penny500

5 ms·

1.
by penny500 13y ago
There's no reply button for me underneath your threads initially until some time passes. I guess that's how HN works for some. I'll respond to your latest comment here. > If you say things like "we have a lot of people, so wind power wo
2.
by penny500 13y ago
tiredofcareer, thanks for calling me stupid. This conversation has surely turned professional. It's quite funny when you espouse economically illiterate statements, then question the intelligence of others. Electricity consumption depends o
3.
by penny500 13y ago
This is completely economically illiterate. China is a developing country. As a result, it uses less electricity than its developed counterparts. As China grows, it will be using much more electricity. Just look at their energy consumption
4.
by penny500 13y ago
Do you have a more objective source?
5.
by penny500 13y ago
Calm down. No one put words into his mouth. You, however, did put words into my mouth, which I find quite astonishing. Those windmills currently cover 1 million people. The world has 7 billion people and growing quickly. You really think wi
6.
by penny500 13y ago
Denmark's population is smaller than New York City by a couple million. The US would need a massive, massive number of windmills.
7.
by penny500 13y ago
What would incentivize people to actually go into research if that were the case? Our best would all be bankers, lawyers, and mobile app developers.
8.
by penny500 13y ago
Are you serious? Just because you're not Keynesian, it doesn't mean you do not believe in a central bank. Milton Friedman believed in a central bank.
9.
by penny500 13y ago
"mainstream media" != "mainstream economists" I'd prefer the opinions of PhD economists with a special emphasis on currency transactions over yours or anyone else's, actually.
10.
by penny500 13y ago
Mainstream economists aren't central planners. I don't mean just economists from both administrations. I meant mainstream economists from every school on the US News and beyond.
11.
by penny500 13y ago
Can you elaborate on your thesis so I know what you're specifically referring to?
12.
by penny500 13y ago
That's not how quantitative easing works. Quantitative easing doesn't fire up the printing presses. Bernanke can add $2 trillion into the system within 15 minutes, and no paper money is printed or manpower expensed aside from a few clicks o
13.
by penny500 13y ago
"It is being used as a currency" Do you have a source for this? As far as I know, and I know this is a theory but I suspect a good theory, people used bitcoin as a currency when it was relatively stable and before it skyrocketed in value, a
14.
by penny500 13y ago
Once you secure the system however, the costs of increasing currency into that system is trivial.
15.
by penny500 13y ago
Krugman isn't being a political partisan hack here. Every mainstream economist from the Republican and Democratic administrations agree that a currency backed similarly to gold (as opposed to a central bank) is not a good idea.
16.
by penny500 13y ago
How much does it cost to change bits of data on a computer? That's what happens with quantitative easing. Bernanke isn't calling up the printing presses to print $2 trillion in paper currency.
17.
by penny500 13y ago
It's certainly not being used as a currency, its original intention. It's being used by speculators to get rich. Sure you might find a few examples of buyers and sellers using bitcoin currency, but you'll find a lot more speculators buying
18.
by penny500 13y ago
What specific law are you referring to that forces Main Street to invest in 401Ks?
19.
by penny500 13y ago
That's how Wall Street works. You give money to Wall Street, and Wall Street in turn chooses to distribute the money to technology or research companies like Google or Merck (or even venture capital funds which in turn invest in start ups)
20.
by penny500 13y ago
How so?
21.
by penny500 13y ago
"There are always 2 parties to each transaction and one makes the money that the other one loses." Completely false. Wealth is not fixed. There can be two winners, which often happens.
22.
by penny500 13y ago
Mainstream economists believe in free markets, and they also understand market failures and moral hazard. Government failure also exists.
23.
by penny500 13y ago
Because for Wall Street to succeed, Main Street must fail? Why would Main Street transact with them at all if that were the case?
24.
by penny500 13y ago
Well, you'd have to increase the salaries of Congress to that level, and that is probably politically unfeasible.
25.
by penny500 13y ago
How is "regulation makes us less competitive" a straw man argument? If your Singaporean or European competitors operate under a set of different and less stringent rules, that wouldn't increase your costs to doing business (and in effect ma
26.
by penny500 13y ago
Wealth is not fixed. Both parties can benefit from a trade, and often do. A party that wants cash now and another who wants more cash in the future both benefit from a trade (e.g. buying and selling a bond).
27.
by penny500 13y ago
Seriously, what is with the blatantly biased sources? Why not link to a source from an unbiased top IP lawyer or professor instead?
28.
by penny500 13y ago
I'm not lying. Don't call me a liar. Monsanto has the same claim on its website. You can read about the suits on Wikipedia. The suits are also public record. Sue them. Go for it. You'll rake in several hundreds of millions and billions of d
29.
by penny500 13y ago
The better way of saying it is GMO meets the same safety requirements as non-GMO. http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/Biotechnology/uc...
30.
by penny500 13y ago
Science and law are on my side. I'll take that over your pseudo-intellectual opinion.

More ›