that circulates cool fuel<br />around the engine to draw off adequate heat to prevent melting from<br />occurring.<br /><br />However, with rocket engines this cooling fuel is burned or dispensed with<br />after being used for the cooling. So this wouldn’t work for a power station<br />existing long term on the surface of the Sun. You would need something like<br />a refrigeration system.<br /><br />The Parker probe will use a refrigeration system to lower the temperature of<br />the components of the spacecraft from 1,400 C to room temperature. This is<br />about the same temperature drop as the temperature drop from the Sun’s<br />surface to the maximum temperature of our high temperature ceramics. So it<br />should be possible to do this temperature drop on the surface of the Sun<br />using our highest temperature ceramics.<br /><br />Still, we might not want the extra difficulty of landing on the Sun. If we<br />make the distance to the Sun of our beaming station about 1/3rd that of the<br />Parker probe we would be at 10 terawatts per sq. km. Two of these would<br />provide the entire energy requirements for the entire human population, and<br />the surrounding temperatures wouldn’t be so extreme.<br /><br /><br /> Bob ClarkRobert Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16114043697010364282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-70349101873650187092017-06-16T16:29:42.684-07:002017-06-16T16:29:42.684-07:00oops. that's what I get for saving up posts fo...oops. that's what I get for saving up posts for the end of the day. It's been a busy day here.<br /><br />moving onward.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-9733213949367709602017-06-16T16:28:57.222-07:002017-06-16T16:28:57.222-07:00@Duncan | A wage isn’t a share of the returns for ...@Duncan | A wage isn’t a share of the returns for an activity. It is a price to be paid by an employer for labor to do the activity. If an employer begins to think of it as a share, they are hiring a partner instead of an employee. That means raising minimum wage WILL cut into profits and the employer will respond as the Demand side of the transaction. If the owners want to maintain a particular rate of return on their investment they will cut demand, re-engineer work, or do whatever makes sense. Raising the minimum wage does not force an employer to pay it IF they have the option to alter their demand for labor. They could, but they might not. It depends on the tolerance their investors have for diminished expectations.<br /><br />Profit margins are not at an all-time high. They were higher in the 19th century when labor could not field the human capital it can today. Where unions have done right by their members is helping them learn everything involved. An employee bringing useful human capital to a task can justify a higher wage even if they can’t negotiate as a member of a union. If the employer wants the skill and thinks it adds extra value, the higher wage makes sense.<br /><br /><i>Now to your argument that a large number of different agents can produce a better path than a central planning agency<br />Again that would make sense except for the unfortunate fact that at the moment there is ZERO incentive for these agents to go that way. </i><br /><br />Ha. Nonsense. I’ve seen R&D at the entrepreneurial level. It happens and then larger corporations buy it along with the founding company. It is one of the exit strategies for early investors that doesn’t involve going public. I’m with you on the need to tax fossil carbon, but not in your belief in the need for central planners here. That makes no sense to me.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-75375006674152063882017-06-16T16:10:35.106-07:002017-06-16T16:10:35.106-07:00interesting points, all.
But the next blog is imp...interesting points, all.<br /><br />But the next blog is important. Please spread word about it!<br /><br />onward<br />onward<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-42968353570445006352017-06-16T16:02:47.064-07:002017-06-16T16:02:47.064-07:00@donzelion | The basket of skills possessed by &#...@donzelion | <i> The basket of skills possessed by 'unskilled laborers' evolves in response to the market…</i><br /><br />Looks to me like you are saying you are willing to do a little harm to the lowest paid people in order to prevent a bigger harm. Is that close? <br /><br />If so, I applaud.<br /><br />My solution of choice is to educate the prey, but I see no reason why both tracks can’t be worked simultaneously.<br />Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-81955819443983056342017-06-16T15:21:20.069-07:002017-06-16T15:21:20.069-07:00@David | Some commodities are non-fungible. Sure. ...@David | Some commodities are non-fungible. Sure. I certainly will spend a lot of money on doctors, but I won’t on burger flippers. Since doctors aren’t usually minimum wage earners, I think you are (unintentionally) dodging the point I’m making. This isn’t about supply-side voodoo. It is about whether the good intentions of progressives harm the very people they mean to help. I believe them when they say they want to help, but economic theory as I understand it says they are doing harm to them instead.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-40966819830257688982017-06-16T15:18:08.845-07:002017-06-16T15:18:08.845-07:00@Kal Kallevig | I’m with you on the issue of what ...@Kal Kallevig | I’m with you on the issue of what gets folded into GWP. The more I learn economics, the more I see what they do as sausage making. Don’t ask to see how they are made if you don’t want to be disillusioned. 8)<br /><br />Population growth is already showing that it isn’t growing exponentially. Growth rates topped out in the mid-60’s a little above 2%/year. They’ve been dropping lately, but our current rate near 1% is still huge. It is big enough still to demolish assumptions made my old feudalists. When the population is growing fast, savings and the income we derive from them don’t account for a large percentage of total income. Growth in the supply of labor does instead. As population growth diminishes, therefore, one could reasonably fear a return to the old feudal assumptions being correct. This is Piketty’s position in a nutshell.<br /><br />Structural growth of the economy is the total growth with population growth subtracted out. Many predict that will shrink too. Piketty certainly does. I don’t think the argument for that is as good, but I don’t see a way to resolve the range of possibilities until the future arrives and we can examine what happened. For now, we are stuck with the scenarios technique. What CAN happen combined with a Bayesian sense of probabilities for the alt.futures is about as good as it will get.<br /><br />Regarding irreplaceable land, you might want to take note of the contribution land values make to our total wealth. The percentage has been dropping over the long haul. What matters to value is how we improve it. More and more, it is what we DO with the land that is the real source of wealth. There is no reason to believe we can’t pick up some of what we do and escape to other land further inland. It would be expensive, but so is keeping up property values. Depreciation isn’t an illusion especially for properties near water.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-71454902162489939142017-06-16T15:02:31.734-07:002017-06-16T15:02:31.734-07:00I waffle a bit on 'taxes are theft.' What ...I waffle a bit on 'taxes are theft.' What I actually claim is that I understand and appreciate the argument used by those who don't waffle on it. Taxes CAN be a form of theft, but I'm not convinced they always are. If I was, I'd be much more combative on the topic.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-80610836637331291582017-06-16T14:59:37.525-07:002017-06-16T14:59:37.525-07:00Heh. I’m still willing to fight for the ‘liberal’ ...Heh. I’m still willing to fight for the ‘liberal’ term in the US. I use ‘classical liberal’ as a way to point to the theft that occurred when progressives took a liking to the term… in the US. For people out in the wider world, I can claim to be a liberal and they don’t get confused. They already know we see socialists as cultural traitors since many of the intellectuals who became socialists over a century ago did so as defectors from liberalism.<br /><br />I am a registered Libertarian, but not because I agree with the party platform. There are whole sections of what they profess that I think is nuts. I joined the California party because the CA Democrats don’t need my vote and I wanted a place for ‘classical’ liberals that wasn’t infested by social conservatives. Some CA GOP folks in the past came up with the genius idea of cultural warfare between our English and Spanish speaking peoples and got lunatic ideas passed. I want those people politically flogged, but that won’t happen unless there is a home around here for classical liberals outside the GOP. That motivated me to check out the Libertarians who already provide an alternate home for many former GOP voters.<br /><br />For my neighbors who lean progressive, don’t fret. You have a party here in California. Enjoy. The task I’ve adopted is to give you a saner opponent. Please don’t erect strawmen, though. Of the Libertarians you hear about, many are among the nutty clade. They are a minority even among registered Libertarians. If we could get libertarians to join up instead of hiding in the GOP, though, you’d have a saner opponent that would help curb some in YOUR nutty clade. We would both benefit.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-61187852415273349312017-06-16T14:55:26.792-07:002017-06-16T14:55:26.792-07:00Are the Republicans still "the party of Linco...Are the Republicans still "the party of Lincoln?" No, not since Nixon's southern strategy <br /><br />Are the Democrats still the party of union power? No, not since Jimmy Carter attacked the unions. <br /><br />Are Libertarians interested in anything other than Randian property - worship? Nope, not since a Koch ran for VP on the ticket. <br /><br />Using political definitions 40 years out of date is a sure way to get yourself tarred with some one else's brush. <br /><br />Alfred says he is "a Smithian classical liberal" but also maintains that "taxes are theft." The second statement is incompatible with the first. <br /><br />Jerry doesn't comment here enough for me to have a feeling for what his internal mental model of libertarian is precisely. But he is still using the no true Scotsman fallacy to try and define a political movement as something it is not. "I was there first and that's not how it was when I started it." doesn't work when the terms you are laying claim to have been defined otherwise by millions. <br /><br />matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17757867868731829206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-84409966650794221672017-06-16T14:41:46.138-07:002017-06-16T14:41:46.138-07:00@donzelion | ...are you suggesting we ought to put...@donzelion | <i>...are you suggesting we ought to put aside $20 trillion/year to deal with property value decay?</i><br /><br />Goodness no. We put aside 10% of our income, not 10% of our capital stock. The savings go to a lot of other things too. Some communities save much more and some a lot less, but we all do it to some degree. If we are willing to take the (risky) step of including human capital in the mix, even the poorest among us engage in some form of savings near that level. If insurers do what I think they will do in an environment where we do NOT promise to bail them out, I suspect capital owners of sea-side property will have to devote a bit more of their savings toward preservation in a world with rising seas and that will change property values. It’s just the rent calculation procedure. If I have a $500K property and expect 5% return on it each year, I have to charge a monthly rent near $2.1K. If insurance goes up, I get less, or I charge more. If rent values are fair, I might even be motivated to game the rules in ways you’ve described. I’m a small fish, though, so I’d probably sell it and buy somewhere else where I could make 5% again. (Yah. I know the average return rate is lower right now.) Insurance would push me to sell or accept the lower property value associated with running the rent calculations backwards. If net rent falls to $2K, property value drops to $480K if buyers are basing value on a 5% return.<br /><br />I have a preference for letting those forces work, but I hear you and your concerns about fraud. I don’t know what to do, though, and suspect we are caught between a rock and a hard spot and have been for ages. I have personal experience as a founder in a couple of start-ups where some of us didn’t know each other well. There is a certain dance we all participated in to learn what we needed to know of each and then have enough trust in the team to risk our investments. Two of the start-ups failed with accusations of fraud and a lot of finger pointing. If there had been anything to fight over, lawyers would have been paid. I suspect one of my partners DID pay, but I went limp because I already had my revenge. Sigh. One learns from these things and gets tempted to do full background checks on one’s future partners. Sigh^2. Do I want fraud protection, though? Not really. I lost money and a lot of time, but it was mine to risk and no one got rich. If I have too much protection, I can see how this would put a chill on entrepreneurs. If I have none, that is a disaster of the other extreme. Sigh ^3. <br /><br />Regarding transparency cowboys, I think you underestimate the amateurs. Given your training as a progressive warrior of sorts, that is understandable. If you want to see things a bit more like I do, consider watching James Burke’s 70’s Connection series (again?) and pay special attention to the fears he expressed in the last episode. They didn’t materialize, but it is interesting to ask why they did not. As with the historical changes that started in the 16th century, something big happened and I suspect few get it. Burke didn’t understand computers then the way we do now, but that isn’t the issue. He expressed a reasonable Big Brother fear that simply failed to materialize. I strongly suspect it was the uncoordinated actions of amateurs that prevented his alt.future. If you watch his ‘The Day the Universe Changed’ series from the mid-80’s, it ends with a similar episode and a different fear expressed in a less pessimistic manner. In that one he provide two broad possibilities, one rather dark and the other much brighter. The dark one failed. Miserably. Why? His later series (Connections sequels) from the 90’s didn’t end with darkness at all. By then, it seems, he got it even if only at an unconscious level.<br /><br />I suspect we DO need to put some money into climate change prevention, but I’m inclined to tap the savings we already reserve rather than force more. One exception, though, is I AM willing to support a fossil carbon tax to put a price on an otherwise negative externality.Alfred Differhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01170159981105973192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-84796889593961149482017-06-16T14:36:50.640-07:002017-06-16T14:36:50.640-07:00Paul 451, even though I've made a couple of mi...Paul 451, even though I've made a couple of minor typos in my recent comments, I've been quite consistent and accurate in distinguishing between upper-case "L" Libertarians and lower-case "l" libertarians. The distinction is especially important today in the case of libertarianism because, until December of 1971, libertarianism was only a philosophy. There are immensely more "libertarians" than there are "Libertarians." <br /><br />In the past, I have tried to refer to my ideas as classical liberalism, but that suffers from a similar problem. People hear or see the word "liberal" and they tend to think of liberalism as currently portrayed in popular culture. The word "classical" had to be added to the word "liberalism" because some people had stolen the word "liberal." How often must I change the name of my ideas?<br /><br />In the last U.S. presidential election, Gary Johnson had some very significant disagreements with the Libertarian Party platform. Gary Johnson was a strong supporter of the Environmental Protection Agency. Does that mean that Gary Johnson was not a libertarian?<br /><br />Earlier today, I was just trying to suggest that having the parties to a transaction pay for negative externalities was a good idea, and that many libertarians agreed with that idea. Somehow, that devolved into a discussion over whether I am a libertarian. It is rather creepy that the discussion should wander that far off track on a forum as intelligent as this one.<br /><br /> Jerry Emanuelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14401970213448886158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-66300042694210773602017-06-16T14:34:44.147-07:002017-06-16T14:34:44.147-07:00Again and again... political theory is less import...Again and again... political theory is less important than what has pragmatically worked. Feudalism, stifling criticism, autocratic rule all govern STUPIDLY!<br /><br />Freedom, transparent reciprocal accountability, regulated competition, science, error-discovery... these have led to successes that are like the sun, next to the flickering candles of 6000 years of feudal lords.<br /><br />Libertarians who stand up for COMPETITION and realize who destroyed it, deserve the name. Those who suck up to lords and rationalize excuses for those enemies of freedom and competition... they are no libertarians. They are lickspittle shills.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-76195631290585977352017-06-16T14:26:14.755-07:002017-06-16T14:26:14.755-07:00Larry, Paul, Tim: I find Dr. Brin's use of the...Larry, Paul, Tim: I find Dr. Brin's use of the term 'Confederate' to be an intentional, and contentious (contrarian) synonym with 'traitor.' And very likely to annoy precisely the sorts of people who need to be annoyed.<br /><br />To many Southerners, calling Robert E. Lee a 'traitor' is...well, a sign of being a Yankee outsider. But on a rational level, that is precisely what Lee was - a traitor who killed orders of magnitudes more Americans than Osama bin Laden - not even Hitler killed as many Americans as Robert E. Lee did. Yet they've embraced a Lee myth that Lee himself would have had no time for, converted him into a figure who stands for resistance to civil rights, education, and anything 'northern' (elitist). Then after perfecting the art of mythologizing, they replicated precisely the same pattern with "St. Reagan." <br /><br />What can one do to these myths by slap the adherents in the face? Wake up! Lee was a traitor! Those embracing him endorse treason. Those embracing the system he fought to defend are...you guessed it.<br /><br /><i>"What term would you suggest we use to describe efforts to undermine democracy, steal the wealth of the vast majority of Americans, and people who appear to have sold their influence in the US to foreign political dictators?"</i><br />Some, yes. And some who hear the term 'treason' will feel pushed away, and unsettled by an immoderate term. Bandying it about lightly is surely a sign of frustration and fury. Most Republicans do NOT want to undermine democracy, steal anyone's wealth, and despise influence peddlers (indeed, the fact they perceived Clinton as doing precisely that was a fixation of their fury). But most of them also disbelieve in evolution: their core beliefs are dictated by sources unrelated to science and evidence.donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-54245151844683197532017-06-16T14:01:01.839-07:002017-06-16T14:01:01.839-07:00@Paul451,
At the risk of speaking for another, I ...@Paul451,<br /><br />At the risk of speaking for another, I think Tim's issue is that "treason" is most typically punishable by hanging, and he's afraid that this extreme liberal rhetoric is what causes people to shoot at the "traitors" while they're practicing baseball.<br /><br />My problem with his problem is that we liberals have been called "traitors" for decades, and it was deemed ridiculous to suggest that such extreme right-wing rhetoric was responsible for Gabby Giffords being shot, just as it is deemed ridiculous to blame right-wing rhetoric for abortion clinic shootings or attempts to start a race war. Just last week, a member of Trump's family declared as fact that anyone who disagrees with his father is not really a person.<br /><br />I wonder rhetorically why rhetoric rises to the level of extreme and dangerously influential when liberals make the case.<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-81257452737634150722017-06-16T13:18:36.344-07:002017-06-16T13:18:36.344-07:00Speaking on nomenclature, Tim2 has criticised Davi...Speaking on nomenclature, Tim2 has criticised David and the forum for using terms like Treason to describe the behaviour of certain players.<br /><br />What term would you suggest we use to describe efforts to undermine democracy, steal the wealth of the vast majority of Americans, and people who appear to have sold their influence in the US to foreign political dictators?<br /><br />Treason seems like the right word, but if you have another term...<br />Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-60951033166742187992017-06-16T13:02:14.420-07:002017-06-16T13:02:14.420-07:00Jerry,
"I will not give up my claim to be abl...Jerry,<br /><i>"I will not give up my claim to be able to use the word "libertarianism" on the grounds that it was "stolen fair and square" by the Libertarian Party. I am still a libertarian, as I have been since I was a young teenager. I will continue to use that word to describe many of my ideas. I have just as much right as anyone who is alive today to say what libertarianism is."</i><br /><br />The problem is that you want to assert that right in every conversation that's clearly only about the <i>other</i> Libertarians (capital L). In doing so, you are actually trying to claim to speak for Libertarianism (capital L).<br /><br />If I'm trying to talk about the Democratic Party and its supporters and policies and tactics, "Those democrats all be crazy when they say X", and you interrupt every single time and insist, "That's not what democracy means, democrats like me actually believe...", then <i>you</i> are the one missing the point. Just as you are missing it when people are obviously talking about the LP and the Mises-school of libertarians, and you insist "that's not what <i>I</i> believe and <i>I'm</i> a libertarian".<br /><br />If the ambiguity bothers <i>you</i>, then use another term for what you believe. Alfred called his brand of libertarianism "Classical Liberalism". If you are too attached to the term to change, then the burden is on you to deal with the ambiguity.Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1314086643008515402017-06-16T12:45:50.439-07:002017-06-16T12:45:50.439-07:00Duncan: While I concur with your conclusion, I se...Duncan: While I concur with your conclusion, I see some flaws in your reasoning. It is interesting to disagree with someone on a fine point, when you ultimately agree with the outcome, and not a common experience in internet forums. But let's stop for a second here -<br /><br /><i>"it is not unusual for a company to be paying minimum wages and making out like gangbusters - huge profits going to the owners...But look at US businesses - do we have a situation with historically low profits?? NO - profits are at a historical HIGH</i><br /><br />For firms earning record profits, your analysis is spot on. But many firms depending on minimum wage workers - fast food, retail, hospitality, low-end manufacturing/textiles, low-end health-care (mostly cleaners) - are struggling. Retail is facing quite a collapse, and results are uneven (at best) in hospitality/fast food.<br /><br />Tech companies (largely profiting through near-minimum wage ad placers, call centers, and warehouse operators) and banks/insurers (largely profiting through near-minimum wage sales & tellers) are players with most profits in 2016 and 2017, yet their minimum wage contingent is small and far less central to their business model.<br /><br />For struggling sectors (esp. retail), I would expect fairly major job losses as vast numbers of stores opened in the boom period that were only viable because of public assistance to employees, state/local community assistance (esp. to developers), tax subsidies, etc. Either removing those subsidies, or raising the minimum wages, would destroy those cheap'n'easy business models, and the jobs resulting from them.<br /><br />To me, this is the more elegant manifestation of Alfred's frequently invoked 'bring out the pitchforks!" Yes, a minimum wage hike will hurt some people who are not the intended target. But the worst hurt will be the 21st century equivalent of 'sharecroppers' (who (a) OWN most of rural America, and (b) embraced Trump in desperation).donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-79989254885915856002017-06-16T12:39:31.869-07:002017-06-16T12:39:31.869-07:00I seriously get the vibe from some self-proclaimed...I seriously get the vibe from some self-proclaimed "Libertarians" that tragedies of the commons should be encouraged and externalities are opportunities to be exploited.<br /><br />Whereas I have this crazy idea that since [A] the power of freedom comes from the ability of distributed decision-making to outcompete centralized decision-making, that [B] the distributed decision-making should be provided with data as accurate as possible.<br /><br />Crazy, I know!Catfish N. Codnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1170365906240265062017-06-16T12:29:44.465-07:002017-06-16T12:29:44.465-07:00Like the big difference in republicans and Republi...Like the big difference in republicans and Republicans. Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-20928406932830376952017-06-16T12:06:00.195-07:002017-06-16T12:06:00.195-07:00Matthew, I don't claim to be the spokesman for...Matthew, I don't claim to be the spokesman for libertarianism. I claim that there is no spokesman for libertarianism (especially when spelled with a lower-case "l").<br /><br />You are still proving the claim that I made 46 years ago that the formation of a Libertarian Party would damage libertarian philosophies by claiming to be the sole voice of libertarianism, or at least being widely perceived as the sole voice of libertarianism.<br /><br />I will not give up my claim to be able to use the word "libertarianism" on the grounds that it was "stolen fair and square" by the Libertarian Party. I am still a libertarian, as I have been since I was a young teenager. I will continue to use that word to describe many of my ideas. I have just as much right as anyone who is alive today to say what libertarianism is. <br /><br /> Jerry Emanuelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14401970213448886158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-14482768685777012262017-06-16T11:51:35.163-07:002017-06-16T11:51:35.163-07:00Love the Juno images.
Two interesting monopoly ...Love the Juno images. <br /><br />Two interesting monopoly stories for science-interested: one will be told at length, one will not. <br /><br />Amazon buying Whole Foods? "Ah, Jeff Bezos...always experimenting! Good luck (maybe)! Viva la technologie! Internet uber alle!"<br /><br />Dow buying DuPont? Far more interesting for this space, and more likely to be overlooked. Perhaps not here though. What family better models the family trust Dr. Brin had in mind for the McClennon clan in 'Earth' than the DuPonts?<br /><br />Romanticists fixate on Napoleon's genius; but why did his artillery perform better than any rivals? DuPont scientific methods for testing black powder made them the largest supplier, but the rivals had excellent scientists of their own. DuPont's innovation was in the subsidiary/joint venture process: by sharing their tech through corporate forms, many manufacturers could adopt 'best practices' (while the family profited handsomely). Why did the North have superior industrial base by the Civil War? Those subsidiaries were the secret.<br /><br />That model was tested at length in Delaware's Chancery Court, and became the uniquely American feature of industrialization. Managing them in Delaware created the Delaware system of corporate ownership. By the 20th century, nearly every state adopted at least some form of the 'Delaware' process.<br /><br />Moving from arms to other science fields, the DuPont Corporation used this methodology to capitalize on innovations in drugs, seeds, plastics, solar power, always capitalizing through subsidiaries and joint stock companies, always in the epicenter of every materials-based revolution of the 20th century. <br /><br />Having helped build "the establishment," DuPont's leaders skewed 'conservative' (with any number of fringe extensions). Yet until the last 20 years, 'conservative' meant something different, often pro-science. The DuPont-backed Republican establishment is now sidelined by a Walton-Koch-Murdoch-Mercer (Trump)-backed, evolution-hating ignoranti. But none of those dynasties will ever be remembered for very tangible, meaningful contributions to America, with a hand in everything from the Louisiana Purchase to the actual foundations of American industrialization.<br /><br />Perhaps Bezos will...<br /><br />Just another $70 bn merger? Shrug, roll eyes, judge them as 'good/evil' - what was the latest Trump tweet? Oh look, a squirrel! donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-88153296030444795072017-06-16T11:31:17.193-07:002017-06-16T11:31:17.193-07:00That's a "no true Scottsman" argumen...That's a "no true Scottsman" argument. <br />There exists a Libertarian Party. It does not accept your definition of what you say it should believe. <br />Either change what it believes to match your opposite thing. Or call your ideals something different. <br /><br />But to claim "I was there at the start, so I get to say what "libertairanism" is all about" ignores the 40 years of jibbering loonyism that is the Libertarian Party.<br /><br />matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17757867868731829206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-89457356420027954092017-06-16T11:24:04.901-07:002017-06-16T11:24:04.901-07:00Matthew, I was a libertarian before the Libertaria...Matthew, I was a libertarian before the Libertarian Party was formed. I think that I have prior rights to claim what is libertarian that supercedes the rather crazy Libertarian Party platform.<br /><br />I was holding a libertarian discussion group at a local college in 1971 when on of the founders of the Libertarian Party came in to invite me to a meeting to found the new Libertarian Party. That founding meeting of the LP was being held at the home of the late Luke Zell, which was only about a ten minute drive away. I knew both Luke and the LP founder who invited me to the meeting. In fact, Luke Zell had been at my libertarian meetings prior to the founding of the Libertarian Party.<br /><br />I declined the invitation because I had several misgivings about the formation of a Libertarian Party, especially at that time. Among those misgivings was my fear that a Libertarian Party would appear to be the "official voice" for libertarianism, which would be a great tragedy for libertarian philosophies.<br /><br />Matthew has proven that I was correct in what I stated 46 years ago about the formation of the Libertarian Party.<br /><br />I was using the term "libertarian," including in publications that can still be found in libraries, years before the formation of the Libertarian Party. "Libertarian" is not a word that can be copyrighted. But there is lots of proof available that I was using that word in publications before the Libertarian Party was formed. I have just as must right as they do to say what libertarianism is.<br /><br />Jerry Emanuelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14401970213448886158noreply@blogger.com