|
United States44404 Posts
On January 14 2016 05:37 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2016 03:52 KwarK wrote:If the value of the Euro doubled vs the USD then the cost of anything made in the Eurozone to an American would also double because ... + Show Spoiler +he'd need twice as many dollars to pay the cost of production. When he walked around the store and compared the EU goods to the US goods he'd be far more likely to buy the American goods because they'd be more competitively priced. Meanwhile in Belgium the cost of imported US goods has suddenly halved because your Euros are so valuable you only need half as many to pay for the US workers and goods. You therefore buy twice as many American things like the good consumer you are. Alright, thanks. I guess in the real world it's probably a bit more nuanced than that though, maybe not so if it's that clear cut, but it rarely is I reckon. The Euro zone must be pretty tricky to balance because each country still works with their own economy, while also accounting for the European economy, and then the world economy. A box of cereals won't cost the same in France as in Belgium (or even different parts of Belgium I think) when bought from the same supermarket chain. Show nested quote +
They make the payments on the debt. They're not just not paying them. The bank isn't getting scammed. The bank is happy with the arrangement and if it ceases to be happy with it it'll just sell the bond to someone else.
Isn't selling, and reselling something dangerous? If money is "loaned out" without ever getting it back, why does it even matter there is a concept like this? I'm pretty sure some of the money that the US owes for example, is probably never going to be payed back, right? Show nested quote +
The set date isn't really important due to the ability of the country to issue new bonds. You issue new bonds as the old ones mature. It only really becomes important if the value of the bonds changes hugely in that time. Greece couldn't just keep rolling the debt forwards because the faith in repayment was broken so the interest rates on the new bonds would have been far more than those on the older ones.
So to issue a new bond is basically renewing your promise to pay? (or am I interpreting this wrongly?) Also, a folowup question. Aren't the rating bureaus that assess the economic strength of a country manipulating the economy by said ratings in a sense? I know it's kind of a tangent, but it's also somehting that's been eating at me for a while. If you rather have I PM you about this, I'll gladly do so (don't want to make this thread into some grand economy teaching lesson)
It doesn't matter if the money can or will be paid back. It's a house of cards. As long as everyone believes it'll be paid back then the bond has the same value as the money. Both the bond and the money are just paper, or more often these days, numbers on a screen. What matters is faith. As long as everyone believes the bond is good then the bond is good. Hell, take gold. Gold doesn't do anything, it's not even that rare when you look at how much humans actually consume. The value is based purely on the belief that someone else will value it more and eventually accept it in trade for something you actually want which isn't gold.
Yes, ratings bureaus are a problem, especially when they're private. This was an issue in the run up to the 2008 depression when ratings agencies were bribed to certify that junk was valuable so that it could be sold for far more than it was worth. The fact that private rating agencies have the power to massively disrupt the economies of whole countries is certainly something that upsets people. There is a strong argument being made that they should be either nationalized or held accountable to an independent body.
|
Somehow I don't like the fact that the global economy is run on faith backed up by computers that can execute changes in that faith in less than a nanosecond (or even predict the change in faith, that's what they try to do right with these speculative algorithms?)
I guess these rating bureaus are kind of like the fashion trendsetters. Their word will make sure that everyone else follows. If Germany is the next shitty economy for them, it will be the next shitty economy.
But thanks alot for the answers man! Really appreciate it, now I feel like I got a grasp (how weak it may be) on something that was completely abstract for me a few hours ago.
|
On January 14 2016 06:02 Uldridge wrote:
Somehow I don't like the fact that the global economy is run on faith backed up by computers that can execute changes in that faith in less than a nanosecond (or even predict the change in faith, that's what they try to do right with these speculative algorithms?)
I guess these rating bureaus are kind of like the fashion trendsetters. Their word will make sure that everyone else follows. If Germany is the next shitty economy for them, it will be the next shitty economy.
But thanks alot for the answers man! Really appreciate it, now I feel like I got a grasp (how weak it may be) on something that was completely abstract for me a few hours ago.
Nanosecond? It takes many milliseconds only to send the signal across the world. (Sorry, not relevant, I know)
|
I wanted to comment on that, but then i realized that most PCs run at a few thousand MHz, which means that they can do a few things in a nanosecond. Possibly not speculating, no idea about that, but it is the timescale they work on.
|
On January 14 2016 16:25 Simberto wrote:
I wanted to comment on that, but then i realized that most PCs run at a few thousand MHz, which means that they can do a few things in a nanosecond. Possibly not speculating, no idea about that, but it is the timescale they work on.
Yeah, but I don't think it's fair to say that switching a couple of bytes in the cpu corresponds to "changes in faith". Surely you must include actually sending the data out across the major servers worldwide for that to happen. Otherwise you can say that human-made stock trade is also made in the nanosecond where the brain neuron fires the signal that takes the decision, and then ignore the time it takes for the human to actually execute the trade.
In practice the computer will need at least a second (or a few) to gather data, analyse, and react I'd think. And a human sitting at a computer (or a human in one of those old-school trading halls) can also react and trade at similar speed. Maybe an experienced trader would need 5-10 seconds to take a decision, which isn't that much slower in the end.
I think the scary part is that the computer algorithms are automated, ever-present and can use all available information immediately. And very few understand how they actually work. I mean... It's the same thing with anything. It feels much worse if your company's stock price get dumped because a computer algorithm that you don't understand decided to dump it than if human traders lost faith in it. It is worse to be killed (or severely sick) because a computer algorithm recommended the wrong drug for you than if a human doctor did the same mistake. It's worse if a computer takes a bad political decision that if a human does. It's worse if a computer-controlled car kills a pedestrian than if a human-controlled car does. And so on.
I had a colleague that made an algorithm that predicted if patients with heart attacks would get another heart attack soon or not, that outperformed even experienced expert doctors by quite a bit. It eventually got rolled out (or is being rolled out, not sure which stage it is at) into the clinics, but only as a second opinion that the doctor could consult if he/she wanted. I'm not saying it should have been done any other way, but just wanted to give an example that this fear of machines is a very real effect in society.
I think it just boils down to fear of the unknown in the end.
So I am not arguing that it is not scary that computers can decide that germany should fall to pieces. I am arguing that it was equally scary before, possibly more scary, when relatively few humans could do the same thing.
|
^main difference is that you can act on a human's decision, as it is a human's and not a computer's. If relatively few humans can decide the fate of thousands of people, you can negociate with them, revolt against them, (hopefully) vote against them, or kill them, etc. Additionally, even the worse of humans are humans, and will naturally refuse to carry certain orders, or voluntarily carry them badly.
When an automated algorithm is in charge... Well yeah, there's no reasoning, no reflexion, no human. It also has the side-effect of dumbing down humans, as they rely on machines - that they inherently don't know, except for a select few - they cannot relate to.
|
On January 14 2016 06:02 Uldridge wrote:
Somehow I don't like the fact that the global economy is run on faith backed up by computers that can execute changes in that faith in less than a nanosecond (or even predict the change in faith, that's what they try to do right with these speculative algorithms?)
I guess these rating bureaus are kind of like the fashion trendsetters. Their word will make sure that everyone else follows. If Germany is the next shitty economy for them, it will be the next shitty economy.
But thanks alot for the answers man! Really appreciate it, now I feel like I got a grasp (how weak it may be) on something that was completely abstract for me a few hours ago.
The influence of rating bureau's is way overrated. Most of the time they follow the market and the lower credit rating is already priced into higher interest rate by the market.
Where they do make a difference though is when your rating goes below 'investment grade'. Some big institutional investors like pension funds can only invest in assets which are investment grade so they will have to move out when it gets downgraded by the rating bureau's.
|
Why do people get angry when you say the word moist? What's so bad about it?
Also, why do people get annoyed over small things?
|
On January 15 2016 03:07 pyrocumulus wrote:
Why do people get angry when you say the word moist? What's so bad about it?
Also, why do people get annoyed over small things?
People get angry over moist? As a non-native speaker I must have missed something here... Or the people you are talking about are strange. 
People that get annoyed over small things are often actually annoyed at something else in their life, and just need to vent.
|
On January 15 2016 09:53 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2016 03:07 pyrocumulus wrote:
Why do people get angry when you say the word moist? What's so bad about it?
Also, why do people get annoyed over small things?
People get angry over moist? As a non-native speaker I must have missed something here... Or the people you are talking about are strange. People that get annoyed over small things are often actually annoyed at something else in their life, and just need to vent.
It's a statistical anomaly taken out of proportion. A study/survey a billion years ago (hyperbole) suggested that "moist" was the least liked word in America. Since then people say they dislike it because they feel they have to. It's no different than going online to check if you have cancer.
|
On January 15 2016 11:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2016 09:53 Cascade wrote:On January 15 2016 03:07 pyrocumulus wrote:
Why do people get angry when you say the word moist? What's so bad about it?
Also, why do people get annoyed over small things?
People get angry over moist? As a non-native speaker I must have missed something here... Or the people you are talking about are strange. People that get annoyed over small things are often actually annoyed at something else in their life, and just need to vent. It's a statistical anomaly taken out of proportion. A study/survey a billion years ago (hyperbole) suggested that "moist" was the least liked word in America. Since then people say they dislike it because they feel they have to. It's no different than going online to check if you have cancer.
Thanks!
I follow that up until, but not including, the comparison to online cancer checkup.
|
How/why do comcast controllers still not have a paging feature to find it when you lose it?
|
On January 16 2016 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
How/why do comcast controllers still not have a paging feature to find it when you lose it?
Probably cheaper to dev something that works with a mobile now than to pay to add the feature to hardware they push with cable boxes. That would also be more inline with the packages they are pushing for streaming and their apps.
|
No clue on comcast, but a friend recently lost/broke his Samsung remote control and the replacement price was ridiculous, so he downloaded an app and just uses his phone as remote control for his tv.
|
On January 16 2016 11:52 Acrofales wrote:
No clue on comcast, but a friend recently lost/broke his Samsung remote control and the replacement price was ridiculous, so he downloaded an app and just uses his phone as remote control for his tv.
Really? I feel like a universal remote is pretty cheap. Then again there is probably the widest variance in what TVs people have now a days.
|
On January 15 2016 09:53 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2016 03:07 pyrocumulus wrote:
Why do people get angry when you say the word moist? What's so bad about it?
Also, why do people get annoyed over small things?
People get angry over moist? As a non-native speaker I must have missed something here... Or the people you are talking about are strange. People that get annoyed over small things are often actually annoyed at something else in their life, and just need to vent.
I think that it's actually a thing. Moist and flesh are probably my two most disliked words in the little bit of time I spent with my ex in Chapters, while she was reading erotica to me.
I don't really know why, but when I hear those words, it makes my body feel like if a blackboard was being scratched. It's not like people get mad or angry, it's a similar feeling as if someone tells you they just got back from the bathroom since they had diarrhea.
So anyway, it is a thing for sure, and I'm not even originally from Canada.
|
On January 17 2016 03:58 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2016 09:53 Cascade wrote:On January 15 2016 03:07 pyrocumulus wrote:
Why do people get angry when you say the word moist? What's so bad about it?
Also, why do people get annoyed over small things?
People get angry over moist? As a non-native speaker I must have missed something here... Or the people you are talking about are strange. People that get annoyed over small things are often actually annoyed at something else in their life, and just need to vent. I think that it's actually a thing. Moist and flesh are probably my two most disliked words in the little bit of time I spent with my ex in Chapters, while she was reading erotica to me. I don't really know why, but when I hear those words, it makes my body feel like if a blackboard was being scratched. It's not like people get mad or angry, it's a similar feeling as if someone tells you they just got back from the bathroom since they had diarrhea. So anyway, it is a thing for sure, and I'm not even originally from Canada.
Thanks.
I can see how the connotation in erotica is different, but things like "the soil is moist", does that also sounds bad? Because it makes you think of your ex's erotica?  Well anyway, if that's how you feel that's right of course. I just can't really grasp it myself. It does have a bit odd phonetic sound maybe...
Is it only said out loud, or do you feel uncomfortable seeing it in writing as well? We could follow you all the way through the forums and reply to your posts, subtly dropping those words in every reply.
|
If it's the phonology of it, shouldn't hoist and foist be similarly reviled?
|
Yes, but are those actual words?
|
On January 17 2016 22:29 Simberto wrote:
Yes, but are those actual words?
Yes. Hoist is still used: you hoist flags. Foist is more archaic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
