The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Depressions: Can we learn from past [chat]?
ronya
Arrrrrf.the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
Arrrrrf.the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
Hence the problems presented by periods of depression may be grouped as follows:
First, removal of extra economic injuries to the economic mechanism: Mostly impossible on political grounds.
Second, relief: Not only imperative on moral and social grounds, but also an important means to keep up the current of economic life and to steady demand, although no cure for fundamental cases.
Third, remedies: The chief difficulty of which lies in the fact that depressions are not simply evils, which we might attempt to suppress, but--perhaps undesirable--forms of something which has to be done, namely, adjustment to previous economic change.
Most of what would be effective in remedying a depression would be equally effective in preventing this adjustment. This is especially true of inflation, which would, if pushed far enough, undoubtedly turn depression in to the sham prosperity so familiar from European postwar experience, but which, if it be carried to that point, would, in the end, lead to a collapse worse than the one it was called in to remedy.
Fourth, reforms of institutions intended to remedy the situation but suggested by the moral and economic evils of both booms and depressions: The crucial point of these reforms lies in the coincidence of a political atmosphere exceptionally favorable, and an economic situation exceptionally unfavorable to their success. No doubt they will always be carried amidst enthusiastic clapping of hands. But they will also be stigmatized in the future by their tendency to prevent or retard recovery. This should not blind to us to any merits they may have, but it is a plain and undeniable fact...
The readiest attitude to take is to blame individuals, a blame which is undoubtedly only too justified in some cases. Just as it was, at some times and with some nations, a habit to clamor for the heads of unsuccessful generals, so there was always, and is today, a disposition to punish both culprits and scapegoats in business. English opinion, after the ignominious breakdown of the speculative craze known to history as the South Sea Bubble (1720) seems to have been to the effect that the most desirable measure to take was the hanging of some people...
Joseph Alois Schumpeter, making a subtle error in 1934 ("Depressions: Can we learn from past experience?").
ronya on
+1
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
i retract my false [chat]
Past. Present.
It's all a loop.
I want to sleep all day and look and write dumb rules for my rpg.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
Be more 'murican, and less... Quebecistan. :bzz:
wait
like there is nobody in the hotel at all?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4IOAl6nZp3kN1JLZ1BiSnYxY1E/view
Has a pretty good breakdown on the Tiger II and how terrible it was.
@kintdan,
The Sherman picked up a number of nicknames for it catching fire. But a huge factor in that is how common the tank was. There were some issues with the lower ammo storage having the potential to catch fire but that's corrected later in the war. There were a couple of statistical analysis of various tanks and the Sherman is on par the T-34 and other tanks in terms of catastrophic failures. Those are failures that end with the tank unusable rather then mobility failures or equipment based failures.
A lot of the Sherman's bad rap comes from a couple of sources. A big one is a memoir from a guy named Cooper. It suffers from a combination of being written 40 years after, the writer wanting to make himself look important, and writing about stuff he heard second hand. The other factor in it getting a bad rap is that you often see Mil-history nerds sperging about statistics. And one of them being the Sherman's gun being unable to penetrate the armor of the Tiger II. The link I posted above addresses it but basically it turns out the Tiger II armor was very thick but was made of shitty steel, using inferior techniques. If it had been made by the Brits, the Russians, or the Americans it would have been the God tank people on the internet say it is. But it wasn't. Tiger IIs that entered combat died. Often.
I had wednesday off, tho.
I didn't want to work yesterday either.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
late this month yeah there is a date with zero occupancy, that'll change but still never seen that before.
is the paper you linked referring to the original Tiger or the Tiger II?
I looked through it and it seems to refer to the Tiger, since there is a line such as "Its obsolete design had no heirs; even the Tiger II was a Tiger tank in name only, more closely resembling the Panther." in the concluding paragraph
i could just be ignorant of naming differences though
Sorry, that one is the Tiger. This is the Tiger II.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4IOAl6nZp3kdXpDLUxsQXlMd2M/view
Hello!
Sounds like there's a day at work that you get to be naked.
i'm a marder
The single worst part so far is "False God"
???
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
A bunch of the default subreddits went dark cause of internal issues but the number one subreddit for posting noodz is still going strong.
~two swords~ tho
Went dark? What? Like there are subreddits that no longer work? But not all? What?
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
Which game?
What is Swordmaster?
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
correct some moderators closed their subreddits
Whoa. Because of staff changes? So they threw hissy fits?
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
A popular Reddit employee was fired and these subreddit mods have rendered their domains private in protest.
but i'll probably try vagabond and dark templar at some point
Dungeon Fighter Online