Slashdot Mirror

The last couple of years the revenue as percentage of tax has been under 15%.

http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/i-detaxes.htm

Bill Clinton bombed former Yugoslavia without approval from Congress. Just saying.

--

Not really. Don't butcher the history books and dictionaries because it's convenient to your political views.

- if you are going to 'cite' some history books or dictionaries, then let me do a better job at that than you did.

I am sure wikipedia had plenty of time to flush out this important definition
Fascism, pronounced /fæzm/, is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2][3][4] Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy.[5][6]

But in case you don't like wikipedia, let's actually go to a real source and an authority on this concept, Mussolini.
Mussolini's Italy was described as a corporate state, and the declared objective of the corporate state was both social revolution and national cohesion -- as opposed to the class warfare of Marxism and the Bolshevik Revolution. The notion of "permanent revolution" or a "second wave" with a more socialist bent was suppressed within the Fascist movement. In the new corporate state, employers, managers and workers were supposed to be united within the same legal framework. The monarchy, the army, government bureaucracy, the Church and the middle class were supposed to play a role in strengthening state power, each group with a prescribed role, with the state as the ultimate arbiter of the national interest. And it was everyone's duty to contribute to the strength and glorification of the state.

The word 'fascist' itself came out of the name "Fasci di Combattimento" (Combat Group), which was a name of a political movement in France.

I believe Mussolini is a historical figure, he tied the ideas of anti-socialism, anti-monarchism and corporatism to the idea of 'fascism', which really is just a name for his political group, nothing more.

So what do YOU think fascism means? It's a 'group' first of all, but it has enough connotations associated with it, and me taking a connotation derived from actions of a historical figure is absolutely NOT rewriting history as you claim.

--

Ah, the conspiracy angle. The answer is yes. But then again, Afghanistan would have been enough.

- really, you have a better reason as to why the Afghanistan war is what it is, the longest US war so far? And this reason has nothing to do with the trillions spent on the military industrial complex? Ha. I guess it must be U.B.Laden then. Or maybe it's the minerals, the gold, the iron, the lithium that the Soviets found there? Yeah, must be that.

--

You can call it a police action, the people who I know who were fleeing from the country because bombs were exploding around them call it war regardless of how your president's PR machine spins it.

--

Ah, and you got me with the bailout thing. When I think about it, it's functionally the same thing, but there's kind of an important difference. That whole "holding-off-Armageddon" thing.

- more Keynesian bullshit, but in reality it's worse than that. At least Keyne's ideas are actually based on believes, however misguided and wrong, they are believes about government's role in economy. What really was happening was a heist, with a few trillion dollars stolen right from under your noses. It's your money gone, I don't care.

The protectionist law Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act [wikipedia.org], which became law in 1930, led to the Great Depression

Sorry, that's yet another right wing free trader myth with absolutely no basis in reality. The stock market collapse took place in October, 1929.

I phrased it wrong. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act made the depression last longer and get worse than it would have without the act being law. Read what the Department of State says. Before President Hoover signed it 1000 economists urged him to veto the act. Then as Info Please says, "U.S. foreign trade suffered a sharp decline, and the depression intensified."

So then people, perhaps you, will say FDR's policies brought the Great Depression to an end. HAHA! FDR came to office on 4 March 1933 yet the Great Depression bottomed in 1932. The "U.S. economy was growing again by 1933, and technically the United States was not in recession from 1933 to 1937." The Great Depression may of seemed to last longer, but that's partially because of the Recession of 1937-38.

Falcon

I agree with your comments. One of the primary problems with democracy (as I've heard it said) is that no one knows how to migrate to it. So as much as we want other nations to become democratic and their people claim they want to do the same there is no clear road map to doing so.

I personally believe (though I could be wrong too) that at least part of the problem is political correctness. People wrongfully assume that western culture exists outside our homes. It does not. You do not negotiate the same way in the US as you do in the middle-east. When bootstrapping democracy, "the bad guys" need to understand from day one that you mean business and you carry a big stick while "the good guys" need to feel your constant support. This implies stepping on a lot of people's toes but I don't think there is much choice. In this specific case of Iraq, the politicians need to understand that unless they stop playing games and agree one the *basics* very soon then you will make a decision on their behalf which will surely be worse than anything they can possibly agree to themselves. It's funny how people can argue about the most mundane things unless their back is to a wall (which is part of the reason our own politicians accomplish nothing unless their own neck is on the line).

This brings me to a funny story I once read: http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h11mon.htm
"People in Bukhara opened the city's gates to the Mongols and surrendered. Genghis Khan told them that they, the common people, were not at fault, that high-ranking people among them had committed great sins that inspired God to send him and his army as punishment."

What I take from Genghis Khan's story is that one needs to be witty and take the target audience's belief system into consideration. We in the West need to remember that most of the people in the world do not live under a Western mentality so it makes little sense to negotiate or deal with them as we would with fellow Westerns and expect good results. Specifically, if you tried negotiating in a middle-eastern market using Western values you would get stepped on many times over. You need to adapt to the culture of the people you are dealing with and use wit in trying to accomplish your goals.

My understanding is that our goals are quite simple: spread Democracy far and wide because not only does it empower oppressed men and women but it also opens new opportunities for our own people. Let's be honest, we would have far more opportunities (both cultural and financial) when dealing with a Democratic China than we do with it today. The same goes for Iraq and any other country in the world. Look at the fall of the USSR for example. It defused a serious military confrontation, opened new markets for our businesses, and empowered their people with rights and money to boot. It's a win-win situation for everyone.

In May 1945, the Truman administration gave France its approval to resume colonial authority in Indochina, Truman hoping that France would liberalize its rule there....The United States helped the French in Vietnam, President Truman doing so for the sake of the fight against communism in Europe and in Indochina...

For some reason, people in the south think democrats are pussies because we want to understand a problem before shooting at it.

No! Democrats are pussies because they won't stand up and fight the status quo. Democrats who voted for the patriot act are pussies. Democrats who voted to go to war are pussies. Democrats who voted to stay in the war are pussies. Democrats who voted to extend copyright and voted for the DMCA and who wanted to install Clipper chips are PUSSIES! Of course, so are the republicans who voted for these same things. Ahhh...the power of money... They act like republicans to get votes. Maybe because they are indeed the same thing? If you vote for either of these "two" parties, you will no change whatsoever. But then, the soap opera presented everyday on c-span is one tof the best things ever to hit the airwaves. "Acting! Genius! Thank you!"

PS: In case you really believe that democrats ask first and shoot after, then you don't remember who brought us Vietnam. Some guy named Truman. The republicans jumped on it also. So, it too was a bi-partisan event.

I imagine this future-vision might be true, if so, for all intents and purposes, there will be no reason, unless one chooses, to work/create again. I think scenarios like this really urge us to deeply look inside ourselves (as creative, artistic beings) and ask: Why do I create? Why do I invent?

Maybe for the answer to this question about the future, we need to look into our hunter/gatherer past.

The Original Affluent Society -by Marshall Sahlins
http://www.eco-action.org/dt/affluent.html
"Hunter-gatherers consume less energy per capita per year than any other group of human beings. Yet when you come to examine it the original affluent society was none other than the hunter's - in which all the people's material wants were easily satisfied. To accept that hunters are affluent is therefore to recognize that the present human condition of man slaving to bridge the gap between his unlimited wants and his insufficient means is a tragedy of modern times."

What did hunter/gatherers spend their time on? Well, there was "work" in the sense of knowing what they wanted to gain from the machinery of nature around them, and then actually getting it. So, the equivalent of going shopping at the grocery store and then going to the fridge for a beer. Even with matter replicators, there will be the issue of what to replicate and what to do with it -- and matters of taste and aesthetics may play a big role. There was the work of child rearing -- something that takes a lot of time and attention. There was the work of singing and dancing and sharing joy and culture and storytelling -- something that will still be needed. There was art and expression. And there was impressing the opposite sex and various status contests. So, there is still a lot of things to occupy time. So I am not worried about that aspect of finding things to do -- because humanity was originally adapted to those conditions of abundance anyway.

A few related issues: agriculture likely arose with increasing population pressures and the invention of the militaristic bureaucracy based in cities -- and anthropologists now recognize that healthwise this was a step backwards for most people as skeletal remains show a decrease in stature with the transition to agriculture resulting from a less varied dies and related famines from depending on one or two major crops which could fail. So, advanced technology can in theory let us go full circle back to the old ways. And a related point -- the "garden of eden" story is present across many cultures -- perhaps reflecting this universal history of being forced to abandon more desirable hunter/gatherer ways for the toil of agricultural either because of increased population or at the spear point of the imperial tax man. Head taxes forced much of Africa into starvation in the last few hundred years, as European powers imposed taxes on the native populations (or else they faced imprisonment or death) and these taxes could only paid by working on European-owned plantations for low wages instead of keeping to their usual subsistence lifestyle. Thus was Africa turned from a continent of hunter/gatherer affluence to one of Agricultural/Industrial poverty through (among other things) taxation without representation. http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch02.htm

So, I have no real worries people will have unresolveable problems with affluence -- it is the crushed life of industry and agriculture that seems to be causing more of the problems, with parents not having enough time for their children, and citizens not having enough time to engage in civic duties and neighborhood activities, and people turning to drugs or television to escape for a while the horror and meaninglessness and pain and humiliation of it all.

So regardless of future reasons, I'd say one reason to invent right now is to try to bring back the better part of those times (and there were bad parts of those times too of course, superstition, infanticide, parasites, so let's hope for doing better the second time around).

For the last national election, 2002 Voting Age Population Study using public data (derived from Census data, but not done by the US census dept)

2000 US census is 281 million people, Voting-Elligible population estimate of 195 million, puts it at ~ 70%. From total votes, the turnout was 56% of VEP (in a highly contested election with highest turnout in recent years), so the vote represented 39% of the US population.

Which is about right, when you think of it, records show only 40% of the US population supported independence from britain in 1776 (10% against and 50% neutral). But that's how it is in republics; freedom to vote also means freedom to withold your vote... would you rather be fined for not voting like you can in europe?

Of course the UN never has problems with beaurocracy or political expediancy overriding logic or good sense or even ethics and morals when deciding what to do. They never have problems respondingly quickly and adequately to problems that pop up. The UN always acts in the best interest of humanity. And, as we all know, pigs can fly. So armed with these facts, your idea will be the greatest boon to space exploration our planet has ever seen. ...

Competition is what drove the space industry to great heights. Lack of competition is what's caused it to stagnate. In every case that there's been an attempt at cooperation, it's been lackluster or outright failed. And the idea that you'd want to put a bunch of people that decided it would be neat for Libya to head the Human Rights Commission to be in charge of space exploration makes me question how in touch with reality you are.

You mean, of course, that the US never starts anything, and has never started anything. I agree fully; our country does us proud.

I see an emotional argument that appears to be racist.

I'm profoundly confused by this statement. Could you please explain it? His numbers appear to be wrong, but his general point appears correct. China does in fact have a very large population yet the vast majority of that population is very poor and the small portion of it with the discretionary income sufficient to purchase software is really rather small and devotes much of that income to savings.

I don't see any emotional content in the argument whatsoever. I will concede he points out certain facts that may arouse an emotional response in you or I - the relatively recent abolition of slavery and the continued existense of practices very near to slavery. Yet he did not explicitly pass a moral judgement or appeal to emotions (i.e. we should not trade with China because of human rights abuses) but simply pointed out that an economy with these features is not one that will offer a large market for computer software despite it's large population.

Nor did he say or even imply anything racist unless it is racist to point out the fact the China is poor. If you do percieve an implicit moral argument in his bringing up child and forced labour it would NOT be racist to hold them to the same moral standards that we hold whites to. On the other hand it IS a racist argument that the Chinese (because of their race) are to be held to a lower standard than whites (Don't be hard on them, the poor savages don't know any better.)

How many other countries had abolished slavery before the US did?

Umm.. very few before the first abolition of slavery in the USA in Vermont (1777) Then three European states and their colonies (England, France, Dutch Colonies) and a few Latin American countries.

Of course I don't know how that is relevent. I took the posters main point to be that China is economically backwards only emerging from a slave economy 73 years ago (though 1929 is a generous estimate - slavery was known to exist in some remote chinese provinces as late as 1958 though the government moved aggresively against it) and still retaining many features of such an economy.

Do you know the dates for that?

Again, doesn't seem relevent but OK: Vermont 1777, Pennsylvania 1780, Massachusetts 1780, France 1791, French Colonies 1794, Reestablished in France 1801, England 1807, Chile 1823, Central America 1824, Mexico 1829, Bolivia 1831, Rest of British Empire 1833 (though Britain kept conquering colonies and abolishing slavery in them after this) France (again) 1845, French Guiana in 1848. Venezuala in 1854. Dutch Colonies 1863, USA 1865.

For the really late abolitions and continued slavery today (mostly in Africa) there is a good article here on slavery into the 21st century.

How many US states wanted to keep it and went to war over "states rights".

11

What was Davy Crocket fighting for at the Alamo? I'll give you a hint, Mexico had abolished slavery.

Granted.

And this is relevant to software sales in China... How?