The trouble is the US never paid down the debt for those years, they just rolled it over and incurred new debt. If foreign holdings decrease further, it doesn't matter if it is simply for cash management reasons -- the US will be rolling over historic debt at historic interest rates.
By paying down the debt, you mean issuing less debt over time? The US government is not an uncle that pays off his debt so he can retire and move to Florida. An individual does that, but the household sector as a whole does not pay down debt, because for every uncle moving to Florida, there is an Aunt borrowing for a new house. So instead, we talk about things like sectoral debt ratios and do not use language like "when will people in Maine finally pay down debt, I'm sick of seeing people in Maine owing debt".
The government is a sector of the economy. You can argue that we are borrowing too much, and I would agree, but you are not gonna fix that until you address the foreign capital inflows. That means rolling back the investor rights agreements. As long as foreign nations can print money and use it to buy dollars in order to stimulate their exports, the US is going to have a problem with excessive debt loads. The flipside of that is that the US will not have a problem of foreign investors decreasing their holdings. It will increase every single year, in line with foreign export demands. If anyone tells you the opposite, just look for the error or the lie, because I guarantee you there is one. This article has both.
But really helping consumers is one of the biggest goals here.
In fact, our existing ruling on monopoly law actually agree with me on this, in that prices being "too low" is almost never a problem, unless there is very strong reason to believe that its a short term low that will lead to long term high prices .
But other than that, lower prices is almost definitionally good in our existing monopoly law interpretations.
Ok thats fine. But the point stands that in many moral frameworks prioritizing consumers is a perfectly good goal and thats why laws were made as such.
Which moral frameworks? Almost universally the point of economics and governance is to produce value for all people, not just those participating in a particular transaction or set of transactions.
Well probably the moral framework that lead to courts prioritizing consumers in the first place, and for society to support that. So a pretty common moral framework that literally got baked into the law.
> Almost universally the point of economics and governance is to produce value for all people
No actually, distribution of that value is a large part of governance, and society takes action to redistribute that value all the time even at the cost of value somewhere else. And large parts of society are happy with that goal.
Such as, for example, redistributing that value to consumers that is baked into our legal systems interpretation of these laws.
In welfare economics, a Pareto improvement formalizes the idea of an outcome being "better in every possible way". A change is called a Pareto improvement if it leaves at least one person in society better off without leaving anyone else worse off than they were before. A situation is called Pareto efficient or Pareto optimal if all possible Pareto improvements have already been made; in other words, there are no longer any ways left to make one person better off without making some other person worse off.
Ok, the point stands that our legal system and morals that underpin it have found very good reasons to prioritize consumers for distribution reasons. Thats why the courts value this. This is completely uncontroversial that courts prioritize consumers in monopoly/market power cases.
This happens in all parts of our economy as well, where the government subsidizes or taxes certain things, which technically has "deadweight loss" in the strictest, most basic and reductive econ 101 manner, and yet society has good reasons to do those things anyway as well as prioritizing consumers.
> Why does society have good reasons to subsidize this case?
You are asking why courts and society would priority large swaths of regular consumers over that of a few companies in an oligopoly?
Well I guess the reason is because the courts and society cares more about large swaths of regular consumers than they do about a few companies in oligopolies. Thats just definitionally the reason.
> what is the externality
There is no externality. The courts just care more about this group than the other group, and society is fine with that as well.
> Usually there should be.
No, there doesn't have you be. You can instead just care more about 1 group than another. Thats perfectly normal. And a thing many people society do.
I know the basic econ 101 arguments. Here is a pro-tip though. Economics isn't a morality class. Its descriptive. It says nothing about values. One's value system can simply be to care more about 1 thing than another.
It is not weird at all to say that many people care more about large swaths of regular people than a few massively valuable companies, as is the case in basically all market power court cases.
But why should this one, small group of consumers be subsidized? You haven't answered that. Meanwhile capital is getting sucked up for unproductive uses, putting our entire economic system at risk and driving up costs for other products.
Because people value and care about consumers and regular people over that of large trillion dollar companies. Probably because the trillion dollar companies have enough money and market power and few people are sympathetic to wealthy people losing a bit of money, so thats why.
This isn't a complicated argument here. It is literally baked into our court system to prioritize consumers over multi-trillion dollar companies. Those trillion dollar companies will be fine and people find its ok to help out the little guy over the trillion dollar companies.
When a good is overproduced, and that good has negative externalities (emissions, water pollution, et cetera), there are real people being harmed. It doesn't matter if the "trillion dollar corpo" (401k holding for most people) is taking a loss. We all take a loss. We are all losers, except for a small group of subsidized consumers. Consumers =/= regular folk, arbitrarily. Much of the LLM business is B2B, so the consumer might be billion dollar corpos themselves.
> When a good is overproduced there are real people being harmed.
Its more complicated then that, actually. If you go back to your basic economics 101 text book, a price being outside of the equilibrium price cause total "deadweight loss", but still produces real benefit for one of the parties.
> We are all losers, except for a small group of subsidized consumers.
Actually it would be the very tiny group of multi trillion dollar companies taking a loss, and their customers winning.
> so the consumer might be billion dollar corpos themselves.
I am sure there are some. But the wide swath of all of employees and customers at all those billion dollar companies put together make up a much larger amount of less powerful people then the couple thousand or so at a few oligopolistic labs.
This is why, once again, courts value consumers over trillion dollar companies, even when its comparing b2b market share (in which case, it is very very clear which side has more market power here, and which side represents a large number of "regular" people).
> We all take a loss.
Actually no. Go back to the econ 101. The couple duopolies lose, and their much larger amount of customers win. Go back to the courts again, which spell this all out very clearly and prefer consumers for a reason.
I have something like this in linux using a novation launchcontrol, it's quite straightforward using aseqdump, say I use the buttons to switch desktops, I have this launched as part of my session and always in background. While developing this I just printed $line to see what aseqdump sent to figure out the regexes
while IFS=' ' read -r line; do
if [[ "$line" == *"client"*"Launch Control"\* ]]; then
device=$(echo "$line" | cut -d' ' -f2)
fi
done < <(aconnect -i)
aseqdump -p ${device::-1} | while IFS=' ' read -r line; do
if [[ "$line" == *"Note on"* ]]; then
note=$(echo "$line" | grep -o "note [0-9]*" | cut -d' ' -f2)
if [ "$note" == "9" ]; then
wmctrl -s 8
fi
elif [[ "$line" == *"Control change"*"127" ]]; then
note=$(echo "$line" | grep -o "controller [0-9]*" | cut -d' ' -f2)
if [ "$note" == "114" ]; then
# some macro
fi
fi
done
Repo is 2,500loc, all-in, according to SCC. Should be really easy to point your favorite coding agent at the repo and have it one or two shot something similiar in the language of your choice.
I agree with some of your points, but wouldn't memory shortages actually work in OpenAI's favor? Part of the reason for the shortage is them prepurchasing hardware, so higher prices for memory and other chips would make self-hosting and competing inference providers less competitive.
Previous work had already shown that delivering an auditory stimulus at the peak of slow waves can deepen the waves.
“You can make more of these electrical slow waves through an auditory stimulus, if it comes at just the right time. Similar to a child on a swing, if you push them when they’re at the right moment in their movement, you can make that swing go farther,” Lewis says. “The challenge is: How do you find just the right time?”
The auditory stimulus used for this study is a 50-millisecond burst of pink noise. Similar to white noise, pink noise contains all sound frequencies audible to the human ear, but the lower pitch frequencies are louder and the higher pitch frequencies are softer. This creates a balanced, gentle sound similar to steady rain or a distant waterfall.
reply