while they do have therapeutic effects (some, I wouldn't say alcohol does), I don't think they should be proposed as methods to relax stress. Too many downsides and are not sustainable as regularly used substances. Yes you do feel great in a night of MDMA but the feelings you have the following days almost negate the positive aspects.
If your only interaction was "follow instructions and build one in the lab", doesn't that tell you exactly there is something deep you didn't understand at all?
This comment I feel sure would repulse Shannon in the deepest way. A (digital, stored) bit, abstractly seeks to encode and make useful through computation the properties of information theory.
I do not know or care what would Mr. Shannon think. What I do know is that the base you chose for the logarithm on the entropy equation has nothing to do with the amount of bits you assign to a word on a digital architecture :)
Public sector economics and health economics generally. The principles discussed are fundamental to both subdisciplines and should be covered in the introductory chapter(s) of a basic textbook on the subject.
I'd used a textbook by Joseph Stiglitz several decades ago whilst at uni, and there should be an updated version of it out.
I think this might be it or close: Economics of the Public Sector, Fourth Edition. By Joseph E Stiglitz (Author, Columbia University), Jay K Rosengard (Author, Harvard University).
We covered it a lot in international political economy (IPE) since market failure scenarios tend to be exactly when even (non-looney/non-bad-faith) capitalism fans want governments to get involved. Guessing textbooks and readers on that sub-field would also be helpful.
(This is also why other posters here observe that examples of sectors prone to market failure have high levels of government involvement)
How can an equation that does not represent a balance of energy violate energy conservation?
With path loss equation I assume you refer to Friis equation which is just the ratio of power received at an antenna to power given to the transmitter. It is correct and does not violate conservation of energy since it says nothing about the power not received at the receiver
What they're saying is that the geometrical interpretation of an outwardly expanding spherical shell of power shouldn't depend on frequency. In this respect they are correct and they have a good intuition for the problem.
Now here's the catch:
If the receive area were not changing as a function of frequency when the receive antenna gain is kept constant (it does), this would break physics (it doesn't). However, the effective area of an antenna with fixed gain varies as 1/lambda^2. In effect the geometric interpretation is still correct, but the variation of antenna area with gain resolves the seeming paradox and saves physics.
> the geometrical interpretation of an outwardly expanding spherical shell of power shouldn't depend on frequency
I think nobody says that is does. I believe the problem is to call Friis transmission equation "Free-space loss". Actually the Friis formula is composed of 3 terms: the receiving and transmitting antennas gain and the actual free space loss which has the 1/R^2 dependency (which actually isn't a "loss" in energy balance terms, since it's not lost energy, just energy not received at a certain point, so we could argue about that term too...)
When you borrow money at a fractional reserve bank, they don't give you other people's money. They create on one side new money, and they give it to you. The create on the other side, a negative balance. As you pay back your loan, it increments the negative balance and evaporates.
The concept of fractional reserve lending just means that banks are allowed to issue new money to make loans.
But the concept isn't really accurate anymore anyways, banks aren't limited in how much money they can create based on a percentage of their asset portfolio but instead based on complex loan qualification rules.
Yes, this is how its been classically taught, but it hasn't been true for some time now because they removed deposit reserve requirements in 2020 (set it to 0% and haven't changed it back).
Basel III utilizes complex risk formulas tied to specific asset classes for the basis of qualification and capital-based reserves which include stock market exposure (capitalization) counted as part of supplying part of their reserves.
Also, long-term issued debt (bonds) value reporting becomes fixed if they elect to hold them to maturity, with no further reporting needed (at least as far as I've been informed). This was one of the findings from Signature and a number of other banks.
The closest financial structure that describes the banking system is a government granted Ponzi scheme that's limited by rules set by unelected private institutions (Fed/FOMC).
Bubble pressures eventually cause an economic calculation problem which manifests in shortages.
i think the thing that people have a really tough time with is the fact that they create money out of thin air. that's really what happens. they hand you made-up cash and create a negative bank account for you to pay back.
the opposite happens when you buy a government security or a corporate bond, except you had to get that cash from someone else, not create it on your own.
it gets really weird when you borrow money to buy more money.
It's not made out of thin air, it's backed by your obligation to repay the debt that created it and the faith in the legal system to enforce said debt obligations.
Corporate debt is basically exactly what you described... and I assume by 'government security' you mean debt, in which case I have more bad news for you. It's all based on faith in the legal system to enforce debt obligations.
Absolutely not. Increased borrowing meeting the lending standards is a proxy for economic activity and the system is designed to expand money supply into increasing demand for money. The fact that the issuance itself doesn't consume countries worth of power is a feature, and it doesn't mean that it's backed 'by nothing' - it's backed by the economy and the legal system, and created in response to demand. Zoom out a little bit.
The system itself is actually quite elegant and has functioned very well over decades and a wide variety of market conditions.
Remember despite new money being created now in loan issuance the aggregate supply is shrinking so it's silly to look solely at issuances and say they're 'out of thin air' when the system is actually reducing the supply. Look at the whole thing, not one slice.
> Money is created when debt is issued and it is destroyed as the debts are repaid.
fourier, fundamentally the quoted statement is wrong except in a very narrow niche. Its a overgeneralization that ignores core principles.
There's no real way to clarify this in the span of a single post, there's a lot of fundamental material you need to be aware of.
I'd instead refer you to a very solid book by David Graeber called Debt, The first 5,000 years; and then The Wealth of Nations & The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, for a more broad economic understanding (when things actually worked).
Following those two, Bridgewater's Report (Ray Dalio) Big Debt Crises will give you sufficient background to understand what they are talking about and realize its just a narrow niche that ignores the forest for the trees. There are people that believe you can borrow from the future indefinitely with debt, and the price never comes due; Modern Monetary Theory is one such dogmatic approach and it ignores important distinctions about who decides what in trade, and also unfortunately many places reuse language in a completely different unrelated context which itself is misleading and corruptive.
Start with the question, "What is money, what is it used for, and what requirements does it have to have, to be money".
> fundamentally the quoted statement is wrong except in a very narrow niche
That niche being money and banking [1]. The comment you dismiss is correct: “Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money.”
