Can somebody explain the Impossible Trinity (Mundell) to me like I'm five?
Or does any have any good resources to better understand the direct connection to how it affects others countries? Wikipedia isn't cutting it.
https://preview.redd.it/aq0dw6ytl0571.png?width=296&format=png&auto=webp&s=c9fb77725e467427a05c6453fa7bf0131c8ec47f
In terms of Decentralization aspect, the Thinkium public chain uses consensus protocols to ensure that the same content runs on different computing nodes and allows any node to join without permission.
Moreover, there is no such thing as a super node on the Thinkium public chain.
In terms of Security aspect, if a clear misbehaving node is detected on the Thinkium public chain, it will be aborted by exporting an empty block in this cycle. Nodes that misbehave will incur substantial economic penalties, making this attack unsustainable.
In terms of Scalability aspect, Thinkium public chain's "multi-layer multi-chain structure" and "four-layer system structure" can well implement "unlimited extension of performance".
In the Thinkium public chain, this new trusted digital world , the "impossible trinity" problem will be solved once and for all.
The partners involved in building the nodes, the miners, are key players in solving the impossible trinity. (The construction of more nodes can help Thinkium public chain get better performance.)
Thinkium public chain is committed to helping every ordinary people have the opportunity to participate in the construction of the underlying infrastructure of the public chain and share the growth of the public chain together...
Two classic (cliche) challenges to God's omnipotence are: 1) Can God create a square circle? 2) Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it?
The response from Christians is often to say that, actually, "omnipotence" means God can do anything that is logically possible. So no, he can't do those things, but he's still omnipotent.
I'm okay with that logic, but it presents a problem when discussing the Trinity. The same God who cannot make a square circle somehow CAN be both three and one at the same time.
The last time I got into a debate on the Trinity here, responses mostly followed a predictable line. Namely, that there is no logical contradiction in God having "three persons in one nature."
I could even be on board with that logic, maybe, if Christians remained consistent. In that thread, though, various comments explained that there were three "aspects" that made up one God, or that there were three distinct ways that the one God interacts with his creation. Both of these understandings are "heresies" (namely partialism and modalism) that contradict the traditional doctrine of the Trinity.
When I pointed this out, posters began contradicting themselves. After just having explained that the Trinity was logical because "it's not three Gods AND one God, it's three persons IN one God," they would then deny that each person was a "part" or "mode" of God and affirm that each one IS God.
Herein lies the logical contradiction. God is supposed to be three and one simultaneously. Each of the three persons are equal to God, yet there is one God.
All explanations of this that are logically consistent are heresies. Other explanations rely on manipulating language to hide the contradiction but, examined closely, do not actually resolve it. In fact, the "traditional" answer to this challenge is that it's a "mystery" that we're not meant to understand, so it doesn't have to be logical. Even that would at least be consistent, yet the modern theological claim is that God is not able to do that which is logically impossible.
That brings me back to the thesis of this thread. It's logically inconsistent to claim that God can only do that which is logically possible while also affirming the traditional Doctrine of the Trinity.
The only way to believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity is to accept that God is not subject to the laws of logic. If God can be three and one, he can make a square circle.
One of the primary criticisms that non-believers have of Christianity is how could an Omnipotent, omnibenevolent God allow so much suffering on earth. Christians respond this is a natural consequence of granting us free will. But why can't God give us free will AND prevent suffering? Christians will often respond that this is nonsensical, like asking if God could create an object so heavy even he couldn't move it. I think this falls flat, because the existence of the Trinity, insofar as the majority of the Christian church defines it, is a paradox itself, and proof that God can and does have the power to ignore or warp logic. Christian's even admit this. No analogy can be used to describe the Trinity because all either lead to heresy or are literally illogical (A=D B=D C=D A=/=B etc). Trinitarian Christians have to bite the bullet one way or another here.
I suspect Christians will disagree that the Trinity is paradoxical. I welcome any of them to describe it to me in a sensible way without resorting to "It is a divine mystery we cannot fully comprehend".
Hi guys.
Im an OTP Urgot since 1 month and i was in Iron 4 , now im in bronze 4 due to urgot (now i have mastery 6) and i love it, a very versatile champ. Im tank, i have damage and heal with conqeror and a nice splitpusher ( W+ Demolish rune i love it)
But i have problems with 2 matchups.
First matchup is Kled. Obviously this is normal. kled is a Early and aggresive champ but in late is a 4vs5.
The problem is this: Garen. I poke him, i tried to stop her pasive, but its impossible. Garen with Trinity oneshot me with QR and i cant do anything. And i see Leagueofgraphs and urgot must win garen looking the statistics.
Pls can u help me? I need the help of best Urgots in Summoners Rift and Aram!
In light of the recent RMB devaluation, let's revisit one of my favourite topics concerning exchange rates.
The "impossible trinity" or the "trilemma", which states that you can have only 2 of the following 3 options:
- Fixed exchange rate
- Independent monetary policy
- Free capital movement
To understand why, we can focus first on the first 2 options (the "dilemma"). If a foreign country wants to peg its currency against the dollar they can do so by:
- printing more of their own currency, if it appreciates
- buying their own currency with their foreign currency reserves, it the currency depreciates. In principle option 1) is easier to do since in theory the country can print unlimited amounts of money. Nevertheless, it has its limits (see CHF/EUR from 2011 to 2014). Option 2 can only be achieved while reserves last, but many countries manage to balance these forces appropriately for years.
The dilemma appears if the country (A) then decides that they want interest rates different than those in the country (B) they have pegged their currency against. If the country A decides that they want to offer higher interest rates than in B, then investors will want to invest in country A. This situation of course cannot hold. Demand for bonds in currency A will increase dramatically and drive down the price until it is equal to the price in country B. The opposite is also true, if country A wants to offer lower rates, then investors will take their money out of the country and invest it in B. The dilemma is therefore complete you have to chose between independent monetary policy and a fixed exchange rate.
But what happens if we add capital controls? Then investors cannot move their money freely from one country to another. Investors cannot easily move their capital around as interest rates diverge, and therefore the demand and supply pressures do not occur, seemingly allowing the government to have its cake and eat it too (see China, they have fixed ex. rate and their own monetary policy).
Unfortunately, free capital flows are often desirable. One of the key strengths of capitalism is that it allows investors to allocate capital to where its more productive. This strength is lost when capital flows are controlled. It remains to be seen whether China will be able to manage their currency as they have done until now when their economy matures and slows its growth.
What is the impossible Trinity? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impossible_trinity
The impossible trinity is a Financial Foreign Exchange Conundrum which states that no currency can possess the traits of having... Fixed Foreign Exchange Rate, Free Capital Movement, and Independent Monetary Policy.
The evolution of global currency has been limited by factors such as physical barriers, and governance trust. Digital currency transcends this model by providing trust less transactions anywhere in the world. By expanding on this basic model NANO services the need to move currency instantly and freely. This will produce a stabilizing effect on the marketplace as NANO grows and instant arbitrage can be conducted across all markets.
Nano functions without the need to exhcange in foreign currency. Nano has truly free Capital movement. Nano is a self governing system.
If Nano becomes the dominant global currency business and financial interaction can be streamlined beyond what was previously considered possible.
This just goes to show you. My first college decision was Trinity College, which I thought would be a safety for me; I was waitlisted. I was totally demoralized, and I thought that if I couldn't get in there, there would be no way I had a chance at an Ivy. Then today, I opened my Princeton portal and found that I was right. I got rejected lmao.
The Impossible Trinity states that an economy cannot have free trade and capital flows, independent monetary policy, and a stable exchange rate all at the same time.
I was wondering if an economy has large enough foreign reserves to keep the exchange rate stable, won't it be able to have all three? If say the US increases interest rates and money are flowing out of this imaginary economy (through free trade and capital flows). If the economy has enough foreign reserve, then it can use them to buy back it's own currency to keep their currency stable. Meanwhile, surely they can use interest rate independently to control their own economy (no need for it to stabilise currency as it is done by foreign reserves) and have free trade and capital flow at the same time.
I can't see why in this case there can only be two. Can someone enlighten me?
Can someone explain how China has been able to get away with disregarding the impossible trinity of economics for decades?
Recently, a major event took place in the blockchain world: movie guide and video player based on the IPFS become a new trend.
At this moment, it seems that everyone has become a naughty child, thinking that he owns some kind of super powers to achieve anything they want. But they never realize that they are just the clowns pushed to the stage in the opera house, dancing to the audience awkwardly.
We think we are the bystanders, but we are actually the players.
When everyone is enjoying the carnival, have they ever thought that although this happens in the blockchain world, this is actually related to everyone? When Ethereum is broken, IPFS is blocked, how do people engage in I-C-O and the FileCoin mining?
https://preview.redd.it/by894ni0gbz01.jpg?width=900&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7a7cce4f6c58b1d63f6289342b4ff58370197fd9
“Ethernet will not be shut down, and the IPFS network cannot be blocked.”
This point is really ridiculous to me, a developer in telecommunications and the Internet softwares. If you want to block Ethereum and IPFS, there will be numerous methods. As for why it is not currently blocked yet, on the one hand, it has not reached the particularly serious situations; on the other hand, the supervisory authorities have not made effective regulations.
When it comes to supervision, we have to talk about some sensitive, political issues.
Some people believe that only China government will supervise the network and that foreign countries are very free about it.
Not really. The actual difference lies in the supervisory sensitivity of different contents.
China is sensitive to political issues, the United States is sensitive to ethnic issues, and Europe is sensitive to Nazi issues. These sensitive issues are as dangerous as high-voltage power lines. Once someone touches them, the consequences will be disastrous.
Some people might say that the blockchain belongs to the whole world. Even if it is blocked in some countries, it does not mean they will also banded in other countries, so it will still run as usual.
Theoretically, it is true.
But when we leave out the consensus and only pursue value, we are rascals.
The value of the b
... keep reading on reddit ➡The three desires of states are:
A stable foreign exchange rate
Free capital movement (absence of capital controls)
An independent monetary policy
A state can only achieve two of them, I get that. But what I don't really understand has to do with the "stable foreign exchange rate". Does the trilema suggest that currently the US doesn't have a stable exchange rate right now? Hypothetically, might having an independent monetary policy and a stable foreign exchange rate be better for a nation like the US (as Dani Rodrick and others have suggested)? I understand the benefits to not having free capital movement better than I understand the benefits to having a stable exchange rate.
