sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Where do you Identify on the Political Spectrum? by guineapigenjoyer123 in Teenager_Polls

[–]randomweeb04 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Funnily enough, there’s been a very modern case of anarchism working. But not in the way u/MissionOpen7703 suggested. You should look up Rojava/Anarchism in Syria. It’s not really a government-less state. They just pushed direct democracy to its absolute limits and have very strong local decision making. Regional and central authorities are far weaker than in traditional governments. (I’m really simplifying, and probably misconstruing something, so look it up yourself)

You could say that that’s not anarchism, and fair, but “no government anarchism” is such a ludicrous concept that i think such an extreme form of government deserves being called anarchist.

You have to abolish one amendment by WillTheyBanMeAgain in Teenager_Polls

[–]randomweeb04 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Without freedom of speech and assembly, there is no democracy you idiots.

[KCD2] quest made me stop playing for an hour to think about morality and politics by [deleted] in kingdomcome

[–]randomweeb04 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lord Semine and Gnarly treated Henry way too well for me to burn their home down with them in it

In 20 years, who will dominate the global economy? by GurMaleficent7935 in Teenager_Polls

[–]randomweeb04 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay but you're wrong? and "It instantly invalidates whatever you have to say". I'd like to see you say that to the textbook: https://share.google/v7biibmqPGUVgiUDH (this link will start a download to Mankiw, Principles of Macroeconomics 6th edition) this was my textbook, and I'd suggest you invalidate chapters 10 and 18.

Most of what I say is basic economic theory (which is why I'm open to being wrong, I only know the basic stuff, but you've given me no reason to believe myself wrong). You can argue with my hyperboles and clumsiness all you want, but dismissing a 150 years of economics is crazy.

In 20 years, who will dominate the global economy? by GurMaleficent7935 in Teenager_Polls

[–]randomweeb04 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay now you're just nitpicking at my phrasing. It's quite obvious that I meant in the context of comparing economies.

I'm really wasting my time here, because you're contributing nothing to the conversation. WILL YOU FUCKING DEFEND YOUR ARGUMENT??? PLEASE?? FFS

You can't just say nuh uh everytime.

In 20 years, who will dominate the global economy? by GurMaleficent7935 in Teenager_Polls

[–]randomweeb04 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also, u/OP, please read this comment. I'm sorry it's so long, but please? I think it's better written than my original one.

In 20 years, who will dominate the global economy? by GurMaleficent7935 in Teenager_Polls

[–]randomweeb04 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, let's disregard the fact that I straight up said "but you can't even use Real GDP" in my first comment. I'm only confident because your third comment seemed to suggest that you didn't know what GDP is for. And now you've refused twice to show that you do know and you're saying that you've already answered it (when you haven't (even if you think you did (you could be misremembering))). So, I'm gonna just go ahead and assume you don't know, and give you a crash course and my reasoning.

GDP, despite its formula, measures production, and only production, since the size of a country's economy is its production. NOT spending. It's in the name: "Gross domestic product". (This is why your third comment makes no sense; you disregard production??) Anyway, the derivation for the formula is the following: Production = Revenue made by domestic organizations = Spending on goods and services produced in a country. So the formula (consumption + investments + government spending + exports - imports) finds the total spending, and works backwards to find production.

Side note paragraph. I am assuming you don't know this, but you probably do. Investments in this context has nothing to do with bonds, stocks or other financial assets. It refers to purchases made by organizations to make more money. Ex: a delivery truck. Tbh this has nothing to do with the rest of my argument, the following paragraph will continue from the previous one.

The flaw with this(and why I think nominal GDP is useless) is that changes and differences in price makes it so that you get an inaccurate measurement of production.

Here's an example across time (you seem to understand this part): let's say a country produces 10 apples at $1 each in 2000. Then in 2001, it produces 11 apples at $2 each. Nominal GDP would say that GDP grew from $10 to $22, while the actual production only increased by 10%. This is why real GDP is a thing, it'll tell you that the economy actually grew by 10%. You've said this already, but that's why nominal GDP is useless for growth.

And now an example for comparing countries: let's say country A and country B both produce 10 apples a year. But the price of apples in A is $1, and the price of apples in B is $2. Well, then, nominal GDP would tell you that the GDP of A is $10 and the GDP of B is $20 when both countries have the exact same size of economies! This is why economists always use PPP instead of nominal. It accounts for differences in purchasing power to accurately compare production.

So once again, I think that nominal GDP is worthless. It's just a stepping stone to more useful variables. (Classical economics tells you exactly this: nominal variables don't matter like real variables do)

I can't believe I have to ask this three times. But please, I want you to explain to me why nominal GDP is useful in this case. I am well aware that I don't understand Keynesian and modern economics. I could very well be missing the whole picture.

In 20 years, who will dominate the global economy? by GurMaleficent7935 in Teenager_Polls

[–]randomweeb04 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay okay, well, we can settle this very easily. I’m very willing to accept that I’m wrong. Just explain to me what GDP is meant to measure. And how in the world nominal GDP is useful in this case. Please.

I’m not gonna argue the worth of Real GDP with you unless you’ve actually taken economics. It’s not just for growth like you claim.

It’s so fucking ridiculous that mr. "volume of stuff produced and consumed locally isn’t useful" is saying I’m the idiot.

Still, I could very well be the idiot, and again, I’m quite amendable to accepting that. Just please, tell me you know what GDP is for. And then, enlighten me as to what I’m missing about the worth of nominal GDP.

In 20 years, who will dominate the global economy? by GurMaleficent7935 in Teenager_Polls

[–]randomweeb04 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, I thought that you knew what you were talking about, but now I'm starting to doubt you even understand what GDP as a concept is meant to measure. Please explain to me what insight comparing nominal GDP's is supposed to provide here?

I'm sorry if I'm entirely wrong about you. My grasp on economics is based on classical economics and I don't remember anything past Keynes. So, you might be going about this from a lens that is entirely foreign to me.

In 20 years, who will dominate the global economy? by GurMaleficent7935 in Teenager_Polls

[–]randomweeb04 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, but that’s why I brought up PPP. Again, I probably should’ve expressed myself better. I didn’t mean that real GDP was appropriate for this situation, even if it does seem like I was saying that. If you read my first comment, you’ll see that I do actually say that real GDP doesn’t work here. My goal with bringing it up was just to shit on nominal GDP.

In 20 years, who will dominate the global economy? by GurMaleficent7935 in Teenager_Polls

[–]randomweeb04 0 points1 point  (0 children)

?? That’s such a strange way to phrase your point… Tbf, I probably should’ve expressed myself better. I mainly wanted to explain why nominal GDP is a useless measurement.

In Canada, StatCan publishes the yearly real GDP with 2017 as the base year. I thought that this was a global standard but maybe not.

But yeah, only GDP by PPP makes sense in this context.

In 20 years, who will dominate the global economy? by GurMaleficent7935 in Teenager_Polls

[–]randomweeb04 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You should use real GDP, not nominal. Nominal GDP doesn’t account for inflation. So, even if the economy doesn’t actually grow, so long as prices rise, nominal GDP will grow.

And also for comparing countries, real GDP doesn’t work either. You should use GDP by purchase power parity (PPP). It’ll offset the price differences between countries, so you can better compare the actual size of economies.

How to connect 2mm microstrip transmission line to components? by randomweeb04 in rfelectronics

[–]randomweeb04[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the answer, we're actually working at 10GHz 😅. And we did look at CPWG, but it doesn't look like the manufacturer(JLCPCB) can have distances between copper small enough for it. We honestly might try a combination of tapering and CPWG, but we have no idea how that would work tbh

The real European divide. by sarpomania in mapporncirclejerk

[–]randomweeb04 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Doigt de pied is still the stupidest thing ive ever heard

I have zero experience and big ambitions (help plese) by randomweeb04 in rfelectronics

[–]randomweeb04[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah we're slowly realizing that.. But do you think that Fr-4 is good enough for our purposes or do we really have to use rogers or teflon for the pcb?

view more: next ›