sjrichmond.bsky.social
The lefty egalitarian type of Liberal that appears to be out of vogue!
206 posts
58 followers
80 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
How you move forward from that point is a much more complicated question but on the raw question of did these companies break IP law and steal intellectual property?
No. They did not do that.
That's where we start, not where things finish, but it is the starting point.
comment in response to
post
of processing and taking in information in this way were humans, to create and just do stuff in life information needs to be taken in, absorbed, understood, processed, etc.
That's the way the law currently is and that's why the law currently is that way.
I.e. it is not, as it stands, theft.
comment in response to
post
Fundamentally, IP law exists to get people more stuff they might want.
Obviously, AI, robots, whatever, is going to need to be able to see things and take in that information just like humans do now.
The reason it's not currently theft under IP law is because, especially when the only ones capable
comment in response to
post
Clegg is an objectively evil man & I wish he hadn't spoken about this because it makes this conversation even more difficult.
It's not IP theft.
I'm sorry, I appreciate there might be a desire to *change IP law to make it theft* but it isn't.
That's the starting point.
comment in response to
post
I am willing to acknowledge the caviat that you can argue that stagflation *is* a nation's government becoming insolvent and that's sort of true (ish) but I think hyperinflation would be a better fit for that.
Plus I don't think that happens in the China sell bonds scenario.
comment in response to
post
But, to me, it seems like that would result in higher interest rates to combat the price rises from the devaluation and that has very real macroeconomic effects, even possibly a recession, Americans would likely be poorer *but the US govt wouldn't become insolvent*.
comment in response to
post
precisely because that does do things like the currency devaluation and that does matter.
And I acknowledge that capital flight (even if it was for no reason at all, if there were no tariffs or anything else driving it, just random beliefs) then that could cause $ devaluation and that's bad.
comment in response to
post
I.e. if Biden never had people recognise he was getting older, had got a second term & then had literally identical policy to last time with the only difference being the Chinese sold all their US bonds then I'm not sure it would actually matter at all.
I think the tariff policy from Trump matters
comment in response to
post
stop the FED raising rates but then there's obviously inflation risks.)
So, yeah, I agree wholeheartedly with the US can't (or shouldn't) cut spending and it should tax the wealthy more. Entirely agree.
However, the OP was about the risk to the US from creditors selling their bonds which is meh.
comment in response to
post
I too think you should tax the wealthy more and, if anything, increase, not cut spending.
However, the reason isn't the debtor/creditor thing. There's zero risk to US fiscal policy from creditors selling bonds as such.
There is a risk of bad policy forcing the FED to raise rates. (You could, obvs,
comment in response to
post
Money supply/deposits are simply a function of central bank monetary policy, as per the infamous BoE note on the subject:
www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/...
So, by the same token, they can always afford to buy bonds priced in accordance with that monetary policy.
comment in response to
post
Banks create deposits ex-nilo and central banks create reserves ex-nilo so there's no constraint on buying bonds *that offer a higher return than expected future rates*
The BoE walks through deposit creation and money supply here:
www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/...
comment in response to
post
Right, that's the part people get wrong.
The change in exchange rate can change predictions of future interest rates but if that remains stable then any demand lost from overseas can, instantaneously, be replaced domestically. The banking system can, always afford to buy bonds that are "cheap"
comment in response to
post
I do acknowledge the point that there could be a revaluing of the dollar, and that could raise inflation, and that could mean expected future rates are higher.
comment in response to
post
The US actually has several banks. So there is always domestic liquidity to purchase the bonds.
So the only reason interest rates actually rise is if the prediction is that the FED will raise and hold short term rates higher in the future.
The foreign ownership is not the relevant factor.
comment in response to
post
Nothing.
It's entirely unimportant whether the rest of us buy us govt debt or not, it makes no difference to your finances.
What does make a difference is if you strangle your own economy. That actually will affect your fiscal position.
comment in response to
post
You have failed the test of the riddles, you will now be eaten by the monster. Please keep your arms and legs inside the monster at all times while being eaten. Thank you for choosing cat riddles passageways.
comment in response to
post
Then answer its riddles three. 🤷
comment in response to
post
Also considered-
- Briochetube (too sweet, but also very French so arguably appropriate, but it didn't feel right)
- Sourdoughtube (too English this time, also a little too middle-class cooking show in a cottage)
Ciabattatube is, I have decided, correct.
comment in response to
post
Ciabattatube is a revelation
comment in response to
post
The framing of "government or not government" for politics has always been a useless way to look at the world.
Regulation, markets, spending, taxes, they're all just tools in a toolkit.
What matters is what you're building with the tools! Not which tool you're using to do it.
comment in response to
post
I'd be somewhat more willing to go along with enforcement of a no headphones policy if the fine was, say, £10 not £1000.
comment in response to
post
Give me the @claudia-sahm.bsky.social rule or give me death.
(Although idk what the view is on how the rule interacts with a recession that's caused by tariff policy? Feels like that may take time to feed through and show up Sahm rule wise?)
comment in response to
post
This feels like it's gonna be an upcoming @legaleagle.tv episode.
Surely this is already well in law suit against Musk territory.
comment in response to
post
If this was part of our contribution to that kind of alliance? Then I'd quite happily get on board with nationalisation or subsidies (subsidies + restrictions on ownership being an equally reasonable possible route in my view).
comment in response to
post
then I can see it. Big alliance area, NATO (or NATO - US) whatever, I get it. But every UK sized country *NEEDS* to make it's own steel? Are we sure? Idk. That seems a stretch too far for me.
I'd be much more comfortable if this was part of, say, working with the Scandi+ Baltic + Poland + Ukraine.
comment in response to
post
Well, you had a good run. 13 hours is more than most people could hope for from a semiconductor startup.
comment in response to
post
I think there's legitimate policy discussion about whether they should be voting or non-voting shares & whether it makes it too tempting for govts to be making investments that are actually just a drag on society *but* if a govt has decided to give a subsidy? Yes, we should get a stake in return!