• 5 Posts
  • 91 Comments
Joined 9 months ago
cake
Cake day: January 2nd, 2024

help-circle









  • I imagine there would be no contact with the engine wall, just a narrow gap with an active system to adjust the size of the gap, similar to some jet turbines. The video goes into it a little bit at this time:

    https://youtu.be/UPFFXBAe5mc?t=952

    And someone in the comments who has experience with building this kind of engine talks a little about how its difficult but not impossible to lubricate the seal with a higher viscosity fluid that will want to build up and prevent a vane from fully extending at high RPM. A different comment points out that piston rings experience similar problems with carbon and grit.





  • Delta_V@lemmy.worldtoTechnology@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    24 days ago

    The market didn’t need regulations to maintain its freeness back then because the vast majority of transactions were made with small businesses. The limited technological capabilities in transport and communication also decreased the need for government regulation by decreasing the ability of the largest concentrations of capital to succeed at implementing global anti-competitive strategies.

    To achieve the same degree of market freedom today, in the era of omni-national mega-corporations wielding monopoly influence, requires utilizing levers of power outside of the market those mega-corps dominate. The intervention of democratic governments to enforce anti-monopoly laws and prohibit other kinds of anti-competitive behavior is a necessary component of any plan to transform today’s marketplace into one that looks more similar to the market of Adam Smith’s day.


  • It is though - this is what capitalism invariably becomes. Musky Twitter is a symptom of late stage capitalism. This is why so many people say capitalism is bad and doesn’t work as advertised.

    The golden age of classical liberalism, when capitalism actually worked, the 1700-1800’s, more closely resembles what we would today call market socialism.

    Once the agglomerations of capital became large enough to impose irresistible anti-competitive force, the days of capitalism’s beneficial functionality ended. They say “the freer the market the freer the people”, but an unregulated market isn’t free - it invariably trends toward monopoly and irrationally assigned concentrations of wealth and power, eg Musk, Bezos, DuPont, Sackler, etc…

    Capitalism supports, rather than resists, the anti-competitive influence of capital. A truly free market requires the intervention of powers other than capital - eg, democratic governance imposing something akin to Market Socialism against the wishes of those anti-competitive agglomerations of capital.





  • Its framed as being done to “strengthen their financial resilience”, but I suspect the motive is to slow down the rate at which banks are creating new money, driving up inflation. If these bank regulations pass, we can lower taxes without blowing up the inflation rate. Or, the Federal Government can spend more without increasing taxes, keeping the inflation rate the same.

    The banks hate it because they would issue fewer loans, and therefore make less money. Its takes money out of the pockets of bankers and puts it into the hands of the Federal Government.

    I’m generally in favor of markets deciding what gets produced, i.e. letting the banks judge which businesses asking for loans have the best chance of paying them back. However, the market has some blind spots where we’re all better off if the government steps in - for example, defense spending, infrastructure, and R&D (investing in NASA has historically provided incredible RoI).

    That the Fed is even considering this new approach suggests to me that there is a perceived need for a rush of government spending in the near future, and the current geopolitical landscape suggests it will be spent on weapons.