There was talk about renaming the Krugman thread for this purpose, but that seems to be going nowhere. Besides which, I feel the Krugman thread should be left to discuss Krugman while this thread can be used for more general economic discussion.
Discuss:
- The merits of competing theories.
- The role of the government in managing the economy.
- The causes of and solutions to our current economic woes.
- Comparisons between the economic systems of different countries.
- Theoretical and existing alternatives to our current market system.
edited 17th Dec '12 10:58:52 AM by Topazan
The law in the night
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I'd figure companies focused on matériel and extraction would go down on the idea of 3D printing by making fortunes on selling easy to transport and use raw or processed mater.
The biggest prospect of the 3D printing technology is allowing personalized customization on a larger scale. People with ingenious designs would need to know CAD or any modeling software to create 3D models and have access to a 3D printer able to use the needed materials.
You'd either pay for someone print your design or run an business built on designing things for people and then printing them.
On the other hand large manufacturing could gain massive production efficiency gains.
Lets face it most of the things we use today can't be easily manufactured, computers, cars, electro domestics all need separate components. 3D printing can either use smaller scale printers to manufacture the components individually and assembling a final product from them or a more expensive and capable printer can make a finished product from the materials available.
Manufacturing companies and corporations won't vanish due to 3D printing technology, but they will have to adapt.
3D printers can also be used to make houses at the fraction of the cost of making on traditionally. For impoverished areas this could mean affordable housing but it risks of making land even more expensive, unless some regulatory measures are taken to prevent it.
A legal issue with 3D printing is how it allows you to print things that are illegal in some countries. For example if I had a 3D metal printer I could circumvent the laws banning private purchase and possession of fire arms by printing some handguns.
You could lock them with a DRM preventing printers from creating restricted objects, but like everything digital it is just a matter of time before someone cracks it, though the high initial cost may delay this practice.
Inter arma enim silent leges
I do not know uber's commission, but if it's above 15 percent, then it's too much.
Also if uber is deciding on the prices, then yeah uber drivers are more employees than contractors. Also, I've got a bad feeling a lot of uber drivers do not keep proper accounting of the actual costs.
Plants are aliens, and fungi are nanomachines.
The question of DRM and copyright enforcement is going to become very acute, very fast, in a world where you can download a car. I mean, once all the brainwork is done, all I need to do is stick a copy of a blueprint in my computer and print up all the components I need for my new desk chair note and an IKEA set of instructions. Why go to the clothing store when I can just print up some shiny new Space Clothes using the latest fashion designs? (Hell, I could probably get a new outfit off of Deviant Art.)
So companies that make money off of fashion designs and patents either have to evolve, die, or strictly enforce DRM and have 3D printers made into restricted devices because they might be used to circumvent copyright.
"The OECD economists looked at how this growth in the financial sector affects growth in the rest of the economy. Initially, an expanding financial sector is beneficial, but it eventually reaches its ideal weight, and apart from contributing to inequality, “further increases in its size usually slow long-term growth”."
I knew it!
The law in the night
Not surprising, in Brazil one of the reasons why we're on a recession is the increasing amount of defaulting on private debts thanks to the government stimulating buying houses and goods under credit along lending programs.
Which would be good if our interest rates weren't among the highest in the world and the increasing consumption translated in higher consume based growth, but instead the inflation grew faster and the national industries didn't improve enough to satisfy the increased demand.
Inter arma enim silent leges
Lost in Space
Speaking of private debts, Brad DeLong: Why small booms can cause big busts.
The idea is that there are multiple types of booms, and those fueled by housing borrowing lead to the biggest busts. At a technical level, the market vastly overvalues the return on certain asset classes, leading to overinvestment in both the financial and consumer markets. When that bubble bursts, the resulting lack of confidence causes natural interest rates to fall below zero, causing an indefinite contractionary condition.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Jonathan Ostry et al.: Don’t Sweat the Debt If Fiscal Space Is Ample
...This column argues that paying down the debt involves a trade-off that balances the gains from the insurance value of low debt against the costs of an insurance premium – higher distortionary taxation. When countries have fiscal space and no real prospect of a sovereign crisis, the cost of bringing down the debt is likely to exceed the crisis-insurance benefit. The best policy might be to simply live with higher debt.
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
But instead of higher distortionary taxation, you can just cut programs!
Problem solved, eggheads 
Lost in Space
Yep. Of course, as Krugman points out, hysteria over debt loads (the infamous "90% threshold") has all but vanished from the public discourse.
Yes, the austerity argument. -_- That one should have been discredited even more thoroughly than the debt myth thanks to developments in Europe, yet remains shambling around, searching for brains to eat.
edited 22nd Jun '15 12:48:16 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
The law in the night
Lost in Space
And there we see the brain-eating effect of that zombie idea.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
The Brits elected them and re-elected them. Labour voters and the Scots have my sympathy, the rest are getting what they deserve.
Lost in Space
For the common folk, it's all about media disinformation. Really, it's the media who own the lion's share of the blame for the situation.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
V
Labour would have still had Austerity and budget cuts, albeit not cutting quite as quickly. The SNP...were part of the reason the Conservatives won (with a small majority).
Including from The BBC?
edited 22nd Jun '15 1:37:46 PM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On
Lost in Space
I don't know what the positions of specific media outlets are. I just know that apparently "excessive public spending" is part of What Everyone Knows in the UK, which indicates a pervasive media campaign to sell that message.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
V
Positions? TV Channels (and Radio Stations) in the UK have to be impartial, as regulated by the Regulator Ofcom. You'll find political leanings mostly in the British Newspapers.
edited 22nd Jun '15 1:44:31 PM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On
Lost in Space
Yeah, but who judges what's considered impartial? That doesn't mean they are required to spend any effort investigating the truth of claims made by public officials.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
V
The first — well, that's Ofcom. The second part is the Media's role, and that of the Opposition Party.
edited 22nd Jun '15 1:49:29 PM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On
Lost in Space
Which is Labour, which buys the austerity line, at least publicly.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
V
For the moment. Labour are in the middle of a Leadership campaignnote , and the left-wing candidate is Jeremy Corbyn.
A procrastination in of itself
Corbyn isn't running seriously, he's a token lefty alongside the token effective Tory candidate. It's really a contest between Cooper and Burnham.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Hilariously... Australian Trade Minister Andrew Robb may have inadvertently made Obama's job of selling the TPP more difficult.
Basically, Robb boasted that the TPP was, as usual, "close" to being finalized. Senator Jeff Sessions (Alabama) took notice, realized this new information made the fast-track legislation's promise of tailoring TPP towards certain 'negotiating objectives' effectively meaningless, and proceeded to tell fellow senators that Obama was bullshitting them.
Seeing my country's current government slip up is always entertaining.
edited 23rd Jun '15 8:36:20 AM by Cronosonic
Lost in Space
Heh, that is both depressing and amusing at the same time.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
If there is a way that the IP masters can corner the capital profits from 3D printing, they certainly will. They won't permit the democratization of manufacturing if there's any way for them to stop it. If nothing else, it requires raw materials.
edited 18th Jun '15 11:45:23 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"