Monopoly Money Theory

Or, as proponents like to call it, “Modern Monetary Theory”.

Basically, this is how Occasional-Cortex expects to fund her Green Raw Deal, spending trillions of nonexistent dollars. Since proponents are usually pretty vague in their descriptions, it comes across as Zimbabwe-style hyperinflationary to sane people. But that link above finally explains why it isn’t.

Rather, it is essentially a description of how a modern credit economy actually works – how money is created and destroyed, by governments and by banks, and how financial markets function. Nor is MMT new: it is based on the work of John Maynard Keynes, whose A Treatise on Money pointed out back in 1930 that “modern States” have functioned this way for thousands of years.

From this description, certain straightforward facts flow. Governments create money by spending and extinguish it via taxation. It follows, therefore, that a large country, borrowing in its own currency, cannot be forced into default. That is why the US is not Greece, and cannot become Venezuela or Zimbabwe.

It is not hyperinflationary because the government will simply “destroy” the would-be excess money supply through taxation. Allow me to explain, through a simplified example, how that works.

1. The Fed cranks the printing presses all the way up to Ludicrous Speed.

2. The government then pays Contractor X to build “infrastructure;” say, a solar power farm.

3. Contractor X uses that money to buy materials and pay workers to build the boondoggle.

4. Government then “recovers” all that money by taxing it away from the contractor and workers, and “destroys” it. (Note that this cleverly ignores the fact that a very large chunk of that money actually left the country, beyond the government’s tax&destroy reach, going to purchase PVC panels from China, since the US only has a small part of the manufacturing capacity. Even if they also do a print&pay scheme to build PVC factories here, the money still leaves because we still have to buy the raw materials from elsewhere since the greenweenies decided we don’t need rare earth mining anymore.)

5. Contractor and workers then scratch their heads and wonder why they just did all that work for free: retroactively unpaid labor and materials.

Slavery and Theft, v2.0.

But at least it isn’t hyperinflationary, eh?

You now understand why @AOC et al are puzzled when we ask where the money is going to come from to fund their GRD, free healthcare for all, free college, and ponies. It comes from slavery and theft.

I’m hoping this is satire

But it reads like the idiot is serious.

We Need Gun Control at Every Level
The vast majority of Americans do not need a firearm, and yet they own them anyway, and continue to use them to kill. This is an epidemic that stems from a single source—the enormous, poorly regulated market for arms, propped up by an obscenely rich political lobby holding half of America’s electoral politics hostage.

1. “The vast majority of Americans […] continue to use them to kill.”

As I write, the US population is 328,889,018. A majority of that would be 164,444,510. If they were all using guns to kill, then we would have had millions of firearms deaths. Wrong. We would have noticed.

2. “the enormous, poorly regulated market for arms”

You need a federal license to manufacture firearms for sale. You are subject to inspection. Laws require you to maintain permanent records every firearm you make. Every firearm is required to be marked very specifically, right down to the depth of the lettering. You have to ship your product to another federally licensed seller, who s aslo subject to inspection and reams of paperwork requirements. That seller can only sell firearms to people who in turn get federal permission to buy a gun. All these manufacturers and sellers are subject to the same product liability and negligence penalties as any other industry. Not merely civil penalties, but criminal. The is a federal agency just for regulating firearms (and alcohol, tobacco, and eplosives) unlike the CPSC which oversees nearly every other product. So the industry is rather heavily regulated, dipstick.

3. “obscenely rich political lobby holding half of America’s electoral politics hostage”

Crosby appears to be talking about the Vichy NRA. Id he’d really been paying attention, he’d realize that the VNRA is pretty small potatoes compared to other lobbies. He might also notice that it’s only set up to enrich itself at members’ expense, and actually promotes gun control.

If it’s satire, it’s isn’t that well done. If it’s serious, then @jscros is just as ignorant of real facts (or lying) as every other victim disarmer.

SpinLaunch: What the heck are they up to?

I’d heard of SpinLaunch before, and wondered what sort of launch system they were planning. Details were sparse, and they still are.

Secretive Startup SpinLaunch Breaks Ground on Satellite-Flinging Test Flight Facility
SpinLaunch has begun building the facility where it will test out its radical new satellite-lofting strategy.

What is that strategy? Checking their 2018 press release:

“…SpinLaunch’s innovative use of rotational kinetic energy to revolutionize the smallsat market.”

OK, spin and rotational. They’ll spin the sat around in a circle, getting it up the speed, and let it fly off at a tangent. The concept goes back as far as David taking out Goliath with his sling. What kind of sling is the interesting part. They aren’t saying, and I think they need to.

Offhand, I’d break it down to two possibilities.

1. Mechanical: an actual sling, an electrically-driven centrifuge scaled up for satellites.

2. An electrically-powered mass driver (think the space catapult from Heinlein’s classic The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress). But arranged in a circle, instead of linearly.

There is a third theoretical possibility I’ll touch on later.

Trying to guess at performance parameters can give us clues as to what they’re going to do. From the article above, we know they have ten acres of land. From this article and this one, we know SpinLaunch is claiming an ejection velocity of 5,000 MPH.

First, let’s pretend the facility being built now is going to achieve that 5,000 MPH target, just for giggles.

Ten acres gives a maximum 660 foot diameter circle; 330 foot radius. Just for the thought experiment, an object whipped around a radius=330′ circle to 5,000 MPH would experience over 5,000 g in centrifugal forces. (I’m not even going to try to guesstimate direct 0-5000 acceleration, since it depends on how fast they spin up.)

That’s gonna be hard on the spacecraft and payload, but it’s also going to be hard on a mechanical centrifuge arm which is also experiencing that force. The arm will have to be pretty strong just to keep itself together, much less accelerate the craft. I think we can rule out mechanical.

The problem is, a circular mass driver/accelerator is going to impart that same centrifugal force. As you whip the package through those solenoid drive coils, the force is going to try to push the package out the side of the coils’ path. 5,000+ g is a lot, and the coils will have to be strong just to keep the package confined. Every bit of energy going into confinement isn’t going into acceleration.

But the current build is presumably a scaled down tech demonstrator. Let’s say its target ejection velocity is only 500 MPH. Now we get centrifugal force down to 50 g. That’s a little more reasonable, and survivable for the payload.

But if you scale up the launcher to get 5,000 MPH ejection, while holding centrifugal force to that same 50 g, you need a circle more than twelve and a half miles in diameter, with centrifuge arms over 6 miles long.

Mechanical is right out.

Now look at the spacecraft being launched. You’re going to put your little rocket in a circular mass driver and subject it to 50 g in centrifugal force.

Conventional vertical launch rockets are designed to launch at around 3 to 15 g (lower for crewed missions, higher for tough, inanimate cargo), but the loading is essentially on the vertical axis of the craft. A rocket launched by the SpinLauncher is going to need a little redesign. No. A lot of redesign.

The rocket will have to be shooting through the driver coils nose first, so that when it finally exits on the correct tangent it will be cutting through air nose first. Otherwise — hitting the air at hypersonic speed — it will be destroyed.

But that means the rocket will be experiencing high g loading from centrifugal force laterally. And it still needs the vertical strength for the conventional rocket-propelled part of its journey to space. The structure will have to be beefed up massively, and that will come at the expense of payload.

So why the hell the focus on rotational kinetic energy? Why a freaking circle?

Why not take that mass driver, and stretch it out in a straight line like everyone else (except for particle physics researchers working with the mass of individual atoms)? The only acceleration forces would be on the axis of the craft (OK, Earth’s gravity, too, but that’s minor compared to the launch). We design for that all the time: aircraft.

And without the centrifugal force, the mass driver doesn’t need to waste energy compensating for that — at the expense of velocity — holding the rocket in coil path.

And hold it in that path you must. If a rotational system loses its grip on the package, it’s going to fly off at some random tangent. Hitting a house a couple of counties away at 5,000 MPH isn’t going to endear you to neighbors or your insurance company. A linear launcher would only put folks downrange at risk. There’s a reason the ground-based launcher in my novel Net Assets was linear.

A rotational launch system seems to make no sense. At least at this scale: there’s always the skyhook concept, but that requires tech I don’t think we have yet, and it precludes the use (absent beamed energy) of the ground-based power generation SpinLaunch touts. Nor am I sure how the FAA, ICAO, and every military in the world would react to that cable whipping through their skies.

So, SpinLaunch; what are you doing? Please share some information to show this is more than vaporware meant to suck money out of gullible investors.

I’ll just drop this here for future reference

I suspect the financial investigation of the VNRA by New York state Attorney General Letitia James will stop short of any finding that would dismantle the organization, or even seriously impede it in the long term. Fines, perhaps.

James will declare victory, and become less prominent on the national scene.

The VNRA will continue with business as usual, and declare victory but beg for more donations to cover the legal expenses and fines.

Burris Falls On His Blade

The Toledo Blade has been virulently anti-rights for decades. But this editorial…

To conquer gun violence, we all have a duty
Another shooting at another place of worship. A woman dead. A 19-year old boy the shooter, armed with an assault weapon. The only reason more people did not die is that his gun jammed.

1. A nineteen year-old is an adult, not a boy.

2. Authorities say he lawfully purchased the firearm, which means it wasn’t an “assault weapon” even under California’s hyper-extreme laws.

3. He reportedly fired 10 shots, which is all a lawful California-compliant POS can hold. It didn’t jam; he ran out of ammo and needed to reload.

4. The reason more people didn’t die is because Oscar Stewart and Jonathan Morales ran the coward off at defensive gunpoint.

Four sentences. Four “facts” wrong. That may be a record even for the Toledo Blade.

Not even going to read more. If Burris has to lead with lies to support his opinion, his opinion isn’t worth my time. Or yours.

[UPDATE; more inconsistencies] Good thing for Guyger I won’t be on her jury

A TV station got hold of the audio of killer Amber Guyger’s 911 call, which she placed after shooting Botham Jean in his own apartment.

Steady your nerves and listen to it.

Note that her first concern was to repeatedly set up her alibi that “I thought it was my apartment.”

Her second concern was being fired.

Please note that she appears to be talking to her victim, telling him, “I didn’t mean to,” and “Stay with me, bud.” Seemingly Jean was still alive at that point, bleeding out, else why would she be telling him to hang in there?

The problem with Guyger “reassuring” Jean is that… She wasn’t in the apartment, as she told 911.

You may recall that a witness recorded Guyger that night.

The video showed the uniformed, off-duty officer as she frantically paced the hallway outside Jean’s apartment while talking on the phone, The Dallas Morning News reported.

The hallway. Not inside the apartment as she told 911.

The hallway. Where she couldn’t possibly be talking to her victim inside the apartment.

She set up a semi-believable scenario in the 911 call which make it all look like a horrible misunderstanding. But she was unaware that a witness was recording actions inconsistent with what she was saying on the phone.

According to the video, she wasn’t in the apartment reassuring her victim. She wasn’t in the apartment putting pressure on the wounds she inflicted.

According to the video, she was out in the hallway, seemingly feeding 911 pure BS.

Added: I had to go look this up to be sure I recalled it correctly. According to the arrest warrant for Guyger:

Guyger then entered the apartment, immediately called 911, requesting Police and EMS, and provided first aid to Complainant. Due to the interior darkness of the apartment, Guyger turned on the lights while on the phone with 911. Upon being asked where she was located by emergenct dispatchers, Guyger returned to the front door to observe the address and discovered she was at the wrong apartment (#1478).

But the 911 audio shows she already knew the actual address without pause. 18 seconds into the call, as soon as asked the address, she begins, “I’m in number…” and is interrupted by the dispatcher. Guyger then states, “I;m at apartment number 1478. I’m in 1478”

No pause. No confusion. No, “Hey, this isn’t my apartment. What is the number?” None of that. Yet the warrant, supposedly based on her questioning by law enforcement claims she didn’t know where she was until asked. The call shows she already knew.