bang-bang control loop...

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 7:11:10 AM UTC+11, amdx wrote:

On 1/28/2022 2:28 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 6:21:56 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 9:58:41 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:28:57 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 5:55:40 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 5:51:49 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 08:24:03 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 26/01/22 01:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

<snip>

Anyone in the US who can\'t afford college and doesn\'t want to borrow the money can enlist in the military, get trained and earn the G.I. bill (college tuition).

If you are fit and healthy enough for the military to let you enlist. And the US has a wide range of educational institutions. John Larkin went to Tulane.

It seems are awfully jealous of John\'s accomplishments.

I certainly envy his business model. His accomplishments are less impressive.

> Why don\'t you quit trying to denigrate him and do something for yourself that you can be proud of.

Sloman A.W., Buggs P., Molloy J., and Stewart D. “A microcontroller-based driver to stabilise the temperature of an optical stage to 1mK in the range 4C to 38C, using a Peltier heat pump and a thermistor sensor” Measurement Science and Technology, 7 1653-64 (1996)

has been cited 25 times so far - twice by me (which doesn\'t count). I\'m fairly proud of that. There\'s other stuff that I\'m equally happy about, but doesn\'t lend itself to boasting

> Readers see your posts and it\'s always you trying to make yourself look better by climbing on someone else.

It\'s a false perception. John Larkin irritates me by posting a lot of nonsense about a lot of different subject. His ideas about economics are as silly as his ideas about climate change. How he could have got through any kind of tertiary education and remained as ignorant as he is is a mystery. He does admit to not paying attention to stuff that he couldn\'t see as potentially profitable, but Tulane should have tested that knowledge, and clearly didn\'t.

> Just stop.

Since that isn\'t what I\'m doing, this is a misdirected appeal. Being \"better\" than John Larkin isn\'t an attractive target - it would involve the avid pursuit of flattery and waspish snarking when I didn\'t get it, which doesn\'t strike me as being in the least attractive.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 13:09:55 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

The idea that banks lent to everyone with a pulse because they were
somehow afraid of \"civil rights prosecution\" seems pretty absurd.

They lent to everyone because they could bundle up bunches of bad
loans and resell the bundles at a profit. The feds encouraged that on
both ends.

First came the pressure from the Clinton administration, which is
mentioned at the end of the first NY Times article I cited. Bitrex
thinks it\'s absurd and it is, but they did it, and he voted for them.

Second came the banks complaining that the policy was going to kill
them, so they demanded the repeal of the regulation preventing them from
selling the debt. That regulation never existed in Europe, but the
crisis didn\'t start there because they weren\'t forced to make bad loans.

Third came the left claiming that the banks demanded the repeal of the
regulation out of greed. The alternative was to bail out the banks
instead of bailing out the investment houses.

Forth came conservative economists predicting the crises in many
articles they published between 1998 and 2005, many of which you can
still read online. Liberal economists and politicians contradicted them
all the while.

Fifth (after the crisis) came the liberal economists claiming that the
people who predicted the crisis don\'t understand what cause it, but
they, who never wrote an article predicting it, understand it
completely.


--
Defund the Thought Police

 

[bitrex]

On 1/29/2022 10:03 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 13:09:55 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

The idea that banks lent to everyone with a pulse because they were
somehow afraid of \"civil rights prosecution\" seems pretty absurd.

They lent to everyone because they could bundle up bunches of bad
loans and resell the bundles at a profit. The feds encouraged that on
both ends.

First came the pressure from the Clinton administration, which is
mentioned at the end of the first NY Times article I cited. Bitrex
thinks it\'s absurd and it is, but they did it, and he voted for them.

I wasn\'t old enough to vote in 1996..

Second came the banks complaining that the policy was going to kill
them, so they demanded the repeal of the regulation preventing them from
selling the debt. That regulation never existed in Europe, but the
crisis didn\'t start there because they weren\'t forced to make bad loans.

Third came the left claiming that the banks demanded the repeal of the
regulation out of greed. The alternative was to bail out the banks
instead of bailing out the investment houses.

Forth came conservative economists predicting the crises in many
articles they published between 1998 and 2005, many of which you can
still read online. Liberal economists and politicians contradicted them
all the while.

Fifth (after the crisis) came the liberal economists claiming that the
people who predicted the crisis don\'t understand what cause it, but
they, who never wrote an article predicting it, understand it
completely.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 2:03:35 PM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 13:09:55 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:

The idea that banks lent to everyone with a pulse because they were
somehow afraid of \"civil rights prosecution\" seems pretty absurd.

They lent to everyone because they could bundle up bunches of bad
loans and resell the bundles at a profit. The feds encouraged that on
both ends.

First came the pressure from the Clinton administration, which is
mentioned at the end of the first NY Times article I cited. Bitrex
thinks it\'s absurd and it is, but they did it, and he voted for them.

The banks applied pressure to the Clinton administration, rather than the other way around.
The banks wanted to be de-regulated, and they got their wish.

Second came the banks complaining that the policy was going to kill
them, so they demanded the repeal of the regulation preventing them from
selling the debt. That regulation never existed in Europe, but the
crisis didn\'t start there because they weren\'t forced to make bad loans.

US banks weren\'t \"forced to make bad loans\". The loans to people who in low-income neighbourhoods were carefully regulated to make sure that they wouldn\'t go bad, and they didn\'t, even after the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

> Third came the left claiming that the banks demanded the repeal of the regulation out of greed.

That was a large part of the banks\' motivation.

> The alternative was to bail out the banks instead of bailing out the investment houses.

What\'s that supposed to mean?

Fourth came conservative economists predicting the crises in many articles they published between 1998 and 2005, many of which you can
still read online.

Predict crises often enough, ,and you will be bound to be right some of the time.

> Liberal economists and politicians contradicted them all the while.

Correctly. Using bad theory to predict a crisis doesn\'t validate the theory when one of the many predicted crises finally happens.

Fifth (after the crisis) came the liberal economists claiming that the people who predicted the crisis don\'t understand what cause it, but
they, who never wrote an article predicting it, understand it completely.

They understood what to do about it, which is why the consequences of the global financial crisis were a lot less devastating than the consequences of the 1929 stock market crash.

> Defund the Thought Police

Can\'t see why Tom Del Rosso is so worried about the thought police. He doesn\'t think for himself at all. What he has posted is pretty much the same right wing nonsense that James Arthur was spouting directly after the sub-prime mortgage crisis hit.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney