We - western governments - should certainly have handled it better. Particularly given the advance warning we had watching the situation escalate in China. Instead governments didn't want the comparatively small economic hit of quarantining new entrants to keep the country CV19-free. They gambled on this thing fading out before it hit Europe, as we saw with SARS and MERS. Of course this time it was different. It swept into Europe and we had the much larger economic hit of months of lockdown, coupled with - more importantly - thousands of avoidable deaths. Also a lot of the planning was based around a flu-like pandemic. CV19 as a novel virus was obviously a different category, as with no pre-existing immunity there was nothing to stop it sweeping rapidly through the populace. A reason for the failure of planning is likely the ludicrous short-termism that is endemic in modern politics. If it's not a problem right now, it can 'safely' be kicked down the road for the next administration to sort out.

Agree on the pandemics of debt, globalisation and banking though.


I'm a big fan of fusion, and hopefully we will get there eventually, although the joke is famously that fusion is always 30 years away.
In the shorter term we may be more likely to see a switch to renewables as the production costs drop below that of fossil-fuel-based power.
Given the speed with which climate change is accelerating, we may not have sufficient time to wait for commercial fusion to resolve our problems. A 'green recovery' from the effects of CV19 is the obvious answer, which we've heard recommended a number of times. Unfortunately it seems - in the UK at least - the government will only pay lip-service to the idea.

I don't think this is quite correct. A classical bit can be 0 or 1, either/or. A qubit, because of quantum superposition, is in a sense partially both values, a probability smear across the two, until it is measured, when it resolves to a definite classical 0 or 1 outcome. In a system with multiple entangled qubits, the number of values covered increases 2^n. Two entangled qubits cover 2^2=4 possibilities, 00, 01, 10, 11. Three entangled qubits cover 2^3=8, 000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101, 110, 111. And so on. A QC will assess the probabilities associated with all possible classical values.

---
Edit:
It might also be worth mentioning the distinction between universal gate quantum computers, and quantum annealers. A universal, gate-based QC is what you would use to run Shor's algorithm to attack asymmetric cryptography. Quantum annealers on the other hand (such as D-Wave), would be used to solve optimisation problems (e.g., travelling salesman). If we hear a news report about a breakthrough QC that has x qubits, but it is an annealer, then it is not going to run Shor against bitcoin.

It depends. Voluntary can still be exploitative. An employer wants someone for a day's hard labour. He finds an illegal immigrant who is willing to do the work for a crust of bread. It's still a voluntary exchange, the employee has agreed to do the work for the stated reward. This is admittedly an extreme example to illustrate the point. But can we still say it's voluntary? The worker needs the job in order to survive. The employer knows this, and offers the minimum that he thinks the worker will accept.

I appreciate that there are honest employers who want to pay a fair wage, but equally there are exploitative employers. A minimum wage works to prevent exploitation. If a job needs doing, then I'm not sure we can say that the minimum wage will prevent the company from hiring someone, if there are executives on high salaries. I appreciate that for a small company with only a couple of employees, which is trying to expand, this may be different.

I think I might be diverting this from being an economic discussion to a moral discussion, so apologies for that.

I disagree with a lot of your arguments there, but I appreciate you taking the time to argue it point by point. Not everyone does that. I think our differing perspectives can perhaps be distilled to the quote below.

In a society where there is unemployment, there are more people than there are jobs. For simplicity and as it relates to the question of minimum wage, we are talking here about low-skilled low-pay jobs. This means that the bargaining power is entirely with the employers. Say there are a hundred people and one job. If there is a minimum wage, then the employer has to pay say $5 per hour to whoever gets the job. The person who gets the job is the one who is judged to be the best applicant. Whereas in the absence of a minimum wage, the employer gives the job to whoever is willing to work for the least pay. If a hundred people are applying for that $5 job, then the employer can drop the pay to say $3 and still get twenty applicants. Maybe someone will do it for $2. What is happening is that the employer is exploiting the fact that there are surplus workers, and instead of paying a fair or living wage, they are paying the minimum that someone will do it for.

I suppose in part this comes to the question of what is the ethical thing to do, and there is no absolute right or wrong here, merely differences in judgement about what level of inequality is justifiable or desirable. But the question of whether markets need governments to rein in their excesses was answered in 2008 - albeit with the bailout money going to, in my opinion, the wrong people.

Bitcoin is not a safe-haven asset. No-one ever said it was. It certainly has the potential to be a safe-haven, but that's not the same thing at all.
Bitcoin at the moment is a highly speculative asset, and so at the first sign of global financial instability, it is natural that people take their money out of these speculative assets, which leads to dramatically increased sell pressure, which leads to the sudden price drop that you referenced.
The price drop is of little relevance as it was certainly to be expected and is a response to an external event. However the speed with which Bitcoin recovered much of the lost price is a welcome sign and suggests that fundamental confidence in Bitcoin remains strong. 


Exactly.

I think that your original post is excellent, in particular the summary above. It is absolutely the case that the system is set up to benefit the already-rich. It's the old 'privatisation of profit and socialisation of risk' situation that was thrown into such stark focus in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis.

I agree wholeheartedly with this, too. I suppose I am coming at it from the perspective of inequality within societies rather than between societies.

I do however disagree with this. It is important to question everything, even a book as data-driven as this one, but 'Buyer beware' is a little harsh. Piketty's most notable recommendation - whether workable or not - is for a global progressive taxation on wealth. I'm not convinced that this recommendation is aligned with the interests of the elites. But I will leave it there as I don't want to derail what is an excellent discussion around your original post.

Yes. Disparity in inherited wealth (and in passive income derived from inherited wealth) is a bigger driver of inequality than is disparity in earned income.

I would argue that if you have no minimum wage, then in a system that has unemployment, this will allow employers to drive wages down. An employer in general has zero interest in the standard of living of his employees, rather they just want to get a job done for the lowest cost possible. This is why illegal immigrants are paid below the minimum wage - because there is no barrier to prevent employers from doing so. So long as there is unemployment, the power is with the employers. The converse is only true in specific circumstances such as working-age population depletion after a war.
Secondly, if a minimum wage is in place, then for a company to reduce wage costs they will have to look at reducing the wages of those higher up the chain, which helps to reduce inequality. I don't think they would achieve this by reducing headcount of the lowest paid employees, as in most (all?) industries these are the indispensable people who are actually doing the job, rather than those managing them and working at a level of abstraction.
Thirdly, from the perspective of the wider economy it is healthier to employee 100 people at $10k per annum than it is to employ 1 person at $1m per annum - because rich people tend to hoard their wealth, whereas poor people spend it and keep it circulating.

... as for the overall question of Marxism, I think it will lose relevance. A key premise is that the proletariat have a huge bargaining chip in that the employers need their labour. But in modern society we are seeing huge and ever-increasing automation, and it is likely that the 'working class' will soon become an anachronism. To bring cryptocurrencies into it, smart contract platforms such as Ethereum offer the possibility of automating whole swathes of white-collar professions (mortgage broker being an oft-cited example). I believe that as this continues we will see more of a clamour for the introduction of a UBI.

I would think there is no link between the K West stuff and crypto price.
Don't think he's serious about running anyway, looks more like publicity-seeking.

I am still predicting Joe Exotic as his running mate.

No. An unrestrained market leads to exploitation, through monopolies, cartels etc. The effect is to constrain freedom by restricting choice. In a capitalist democracy (which is an oxymoron, but never mind), a good government should act as a brake on the excesses of the markets, and work to strike a balance between market behaviour and the wealth, wellbeing and opportunities of the populace.

New Zealand is often cited as a good location for waiting out the apocalypse. The fact that it is (or was) Covid-19-free probably gives it added cachet.

One problem however might be that come the end of the world, the country might rapidly fill up with billionaires such as Peter Thiel. This is a couple of years old, but you may find it an interesting read:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/feb/15/why-silicon-valley-billionaires-are-prepping-for-the-apocalypse-in-new-zealand

I don't know. Most (all?) economies have been struggling and the last few months have not generally been a great time to get new projects off the ground. Whilst I do think that crypto prices will increase, I think this will be due to rising confidence in bitcoin as the endless money-printing highlights some of the deficiencies of fiat.

Everyone anticipated that halving would be beneficial for the bitcoin price. Also, everyone knew that halving was happening, and when it was happening.
These two facts combined means that halving was already priced in well in advance of when it actually occurred.

Yes, we have seen bitcoin and alts all hit hard due to the initial economic shock of Covid-19... but this doesn't change the fact that halving was already priced in. We may see prices increases as economies come out of lockdown - but any increase in bitcoin price will be because of this, rather than halving.

Additionally, it might be worth considering the distinction between wealth and income.


He has since clarified some of the discussion around this point, particularly to emphasise that whilst r>g is not in itself a problem, there is nevertheless a positive correlation between the extent of the r>g gap and the extent of inequalities within a society. An excessive rate of return on capital works to increase any inequalities that may arise as a result of 'shocks' within the system.

A tax on wealth rather than income may be an answer.

There wasn't a pump.
Bitcoin is still seen as a highly speculative asset. Alts, more so. This meant that when the pandemic hit, people started to move their money to safer places. This caused crypto to be hit hard. However the crypto markets did then show some good resilience by bouncing back quite quickly. The pump is just that - partial recovery from a steep drop. Prices are still slightly below where they were when CV19 hit.

Agreed, let's leave it there or we will just continue forever. We each have a different understanding of what wave-particle duality means.

Here's some evidence of wave-particle duality:


https://www.labbulletin.com/articles/20130513_4

Thanks for that.

I do wade in on a lot of different subject areas on this forum, largely to broaden my understanding. But on quantum physics I will stand my ground. I am not an expert on quantum computing, as I've said before. This is because my expertise is on the quantum side, rather than the computing side. I'm not just some idiot spouting buzzwords. Perhaps assume a degree of competence, unless you can invalidate it.

---

(edited to remove some bragging and aggressive posturing)

It has, actually. It's weird how in the many CV19 threads I seem to find myself on the same side of the argument as you, and arguing many of the same points from the same perspective. But whenever we come to a quantum computing thread, we can't agree at all.

You are thinking of an electron as being best described at all times as a particle, when that's not the case. The Schrödinger wave equation is the best description of what an electron is in a quantum sense. Have a look at wave-particle duality, and in particular the double-slit experiment.
The thing with quantum mechanics is that we know that the wave function is a great representation of what is happening on a quantum level. And we know that measuring the system always gives a definite value. That's not the same as saying that the 'definite' value always exists in a quantum sense, but is just hidden from us. There is some nuance here. The question of what the underlying reality is that the quantum mechanical description represents is somewhat contentious, which is what I was alluding to when I mentioned the Copenhagen interpretation.
The problem is that our human brains have evolved to cope with human problems, spotting predators and identifying food and manipulating tools, all in the everyday macroscopic environment. When we try to explain what the maths of QM tells us, it is difficult to frame it in human terms. There are plenty of people who understand the maths, and understand that the wave function explains what actually exists better than does a simple particle explanation... but there is no-one alive who understands exactly what quantum mechanics means in terms of an absolute physical reality, it's just that the particle explanation is not, from that quantum perspective, either accurate or sufficient.

Quantum physics is all about probability density. An electron in a quantum system is not in a definite single position, or even in definite multiple positions, instead it is best defined as a smear of probabilities across a range of positions. This is absolutely fundamental to quantum mechanics. When we take a measurement, the electron resolves into a definite state. In terms of a single qubit, 0 or 1. It is the act of measurement that creates the certainty. Prior to measurement, it makes no sense to say the electron is at point A or point B, because prior to measurement the electron cannot really be considered as a point-like particle. Please read about the Measurement Problem. (Consider also Schrödinger's cat. It is the act of measurement that forms the interface between the quantum and the classical worlds. This leads onto the question of whether the wave function actually collapses, and whether the Copenhagen interpretation should be the standard - a more esoteric subject, for a different time.)

Yes. A number of electron shells are filled (with electrons). And then a single additional electron is added to a new shell. It is this single electron (its spin) that can be used as a qubit. There may be 4,12 or 24 electrons in closed shells, but there is always one additional electron in the outermost shell.


No, it isn't.

@franky1, I disagree profoundly with your assessment, and with who it is who is poking around in the realm of 'magic'

No, of course they're not.
The numbers 1, 5, 13, 25 come from the fact that we are talking about electron shells for a silicon quantum dot. We are always talking about a single valence electron, a single electron in the outermost shell, with the inner shells all filled, i.e. 0+1, 4+1, 12+1, 24+1. In each case, the spin of a full shell sums to zero. It is the single valence electron that is used, its spin property becoming the qubit that we measure. From the paper:



---
Edit:

This is not true. Wave-particle duality and the Uncertainty Principle are fundamental to quantum mechanics. Here's a probability-density plot of the electron in hydrogen:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics