Sun of a gun
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 7:01 PM Anthony Cesaroni <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Old Chinese saying, “there can only be one sun in the sky” . Let’s see how
that plays out. 😉
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
*From:* arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> *On
Behalf Of *William Claybaugh
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 1, 2020 9:31 PM
*To:* arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [AR] Re: ... Coronavirus
As I continue to look at the (american) data available to me I am
concluding that the Chinese data and all the papers derived from it are
bullshit.
The Chinese appear to be lying about deaths, infections, and rates. None
of their papers can be relied upon.
The data I am seeing continues to suggest a wild R0 near but below four.
Previous claims of 2.2 or 0.9 to 3.5 do not appear to be based on any valid
data.
Bill
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 6:27 PM David Gregory <david.c.gregory@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Money as a conserved quantity like mass and energy is a fundamental error
in understanding - it’s the “gold in ft Knox” understanding of money and
it’s just plain wrong.
On Apr 1, 2020, at 4:08 PM, Michael Clive <zeinin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
" Money is life people. Technology, even medical technology, doesn't
matter without the money to deploy it*. And money is not something that
can be arbitrarily created or stolen. *Theft and printing money destroys
it, rather than create it. Basic economics."
Sorry to resurrect this thread, but
I no longer believe that is true. I am working on a theory that implies
that, once certain parts of the economy gain enough
technological efficiency, you can effectively run them on fiat capital
without inflation. Example is food production: This once was the vocation
of 40% of all Americans in the 1900s, now it is 1~5%, depending on how you
slice it.
Let's assume that basic eating patterns remain the same, or possibly even
get a little bit fancier. How would the overall society be impacted by
printing money to pay out this basic need? Would it necessarily lead to
(problematic) inflation?
My contention: Money can ABSOLUTELY be created, with little negative
impact, if it is allocated in a way to provoke the economic activity that
the society needs while not producing more scarcity. Meaning: If you spend
money on food production, but food production can scale with that addition
of money (due to efficiencies in technologies), you do NOT create scarcity,
you create abundance. Furthermore, if the upstream products (tractors,
labor etc) can also be scaled cheaply due to efficiencies in technology,
you do not create scarcity. The argument is that technology allows supply
and demand to be independent of each other, and scale them by the total
monetary velocity through the system, without destroying the value of the
money. The rate that money moves from person to person is the measure of
economic health.
I know this group leans libertarian/fiscal conservative, but I also know
we all watched Star Trek and some of us read the Culture novels. Isn't it a
good time to consider how one would model such a post-scarcity economy?
I transitioned into management about three years ago. There is one model
of management theory that divides mentalities into type X and type Y
managers: Type X managers assume that employees are lazy and unmotivated.
They require rewards or punishment (incentives) to engage in productive
labor.
Type Y mangers assume that employees are by default, interested and self
motivated and they want to perform and succeed. The type Y manager focuses
on removing road blocks and setting goals. The type X manager
wields her/his authority with threats and promises.
I am sure you all know what kind of manager you would like to work for. I
have worked for both kinds. I prefer type Ys. One of the them is on this
list, and he was the greatest mentor I have ever had.
There was a politician recently who complained that the current relief
bill would be bad for the working class because it might pay them more than
they were making while working. While there are several ways to comment on
this opinion, I will only take once stance: People tend to behave, in
aggregate, the way that you treat them. If your expectation as a
manager/senator/president is that people are inherently lazy and *only *do
productive labor due to external rewards and punishments, you are leaving a
huge amount of talent and attention on the table.
My belief is that *more than enough *people fundamentally want to be
useful and productive to themselves, their community and their family that
it provides society more benefit to trust them, than to worry about people
taking advantage of the a universal income system. Is it so awful that
there might be X wellfare queens/kings vs X*(unknown number) humans using
this period of unemployment to chart a better path forward for themselves?
What I am saying is that people of certain mindsets tend to believe that
financial incentives are the only lever that can be used to change
behavior. I think there are many more.
I am very interested in the political and economic outcome of this
near-global UBI-like situation we have found ourselves in. I hope it will
prove that some of the tenants of *financial *capitalism are incorrect,
and lead to greater income/asset equality.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 12:09 AM David Summers <dvidsum@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Speaking very roughly, for every $1-10 M lost someone dies. They die
because we couldn't get the cancer treatment, or the process wasn't as safe
as it could be, etc. So by wiping out a trillion dollars, long term you
have kill 100k to 1m people unless we dig ourselves out.
Money is life people. Technology, even medical technology, doesn't matter
without the money to deploy it. And money is not something that can be
arbitrarily created or stolen. Theft and printing money destroys it, rather
than create it. Basic economics.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020, 8:58 PM Jake Anderson <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Sorry dad, trumps stockmarket portfolio is going down so you need to die.
On 26/3/20 4:22 pm, roxanna Mason wrote:
Today one week later:
657 infections, 12 deaths, 43 recovered.
Were's the age vs deaths data? If it's disproportionately the elderly and
health
compromised then maybe its time to get back to work and let herd
immunity do its job.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 3:23 PM Henry Spencer <hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 10:26 AM ken mason <laserpro1234@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Observation: One of the largest population
country with the lowest infection rate is India -
Over a billion people with only 244 infected 5
deaths 20 received. Why?
India and Pakistan are now both on lockdown, desperately hoping to flatten
the peak enough that their limited medical resources can more-or-less
cope. It hasn't been done particularly skillfully in either country, and
they've got big problems with very large numbers of poor people who don't
have enough safety margin to handle being out of work for weeks, but
they're trying.
Henry
