> Because the GC is infectious. As soon as your dependency needs it (and IIRC even parts of the standard library did/do), it becomes painful if not impossible for you to avoid it.
Isn't this the same for Nim? The standard library doesn't provide pure functions for parsing strings, it provides functions which generate exceptions. Exceptions use the heap, it's hard to get programs to compile with the garbage collector turned off, so everyone just recommends using ARC.
Pacman works when updating all packages simultaneously. However when updating only a requested package it can break by failing to pull in other packages which need to be updated simultaneously. For instance, pacman can break pacman and sudo by updating OpenSSL to a newer version than the currently installed version of pacman and sudo expect.
Pacman will happily break pacman and sudo without warning if the user requests updating openssl without upgrading the entire system. When updating a package it does not pull in all of the other packages which will break if not updated simultaneously.
With economic rents the dilemma is not simply between doing stuff and having stuff. It's between having something which others can have as well (through reciprocal property rights) vs. claiming to own things which actually belongs to someone else (surplus labor resulting from enclosure of the commons) and then pledging what you don't own as collateral for loans.
The annoying part is that there are many changes which federal & state governments can make to the financial system to ensure wage growth better tracks inflation without sacrificing growth. Such as capping federally backed mortgages at 150% of the labor replacement cost of material fixtures whenever that's lower than the comparable sales price. Or replacing federal payroll and income taxes on earnings under $100,000 with a national excess property tax on property comparable sales values minus 50% of fixture labor replacement costs. Or provide local public banks which appraise excess property values separately from labor replacement costs and spending publicly collected interest payments back into circulation on public works.
If both the comparison function as well as the sort function which the comparison function is passed to are declared 'static inline' and available in a header, the compiler is smart enough to figure it out and inline the code, provided optimizations are turned on.
It's not necessary to use macros. Just make both the sort function which the comparison function is passed to, as well as the comparison function itself, both "static inline". The compiler is smart enough to figure it out.
> The problem isn't getting loans on one's crops. It's transferring the price risk to someone else. When a farmer plants, they want a guaranteed profit. Loans don't address that problem. Futures do. (It's why they were invented, in the 17th century, by the Dutch and Japanese.)
The problem is excess credit available to financial firms engaging in leveraged speculation and financial services investment, resulting in financial sector employment and compensation that is super-proportionate to any real savings generated for non-financial producers. This leverage is enhanced by the lack of free (zero-fee) public alternative for basic banking services. It is not necessary for public banks providing basic banking services to guarantee profits for farmers. Provide savings, transfers, and liquidity loans at present values at what an option to sell existing previously planted crops would be worth might be sufficient to reduce deposits held by banks engaging in leveraged speculation. Providing basic banking as a public utility is the middle way the parent commenter advocated because it does not require banning anything.
Material production still requires accounting, installation, transportation, delivery, disposition, optimization. Financial parasitism more clearly occurs when someone pledges something to lenders which they do not actually own. For example in the 19th century when JP Morgan lent to planters on security of chattel slaves, the planters pledged the bodies of other people as collateral. Arguably loans should only be issued on security of personal property which does not deny the personal property rights of others. This might exclude leveraged lending of money on security of money (arguably lending on security of state property) and excess real values due to land scarcity (arguably lending on security of common property).
> There is a middle ground between banning and a free for all.
Providing basic banking as a public utility so most deposits by individuals, local governments, and small businesses are not stored with investment banks engaged in speculation. Public banks can be limited to originating loans on 100% security of material personal property such as crops, livestock, cheese, gold, lumber, steel and prohibited from originating loans on security of state property such as money (which might be obtained via leveraged loan from another lender) or on security of common property such as excess real estate values attributable to land scarcity.
Those are all different things and different forms of borrowing though.
When someone borrows against cheese they are borrowing against existing personal property for which labor has already been supplied rather than borrowing against future earnings. The lender does not need to verify income and credit, just inspect the purity of the cheese. With a home loan, the owner is borrowing against the personal property in the building, as well as the common property in the land and the future earnings of other people such as their tenants.
Additionally in the case of a co-op, the interest charges the organization collects on the debt are usually reinvested locally for the benefit members.
No other species has the recorder of deeds \ title registrar \ court system to enforce claims over territory in absentia without the continual presence of the beneficiary. Even among humans most of Earth's territory is considered common property and not excludable or conveyable personal property when considering the ocean. Practically speaking something is only an asset in a financial context when ownership can be conveyed on paper and pledged as collateral for a loan.
Yes, the level-headed take is that an organization has not taken a "hard-left turn" unless they are calling for redistributing the land and cancelling the debt.
So it's amazing at miseducating and misinforming politicians in impoverished countries?
In industrial economies money is credit and countries issue their own money by setting up a banking system to lend it into existence on security of domestic tangible capital to promote wealth formation and create liquidity for domestic employers to make payroll. Since the early 1700s western governments have known how to create stable money from nothing without any gold, private banks, or external investors by lending it into existence through land loan office system.
It looks like El Salvador didn't create its own money before and was just using US Dollars sent back by emigrants though.
> It is not surprising that there are no historical documents outlining this, for it would likely pre-date even the written word by centuries or millennia.
Huh? During the 17th and 18th century European colonization of North America there was no existing standard of payment which all settlers had access to. Before the circulation of paper money by colonial assemblies, tax and wages for public servants shifted to tobacco due to the liquidity of the export market.
> There are many historical accounts of monies being displaced when new, superior forms of money enter into economies, which is an extension of Menger's thesis (Also known as Thiers' Law). If a society is using a form of money which for whatever reason becomes much less saleable, and a new commodity enters the market which is more saleable, the more saleable commodity will eventually displace the old money
In the American colonies, commodity money based on farm products was replaced by paper credit money loaned by governors on security of property. Gold and silver were skipped over as official forms of money because they were not in large supply, and because activists such as Benjamin Franklin argued that if people invested time in digging for Spanish gold and buried treasure they would be poorer than if they spent time plowing fields.
> for silver would remain the most saleable commodity for millennia until it would be later displaced by gold
What's important is not simply salability but liquidity. In industrial countries the value of credit money is secured by the value of the assets of borrowers, they have to collect money back in same unit of account after investing or spending it to avoid default and foreclosure. In America the colonies tobacco-money or farm-product money was displaced by paper money with no metallic backing. Metal-backed money was imposed by Great Britain.
In America during the late 1600s through early 1700s fiat currency was placed into circulation as the loan or mortgage held by the governor secured by the property of the borrower. There was no promise, advertisement, or intention to pay in metal. In a public land loan office system, the value of the currency is backed by the value of the property which the borrower does not wish to lose if they fail to collect back currency in the same unit of account after spending and investing to avoid default or foreclosure.
The promise which governors and colonial assemblies made to the borrowers was primarily that the government would continuously spend the revenues brought in by interest payments back into circulation on local infrastructure, and that new loans would be regularly issues at low interest rates of 3-4%, so that the money needed by borrowers to repay their debts was easy to come by, and that the debt would not be held or sold to private lenders engaged in usury.
So accepting the scheme was a good deal to borrowers, and provided immigrant farmers with cash & credit which would not otherwise be available to them without borrowing form European lenders at high rates. The government acted as a public bank and the money was a public utility.
> Historically, a number of cultures have attempted periods of paper currency, issued by the government and backed by nothing. Often it was the result of currency that was once backed (a gold standard or silver standard), but the government created too much of the paper due to war or other issues, and had to default on the metal backing by eliminating its ability to be converted back into the metal upon request.
In the late 1600s and early 1700s, the American colonial assemblies directly issued paper money to provide liquidity for farmers, so they did not have to barter with commodity crops such as tobacco. There was no prior government currency backed by gold, farmers paid tax in farm products.
> In that sense, currency devaluation becomes a form of tax and/or wealth confiscation. The public holds their savings in the paper currency, and then the rug is pulled out from under them.
There was no substantial devaluation or inflation of paper money in the colonies which emitted money using the public land-loan office system with no gold or commodity backing. In Pennsylvania the currency held most of its value for the 45 years the colony was permitted to issue it. It only declined 20% over its entire life time relative to the metal backed British Pound despite new currency continually being placed into circulation for immigrant farmers at low interest rates of 3-4%.
> Fiat currency is interesting, because unlike the history of commodity money, it’s a step down in terms of scarcity. Gold beat out all of the other commodity monies over centuries of globalization and technological development, and then gold itself was defeated by… pieces of paper?
In Poor Richard's Almanic, Benjamin Franklin explains the labor theory of value, and how if farmers spend their time digging holes to search for Spanish gold they will be poorer than if they had spent their time plowing their fields.
> Fiat money, if you like, is backed by men with guns.
When money is issued as credit, the value of the money is backed by the personal property and assets which the borrower stands to lose if they do not collect back money in the same unit of account after spending and investing it so that they can avoid a default or foreclosure.
> The answer is that it doesn’t have to, but it wants to. By issuing its own currency, it profits from seigniorage, which is the difference between the face value of the money and the cost to produce and distribute it.
In the land-loan office system, the government profits from interest. When it places new money in circulation by issuing credit to create liquidity it is acting as a public bank. The interest on loans which place new currency into circulation acted as a tax spent on infrastructure and public services, which was paid to the state rather than a private financial sector, which even Adam Smith admitted in the Wealth of Nations was sufficient to for most of the expenses of the state.
It's always surprising when American authors omit a discussion of American colonial money from a discussion of the history of money, given that American colonies were the first western governments to issue paper money and conduct extensive experiments on the subjects.
Isn't this the same for Nim? The standard library doesn't provide pure functions for parsing strings, it provides functions which generate exceptions. Exceptions use the heap, it's hard to get programs to compile with the garbage collector turned off, so everyone just recommends using ARC.