Tulku Hungkar Dorje, a widely respected religious leader and philanthropist, was reportedly detained by Chinese authorities in early 2024. In August 2024, Chinese officials claimed he had “gone missing” shortly after he gave a public teaching on 21 July 2024.

This timeline seems contradictory. He was detained in early 2024, but then gave a public teaching in late July 2024? And then he went missing, under a prolonged detention?

Sources indicate

Yes, the anonymous sources

fabricated charges

I’m sure I can trust western media to be unbiased

Additional accusations included “disobeying higher authorities” for his philanthropic work of establishing monasteries and schools, and “causing disturbances” for advocating for the rights and freedom of marginalized Tibetans under the repressive Chinese rule.

Oh, I guess not

The detention, torture, and killing of respected leaders like Tulku Hungkar Dorje is a deliberate strategy to silence those who advocate for Tibetans’ fundamental rights.

Really laying it on thick huh? There are no pretensions, just accepting the worst speculations and accusations as fact without any investigation. Truly lib behavior.

Inside and outside the White House, advisers say Trump is unbowed even as the world reels from the biggest increase in trade hostilities in a century. They say Trump is unperturbed by negative headlines or criticism from foreign leaders.

Therein lies the appeal of Trump

Numerous more sophisticated approaches were developed than the one Trump selected, people familiar with the matter said.

Would mind sharing them?

The White House demanded that Britain and India change their health and sanitation rules to make it easier to export U.S. agricultural products.

Worry not, the nurglites are in control. Bird flu for everyone.

In Brazil, India and Europe, they targeted digital regulations that have entangled U.S. tech giants.

God I hope the EU doesn’t use this as an excuse to scrap privacy laws (like they keep trying with chat control).

White House spokesman Kush Desai said Trump had assembled “the best and brightest economic team in modern history” to develop the tariff plan.

The best and brightest of mainstream economists? Wouldn’t be surprised if this was actually true, given how dumb economists are.

That’s true, but I don’t think settlers are considered civilians under international law either way

Tariffs and tax cuts are basically the only 2 things in which trump actually believes.

Funniest possible outcome. The Germans found out it was stolen, try to get it back, fail, then agree agree for the money to be spent on Ukraine as a compensation. The money is never spent on Ukraine.

Maybe it could be possible. I’ll have to look into it.

No, I don’t know what I’d do with them.

Actually maybe I could use them to compute some things but that’d be a different investigation entirely.

Thanks!

It’s the matlab operator for transposing a matrix or vector

She capitulated to the right and the dem base didn’t hold the line, which is up for debate who is at fault I guess. Ultimately she and the DNC didn’t offer a likable and enticing enough alternative to get people to vote. And they’ll never learn the lesson they need to, they’ll just keep pushing right.

Second to the top comment.

Even Liberals are beginning to recognize patterns and connect dots.

We are truly living in the end times.

It’s not even “no consequences to anything”, but “the people dying and suffering are doing so outside my bubble”

Interpretation of the graphs.

Graph 1: We still see the same result. When the prices of an economy are at those predicted by the LTV, the income of every sector shrinks to 0, leading to perfect economic reproduction. However, we see that many economies have economic reproduction even without LTV prices. I have a hypothesis for this. Some of the randomly generated economies in the simulation are “disconnected”, meaning that the different industries don’t buy and sell to each other. In this case, the effect of prices of one industry on another are minimum, so the prices stop mattering much.

Graph 2: Same as graph 1, but the shape of the curve is different. Not really sure what to say about this

Graph 3: I found it very interesting that no matter how much I tried to increase the wages (at one point, I had a wage basket 2 times bigger than what the economy could actually produce on its own), the trade balance remained stubbornly positive for the overwhelming majority of the data points.

This could happen because the sectors were reorganizing themselves to exploit comparative advantage, even though I never coded them to do this!

Say the people of the country were consuming 1 million tons of grain, and 100,000 cars every time step. Producing a car takes 1 person-year, and producing a ton of grain takes 0.1 person years. This level of consumption would then require 2 million person-years of labor (1 million for the cars, 1 million for the grains).

Even if there were only 1.5 million people in the economy, they could, for example, spend all their labor producing cars. So they would make 150,000 cars and export 50,000 cars. If the price of the cars is much higher than the price of grains, they could just exchange the cars for enough grains while still maintaining a trade surplus.

This was one of the most surprising results I saw from this model.

Graph 4: This here was to test an assumption that many economists make about the economy. They assume that the profit rates of industries equalise over time. However, in my simulation at least, this never happens. There is like an invisible floor to how low the differences in profit rates can get.

I will be taking requests if someone wants me to generate data. I can change the number of sectors, the amount of wages. I can try different price seeking strategies, etc.

Also, I never thought I’d reach the “post your research annonymously on Hexbear” stage of my academic career.

’ %%%%%%%%%%

time = 100;
n = 10;
N = 100000;
connectivity = (2*n)^0.5; %The average number of intermediate commodities that go into making a commodity
threshold = connectivity/n;
e_l = 0.025;                 %proportionality rate at which hirings change per timestep
e_p = 0.025;                 %proportionality rate at which prices can change per timestep

Data = zeros([5 N*time]); %Pre allocating data matrix. Necessary to speed up simulation
Data_final = zeros([5 N]); %Pre allocating data matrix. Holds data on final time steps of each economy
w = 0.5; %Percentage of national production that the economy aims to give to labor

%%%%%%%%%%LOOP

for i = 1:N

    %Generate random workforce distribution between sectors
    L = rand([n time])*0.998 + 0.001;
    L(:,1) = L(:,1)./sum(L(:,1));    %Normalise the population to 1

    %Randomly generate direct labor use
    l = rand([n 1])*0.998 + 0.001;
    
    %Technical matrix:
    A = rand([n n]);
    A = A.*(A<=threshold);
    a = (eye(n)-A)\eye(n); %Storing the productivity matrix so it doesn't have to be recalculated over and over

    while sum(sum(a<0))>0     %If a has negative components, regenerate the economy and try again
        A = rand([n n]);
        A = A.*(A<=threshold);
        a = (eye(n)-A)\eye(n);
    end

    %LTV prices calculation
    LTV = sum(a.*l)';

    %Consumption
    basket = rand([n 1]);
    basket = w*basket./(sum(basket.*LTV)); %Consumption is scaled so that it can be in theory satisfied by the work of half the workforce

    %net production
    %o = zeros([n time]);

    %net income of sectors + agregate measures (pre-allocation)
    M = zeros([n time]);
    trade_balance = zeros([1 time]);
    profit_var = zeros([1 time]);
    
    %Randomised prices are generated for starting timestep (pre-allocation)
    P = zeros([n time]);

    %P(:,1) = rand([n 1]);             %randomly generates a set of prices

    
    %P(:,1) = (eye(n) - A - Cw)\rand([n 1]);
    P(:,1) = rand([n 1]);

    for k = 1:time
        
        if k>1
            hirings = e_l*(M(:,k-1))/sum(basket.*P(:,k-1));  %New Hirings are in proportion to the income available divided by wages
            L(:,k) = L(:,k-1) + hirings;   
            L(:,k) = L(:,k).*(L(:,k)>=(0.001/n)) + (L(:,k)<(0.001/n))*(0.01/n);   %This puts a floor on the size of sectors. Helps prevent the code from exploding.
            P(:,k) = P(:,k-1).*(1 - e_p*(hirings./L(:,k-1)));  %If the size of a sector doubles, the price decreases by e_p percent (from competititon)
            
            L(:,k) = L(:,k)./sum(L(:,k));    
        end

        P(:,k) = P(:,k).*((P(:,k)>=(0.001))) + (P(:,k)<(0.001))*(0.01);   %This puts a floor on the price. Helps prevent the code from exploding.

        %Calculate gross output of industries
        O = L(:,k)./l;

        P(:,k) = P(:,k)./sum(O.*P(:,k));%Normalises these prices so that total economy wide revenue is always 1

        Cw = basket * l';
        profit_var(:,k) = var(((eye(n) - A - Cw)*P(:,k))./P(:,k));

        %Calculate net production
        o = O - A*O;       %Net production can be negative. We will assume the existence of imports
                                %negative net production will show up as
                                %negative sales (the external market is
                                %selling to the economy)

        %Inter-industry sales
        R = O.*P(:,k);  %Market value of gross production by sector
        C = A' .*O*P(:,k); %Costs of inputs to production by sector
        
        %Industry to market sales
        S = o.*P(:,k); %Sales to consumers by sector
        Y = sum(S); %Total industry income from market sales
                    %Under balanced conditions, this income would be
                    %exactly matched by industry outflows to consumers
                    %(wages + dividends)

                    %Here it is assumed that the industry pays enough in
                    %(wages + dividends) to afford a fixed basket of 
                    % consumption.

                    %Any leftover income is the trade balance

        trade_balance(k) = sum((o - basket).*P(:,k));

        W = L(:,k).*(sum(basket.*P(:,k))); %Wages paid out vector by industry
        
        M(:,k) = R - C - W; %Net Income by industry
        
        M_per_worker = (1/n)*M./L(:,k); %I want to see if this givees any interesting results

        %Accounting identities
        % Y = sum(W) + trade_balance
        %Y = sum(R - C)

    end 
    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%Computing more time steps%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
    
    
    %%%%%%%%%%%%%Processing data%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

    %poopoo = LTV./LTV(1,:); 
    %Peepee = P./P(1,:); 

    ratios = P./LTV;
    ratios = log(ratios);
    ratios = ratios - mean(ratios);
    specific_price = sum(abs(ratios))/n;

    M = sum(abs(M));
    M_per_worker = sum(abs(M_per_worker));
    
    %specific_price = sum(abs(log(Peepee./poopoo)))/(n-1);

    % trade_balance; trade_intensity
    Data(:,(1+ (i-1)*time ):(i*time)) = [specific_price; M; M_per_worker; trade_balance; profit_var];
    Data_final(:,(1+ (i-1) ):(i)) = [specific_price(time); M(time); M_per_worker(time); trade_balance(time); (profit_var(time)).^0.5];

end
%%%%%%%%%%LOOP end%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

resolution = 1001;
scale = 1;

ptsy = linspace(0, 1, resolution);
ptsx = linspace(0, scale, resolution);
%ptsx = linspace(-0.1, 5, 1001);
%H = log(histcounts2(Data_final(2,:), Data_final(1,:), pts, pts));
H = log(histcounts2(Data(2,:), Data(1,:), ptsy, ptsx));
imagesc(ptsx, ptsy, H);
axis xy;
set(gca, 'XLim', ptsx([1 end]), 'YLim', ptsy([1 end]), 'YDir', 'normal');
colormap copper
a=colorbar;
a.Label.String = "Density of simulation outcomes [natural log scale]";
xlabel {Deviation from LTV prices [natural log scale]}
ylabel {Deviation from reproduction [linear scale]}
title {Absolute sector income vs LTV pricing}
exportgraphics(gcf,"repro_inv_M10.png","Resolution",600);

figure 
ptsy = linspace(0, 1, resolution);
ptsx = linspace(0, scale, resolution);
%H = log(histcounts2(Data_final(3,:), Data_final(1,:), pts, pts));
H = log(histcounts2(Data(3,:), Data(1,:), ptsy, ptsx));
imagesc(ptsx, ptsy, H);
axis xy;
set(gca, 'XLim', ptsx([1 end]), 'YLim', ptsy([1 end]), 'YDir', 'normal');
colormap copper
a=colorbar;
a.Label.String = "Density of simulation outcomes [natural log scale]";
xlabel {Deviation from LTV prices [natural log scale]}
ylabel {Deviation from reproduction (scaled by employment) [linear scale]}
title {Per worker sector income vs LTV pricing}
exportgraphics(gcf,"repro_inv_Mw10.png","Resolution",600);

figure 

ptsy = linspace(-1, 1, resolution);
ptsx = linspace(0, scale, resolution);
%H = log(histcounts2(Data_final(4,:), Data_final(1,:), pts, pts));
H = log(histcounts2(Data(4,:), Data(1,:), ptsy, ptsx));
imagesc(ptsx, ptsy, H);
axis xy;
set(gca, 'XLim', ptsx([1 end]), 'YLim', ptsy([1 end]), 'YDir', 'normal');
colormap copper
a=colorbar;
a.Label.String = "Density of simulation outcomes [natural log scale]";
xlabel {Deviation from LTV prices [natural log scale]}
ylabel {Trade balance [linear scale]}
title {Trade balance vs LTV pricing}
exportgraphics(gcf,"repro_inv_T10.png","Resolution",600);

figure 

ptsy = linspace(0, 2.5, resolution);
ptsx = linspace(0, scale, resolution);
%H = log(histcounts2(Data_final(5,:), Data_final(1,:), pts, pts));
H = log(histcounts2(Data(5,:), Data(1,:), ptsy, ptsx));
imagesc(ptsx, ptsy, H);
axis xy;
set(gca, 'XLim', ptsx([1 end]), 'YLim', ptsy([1 end]), 'YDir', 'normal');
colormap copper
a=colorbar;
a.Label.String = "Density of simulation outcomes [natural log scale]";
xlabel {Deviation from LTV prices [natural log scale]}
ylabel {STD of profitability rates of sectors}
title {Profit STD vs LTV pricing}
exportgraphics(gcf,"repro_inv_p10.png","Resolution",600);

’

The graphs:

Each graph has 10 million points, There are 100 points (1 for each time step) for 100,000 economies

Graph 1: The average deviation of sectorial income (Revenue - Costs - Wages) from reproduction vs average deviation of prices from LTV.

Graph 2: Graph 1, but the incomes of each sector are given per worker

Graph 3: The trade balance of each economy at each time step

Graph 4: The variability of profit rates between different sectors

Apparently, it’s not a typo. In finance math, they just quote the absolute value of epsilon (because it is always negative). The equation presented doesn’t work regardless of whether or not they got the signs correct, because the logic behind it is wrong (epsilon and phi aren’t constants)

Setting aside this dogshit model (which is no better than me claiming that the rainfall in the amazon rainforest = 15 * “temperature to cloud formation elastcity” * “cloud formation to precipitation elasticity”), I do have an actual simulation which could probably be modified to try to predict the influence of tariffs on trade deficits. It’s the MK2 of the sim I posted recently (think of this as an advert ).

I don’t know if I should post them here or on lemmygrad (a place I don’t go to often enough). If you have any suggestions for a community let me know.

Posting it on the free chat should be fine. Stuff gets traction there. Also, you could try posting in Chapo then linking to the lemmygrad. I think that could boost the engagement numbers and get lots of community interaction.

which can be rewritten as …

The very last part of your comment is very interesting. At some point in my coding, I literally did randomly generate prices using that exact same equation. The vector pi was randomly generated (and so was A+). I didn’t use that pricing generation strategy because it caused the deviation of the prices to clump around the average for large sector numbers. But, that was my incomplete model. I think I can try and see how my finished model reacts to these prices.

For the model in this post, there is no assumption of equal profit rates, no structual mechansim for enforcing equalizafion of r, so the profit is simply a residual.

Not exactly. It’s more so that in this model, there is no class other than the working class. There is also no mechanism for profit rate equalization because this model doesn’t have time steps. The only purpose of the model is to investigate the relationship between prices and economic stability.

I do have a model that I have just about finished coding that incorporates the idea of time, movement, wage rates and external trade. The post for that is in the works.

Maybe the third model in the series model will have profits and a capitalist class in it. The second version is still a massive upgrade, so I want to release it first.

Profit equalization is also something I don’t plan on assuming. The agents in my 3rd model will try to maximize profits, and maybe profit equalization might emerge.

Although, the sectors in the 2nd model do hire more workers when the sector’s income is high, which is something like a profit maximization behaviour. Of course, the sectors in my 2nd model can’t choose prices (it wouldn’t make sense, since all gross outputs are fully sold), so it’s not true profit maximization behavior. The sectors in my models (so far) are also not individual firms, which limits their agency as agents.