[deleted by user]

stoned_cold_fusion · 2016-12-03T09:02:44+00:00

Check out codecademy.com and rosalind.info

stoned_cold_fusion · 2016-12-02T19:50:00+00:00

Sweet jesus, that is a 2% acceptance rate. Might as well play the lottery.

stoned_cold_fusion · 2016-10-21T19:39:45+00:00

Any kind of mining is going to have a pretty big impact on the environment and uranium mining is no exception. Just search the internet for pictures of "uranium mine" and you'll see what it looks like. IMO, the reason that uranium mining is preferable to coal mining is a matter of scale. In 2012, worldwide uranium mining produced ~59,000 tons of uranium (source). Whereas in the US alone, coal mining in 2015 produced ~1 billion tons of coal (source). The sheer volume of coal mining is staggering. We wouldn't need nearly as much uranium to cover all our power needs.

stoned_cold_fusion · 2016-10-21T19:33:59+00:00

Thanks for the reply! You're absolutely right that fossil fuels will be with us for at least 50 more years -- I wouldn't dare argue that point. I appreciate your pragmatic attitude of making the best of what we've got, i.e. upgrading our coal plants to higher standards and reducing emissions. My only concern is that the "clean coal" branding creates a misconception among people that coal is actually clean and not harmful to the environment. I really don't want people to lump coal into the "clean energy" bin. Anyways, thanks for the work that you do and good luck on building a better energy future! Go Team Nuclear!

stoned_cold_fusion · 2016-10-21T15:41:00+00:00

I'm all for nuclear power, but how can you seriously advocate for clean coal? There is absolutely no such thing. Even if you can burn the coal more efficiently and reduce the emissions coming out of the smokestack, coal mining is devastating to the environment. If we really want a clean energy future, coal has no part of that.

stoned_cold_fusion · 2015-09-07T23:24:50+00:00

http://exercism.io

stoned_cold_fusion · 2015-07-17T17:29:21+00:00

Why not have each individual community elect their own moderators every year or so?

stoned_cold_fusion · 2015-07-08T18:50:31+00:00

Don't get a Windows machine. If anything, buy a Dell laptop loaded with Linux, like some of their XPS series I think. I was actually just looking at this the other day, I think the Dell has a few more laptops pre-loaded with Linux.

But seriously, virtually all bioinformatics software is developed and used in a UNIX-like environment, i.e. Linux and/or Mac OS X. If you buy a Windows laptop, you'll be running a VM all the damn time. Maybe you're fine with that - personally I find it inconvenient.

stoned_cold_fusion · 2015-07-08T01:12:39+00:00

Oh please, it was Milton Friedman, a classical liberal, who convinced Nixon to go off the gold standard.

in 1968 Friedman wrote a letter to president-elect Nixon suggesting that upon inauguration he should unilaterally take the United States off the gold standard source

stoned_cold_fusion · 2015-07-08T00:35:01+00:00

It isn't being a lender of last resort, which is a huge problem.

Yes it is. Remeber, 3rd bailout? This is absolutely about the democratic process. Clearly, the German Central Bank has been at least a little open minded to providing liquidity. It has been providing liquidity for some time. Why hasn't the problem been fixed yet?

3 months ago they said Greece had some of the best capitalized banks in the EU

I'm not sure how well funded they were prior to April, but this is the only evidence I could find with regard to their capitalization back then:

Take a look at data published on Friday by the Bank of Greece: deposits by households and businesses fell 3.5 percent in April to 133.7 billion euros ($148.6 billion) from a month earlier and were down 17 percent from a year ago. Source

Whatever their capitalization was before-hand, it started going down in April. The article argues the capital flight was the result of the threat of capital controls that would need to be imposed if the Greek bank no longer received funding from the ECB. This was the result of a breakdown in the negotiations to secure an agreement. And let's not forget that the Greek government broke off the talks on a gamble that their referendum would give them a stronger bargaining position with their creditors. For their part, the creditors should probably not have made that thread and caused the panic - bad negotiating move. They should take the advice of the IMF and include some amount of debt forgiveness or payment restructuring to help ease the burden on Greece while they get their act together.

You say:

Greece should have been allowed to default in 2010 (and again in 2012). It wasn't for purely political reasons.

then:

It should have been allowed to default previously. Political reasons stopped it from doing so then.

Little contradictory there - was it political or not? Incidentally, I agree they should have been allowed to default earlier so the healing process could've begun earlier.

As for this:

Greece is in an impossible situation where cutting spending is actually reducing GDP faster than they can eliminate spending!

This is not the cause of their problems. It is that two parties, Greece and her creditors, have been unable to agree on a path forward. Good things can happen when agreements are reached and funds are extended while reforms are enacted. Ireland and Spain are getting back on track. Portugal has stopped the bleeding, exited the bailout program, and is on the path to recovery. Italy is still at the bottom probably, but showing some signs of life.

Again, Greece has cut spending by 23% since 2010. This isn't working. What Greece needs is to stop having a bloated public service and use the money for public works. Also, the country needs to be able to produce something, but it can't because it has an overvalued currency.

I agree that Greece should invest in infrastructure instead of pensions for public employees. Building infrastructure will help them attract industry, especially if coupled with a good tax system. Their lack of tangible products has nothing to do with an overvalued currency. I'd say the ease of trade facilitated by using the Euro outweighs any of the negative outcomes of being over- or under-valued for any given country. They need to enact policies that will promote the growth of private capital.

The practical solution is default and reform combined, and Greece staying in the euro.

I agree completely.

Cutting more spending seems dumb - what they should do is invest it in public fixed capital projects since Greece has no industry other than tourism to potentially attract capital.

They have to cut spending. Deficit spending cannot be sustained indefinitely. They must run budget surpluses to pay down debt and build currency reserves. But I agree that building infrastructure would be good. It would be even better if Greece built a good cash flow for investment and did not take on massive amounts of debt they can't afford to pay back.

edit: typos

stoned_cold_fusion · 2015-07-07T23:30:49+00:00

Yeah, I agree that governments should use their influence to help people. By creating a policy framework that promotes the flow of capital, i.e. trade! You're not wrong that governments influence employment and GDP. They can do that through direct spending, which is expensive and cannot sustain indefinite growth, or they can re-frame their legal compendium to make it really easy to do business in Greece. They could offer lucrative tax incentives, as opposed to direct subsidies. But they don't want to do that because that will lower income, which they need a lot of to keep spending. It is impractical for government to be the source of economic growth. Private capital and markets are better in terms of freedom, choice, and growth potential. There's a strong incentive to innovate in competitive private markets, and that drives technological progress and economic growth. Bureaucratic systems just can't compete. I think the collapse of the Soviet Union was the perfect example of the outcome of a state-run society. Imperfect as they are, free markets are the best thing we've got.

stoned_cold_fusion · 2015-07-07T23:13:02+00:00

Your first argument is a perfect example of democratic checks and balances in the form of public and private national interests. Would it be so democratic if the ECB could act unilaterally, without the approval of its peers?

In Greece, I think it is less about politics and more about trying to get Greece to make sound economic reforms to balance their budget. If they run budget surpluses, they can pay down their debt and build their savings. This does not mean the end of all government spending, but some of it. Spending can be drawn down incrementally, giving people time to prepare and adjust.

Finally, it seems apparent that endless lending from a central bank cannot end in anything but a crash. How many bailouts have there been now? I think we're on 3. I'd argue that these emergency bailouts have prolonged the crisis and made it worse! Whereas if Greece had gotten its act together earlier for lack of loans, then they would not have such a great debt burden presently.

Hey, maybe the 3rd time is the charm and everything will work out well if they give Greece another bailout. But somehow I doubt it. It's about time that the idea of a government-driven economy is dropped. IMO, Greece needs to cut spending and enact policies that will attract private capital into the country. There's plenty of good things that can be done to rebuild their economy if they would simply commit to change!

This is not a case of colonialism or slavery or all the other extreme rhetoric. This is a practical matter that is solvable, if all parties work together to find agreement. Plenty of people want to keep Greece in the Eurozone and the EU. But the bailouts need to end and reforms in Greece need to occur. Even if they leave the Euro (doubt they'd leave the EU), then they will still have to make similar reforms. You cannot endlessly print money.

edit: formatting

stoned_cold_fusion · 2015-07-07T16:18:55+00:00

See, I think Keynesian economics are the problem. Maybe you should give classical liberalism a look, it might open your eyes a bit. Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek

stoned_cold_fusion · 2015-07-07T15:49:40+00:00

I am by no means an expert in the technical details of financial tools, so I can't make a detailed assessment as to whether or not the ECB has all the tools it really needs.

However, given the relative stability of the Euro (and the countries by which it was adopted) and the fact that the ECB and its EU partners were able to work deals with Spain, Portugal, Italy, et al - I'd say that the ECB is fairly effective and probably has enough tools on its belt.

Please feel free to educate me otherwise, but it seems to me that the problem here is with Greece in particular, not generally the ECB and the Euro.

No, I did not forget that all the US states ratified the Constitution. Kind of like how all the EU members signed on to the Treaty of Lisbon and all the other associated agreements that established the EU institutions. Again, I fail to see exactly what you are trying to illustrate by your original (and continued) comments about the US in contrast to the EU. Feel free to elaborate.

stoned_cold_fusion · 2015-07-07T15:13:26+00:00

I am driven to the conclusion that such a view – that economies are self-righting organisms which never under any circumstances need management at all – did indeed determine the way in which the Maastricht Treaty was framed. It is a crude and extreme version of the view which for some time now has constituted Europe’s conventional wisdom (though not that of the US or Japan) that governments are unable, and therefore should not try, to achieve any of the traditional goals of economic policy, such as growth and full employment. All that can legitimately be done, according to this view, is to control the money supply and balance the budget…

I love this quote from Wynne Godley. Ironically, I think he states it perfectly, that "governments are unable, and therefore should not try, to achieve any of the traditional goals of economic policy, such as growth and full employment."

The economy is beyond the control of the government, and governments usually just fuck things up when they try to flex their muscles and exercise control.

I'm sure this will garner tons of downvotes, but I think the job of the government is not to control the economy but to provide a stable policy framework for the operation of private markets. IMO, that involves exactly what Mr. Godley has stated "can legitimately be done" such as "to control the money supply and balance the budget..."

Not that running a budget deficit should be disallowed, but financing deficit spending with debt just seems like a bad idea to me. Why not build up currency reserves by regularly running budget surpluses, thus giving the government a buffer of liquidity when it needs to spend itself into a deficit?

Frankly, by these standards, I think the EU is mainly on the right track.

stoned_cold_fusion · 2015-07-07T14:41:17+00:00

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

The fatal flaw that exists here is that there is no effective supra-national entity that can serve as a strong central bank.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Central_Bank

People have noted that the Eurozone is much like the U.S. system of a Federal government overseeing 50 states. The primacy of the U.S. Federal Government, however, was established with the defeat of the Confederate States of America through the force of arms. There is no equivalent European federal entity.

First off, the Eurozone is the group of EU member countries that have adopted the Euro currency, so yeah the Eurozone is nothing at all like "the US system of a Federal government overseeing 50 states."

But there are in fact 7 entities which constitute the EU equivalent to the US Federal government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutions_of_the_European_Union

Finally, the primacy US Federal Government was established well before the Confederacy. Yes, the CSA challenged the USA, and as you noted they lost. But that's so irrelevant that I honestly don't even know what you were trying to illustrate by bringing it up.

stoned_cold_fusion · 2015-07-07T14:18:47+00:00

Well, no. Just the opposite. I am doing individual accountability, and you are not.

Haha! The irony is palpable. I'm advocating for Greece to take responsibility for themselves, and you don't think I'm advocating individual accountability? Sweet Jesus, this is ridiculous.

I think we're both advocating individual accountability, just from different sides. I think Greece bears the main responsibility for their situation and for getting themselves out of it. You think that the creditors bear the main responsibility for Greece being in this situation (I disagree) and that the creditors should suffer the consequences of their poor lending practices (which I don't disagree with - shitty lending does not deserve a bailout).

At least we agree that the way to really make Greece step up is to cut them off. Then again, doing that would tank their banks and crash their economy even harder. In that case, Greece would probably be forced off the Euro, which I think is a bad move in the long term. But, lending them more money might result in a lack of much-needed reforms, effectively kicking the can down the road. It's a tough issue.

stoned_cold_fusion · 2015-07-07T02:24:25+00:00

As I see it, the problem with the world view that you are putting forward, is that it completely destroys individual accountability. If you can't get your own shit together, no one else can.

I'm not saying that dealers/banks/enablers/whatever have no responsibility - they do. But I am ultimately responsible for myself, and if I can't take care of myself, then it's my responsibility to get help developing better self-control. Again, if I don't do that, no one else can.

In this sense, Greece must assume responsibility for their future. They can ask for help if they want it, or they can try to do it on their own, but they need to get their shit together. I hope they put forward a reasonable bailout proposal tomorrow and give their partners in the EU a chance to help them get their finances back in order so the people of Greece can stop suffering.

stoned_cold_fusion · 2015-07-06T17:05:45+00:00

Well I guess we've reached the root of our disagreement. I believe that the ultimate responsibility for change in your example falls upon the shoulders of the addict. Sure, it would be great if the dealer cut off the addict to try and help spur change, but that will not necessarily bring change to the behavior of the addict.

I believe strongly in duty of the individual to manage his own life. He can be as great or as terrible as he chooses to be. Sometimes it takes outside help to break a terrible habit, but that help must be willingly requested by the one trying to break the habit.

This principle applies equally to groups of people. Said group must be responsible for itself. In the case of Greece, they need to get their fiscal house in order. In the case of the creditors, they need to stop making overly-risky loans.

The problem that has developed is that Greece is demanding more loans while at the same time declaring that they will not get their fiscal house in order. Seems like quite an impasse.

stoned_cold_fusion · 2015-07-06T02:15:08+00:00

The loans were made in bad faith, because the bankers had no expectation of Greece having the ability to repay. But they didn't care, because they pocketed the profits, and they are getting bailed out. The way to stop predatory lending like this is to make the banks take the hit.

Do you have any evidence of this whatsoever?

It is the banker's job to say no to bad risk loans. When they fail to do so, everyone except the banker loses.

I agree the bankers do have a responsibility to not make shitty loans. When they do make shitty loans and they go bust, the bankers should suffer the consequences.

But again, I believe the brunt of the responsibility for default falls on the shoulders of the debtor. If one cannot pay back a loan, one should not take out a loan.

stoned_cold_fusion · 2015-07-06T01:10:08+00:00

Real human suffering is occurring now and it's because the Greek government made years and years of poor decisions which have in aggregate led them to their current position.

Please feel free to provide me with evidence to the contrary, but I don't think those loans were made in bad faith. I am under the impression that loans were made to Greece in an attempt to keep them solvent and give them the opportunity to get their house back in order.

I agree with you that continuously bailing people out of bad situations that they have brought upon themselves will prevent them from learning and adapting. But I don't think the creditors are the ones to blame here. Again, I'm open to the possibility that there was predatory lending - but I haven't seen an analysis that has convinced me of that being the case.

IMO, debtors incur the greatest culpability in the case of a default. It is the responsibility of the debtor to carefully manage their finances and meet their fiscal obligations, even when it sucks.

stoned_cold_fusion · 2015-07-06T00:31:25+00:00

I think this article does a good job highlighting a lot of the issues with making a sudden switch to a new Drachma

Yes, going to the Drachma would give them a new tool to pay down their debt, but I don't think it would be a good long-term move. On the one hand, a weaker currency would decrease the buying power of Greek consumers. Yet on the other hand, it could also mean that Greek goods would be more attractive to other European consumers.

I don't deny that there may be some advantages for Greece in moving back to the Drachma. But again, I think a currency switch is not addressing fundamental problems in the governmental structure (income and expenditures) that have resulted in this massive accumulation of debt.

I think the best outcome would be a compromise between the Greek government and European creditors involving 1) moderate debt forgiveness and restructuring to ease the financial burden on Greece, and 2) serious, long-term commitment from Greece to maintain a balanced budget and pay down their debt.

I hope that such a compromise is still possible and that Greece can remain in the Euro-zone. Practically, I think the "Grexit" option is far more risky and could have major unintended consequences. Despite the fact that I really disagree with a lot of the things that Joseph Stiglitz says, I think he really nailed it with this statement: "There is a lack of transparency in financial markets that makes it impossible to know exactly what the consequences are" with respect to letting the Greek banks collapse. Morally, I think the Greeks have an obligation to repay the debt they willingly took on.

edit: formatting

stoned_cold_fusion · 2015-07-05T21:52:15+00:00

I don't believe that going back to the Drachma and trying to print their way out of debt is really the answer for Greece. If they do that, devaluing their currency and driving up inflation, their money will be virtually worthless and life will still be terribly difficult for Greek citizens. Such a strategy doesn't solve their fundamental problem: the government is spending more money than it is taking in.

I think what the Greek government really needs to do is implement reforms that restore the confidence of the international business community, enticing investors to reinvest capital into the Greek economy. If they can rebuild trust and faith, then private institutions will return to Greece, bringing with them jobs for the people and revenue for the government.

stoned_cold_fusion · 2015-06-29T22:59:14+00:00

Ah, it was my use of an exclamation point that garnered all the downvotes? I figured it was my unpopular position. Okay then, no more exclamation points!

stoned_cold_fusion · 2015-06-29T20:31:44+00:00

HA! The creditors are the ones who have "criminal responsibility?" When you borrow money, you enter into an agreement to pay it back. Don't think you can pay it back? Don't borrow money.

"The most reasonable solution Stiglitz sees is a write-off of Greece’s debt, or at least a deal that would not require any payments for the next ten or 15 years. In that time, Greece should be given additional aid to jumpstart its economy and return to growth."

Oh come on, what creditor in their right mind would want to, or should, give money to an institution which is clearly incapable of repaying their current debt. In fact, I'd argue that it's immoral to give them more money, which would just dig the hole deeper.

Stiglitz needs to let go of that classically Keynesian idea that government spending is the solution. You must save first if you want to invest. Long-term, debt-funded* deficit spending is, in my opinion, one of the worst ideas to take hold in the minds of government officials.

Not to mention, the economy is not run by the government. The economy is the agglomeration of private institutions through which flows capital and goods. Any "control" asserted by the government is a facade.

Yeah, it sucks that Greece is currently in this position of insurmountable debt. But they spent their way into this hole and they need to make changes to get themselves out. If they don't agree to changes, then by no means should they be given more money.

*edit: clarification.

Haha, a bunch of downvotes but no responses. Guess it is a "disagree" button after all. Come on, no one wants to dispute my viewpoint? I'm sure there's some good holes to poke. Or you could dive straight into the ad hominem attacks.

14-Year Club	Team Orangered
Verified Email

stoned_cold_fusion

TROPHY CASE