Price of a commodity metal can do whatever they want without causing a big problem. It is just a resource allocation signal. However if you base your currency value on it suddenly you are forcing debtors into bankruptcies if the value shoots up. Credit relationships aka investments are what make an economy run and grow, not some arbitrary commodity price.
Debtors who roll their loans also go bankrupt when the fed raises interest rates.
Rolling loans is par for the course for many capital intensive businesses. This is because in a low interest rate environment if you act prudently you’ll get outcompeted.
You're just so used to a debt fueled economy that you can't think of it being any other way. That is the problem though in that 99 times out of 100, debt goes rogue in a runaway sense and blows up the system. It is a time bom.
In essence, debt doesn't need saving from the system; it's the system that needs saving from debt.
Your point is right on. And additionally, why would an average Indian refuse the pay package to work in China? The top r&d guy at SMIC is from Taiwan after all. Liang got both Samsung and SMIC into the advanced nodes.
Humans are also not rewarded for making pronouncements all the time. Experts actually have a reputation to maintain and are likely more reluctant to give opionions that they are not reasonably sure of. LLMs trained on typical written narratives found in books, articles etc can be forgiven to think that they should have an opionion on any and everything. Point being that while you may be able to tune it to behave some other way you may find the new behavior less helpful.
Cheap housing isn't the problem. The problems are people speculating on the appreciation of property, banking system depending on property value as loan collaterals and local governments depending on property sales for revenue generation.
And if you build cheap housing and there is no one to live in it, what is the purpose? China has hundreds of thousands of empty units? Entirely empty cities?
I don't think people mind having bigger spaces but market is not clearing. In the US you have slums and bombed out building shells in prime urban locations as well. It is fascinating how human expectations work against each other.
It has a fixed capacity of how many different things it can pay close attention to. If it fails on a seemingly less important but easy to follow instruction it is an indicator that it has reached capacity. If the instruction seems irrelevant it is probably prioritized to be discarded, hence a canary that the capacity has been reached.
A human rated vehicle would be much more expensive than one rated for cargo. And there are not many use cases for the vehicle other than rescue missions to the two space stations.
I was proposing a drone-style delivery, of a small repair kit, for the damaged window on the Chinese spacecraft that is currently docked at their Tiangong space station.
Their astronauts don't need rescue. Nor a human delivery driver to chat with.
If a "10kg to (& from?) LEO for $250,000 flat rate" OrbEx service existed, 99% of the initial use cases would be launching cubesats. After a while, some LEO satellites might be designed to use it for additional reaction mass and other stuff. Space stations could use it for time-sensitive scientific supplies and zero-g manufacturing specimens, and an occasional priority repair part.
I don't think the repair could be done. It's not about plugging a hole in space. It's about surviving reentry. They can't guarantee the integrity of the glass. Anyway to your point they could stock the kits in space on regular supply missions, which again diminishes the utility of express delivery.
reply