Ask a question - edaboard.com
elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - OT(kinda): Texas Plane Crash - The Note
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17
MooseFET
Guest
Guest
Fri Mar 05, 2010 4:45 am
On Mar 4, 8:40 am, "Ban" <bans...@web.de> wrote:
Quote:
MooseFET wrote:
snip
[....]
Nor was your birth in the US any accident of fate. Your forebears
sought, chose, and were accepted to live in a this country, a
country possessed of certain convictions and beliefs, which made
it great. We are now engaged in great civil war, to either
preserve or abandon those ideals.
This argument only works if people really do select their parents.
If not then the fact that the child is born in the US is nothing
that the child did and thus is just the luck of that child.
Absolute bullshit.
So are you saying that children do pick their parents? Flinging an
insult at the point doesn't work.
This poses the question, what space were we in before conception, just some
DNA from the parents or something more? Could we conciously choose our
parents?
And will something of us go back in that space after death?
Kind of brainsplitting idea.
snip
[....]
Nor was your birth in the US any accident of fate. Your forebears
sought, chose, and were accepted to live in a this country, a
country possessed of certain convictions and beliefs, which made
it great. We are now engaged in great civil war, to either
preserve or abandon those ideals.
This argument only works if people really do select their parents.
If not then the fact that the child is born in the US is nothing
that the child did and thus is just the luck of that child.
Absolute bullshit.
So are you saying that children do pick their parents? Flinging an
insult at the point doesn't work.
This poses the question, what space were we in before conception, just some
DNA from the parents or something more? Could we conciously choose our
parents?
And will something of us go back in that space after death?
Kind of brainsplitting idea.
There are some who believe that the human spirit does exist before
birth
as well as after death. For them "picking your parents" may really be
a
question. For most, however, it is merely a turn of phrase.
MooseFET
Guest
Guest
Fri Mar 05, 2010 5:01 am
On Mar 4, 5:52 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:
On Mar 4, 9:48 am, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
On Feb 22, 9:20 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 07:45:00 -0800 (PST), MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
On Feb 20, 4:55 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 16:21:46 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Feb 20, 2:02 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:25:14 -0800, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:58:03 -0600, Tim Wescott
t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
Dumb murdering bastard. He can't just do what everyone else
(successfully) does, and instead of blaming his failure on his own
actions he blames just about anyone he can think of except for his own
self. Then he goes from stupidity to grave sin by committing murder.
I think that's been my rough take of the story, too.
The _one_ facet of his suicide note that I can relate to is
the story about Section 1706. I very much remember this
section of the 1986 tax bill, as it caused me a flurry of
business activity from very concerned clients for a few years
after. Enough trouble that I researched it.
(A side bar: about 2/3rds of the 1986 tax bill was specific
benefits for specific companies and individuals. Weird
phrasing, such as, "Any duly incorporated business located in
Chicago, between W 26th and W 31st Streets, and between S
Halstead and the Dan Ryan Expressway, with corporate revenues
between $2.5M and $3.1M for the tax year 1982, are hereby
granted a one-time tax credit of $500,000.00 for the tax year
of 1986." Of course, there would only be ONE such qualifying
business.)
If you get a chance, take a close look at the entire section
of the code. My clients in California at the time, for
example, were immediately alarmed and I most definitely got
"jerked around."
The primary thing clients suddenly wanted to know was "Who
are your other clients, this year? We need names and amounts
of business they represent to you."
They wanted to assure themselves that I had other clients and
that the business was "substantial" so they could "feel
safer" with existing relationship arrangements.
That kind of information wasn't something I wanted to
provide, either. It was excessively invasive.
My CPA, a very long experienced and well-paid one who was
kind enough to help me out in between his work for very large
oil jobbers, was openly shocked when he'd read Section 1706.
He told me he'd never before seen a section quite like it.
My CPA was the one who told me that it must be some kind of
retaliation and he egged me on to go research it, for myself.
His pressing me was why I even bothered to call around to
find out how that section got inserted and to then call the
Congressman's office to get more of the story.
Turned out his intuition was right, as I later discovered.
This US Congressman (in Illinois) had been "burned" by a
self-employed contractor hired, as I understand it, via a 3rd
party umbrella engineering agency. Although I didn't know
much more than my CPA's rant before calling them, I quickly
gathered from my phone call that the section was a simple act
of revenge.
What may also be missing here in my story is that the IRS put
out a finding letter in 1988 that said they wouldn't enforce
this section until they had a chance to resolve it better.
And later on, most clients and other companies worked out the
important details and it was no longer much of an issue. But
then, I don't contract _through_ other agencies.
All this sort of nonsense would go away if we dumped all personal and
corporate income taxes in favor of sales taxes. The US business and
jobs situation would be hugely improved.
Since people would pay taxes whenever they bought something for
consumption, there would be no tax returns, no penalties, no IRS
agents to get mad at.
John
That'd save about $400B a year in tax compliance costs, I heard.
Not a bad productivity boost--practically, a 'stimulus package' every
year, for free.
The Fair Tax attempts that--a flat xx% sales tax, where xx = 'whatever
it takes to replace the federal government's current income.'
(it's a simplifying measure, not a spending control measure.)
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main
There's a 'prebate' to refund taxes on essential goods. Just not
taxing food and a few other essential items would be simpler, and
better.
Sure. Exempt basic foods, clothing, education expenses, maybe medical
stuff, maybe housing for old folks, basic things like that. Maybe have
a higher rate for yachts, muscle cars, gas, jewelry, whatever steers
society in preferred directions. The beauty of a sales tax is that
it's voluntary; if you don't want to pay the tax, don't buy the
wide-screen TV.
The other beauty is that if, as you suggest, the tax is whatever it
needs to be to meet Federal expenditures, the feedback will be instant
and impressive. Monthly re-evaluation sounds about right.
This must be a visible point-of-sale tax, not a hidden tax like VAT.
Do you also apply the tax to all imports? With a sales tax and no
import tax you just drive the large purchases out of the country.
Good, an interesting thing that the fair tax critters apparently have NOT addressed.
Do you tax building supplies and also tax the sale of houses? If
you don't tax building supplies building a new house and letting the
old one go to ruin could be cheaper than buying the old one. If
you do tax both houses will be very expensive. If you tax both the
parts and the finished car, all cars will be imported.
This could lead some strangeness. Again related to the import tax issue.
It seems that they (fair tax promoters) need to go back to the drawing board.
Yes. The problem is that they have put a really good name on a poorly
thought
through idea. There is also an argument against making taxes fair
that I will
now make. It is not related to this issue but it is a good thing to
remember:
The economy is a system with a lot of delay in the information flows
and many nonlinear functions. One big thing that we know is that it has a
higher gain at higher levels of activity. Anyone with experience with
control systems will recognize this as a trouble making situation.
Small observation: high gain isn't inherently unstable, and it's often
useful, e.g., op amps.
On Feb 22, 9:20 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 07:45:00 -0800 (PST), MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
On Feb 20, 4:55 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 16:21:46 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Feb 20, 2:02 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:25:14 -0800, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:58:03 -0600, Tim Wescott
t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
Dumb murdering bastard. He can't just do what everyone else
(successfully) does, and instead of blaming his failure on his own
actions he blames just about anyone he can think of except for his own
self. Then he goes from stupidity to grave sin by committing murder.
I think that's been my rough take of the story, too.
The _one_ facet of his suicide note that I can relate to is
the story about Section 1706. I very much remember this
section of the 1986 tax bill, as it caused me a flurry of
business activity from very concerned clients for a few years
after. Enough trouble that I researched it.
(A side bar: about 2/3rds of the 1986 tax bill was specific
benefits for specific companies and individuals. Weird
phrasing, such as, "Any duly incorporated business located in
Chicago, between W 26th and W 31st Streets, and between S
Halstead and the Dan Ryan Expressway, with corporate revenues
between $2.5M and $3.1M for the tax year 1982, are hereby
granted a one-time tax credit of $500,000.00 for the tax year
of 1986." Of course, there would only be ONE such qualifying
business.)
If you get a chance, take a close look at the entire section
of the code. My clients in California at the time, for
example, were immediately alarmed and I most definitely got
"jerked around."
The primary thing clients suddenly wanted to know was "Who
are your other clients, this year? We need names and amounts
of business they represent to you."
They wanted to assure themselves that I had other clients and
that the business was "substantial" so they could "feel
safer" with existing relationship arrangements.
That kind of information wasn't something I wanted to
provide, either. It was excessively invasive.
My CPA, a very long experienced and well-paid one who was
kind enough to help me out in between his work for very large
oil jobbers, was openly shocked when he'd read Section 1706.
He told me he'd never before seen a section quite like it.
My CPA was the one who told me that it must be some kind of
retaliation and he egged me on to go research it, for myself.
His pressing me was why I even bothered to call around to
find out how that section got inserted and to then call the
Congressman's office to get more of the story.
Turned out his intuition was right, as I later discovered.
This US Congressman (in Illinois) had been "burned" by a
self-employed contractor hired, as I understand it, via a 3rd
party umbrella engineering agency. Although I didn't know
much more than my CPA's rant before calling them, I quickly
gathered from my phone call that the section was a simple act
of revenge.
What may also be missing here in my story is that the IRS put
out a finding letter in 1988 that said they wouldn't enforce
this section until they had a chance to resolve it better.
And later on, most clients and other companies worked out the
important details and it was no longer much of an issue. But
then, I don't contract _through_ other agencies.
All this sort of nonsense would go away if we dumped all personal and
corporate income taxes in favor of sales taxes. The US business and
jobs situation would be hugely improved.
Since people would pay taxes whenever they bought something for
consumption, there would be no tax returns, no penalties, no IRS
agents to get mad at.
John
That'd save about $400B a year in tax compliance costs, I heard.
Not a bad productivity boost--practically, a 'stimulus package' every
year, for free.
The Fair Tax attempts that--a flat xx% sales tax, where xx = 'whatever
it takes to replace the federal government's current income.'
(it's a simplifying measure, not a spending control measure.)
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main
There's a 'prebate' to refund taxes on essential goods. Just not
taxing food and a few other essential items would be simpler, and
better.
Sure. Exempt basic foods, clothing, education expenses, maybe medical
stuff, maybe housing for old folks, basic things like that. Maybe have
a higher rate for yachts, muscle cars, gas, jewelry, whatever steers
society in preferred directions. The beauty of a sales tax is that
it's voluntary; if you don't want to pay the tax, don't buy the
wide-screen TV.
The other beauty is that if, as you suggest, the tax is whatever it
needs to be to meet Federal expenditures, the feedback will be instant
and impressive. Monthly re-evaluation sounds about right.
This must be a visible point-of-sale tax, not a hidden tax like VAT.
Do you also apply the tax to all imports? With a sales tax and no
import tax you just drive the large purchases out of the country.
Good, an interesting thing that the fair tax critters apparently have NOT addressed.
Do you tax building supplies and also tax the sale of houses? If
you don't tax building supplies building a new house and letting the
old one go to ruin could be cheaper than buying the old one. If
you do tax both houses will be very expensive. If you tax both the
parts and the finished car, all cars will be imported.
This could lead some strangeness. Again related to the import tax issue.
It seems that they (fair tax promoters) need to go back to the drawing board.
Yes. The problem is that they have put a really good name on a poorly
thought
through idea. There is also an argument against making taxes fair
that I will
now make. It is not related to this issue but it is a good thing to
remember:
The economy is a system with a lot of delay in the information flows
and many nonlinear functions. One big thing that we know is that it has a
higher gain at higher levels of activity. Anyone with experience with
control systems will recognize this as a trouble making situation.
Small observation: high gain isn't inherently unstable, and it's often
useful, e.g., op amps.
Notice that I also said "a lot of delay". This ensures that the
system
must be unstable.
Quote:
Such systems tend to oscillate wildly [...]
Yes. Hence the fallacy of tight control by some central authority--
that can never be stable. The time delay for Government to integrate
all its feedback inputs, and the phase delay involved in generating
its control output mean it can never prevent oscillation, and most of
the time, its error signal's out of phase.
The method I proposed in this argument does work because the feedback
is local and quite quick. Putting a huge drag on sudden increases
does
the trick. It wasn't the trust of my argument however. I will add
a little more on that subject at the end of this.
Quote:
What works? Local feedback loops.
Local feedback loops also oscillate. Think of the need to add
slope compensation to a current mode boost converter. The local
loop will oscillate without it. You need to make the system more
linear and have a modest gain in the feedback loop so that the
gain cross over is at a point where the lag is less than 180 degrees.
More to the thrust:
I was arguing that fair taxes may be a bad thing and that unfair ones
good. If a fair tax causes the economy to spend a lot of time in
depressions and an unfair one reduces this, the people who are being
unfairly taxed can be better off than with a fair tax. It is one of
those questions that is overlooked when people start talking about
what is fair. Imposing a fair tax would be morally wrong in such a
case.
The clamp on upswings was only an example that I was suggesting
because it is easy to see. Another would be in the area of taxes on
folks like farmers. A food shortage would be very bad for the
economy. We are better off with a little over production in most
years to make it so that we don't get shortages when the whether
does bad things. In theory, the futures market allows people to
accept the risk and pay the farmers to grow extra in hopes that this
will be the year that the other sources will be bad and hence the
prices rise.
Since we want the futures market to do this, and we really don't want
it to work as purely gambling, making the taxes on different types of
transactions different and perhaps even banning certain ones may make
sense. It would to many be a very unfair thing to do but even those
who are being treated unfairly are better off.
JosephKK
Guest
Guest
Fri Mar 05, 2010 5:24 am
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 19:35:15 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat_at_yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:
On Mar 3, 9:47 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 09:06:59 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 23, 1:45 pm, Charlie E. <edmond...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 14:10:13 -0800, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 14:26:14 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
snip
A wealth tax would also achieve your own desire of removing a
lot of nonsense by dumping all personal and corporate income
taxes. Which I support.
Jon
Fortunately hell will freeze over, or the US will be wracked by
depression, first.
Used to be wealth taxes in the US. Income tax is a
relatively recent invention. And the modern politic is
beginning to see the rich less as gods and more with feet of
clay. So perhaps some change is afoot.
However, I completely agree that it will be most difficult.
Those with the greatest wealth will move very quickly and
effectively now to swerve any such initiative.
It will be fun to watch and see how things play out. Might
go either way. I may live to see that change.
Jon
Jon,
I get from your statements, that you think that it was individuals
that were responsible for the recent economic crisis. I must beg to
differ, it was the government, in bed with certain corporations, that
caused most of the problems. The insistance that banks lend to
unqualified recipients, protected by the governemnt from any
consequences, was a government action. The allowance of firms to
'hedge' those potential losses with unregulated securities was again a
governemnt 'wink-wink' sort of thing. After all, the 'paper wealth'
that was generated looked good to the government, as well as the
balance sheets.
Charlie
Mr. Obama's government is /still/ doing it. In fact, they've ramped
it up.
Government-front Freddie Mac is still making interest-only loans, /
today/:
http://www.freddiemac.com/sell/factsheets/initialinterest-arm.html
But, they've recently announced they are going to--have not yet, but
are /going to/--stop:
http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2010/02/26/freddie-mac-abandons-shi....
"Freddie Mac said on Friday that it would stop buying and securitizing
interest-only
loans in September because those mortgages have performed so poorly."
Mr. Obama's solution to the bubble's collapse is an absolute, flat-
out, unsustainable, desperate attempt to re-inflate it. Basically,
he's putting off the real crash until after the next election.
It's an absolute disaster, in progress, on a scale I've never seen the
like of. The first crash was a ripple; this is a tsunami.
James Arthur
I thought that something screwy was going on when i heard of the weird
loans being made again.
Not just the loans--the government-run GSEs currently issue, buy,
securitize, guarantee, and sell those derivatives on Wall Street.
You know, those infamous, bubble-bursting derivatives--mortgage-backed
securities (MBS), collateralized debt obligations (CDO), and so forth--
that all came crashing down last year? The _government_ continues to
sell them en masse (as it did _during the bubble).
E.g.:
http://www.fanniemae.com/mbs/mbsbasics/market/structure.jhtml?p=Mortgage-Backed+Securities
If you read the TARP Special Inspector General's most recent report
it'll make you sick. I threw up. No kidding.
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 09:06:59 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 23, 1:45 pm, Charlie E. <edmond...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 14:10:13 -0800, Jon Kirwan
j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 14:26:14 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
snip
A wealth tax would also achieve your own desire of removing a
lot of nonsense by dumping all personal and corporate income
taxes. Which I support.
Jon
Fortunately hell will freeze over, or the US will be wracked by
depression, first.
Used to be wealth taxes in the US. Income tax is a
relatively recent invention. And the modern politic is
beginning to see the rich less as gods and more with feet of
clay. So perhaps some change is afoot.
However, I completely agree that it will be most difficult.
Those with the greatest wealth will move very quickly and
effectively now to swerve any such initiative.
It will be fun to watch and see how things play out. Might
go either way. I may live to see that change.
Jon
Jon,
I get from your statements, that you think that it was individuals
that were responsible for the recent economic crisis. I must beg to
differ, it was the government, in bed with certain corporations, that
caused most of the problems. The insistance that banks lend to
unqualified recipients, protected by the governemnt from any
consequences, was a government action. The allowance of firms to
'hedge' those potential losses with unregulated securities was again a
governemnt 'wink-wink' sort of thing. After all, the 'paper wealth'
that was generated looked good to the government, as well as the
balance sheets.
Charlie
Mr. Obama's government is /still/ doing it. In fact, they've ramped
it up.
Government-front Freddie Mac is still making interest-only loans, /
today/:
http://www.freddiemac.com/sell/factsheets/initialinterest-arm.html
But, they've recently announced they are going to--have not yet, but
are /going to/--stop:
http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2010/02/26/freddie-mac-abandons-shi....
"Freddie Mac said on Friday that it would stop buying and securitizing
interest-only
loans in September because those mortgages have performed so poorly."
Mr. Obama's solution to the bubble's collapse is an absolute, flat-
out, unsustainable, desperate attempt to re-inflate it. Basically,
he's putting off the real crash until after the next election.
It's an absolute disaster, in progress, on a scale I've never seen the
like of. The first crash was a ripple; this is a tsunami.
James Arthur
I thought that something screwy was going on when i heard of the weird
loans being made again.
Not just the loans--the government-run GSEs currently issue, buy,
securitize, guarantee, and sell those derivatives on Wall Street.
You know, those infamous, bubble-bursting derivatives--mortgage-backed
securities (MBS), collateralized debt obligations (CDO), and so forth--
that all came crashing down last year? The _government_ continues to
sell them en masse (as it did _during the bubble).
E.g.:
http://www.fanniemae.com/mbs/mbsbasics/market/structure.jhtml?p=Mortgage-Backed+Securities
If you read the TARP Special Inspector General's most recent report
it'll make you sick. I threw up. No kidding.
Link? Maybe my stomach is tougher than yours, or at least as likely i
may not understand it well enough. You could PM me.
Quote:
This is big stuff.
James Arthur
It is clear now that pelosi, frank and reid are still pulling the same shit.
Part of the miraculous stock market recovery makes sense now.
Guest
Fri Mar 05, 2010 5:48 am
On Mar 4, 9:04 pm, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
Quote:
On Mar 4, 12:50 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 4, 10:00 am, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
On Mar 3, 8:42 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 3, 9:55 am, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
BTW: The biggest predictor of how much wealth you end up with is
how well you selected your parents.
You'll have to define almost every word in that sentence, then cite
some stats. Otherwise that's a vague, trite, meaningless statement.
I will stand behind it as being clear and concise and obvious to
anyone who looks around them.
It's totally vague.
What do you mean by "well"? Do you define that as "the picking of
parents so that you wind up rich"? That's circular.
Merely picking rich parents is enough to ensure that you have far
greater odds of ending up rich yourself.
What does "select your parents" mean, since it's obviously
impossible.
It means that the same child with the same DNA would have different
outcomes with different parents.
What does "predictor" mean, and what's the relevance? Don't you
really mean wealthy parents make wealthy kids, and that, as a
practical matter you almost can't become wealthy unless your parents
are rich? Or are you saying something else?
You are far more likely to end up wealthy if you have wealthy parents.
At least you need to be born in a place where you have access to
schools
and in a situation where merely getting enough food to eat doesn't use
all of your time.
The best DNA in the world won't help if you are starving to death.
What do you mean by "end up with"? Wealth you inherit? Or
accumulate yourself? If the latter, how does your earning it yourself
relate to your parents?
I think I cleared most of that up above but on the gaining wealth
yourself, a little more is needed. If you are born to parents in a
good school district etc, you will likely gain more yourself. This
is not entirely your doing however.
On Mar 4, 10:00 am, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
On Mar 3, 8:42 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 3, 9:55 am, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
BTW: The biggest predictor of how much wealth you end up with is
how well you selected your parents.
You'll have to define almost every word in that sentence, then cite
some stats. Otherwise that's a vague, trite, meaningless statement.
I will stand behind it as being clear and concise and obvious to
anyone who looks around them.
It's totally vague.
What do you mean by "well"? Do you define that as "the picking of
parents so that you wind up rich"? That's circular.
Merely picking rich parents is enough to ensure that you have far
greater odds of ending up rich yourself.
What does "select your parents" mean, since it's obviously
impossible.
It means that the same child with the same DNA would have different
outcomes with different parents.
What does "predictor" mean, and what's the relevance? Don't you
really mean wealthy parents make wealthy kids, and that, as a
practical matter you almost can't become wealthy unless your parents
are rich? Or are you saying something else?
You are far more likely to end up wealthy if you have wealthy parents.
At least you need to be born in a place where you have access to
schools
and in a situation where merely getting enough food to eat doesn't use
all of your time.
The best DNA in the world won't help if you are starving to death.
What do you mean by "end up with"? Wealth you inherit? Or
accumulate yourself? If the latter, how does your earning it yourself
relate to your parents?
I think I cleared most of that up above but on the gaining wealth
yourself, a little more is needed. If you are born to parents in a
good school district etc, you will likely gain more yourself. This
is not entirely your doing however.
Thanks, that's clearer, but you've still not directly made your
point. You give a number of conditions you feel are associated, but
never state causation: what causes what? And so I'm not sure exactly
what you want me to infer, or the relevance.
Wealthy kids are more likely to have parents, you say. Okay, "Red
trucks are more likely to be found near fires." Do fires turn trucks
red? No. The question is why? Is there a causation, and what, if
anything, is it?
So, I'll jump ahead. Kids born to English-speaking parents are more
likely to speak english; that doesn't mean english is genetic. Kids
with myopic parents are far more likely to be myopic, but that doesn't
prove myopia is genetic either. Kids with fat parents are more likely
to be fat. And so on.
So, I fully accept that parents have great influence over their kids.
I can't tell if you and I disagree on the key factors leading to
wealth, since you won't say _why_ you think rich parents have rich
kids, nor have you cited any stats to support that it's true.
If you mean that a few kids inherit loads of dough from their wealthy
parents, sure, that may well be. But the majority? I highly doubt
it, but I haven't researched it, and I don't know. (As a practical
matter there's little need to tax that kind of wealth, since the kids
usually tax themselves--they squander it in no time, like lottery
winners. And it doesn't make them happy.)
But the question is how do most people become prosperous, and is that
path only possible if your parents are rich?
There's really no doubt in my mind that parents greatly influence
their kids. No one's denying that. Or that loving parents who've
made good decisions teach their kids those same things. And, loving
parents who've made bad decisions can teach their kids to avoid making
those same bad decisions. And the decisions that matter most are
available to everyone, like graduating high school, finding a job, and
so forth.
But as to the causes of who does well in America, by and large, I
can't think of any of the wealthy people I know who got it from their
parents, or whose parents were even wealthy.
Gotta get back to work!
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Ban
Guest
Guest
Fri Mar 05, 2010 6:46 am
dagmargoodboat_at_yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:
On Mar 4, 9:48 am, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
snip
Small observation: high gain isn't inherently unstable, and it's often
useful, e.g., op amps.
Such systems tend to oscillate wildly [...]
snip
Small observation: high gain isn't inherently unstable, and it's often
useful, e.g., op amps.
Such systems tend to oscillate wildly [...]
High gain will just reduce the DC-error, it is the slope where the gain has
fallen to unity which determines stability. With the right control loop
there will be little overshoot.
Quote:
Yes. Hence the fallacy of tight control by some central authority--
that can never be stable. The time delay for Government to integrate
all its feedback inputs, and the phase delay involved in generating
its control output mean it can never prevent oscillation, and most of
the time, its error signal's out of phase.
What works? Local feedback loops.
Unless you have some pole-splitting effect, the system will behave absolutly
identical. After all it is a *multiplication* of the single stages what
makes up the Bode-plot.
Jim Thompson
Guest
Guest
Fri Mar 05, 2010 4:09 pm
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 06:46:42 +0100, "Ban" <bansuri_at_web.de> wrote:
Quote:
dagmargoodboat_at_yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 4, 9:48 am, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
snip
Small observation: high gain isn't inherently unstable, and it's often
useful, e.g., op amps.
Such systems tend to oscillate wildly [...]
High gain will just reduce the DC-error, it is the slope where the gain has
fallen to unity which determines stability. With the right control loop
there will be little overshoot.
Yes. Hence the fallacy of tight control by some central authority--
that can never be stable. The time delay for Government to integrate
all its feedback inputs, and the phase delay involved in generating
its control output mean it can never prevent oscillation, and most of
the time, its error signal's out of phase.
What works? Local feedback loops.
Unless you have some pole-splitting effect, the system will behave absolutly
identical. After all it is a *multiplication* of the single stages what
makes up the Bode-plot.
On Mar 4, 9:48 am, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
snip
Small observation: high gain isn't inherently unstable, and it's often
useful, e.g., op amps.
Such systems tend to oscillate wildly [...]
High gain will just reduce the DC-error, it is the slope where the gain has
fallen to unity which determines stability. With the right control loop
there will be little overshoot.
Yes. Hence the fallacy of tight control by some central authority--
that can never be stable. The time delay for Government to integrate
all its feedback inputs, and the phase delay involved in generating
its control output mean it can never prevent oscillation, and most of
the time, its error signal's out of phase.
What works? Local feedback loops.
Unless you have some pole-splitting effect, the system will behave absolutly
identical. After all it is a *multiplication* of the single stages what
makes up the Bode-plot.
Government control loops have no zeroes
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy
MooseFET
Guest
Guest
Fri Mar 05, 2010 4:53 pm
On Mar 4, 7:48 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:
On Mar 4, 9:04 pm, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
On Mar 4, 12:50 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 4, 10:00 am, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
On Mar 3, 8:42 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 3, 9:55 am, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
BTW: The biggest predictor of how much wealth you end up with is
how well you selected your parents.
You'll have to define almost every word in that sentence, then cite
some stats. Otherwise that's a vague, trite, meaningless statement.
I will stand behind it as being clear and concise and obvious to
anyone who looks around them.
It's totally vague.
What do you mean by "well"? Do you define that as "the picking of
parents so that you wind up rich"? That's circular.
Merely picking rich parents is enough to ensure that you have far
greater odds of ending up rich yourself.
What does "select your parents" mean, since it's obviously
impossible.
It means that the same child with the same DNA would have different
outcomes with different parents.
What does "predictor" mean, and what's the relevance? Don't you
really mean wealthy parents make wealthy kids, and that, as a
practical matter you almost can't become wealthy unless your parents
are rich? Or are you saying something else?
You are far more likely to end up wealthy if you have wealthy parents.
At least you need to be born in a place where you have access to
schools
and in a situation where merely getting enough food to eat doesn't use
all of your time.
The best DNA in the world won't help if you are starving to death.
What do you mean by "end up with"? Wealth you inherit? Or
accumulate yourself? If the latter, how does your earning it yourself
relate to your parents?
I think I cleared most of that up above but on the gaining wealth
yourself, a little more is needed. If you are born to parents in a
good school district etc, you will likely gain more yourself. This
is not entirely your doing however.
Thanks, that's clearer, but you've still not directly made your
point. You give a number of conditions you feel are associated, but
never state causation: what causes what? And so I'm not sure exactly
what you want me to infer, or the relevance.
On Mar 4, 12:50 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 4, 10:00 am, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
On Mar 3, 8:42 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 3, 9:55 am, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
BTW: The biggest predictor of how much wealth you end up with is
how well you selected your parents.
You'll have to define almost every word in that sentence, then cite
some stats. Otherwise that's a vague, trite, meaningless statement.
I will stand behind it as being clear and concise and obvious to
anyone who looks around them.
It's totally vague.
What do you mean by "well"? Do you define that as "the picking of
parents so that you wind up rich"? That's circular.
Merely picking rich parents is enough to ensure that you have far
greater odds of ending up rich yourself.
What does "select your parents" mean, since it's obviously
impossible.
It means that the same child with the same DNA would have different
outcomes with different parents.
What does "predictor" mean, and what's the relevance? Don't you
really mean wealthy parents make wealthy kids, and that, as a
practical matter you almost can't become wealthy unless your parents
are rich? Or are you saying something else?
You are far more likely to end up wealthy if you have wealthy parents.
At least you need to be born in a place where you have access to
schools
and in a situation where merely getting enough food to eat doesn't use
all of your time.
The best DNA in the world won't help if you are starving to death.
What do you mean by "end up with"? Wealth you inherit? Or
accumulate yourself? If the latter, how does your earning it yourself
relate to your parents?
I think I cleared most of that up above but on the gaining wealth
yourself, a little more is needed. If you are born to parents in a
good school district etc, you will likely gain more yourself. This
is not entirely your doing however.
Thanks, that's clearer, but you've still not directly made your
point. You give a number of conditions you feel are associated, but
never state causation: what causes what? And so I'm not sure exactly
what you want me to infer, or the relevance.
Ok How about this:
The point is that the environment is very important to whether you end
up
rich or not. Your parents are in large part the environment you live
in
as a child. Since the child did not create that environment, the
child
is not the only one who was involved in creating that wealth.
[....]
Quote:
If you mean that a few kids inherit loads of dough from their wealthy
parents, sure, that may well be. But the majority? I highly doubt
it, but I haven't researched it, and I don't know. (As a practical
matter there's little need to tax that kind of wealth, since the kids
usually tax themselves--they squander it in no time, like lottery
winners. And it doesn't make them happy.)
To see this see:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/sat-scores-and-family-income/
Bill Gate's parents were very far from poor.
Quote:
But the question is how do most people become prosperous, and is that
path only possible if your parents are rich?
There's really no doubt in my mind that parents greatly influence
their kids. No one's denying that. Or that loving parents who've
made good decisions teach their kids those same things. And, loving
parents who've made bad decisions can teach their kids to avoid making
those same bad decisions. And the decisions that matter most are
available to everyone, like graduating high school, finding a job, and
so forth.
But as to the causes of who does well in America, by and large, I
can't think of any of the wealthy people I know who got it from their
parents, or whose parents were even wealthy.
Gotta get back to work!
path only possible if your parents are rich?
There's really no doubt in my mind that parents greatly influence
their kids. No one's denying that. Or that loving parents who've
made good decisions teach their kids those same things. And, loving
parents who've made bad decisions can teach their kids to avoid making
those same bad decisions. And the decisions that matter most are
available to everyone, like graduating high school, finding a job, and
so forth.
But as to the causes of who does well in America, by and large, I
can't think of any of the wealthy people I know who got it from their
parents, or whose parents were even wealthy.
Gotta get back to work!
I can't think of any truly rich who started off with truly poor
parents.
This effect means that we must be losing out of some of the potential
of
a large number of children. The DNA a child is born with is that
potential.
The environment in which they are raised is what allow the child to
come to
that potential.
The wealth of a nation if there is such a thing is some sort of sum
total
of the wealth of its people. If improving this is held to be part of
the
"general welfare" then it is the governments job to help to make the
potential of those with poor parents be realized. Here we can get into
a
very long argument about whether the government has the right to make
even
a 1% reduction in the outcome of a few people to make the outcome on
the
average improve by 10%.
MooseFET
Guest
Guest
Fri Mar 05, 2010 4:57 pm
On Mar 4, 9:46 pm, "Ban" <bans...@web.de> wrote:
Quote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 4, 9:48 am, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
snip
Small observation: high gain isn't inherently unstable, and it's often
useful, e.g., op amps.
Such systems tend to oscillate wildly [...]
High gain will just reduce the DC-error, it is the slope where the gain has
fallen to unity which determines stability. With the right control loop
there will be little overshoot.
On Mar 4, 9:48 am, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
snip
Small observation: high gain isn't inherently unstable, and it's often
useful, e.g., op amps.
Such systems tend to oscillate wildly [...]
High gain will just reduce the DC-error, it is the slope where the gain has
fallen to unity which determines stability. With the right control loop
there will be little overshoot.
It is the phase that matters. Not the slope. The two are tied
together in
the simple case but if you consider systems with zeros here and there
you
can have a nearly flat slope at the gain crossover and still have
something
that overshoots like mad.
Also this system is very nonlinear and has enough gain in part of the
curve
that it is taken into the "small signal oscillation" situation when it
goes
into that range.
Quote:
Yes. Hence the fallacy of tight control by some central authority--
that can never be stable. The time delay for Government to integrate
all its feedback inputs, and the phase delay involved in generating
its control output mean it can never prevent oscillation, and most of
the time, its error signal's out of phase.
What works? Local feedback loops.
Unless you have some pole-splitting effect, the system will behave absolutly
identical. After all it is a *multiplication* of the single stages what
makes up the Bode-plot.
that can never be stable. The time delay for Government to integrate
all its feedback inputs, and the phase delay involved in generating
its control output mean it can never prevent oscillation, and most of
the time, its error signal's out of phase.
What works? Local feedback loops.
Unless you have some pole-splitting effect, the system will behave absolutly
identical. After all it is a *multiplication* of the single stages what
makes up the Bode-plot.
Guest
Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:08 pm
On Mar 4, 11:24 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 19:35:15 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 3, 9:47 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 09:06:59 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 3, 9:47 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 09:06:59 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
<snip: govm't mortgage meddling>
Quote:
Mr. Obama's government is /still/ doing it. In fact, they've ramped it up.
Government-front Freddie Mac is still making interest-only loans, /
today/:
http://www.freddiemac.com/sell/factsheets/initialinterest-arm.html
But, they've recently announced they are going to--have not yet, but
are /going to/--stop:
http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2010/02/26/freddie-mac-abandons-shi...
"Freddie Mac said on Friday that it would stop buying and securitizing
interest-only
loans in September because those mortgages have performed so poorly."
Mr. Obama's solution to the bubble's collapse is an absolute, flat-
out, unsustainable, desperate attempt to re-inflate it. Basically,
he's putting off the real crash until after the next election.
It's an absolute disaster, in progress, on a scale I've never seen the
like of. The first crash was a ripple; this is a tsunami.
James Arthur
I thought that something screwy was going on when i heard of the weird
loans being made again.
Not just the loans--the government-run GSEs currently issue, buy,
securitize, guarantee, and sell those derivatives on Wall Street.
You know, those infamous, bubble-bursting derivatives--mortgage-backed
securities (MBS), collateralized debt obligations (CDO), and so forth--
that all came crashing down last year? The _government_ continues to
sell them en masse (as it did _during the bubble).
E.g.:
http://www.fanniemae.com/mbs/mbsbasics/market/structure.jhtml?p=Mortg...
If you read the TARP Special Inspector General's most recent report
it'll make you sick. I threw up. No kidding.
Link? Maybe my stomach is tougher than yours, or at least as likely i
may not understand it well enough. You could PM me.
Government-front Freddie Mac is still making interest-only loans, /
today/:
http://www.freddiemac.com/sell/factsheets/initialinterest-arm.html
But, they've recently announced they are going to--have not yet, but
are /going to/--stop:
http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2010/02/26/freddie-mac-abandons-shi...
"Freddie Mac said on Friday that it would stop buying and securitizing
interest-only
loans in September because those mortgages have performed so poorly."
Mr. Obama's solution to the bubble's collapse is an absolute, flat-
out, unsustainable, desperate attempt to re-inflate it. Basically,
he's putting off the real crash until after the next election.
It's an absolute disaster, in progress, on a scale I've never seen the
like of. The first crash was a ripple; this is a tsunami.
James Arthur
I thought that something screwy was going on when i heard of the weird
loans being made again.
Not just the loans--the government-run GSEs currently issue, buy,
securitize, guarantee, and sell those derivatives on Wall Street.
You know, those infamous, bubble-bursting derivatives--mortgage-backed
securities (MBS), collateralized debt obligations (CDO), and so forth--
that all came crashing down last year? The _government_ continues to
sell them en masse (as it did _during the bubble).
E.g.:
http://www.fanniemae.com/mbs/mbsbasics/market/structure.jhtml?p=Mortg...
If you read the TARP Special Inspector General's most recent report
it'll make you sick. I threw up. No kidding.
Link? Maybe my stomach is tougher than yours, or at least as likely i
may not understand it well enough. You could PM me.
It's the SIG/TARP's Jan 31, 2010 Report to Congress, top left link on
SIG/TARP's home page:
http://www.sigtarp.gov/index.shtml
The executive summary and half of "Section 3, Federal Support of the
Residential Mortgage Market" were all I could stomach.
I marked up some of the highlights for easy reference on my copy; I'll
share if you'd like.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Extended quote from the Executive Summary:
----- quote -----
Despite the fact that the explicit goal of the Capital Purchase
Program (“CPP”) was to increase
financing to U.S. businesses and consumers, lending continues to
decrease, month
after month,...
Notwithstanding the fact that preserving homeownership and promoting
jobs were explicit purposes of the Emergency Economic Stabilization
Act of 2008
(“EESA”), the statute that created TARP, nearly 16 months later, home
foreclo-
sures remain at record levels,...
It is hard to see how any of the fundamental problems in the system
have been
addressed to date.
• To the extent that huge, interconnected, “too big to fail”
institutions contributed
to the crisis, those institutions are now even larger, in part because
of the sub-
stantial subsidies provided by TARP and other bailout programs.
• To the extent that institutions were previously incentivized to
take reckless risks
through a “heads, I win; tails, the Government will bail me out”
mentality, the
market is more convinced than ever that the Government will step in as
neces-
sary to save systemically signifcant institutions. This perception was
reinforced
when TARP was extended until October 3, 2010, thus permitting Treasury
to
maintain a war chest of potential rescue funding at the same time that
banks
that have shown questionable ability to return to proftability (and in
some cases
are posting multi-billion-dollar losses) are exiting TARP programs.
• To the extent that large institutions’ risky behavior resulted from
the desire to
justify ever-greater bonuses — and indeed, the race appears to be on
for TARP
recipients to exit the program in order to avoid its pay restrictions
— the current
bonus season demonstrates that although there have been some
improvements
in the form that bonus compensation takes for some executives, there
has been
little fundamental change in the excessive compensation culture on
Wall Street.
• To the extent that the crisis was fueled by a “bubble” in the
housing market, the
Federal Government’s concerted efforts to support home prices — as
discussed
more fully in Section 3 of this report — risk re-infating that bubble
in light of
the Government’s effective takeover of the housing market through
purchases
and guarantees, either direct or implicit, of nearly all of the
residential mortgage
market.
Stated another way, even if TARP saved our fnancial system from
driving off
a cliff back in 2008, absent meaningful reform, we are still driving
on the same
winding mountain road, but this time in a faster car.
----- end quote -----
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Guest
Guest
Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:16 am
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:09:20 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon_at_My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 06:46:42 +0100, "Ban" <bansuri_at_web.de> wrote:
dagmargoodboat_at_yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 4, 9:48 am, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
snip
Small observation: high gain isn't inherently unstable, and it's often
useful, e.g., op amps.
Such systems tend to oscillate wildly [...]
High gain will just reduce the DC-error, it is the slope where the gain has
fallen to unity which determines stability. With the right control loop
there will be little overshoot.
Yes. Hence the fallacy of tight control by some central authority--
that can never be stable. The time delay for Government to integrate
all its feedback inputs, and the phase delay involved in generating
its control output mean it can never prevent oscillation, and most of
the time, its error signal's out of phase.
What works? Local feedback loops.
Unless you have some pole-splitting effect, the system will behave absolutly
identical. After all it is a *multiplication* of the single stages what
makes up the Bode-plot.
Government control loops have no zeroes
dagmargoodboat_at_yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 4, 9:48 am, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
snip
Small observation: high gain isn't inherently unstable, and it's often
useful, e.g., op amps.
Such systems tend to oscillate wildly [...]
High gain will just reduce the DC-error, it is the slope where the gain has
fallen to unity which determines stability. With the right control loop
there will be little overshoot.
Yes. Hence the fallacy of tight control by some central authority--
that can never be stable. The time delay for Government to integrate
all its feedback inputs, and the phase delay involved in generating
its control output mean it can never prevent oscillation, and most of
the time, its error signal's out of phase.
What works? Local feedback loops.
Unless you have some pole-splitting effect, the system will behave absolutly
identical. After all it is a *multiplication* of the single stages what
makes up the Bode-plot.
Government control loops have no zeroes
Have you taken a look at the deficit lately?
JosephKK
Guest
Guest
Sun Mar 07, 2010 2:20 am
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:16:44 -0600, "krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
Quote:
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:09:20 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon_at_My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 06:46:42 +0100, "Ban" <bansuri_at_web.de> wrote:
dagmargoodboat_at_yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 4, 9:48 am, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
snip
Small observation: high gain isn't inherently unstable, and it's often
useful, e.g., op amps.
Such systems tend to oscillate wildly [...]
High gain will just reduce the DC-error, it is the slope where the gain has
fallen to unity which determines stability. With the right control loop
there will be little overshoot.
Yes. Hence the fallacy of tight control by some central authority--
that can never be stable. The time delay for Government to integrate
all its feedback inputs, and the phase delay involved in generating
its control output mean it can never prevent oscillation, and most of
the time, its error signal's out of phase.
What works? Local feedback loops.
Unless you have some pole-splitting effect, the system will behave absolutly
identical. After all it is a *multiplication* of the single stages what
makes up the Bode-plot.
Government control loops have no zeroes ;-)
Have you taken a look at the deficit lately?
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon_at_My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 06:46:42 +0100, "Ban" <bansuri_at_web.de> wrote:
dagmargoodboat_at_yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 4, 9:48 am, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
snip
Small observation: high gain isn't inherently unstable, and it's often
useful, e.g., op amps.
Such systems tend to oscillate wildly [...]
High gain will just reduce the DC-error, it is the slope where the gain has
fallen to unity which determines stability. With the right control loop
there will be little overshoot.
Yes. Hence the fallacy of tight control by some central authority--
that can never be stable. The time delay for Government to integrate
all its feedback inputs, and the phase delay involved in generating
its control output mean it can never prevent oscillation, and most of
the time, its error signal's out of phase.
What works? Local feedback loops.
Unless you have some pole-splitting effect, the system will behave absolutly
identical. After all it is a *multiplication* of the single stages what
makes up the Bode-plot.
Government control loops have no zeroes ;-)
Have you taken a look at the deficit lately?
None of the digits will hold still long enough to be called a zero.
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Guest
Guest
Sun Mar 07, 2010 2:44 am
On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:20:00 -0800, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:16:44 -0600, "krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:09:20 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon_at_My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 06:46:42 +0100, "Ban" <bansuri_at_web.de> wrote:
dagmargoodboat_at_yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 4, 9:48 am, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
snip
Small observation: high gain isn't inherently unstable, and it's often
useful, e.g., op amps.
Such systems tend to oscillate wildly [...]
High gain will just reduce the DC-error, it is the slope where the gain has
fallen to unity which determines stability. With the right control loop
there will be little overshoot.
Yes. Hence the fallacy of tight control by some central authority--
that can never be stable. The time delay for Government to integrate
all its feedback inputs, and the phase delay involved in generating
its control output mean it can never prevent oscillation, and most of
the time, its error signal's out of phase.
What works? Local feedback loops.
Unless you have some pole-splitting effect, the system will behave absolutly
identical. After all it is a *multiplication* of the single stages what
makes up the Bode-plot.
Government control loops have no zeroes ;-)
Have you taken a look at the deficit lately?
None of the digits will hold still long enough to be called a zero.
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:09:20 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon_at_My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 06:46:42 +0100, "Ban" <bansuri_at_web.de> wrote:
dagmargoodboat_at_yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 4, 9:48 am, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
snip
Small observation: high gain isn't inherently unstable, and it's often
useful, e.g., op amps.
Such systems tend to oscillate wildly [...]
High gain will just reduce the DC-error, it is the slope where the gain has
fallen to unity which determines stability. With the right control loop
there will be little overshoot.
Yes. Hence the fallacy of tight control by some central authority--
that can never be stable. The time delay for Government to integrate
all its feedback inputs, and the phase delay involved in generating
its control output mean it can never prevent oscillation, and most of
the time, its error signal's out of phase.
What works? Local feedback loops.
Unless you have some pole-splitting effect, the system will behave absolutly
identical. After all it is a *multiplication* of the single stages what
makes up the Bode-plot.
Government control loops have no zeroes ;-)
Have you taken a look at the deficit lately?
None of the digits will hold still long enough to be called a zero.
Maybe that's Obummer's plan; if you can't see it, it doesn't exist.
Guest
Mon Mar 08, 2010 3:31 am
On Mar 5, 7:16 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>
wrote:
Quote:
Have you taken a look at the deficit lately?
Officially, an incredible $1.4T.
That doesn't include $1.2T the Treasury spent buying mortgages, or
hundreds of billions to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Those are "off
budget".
I figure last year's deficit, with just the easy-to-find bits honestly
counted, was roughly $3T.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Guest
Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:36 am
On Mar 3, 1:50 pm, Jon Kirwan <j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
Quote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 22:57:13 -0800 (PST),
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 20, 10:44 pm, Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 17:53:46 -0800 (PST),
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
snip
I live a wonderful life. I was born here, by complete
accident. I might have been born to a poor family near
Bangladesh, to use a well-worn cliche (my apologies to
pimpom) and had far, far fewer opportunities and far less
access to resources by which I might make something of
myself. Libraries, roads, schools, and so on. My comfort
rests upon the shoulders of my ancestors' good fortunes,
suffering, and labors. My situation is the product of so
many who have gone before me, not just here in the US but
because of many who have worked and suffered elsewhere for my
gain, as well. I sit on all their shoulders. And I know my
profound fortune for having been born here by such accident.
Yes, I grew up poor and worked the fields to survive. But I
still had access to so much, here. None of which _I_ made
for myself or even earned. It was given to me.
Just because there is a piece of paper which says someone
owns something that fact alone doesn't mean they did anything
to earn it other than existing or being born into it. I
actually _did_ technically earn the money to buy what I have.
And I know I don't deserve it. It's a beautiful place set in
a fantastic natural environment spread over many acres. And
when I step out in the morning and take a walk, I am filled
from top to bottom with a sense of awe and love, and then a
sense of profound memory of so many who have so much less and
have worked so much harder than I have; the memory of a
mother I once helped cross into Canada who had lost her own
children and husband's family and survived under their bloody
bodies with only one remaining kid and her cries at night;
and then the sense of luck and undeserved fortune that has
placed me here. Why me? Because I got lucky. That's why.
I could argue I earned all this. Paperwork says so. But the
reality is... I've been very lucky. Sure, there's more. I
did a few things, helped some folks, got paid, saved, made
some wise choices, too. But I had opportunities here;
safety, education, and so on. And I didn't create that. I
did benefit from it.
I owe a lot to accidents of fate.
This argument boils down to what many people believe: wealth is
random, luck, or from favor or advantage, and, in any case, a
windfall, to be shared.
snip of arguments built upon a false foundation
It is hard for me to understand why you have such
difficulties holding things in mind well. You seem to be
able to turn any 3D reality into a 2D cartoon and cannot see
that you are creating a horrible result for thinking in the
end. It saddens me to see such lacks.
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Feb 20, 10:44 pm, Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 17:53:46 -0800 (PST),
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
snip
I live a wonderful life. I was born here, by complete
accident. I might have been born to a poor family near
Bangladesh, to use a well-worn cliche (my apologies to
pimpom) and had far, far fewer opportunities and far less
access to resources by which I might make something of
myself. Libraries, roads, schools, and so on. My comfort
rests upon the shoulders of my ancestors' good fortunes,
suffering, and labors. My situation is the product of so
many who have gone before me, not just here in the US but
because of many who have worked and suffered elsewhere for my
gain, as well. I sit on all their shoulders. And I know my
profound fortune for having been born here by such accident.
Yes, I grew up poor and worked the fields to survive. But I
still had access to so much, here. None of which _I_ made
for myself or even earned. It was given to me.
Just because there is a piece of paper which says someone
owns something that fact alone doesn't mean they did anything
to earn it other than existing or being born into it. I
actually _did_ technically earn the money to buy what I have.
And I know I don't deserve it. It's a beautiful place set in
a fantastic natural environment spread over many acres. And
when I step out in the morning and take a walk, I am filled
from top to bottom with a sense of awe and love, and then a
sense of profound memory of so many who have so much less and
have worked so much harder than I have; the memory of a
mother I once helped cross into Canada who had lost her own
children and husband's family and survived under their bloody
bodies with only one remaining kid and her cries at night;
and then the sense of luck and undeserved fortune that has
placed me here. Why me? Because I got lucky. That's why.
I could argue I earned all this. Paperwork says so. But the
reality is... I've been very lucky. Sure, there's more. I
did a few things, helped some folks, got paid, saved, made
some wise choices, too. But I had opportunities here;
safety, education, and so on. And I didn't create that. I
did benefit from it.
I owe a lot to accidents of fate.
This argument boils down to what many people believe: wealth is
random, luck, or from favor or advantage, and, in any case, a
windfall, to be shared.
snip of arguments built upon a false foundation
It is hard for me to understand why you have such
difficulties holding things in mind well. You seem to be
able to turn any 3D reality into a 2D cartoon and cannot see
that you are creating a horrible result for thinking in the
end. It saddens me to see such lacks.
I understand your frustration!
That's at least the second time you've called me stupid. You might
want to reconsider that premise. I score in the top 1%, and if you
took the top 1% of those I'd make that second group too, still easily
at the top.
If it makes you feel any better, to me your thinking seems elementary,
constrained and plodding. To me you're zoomed and fixated on
irrelevancies which overwhelm your emotions and leave you unable to
synthesize an understanding of the whole. I see the fray, and levels
beyond.
You think me shallow, I find you overwrought. I'm deeply emotional,
musical, passionate and creative, but I can't let that rule my
analysis--passion just doesn't substitute well for reason. I wish it
did--I'd prefer that, but it doesn't.
Interesting, isn't it, the differences in perspective?
We differ on key facts, with you taking as given circumstances which
are 100% antithetical to my life experience, to my daily experience in
these exact matters, and directly contrary to my factual knowledge.
How do I know how poor people live? I clean up the garbage from in
front of their houses, daily. Why? Because I hope it brightens their
existence, a tiny bit. They don't seem to notice.
As to how I reach my conclusions, I simply add up the effect of
people's choices and see that those alone usually fully explain their
poverty, when they're poor.
You call that "2-D" thinking, as if I were callous, imperceptive, but
I simply don't need to invoke Bangladesh, nor be distracted by my
natural sympathy for Bangladeshis to explain poverty here in the US.
Yes, I feel for the world's poor. No, that has nothing to do with
wealth creation in America or whether taxing wealth increases or
decreases misery here.
I also tally that, with appropriate choices, it's very easy to be at
least comfortable in America. It doesn't take extraordinary good
fortune. And with hard work you can almost always do well.
Quote:
To take your point above and "boil it down" and not nearly as
badly as you did to mine, your argument boils down to saying
that wealth is instead _always_ a matter of hard work and
being smart. You apparently imagine that being wealthy is
entirely a matter of having earned and/or deserved it.
badly as you did to mine, your argument boils down to saying
that wealth is instead _always_ a matter of hard work and
being smart. You apparently imagine that being wealthy is
entirely a matter of having earned and/or deserved it.
Of course you entirely miscast my argument. I never said wealth is
always earned, "deserved" (whatever that judgmental term means), etc.
Poverty is usually earned, whereas hard work and decent, reasonable
choices available to everyone virtually assure prosperity in America.
Being super-rich usually takes hard work and a bit of luck.
Quote:
Now, I don't argue that you feel that is true because I know
you know it isn't. And I don't intend on turning YOUR
argument into a 2D cartoon which is nothing like the reality.
So let's deal with the reality.
There are a number of things that factor into wealth.
First and foremost is, and it's a practical reality under
pretty much all circumstances found around the world, a
matter of birth accident. I won't argue about that with you.
If you can't see it, then you can't. But it is true and I
already gave a long-winded argument using my own fortunes
having been born in the US which goes a very long way. Your
blindness to this, if it exists, isn't mine. And I cannot
help you if you cannot see. That's your problem.
Next is access to education, balanced nutrition, sane and
stable parenting, the fortune of DNA, and access to health
care for disease mitigation. All of which are, themselves,
really again just part of the first item just mentioned -- an
accident and a matter of luck. So perhaps I should lump it
there.
It's simply shocking to me that you'd set all that aside as
though it were nothing much. And yet it is the determining
issue, if anything is at all. It's not just an ingredient,
it is most everything there is.
you know it isn't. And I don't intend on turning YOUR
argument into a 2D cartoon which is nothing like the reality.
So let's deal with the reality.
There are a number of things that factor into wealth.
First and foremost is, and it's a practical reality under
pretty much all circumstances found around the world, a
matter of birth accident. I won't argue about that with you.
If you can't see it, then you can't. But it is true and I
already gave a long-winded argument using my own fortunes
having been born in the US which goes a very long way. Your
blindness to this, if it exists, isn't mine. And I cannot
help you if you cannot see. That's your problem.
Next is access to education, balanced nutrition, sane and
stable parenting, the fortune of DNA, and access to health
care for disease mitigation. All of which are, themselves,
really again just part of the first item just mentioned -- an
accident and a matter of luck. So perhaps I should lump it
there.
It's simply shocking to me that you'd set all that aside as
though it were nothing much. And yet it is the determining
issue, if anything is at all. It's not just an ingredient,
it is most everything there is.
Those simply don't match my experience. I know lots and lots of
successful people, most from broken homes, started out poor, in public
schools. One I know's father was murdered when she was 13, her mother
was clinically insane, institutionalized. As a 13-year old she found
herself alone, raising herself and mom to her several siblings:
cooking, cleaning, making their lunches, etc. She married young,
worked menial positions, divorced young, then put herself through
college, a single mom with a new baby. And now she owns a firm, her
own, and employs a bunch of people.
That's the /typical/ story. Why don't you get that?
<snip: JK: accident of birth theory, James thinks in cartoons>
I owe Joel, Ken, and some of the other guys answers, so I'll cover
further thoughts in those rather than duplicating them here.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Guest
Fri Mar 12, 2010 8:29 pm
On Mar 5, 12:46 am, "Ban" <bans...@web.de> wrote:
Quote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Mar 4, 9:48 am, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
snip
Small observation: high gain isn't inherently unstable, and it's often
useful, e.g., op amps.
Such systems tend to oscillate wildly [...]
High gain will just reduce the DC-error, it is the slope where the gain has
fallen to unity which determines stability. With the right control loop
there will be little overshoot.
Yes. Hence the fallacy of tight control by some central authority--
that can never be stable. The time delay for Government to integrate
all its feedback inputs, and the phase delay involved in generating
its control output mean it can never prevent oscillation, and most of
the time, its error signal's out of phase.
What works? Local feedback loops.
Unless you have some pole-splitting effect, the system will behave absolutly
identical. After all it is a *multiplication* of the single stages what
makes up the Bode-plot.
On Mar 4, 9:48 am, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
snip
Small observation: high gain isn't inherently unstable, and it's often
useful, e.g., op amps.
Such systems tend to oscillate wildly [...]
High gain will just reduce the DC-error, it is the slope where the gain has
fallen to unity which determines stability. With the right control loop
there will be little overshoot.
Yes. Hence the fallacy of tight control by some central authority--
that can never be stable. The time delay for Government to integrate
all its feedback inputs, and the phase delay involved in generating
its control output mean it can never prevent oscillation, and most of
the time, its error signal's out of phase.
What works? Local feedback loops.
Unless you have some pole-splitting effect, the system will behave absolutly
identical. After all it is a *multiplication* of the single stages what
makes up the Bode-plot.
You assume quite a lot, don't you?
So you'd design a UHF amplifier by cascading several stages of
unstable multi-GHz transistors, then stabilize it with one giant
feedback loop? Good luck.
A business is inherently unstable, usually. Like balancing a
broomstick, without constant attention and adjustment the thing will
fall over and fail if left to itself.
In the case of government, feedback is delayed weeks to months,
consolidated, then evaluated by people lacking expertise and timely
information, using different (non-economic) criteria. E.g., politics.
Thus, government's error function is grossly delayed, attenuated, and
distorted, as is the control signal that results.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - OT(kinda): Texas Plane Crash - The Note
