Correlation + proposed mechanism = scientific theory.
Did you know that a gallon of gasoline is capable of replacing 55 hours of manual labor?
How do you think America managed to make its economic productivity boom? By expanding its constraint horizon with oil.
That's all well and good, but I have a serious problem with people who waste gasoline on things like cars. 55 hours of toil or 20 miles.
There is no physical reason why intelligent life could not expand through space very fast on cosmological timescales, if it wanted to.
Except, you know, the speed of light. And the limits of biology and ecology. And the fact that space is three dimensional on the scales we're talking about (which means that they intelligent species would have to populate at a rate proportional to the distance from the home world cubed in order to meaningfully "populate" the new worlds.
That's nice and all, but... use Bayes theorem. If you get statistically significant results, let us know.
That is, the summary statistics are incomplete for the kind of inference you want to draw.
In particular, the summary statistics you give tell us that having the genetic marker makes a smoker twice as likely to experience psychosis as a smoker who does not have the marker. It does not tell us how much more or less likely psychosis is compared to a non-smoker.
Critical thinking failure.
Like Ayn Rand, right?
All scientific laws are predictions. Or at least abstractions over prediction. "If you drop a ball from a height h, it will accelerate at 9.8 m/s and have a velocity v."
If anything, your point supports the validity of treating Moore's law as testable science instead of delineating between science and non-science.
Bitcoin can work in principle, but then, so can a printed fiat currency. The bitcoin system would have to be very finely tuned to inflate at the rate of "natural" wealth destruction, just like the printed fiat currency. Obviously, measuring "natural" wealth destruction is difficult on econometric grounds, and thus becomes a political issue. This would be true whether bit coin or paper money is floating around.
Here's the thing: if an economy is to remain strong, its outputs must actually be useful. But things break down over time. The rate at which they break down takes value out of the economy, as those things are no longer useful. If the supply of money does not reflect this loss of value, then the holders of money get paid scarcity rent. They would get paid more value (in terms of today's labor) for their dollar than they put in for it. Rents are market distortions!
The problems we face are n-fold. First, the post-War economy was predicated on making "disposable" goods. The value of the outputs of the post-War economy is now zero. Second, the post-War generation is still alive, and its savings are propping up the capital markets. This is a problem, because their dollar does not match up with their contribution to society now. In other words, if a dollar is supposed to be a store of value, backed by the value of their labor, their dollars "should be" worthless. It is as if they are now counterfeiters, since their dollars are backed by now worthless labor.
The result of this situation is inflation in real terms. Their money was sequestered in the capital markets, but is now being set free in the common markets as they retire. And it is a huge chunk of change.
I'm a poor in America. I bought a used 25$ tv about two years. I saved for years to buy a 300$ laptop. I'll have to save for 5 years to finish my BA in math. I haven't spent a single dollar that wasn't for food, housing, or electricity in over a year. I don't have a phone or car or an air conditioner.
The dollars are stretched, and the situation is getting worse.
Reintroducing the gold standard would introduce massive market distortions, due to scarcity rent. This is why the gold standard is a political position, and not an economic one.
That is a prescription for a reversion to nationalist vassalage.
Life was never easy. Globalization has made it easier for billions of people.
I read an interesting paper about gold once. The thesis was that if gold is money as defined by economic theory, then mining gold provides ZERO economic utility in the long term, and negative utility in the short term, since introducing more of the material to the market is inflationary. Of course, the conclusion was that since people mine gold and profit from it, gold is not money.
Also, using gold as money re-introduces the scarcity rent which lead to and sustained feudalism. A re-introduction of the gold standard is just a power grab.
Semiconductor production is hardly a niche market. Sure, you might not hear about them much, but Sun, IBM, Lenovo, Intel, Samsung, Apple, Google, and all the others have to go somewhere for their hardware. Why re-invent the wheel at significant cost when TI and Motorola already have a production line for what you need?
If you're willing to pay for vellum, you might as well get a fountain pen (which will look fantastic on vellum and great on every other kind of paper)
This is a good point.
On balance, I would suggest a fountain pen for the requirements the asker mentioned. A Pelikan with a fine point would work perfectly well for about $100. (Schaeffer used to make some pretty decent disposable, refillable pens, for about $12. That's how I got my start in fountain penmanship) I've had my Pelikan since 2004. Actually, I'm on my second one, but when the first one broke, I emailed Pelikan's American distributor about how mine broke (it fell a few feet and hit the edge of a metal trash can, cracking the celluloid), and they sent me a new $100 pen for free. Also, you can de-burr a fountain pen with the kinds of tools any wood working or cooking nerd would own: a diamond-surface hone. Just write on the hone for thirty seconds and the nib's tip will be smooth. And also, a fountain pen lets the user cultivate some style. Pressing harder makes the nib's tip flex more, and the line traced ends up being wider. This is very nice for readability. Note how only the crappiest of fonts are as heavy in the horizontal direction as the vertical.
As a matter of fact, people ask about pens on
It's not merely ideology.
Free trade is (more-or-less) impossible with a planned economy. The planners can manipulate prices to effectively control the global market. Closing trade with the Soviet bloc was meant to prevent that.
On the plus side, there was never really a large threat of armed conflict with the Soviet bloc. Carving up the third world to increase each bloc's resource endowments was about the only source of armed conflict.