Slashdot Mirror


America's Tech Decline: a Reading Guide

ErichTheRed writes "Computerworld has put together an interesting collection of links to various sources detailing the decline of US R&D/innovation in technology. The cross section of sources is interesting — everything from government to private industry. It's interesting to see that some people are actually concerned about this...even though all the US does is argue internally while rewarding the behaviour that hastens the decline."

611 comments

  1. is it just me? by corbettw · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is it just me or is the America-is-over sentiment growing by leaps and bounds lately? Not that I'm judging it, I feel the same way much of the time. But it seems more and more that this attitude is coming to the forefront of our national consciousness and yet none of our leaders have done anything to address it.

    Sad times. Guess I should go check out Mandarin for Dummies from the library.

    --
    God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    1. Re:is it just me? by Hatta · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There's a growing realization that those who run the US have killed the goose that lays the golden eggs.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:is it just me? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think it also comes from the rest of the world simply achieving many of the same gains we already did. When the rest of the world has the same tools and conditions, invariably they will start to come to par with us. From our perspective maybe it looks like we're losing our ability, but perhaps its just that other nations are just catching up rather than completely overtaking us.

      And unlike many other historical world power, we actively encourage people to come here, learn, and go back home and create. There are those that argue that's bad for us. In the short term, perhaps it is, but as more of the world achieves our standard of living, there are more consumers for our goods as well. Long term, raising up your neighbors only helps you.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    3. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Long term, raising up your neighbors only helps you.

      Not when it comes at the cost of your own children.

    4. Re:is it just me? by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 5, Interesting

      > Is it just me or is the America-is-over sentiment growing by leaps and bounds lately?

      That's because unemployment has gone up a lot, almost everyone has less money, we've shifted from having a great industrial base to having a service-based economy, and our last two wars have been expensive asymmetric wars where there are non-state actors on the other side. Also, those wars combined with different economic and social policies have made us politically unpopular.

      But it certainly isn't *over* yet--it's just not the rising star these days. It still has the most effective military on the planet. But those expenses are being curtailed while China's are increasing. I suspect we'll have a pre-WWI England/Germany type race, where the US outspends china for a long time to the great expense of both nations, but the US retains superiority in a number of fields for so long as it can afford to do so.

      China is greatly increasing the number of patents it issues--that will be good for us the day they actually support patents for extraterritorial inventors. They'll do that when they have enough IP and we refuse to honor their patents because they don't honor ours. There will be political games, but long-term it may be good for us. (Although we do need better science and math education--and more importantly, better cultural education on the value of science and math).

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    5. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There is another option.

      Post World War II there were basically two countries that either weren't former colonies or bombed back decades in development. The US and USSR. The Cold War pretty much was the two big boys fighting and keeping everyone else down.

      USSR fell. The wounded are healing, near healed. The former colonies are following the path of the former colonies turned super power.

      The US may not be over, but having to admit the playing field is quickly becoming more "fair".

    6. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      When you repeatedly elect people specifically because they hate the government, then why would you expect them to do a good job?

    7. Re:is it just me? by cobrausn · · Score: 5, Informative

      A large portion of my family is machinists. We own a machine shop that makes special order components that require a lot of precision. Parts made from the shop have ended up in all manner of plants and ships, including the recent USS Reagan.

      The general sentiment of my relatives that own the shop is that the US doesn't actually make much anymore - we have become more of a consumer and middleman than a producer. A lot of their competition used to be in the US, and a lot of their customers as well. Now their competition is outside the US, and their customers are more often just a middleman for overseas customers, countries that are going through their own technological / industrial renaissances. Their only real big US customers are GE and the government. They, at least, are convinced this is at least part of the reason for our recent declining relevance in industry.

      --
      How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
    8. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think the leaders will change when the people won't?

    9. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is not fair, we can't compete with cheap labor, that's not fair. I know this is slashdot where kicking America it the thing to do, but when we move everything overseas from meat head jobs to now engineering what do you expect? What we need are patriotic (a dirty word here) business people. But forget it most have been brainwashed into the fair and open market, which in reality does not exist.

      You can keep on hating America and believe in fairness eventually it will catch us all and you'll learn the hard way that hating ones country and globalism leads to no good ends.

    10. Re:is it just me? by royallthefourth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You seem to be forgetting that the USSR bore the brunt of Germany's aggression and still managed to rebuild, just as it had rebuilt in the wake of its civil war. The USSR (and the Warsaw Pact, and Yugoslavia, and Albania) rebuilt with a command economy and Europe (and Japan) rebuilt with heavy state investment and trade protectionism (and the USA continued to build with state investment without worrying about destruction back home).

      The real lesson here is that a modern industrial state with some reasonable quality of life doesn't come about by the invisible hand; it takes focused, directed work at the goal to get anything done.

    11. Re:is it just me? by obergfellja · · Score: 1

      the age of US v USSR is over..... the age of US Only is over. The age of tits or gtfo super power status has begun.

      I think it is a great thing to learn other languages. Know how to understand their language and knowledge base and outdo our competition. So, Clap clap clap clap for those who want to learn how to understand our competition (like you, Corbettw)

    12. Re:is it just me? by MagikSlinger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Tyler Cowan wrote an interesting hyopthesis called "The Great Stagnation" (available only as an e-book on Amazon). Basically, there were easy pickings for growth: revolutionary technologies like electricity, lots of land, lots of opportunity. Now, there are no low-hanging fruit to get high growth again. Everyone else is simply playing catch-up.

      For America, the problem is that for the last 20 years, being a lawyer or Wall Street-type manager or financial manager was where the money was. Unfortunately, those types don't actually create anything. They are, at best, enablers of the people who do and make things. In most cases, though, they are simply fat parasites on the free market draining our best & brightest into pointless careers making derivatives, etc.

      America's decline isn't from government, or even necessarily the Rich and Powerful, but from her people. They've turned their back on getting rich by working hard (understandable because of above) or inventing & discovering things. They've turned their back on learning and education (See for example, TLC's transformation from a science/learning channel to reality TV channel). They've also begun turning their back on science and logic in favor of "gut feelings" (Thanks, Glen Beck and Fox News!).

      Unless America opens up its borders again, I'd say: get used to it.

      --
      The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
    13. Re:is it just me? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you reffering to the middle class or the wealthy. This opinion exists on both(as if there were only two) sides, but widely strongly disagree about the basis of American strength. The reality is that the U.S. is already in second(or lower) place for every major assessment of power, except military strength.

    14. Re:is it just me? by c0lo · · Score: 0

      In the short term, perhaps it is, but as more of the world achieves our standard of living, there are more consumers for our goods as well.

      Excuse me? Can you please repeat? I didn't quite get the idea of "our goods". What goods? Fast pizza delivery?

      Long term, raising up your neighbors only helps you.

      Well, I'd be happy to hear how US helped Mexico and Canada.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    15. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean to say, that while Americans and the rest of the free world were rebuilding at leisure, creating that enviable culture of postbelic golden years, in the USSR and the rest of it's companions it was mostly work, work and work, bringing so much pain, that even 20 years after their fall it's signs are still obvious.

    16. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hm... but the loudest complaints come from those who want to run the US. Makes for an effective piece of a political platform.

    17. Re:is it just me? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      The real lesson here is that a modern industrial state with some reasonable quality of life doesn't come about by the invisible hand; it takes focused, directed work at the goal to get anything done.

      Why do you hate America?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    18. Re:is it just me? by hoggoth · · Score: 2

      "Our goods" refers to the only thing we make anymore, intellectual property: Ideas, music, movies, lawsuits, patents. Why do you think the USA is strong-arming the rest of the world to implement draconian protection for Big Content? It's the only thing we make and the powers-that-be know that.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    19. Re:is it just me? by El+Torico · · Score: 1

      ...When the rest of the world has the same tools and conditions, invariably they will start to come to par with us...

      Which conditions exactly? Do you mean just economic?

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    20. Re:is it just me? by budcub · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I grew up in the 1970's and had to listen to my parents complain about how great things used to be and how they sucked now (then). Didn't hear it so much in the late 1980's. When the recession hit in the early 1990's it was in all the newspaper editorials that the US was a fading empire like the Greeks, Romans, and British before us. Basically everything we're hearing now. Once we bounced back and had a big economic boom in the late 90's it wasn't the case anymore. Then the recession of the early 2000s hit and it was the same thing all over again. Our empire such as it is may be fading but whenever there is a economic downturn, we hear the same complaints.

    21. Re:is it just me? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Excuse me? Can you please repeat? I didn't quite get the idea of "our goods". What goods? Fast pizza delivery?

      Kinda hard to send pizza to India. But it would be something a franchise could do. That brings money into the US. Our 'goods' are whatever we can produce - Music, art, software, games, Levi's blue jeans, Coca-Cola. Isolationism is the worst thing we could do.

      Well, I'd be happy to hear how US helped Mexico and Canada.

      Well for starters if Mexico has a thriving economy, we don't have the immigration problem. That sounds like something you would want no? Compare Canada and Mexico. Which is the better trading partner right now? And which is the more 'modern' economy? Lift up Mexico and now you have 2 big trading partners looking to consume your goods. How is that bad?

      I did say there might be short term losses associated with it and I don't deny that. But long term this is investment in future demand for our goods and services.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    22. Re:is it just me? by jth4242 · · Score: 2

      Statism is coming to an end. The American federal government is collapsing and that is identified with a collapse of America itself, because that statist doctrine is internalised by pretty much everyone.

      China is going well and I'm happy about it, but China won't replace America. The next, big technology scoop will come from America, as usual. For a long time to come.

    23. Re:is it just me? by internerdj · · Score: 2

      Are you doing poorly because you aren't mining the metal and refining it before machining parts? Aren't you buying someone else's product, performing a service, and passing on extra costs and additional value to your customers? Just because someone produces a soft product, doesn't mean that there is no value to it. Craftsman tools are popular because of the soft product, warrantee. By all accounts they are no better than any other tool, but a generation of men will swear by them because if it breaks I can take it back.

    24. Re:is it just me? by Denogh · · Score: 1

      Define "good job".

    25. Re:is it just me? by Duradin · · Score: 5, Funny

      "There's a growing realization that those who run the US have killed the goose that lays the golden eggs."

      The reviews said that the foie gras was very good, only a brief and slight aftertaste of regret..

    26. Re:is it just me? by starfishsystems · · Score: 1

      It's a very hard subject for political leaders to name. The United States is permeated with a national identity based on industrialization and empire. And a notable feature of empires is that people within them don't perceive them being empires with the inequity and unsustainability that implies. Look at Britain for a similar example.

      How does a political leader speak to this? It's a very unpalatable, almost sacreligious subject, especially if the prevailing culture doesn't value reflection, critical thought, and humility. There are lots and lots of Americans who do, and lots of means for their voices to be heard, but I don't think we're going to hear the subject being broached directly by the political aristocracy.

      Barack Obama, to his credit I think, has spoken very thoughtfully and candidly about particular things that are wrong, for example the subprime mortgage debacle and the Wall Street culture which caused it. But it's politically risky for him to make a habot of criticizing the status quo, even if the status quo is in desperate need of being redesigned. The last people to admit it, even to themselves, will be those whose power flows from their position within the status quo.

      --
      Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
    27. Re:is it just me? by cobrausn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Arguably, the 70s is probably when the US decline started. It's just a slow decline, so you're going to keep hearing it. What is interesting to me is despite the obvious loss of US influence and relevance in industry / education / R&D, technology has enabled an (arguably) higher quality of life for most in the US. Of course it is doing the same for other countries as well.

      --
      How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
    28. Re:is it just me? by c0lo · · Score: 2

      "Our goods" refers to the only thing we make anymore, intellectual property: Ideas, music, movies, lawsuits, patents.

      As I said: fast pizza delivery and thanks for confirming it.

      1. Ideas? Cheap. TFA seems to point that technological implementations of these ideas are coming slower lately.
      2. music/movies? One can live without Bieber and Lady Gaga, thank you. Besides, China and India (supposedly the neighbors that received help) are somehow tuned a bit different when it comes to music/movies.
      3. patents/lawsuits? Tell this to China: if they decide to be polite, they'll pat you on the shoulder for the good joke.

      Why do you think the USA is strong-arming the rest of the world to implement draconian protection for Big Content? It's the only thing we make and the powers-that-be know that.

      Yes, I understand the desperation for scrapping the bottom of the economic barrel. However, creating dumb content (as opposite to being ahead in the technological race) can't help even on medium term.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    29. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The soviet command economy collapsed rather spectacularly, and wasn't that wonderful for the comrades (slave laborers) who had to live and die with it.

      Europe and Japan rebuilt with a hell of a lot of help from the US, not only in the Marshall plan, but our subsidizing their national defense for the last 60+ years.

      The real lesson here is "focused, directed work at the goal to get anything done" either needs to get it paid for by someone else like a welfare queen, or can get it done with the millions of its own dead.

    30. Re:is it just me? by cobrausn · · Score: 4, Informative

      The shop is not dooing poorly at all - if anything, new technology has made the quality of product go up and revenue with it. The customer base and competition has changed.

      --
      How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
    31. Re:is it just me? by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The wealthy have killed off the middle class. A strong middle class is what made America great.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    32. Re:is it just me? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Reliable health insurance, clean water, trash pickup, electrical service. The things we take for granted that make our economy actually work.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    33. Re:is it just me? by macson_g · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is not fair, we can't compete with cheap labor

      Oh of course it is fair and of course you can! You just got so used to be so unfairly rich that whenever someone (someone=brutal reality and/or the invisible hand of markets) reminds you about it You all start dragging your feet yelling and screaming.

    34. Re:is it just me? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ideas are cheap? Sure they are. 'Good' ideas however, and the ability to implement them are decided not cheap or common. If we can't come up with ideas, well then perhaps the article is right, we are in decline. I prefer to believe we have plenty of talented people who will come up with the 'next big thing' that we can sell to the world.

      Apple tends to be good at this and they are an American company. Sure the manufacture and such is done overseas, but I'd say they bring in a fair amount of money to the US wouldn't you?

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    35. Re:is it just me? by cavreader · · Score: 2

      If only folks would take an honest look at the history of the US they might be able to put things in better perspective. I have always had a problem with people saying the US is failing as a society and falling from some undefined and imaginary pinnacle of happiness and success leaving no where else to go but down. But looking at history the US has always had major problems throughout it's relatively short history. Starting with the revolutionary war and progressing to the native american wars, civil war, WW1, massive class based inequities (robber barons era), great depression, womens rights struggle, Immigration Act (limited immigration by race), Japanese internent camps, WW2, Korea, Cold War, civil rights and racial descrimination struggle, Vietnam, oil embargo, Iranian hostage crisis, Junk Bond Crisis, Lebanon Marine Barracks attack, Iran/Contra, 9/11, Gulf War 1/2, Afghanistan. When has their ever been a trouble free period in the US where everybody was happy and content? The political infighting and internal frictions today are mild compared to earlier times, when the phrase "politically correct" referred to anything that won the argument. The anti-war crowd before WW2 makes todays anti-war crowd look like roaring war supporters. The religious based encroachments on general society was bad enough in the early 1900's to actually push through prohibition laws.( I still can't wrap my head around that one) Today's problems and issues are nothing new and in a lot of respects no where near as troublesome as some in the past. As other countries continue to solve their internal problems and move into the international arena it is natural that the US will lose some of it's lead in all types of areas. It doesn't mean the US is necessarily failing but the other countries are finally getting their acts together. We just can't judge our societal progress based solely on our technical achievements. Their are still plenty of areas for technical achievement in the alternative energy,bio-technology, and computing fields. The government is sitting on some very advanced technology and usng military secrets law as the justification for classifying the tech. Everyone has been talking about technology like the Kinect and gesture based computer operations while the military have been using heads up virtual displays and eye monocles to provide an eye interface for controlling weapon systems for 10 years. I imagine they are also sitting on advanced satellite technology, exotic material technology, and even solar technology they are using to power their field operations.

    36. Re:is it just me? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      Is it just me or is the America-is-over sentiment growing by leaps and bounds lately? Not that I'm judging it, I feel the same way much of the time. But it seems more and more that this attitude is coming to the forefront of our national consciousness and yet none of our leaders have done anything to address it.

      Indeed. I wonder how much of it stems from people *wanting* America's glory days to be over. I certainly don't. China may be the workshop for the world, but they aren't the innovators of the world we still are.

      We have Intel, Google, Microsoft, (cough) Facebook, Blizzard, and so forth, all of which are pre-eminent in their respective fields. When was the last time you heard about some French MMORPG being released, or new Word Processing software from Germany? While I'm sure they exist - it's all America in first place.

      Sad times. Guess I should go check out Mandarin for Dummies from the library.

      I learned Mandarin just for the fun of it. But it's not a bad thing to know, from a future business perspective.

    37. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the health insurance is anything but reliable in the usa.

    38. Re:is it just me? by rlp · · Score: 1

      yet none of our leaders have done anything to address it

      Sure they have - they are doing quite a bit to distract the public from thinking about it.

      --
      [Insert pithy quote here]
    39. Re:is it just me? by alen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i've lived in the US since 1981 and it's always been like this. in the 1980's it was Japan was going to rule us. now it's china. PBS even has the transcript of a 1989 Frontline program about how Japan is going to rule the US and we're going to be just an economic colony.

      yes a lot of stuff is made in china, but if you look closely most of the money stays in the US. we pay the chinese very little for menial assembly work. all the real expensive work is done in the US. the net profit margins of foxconn are something like 4%. food companies make more than that. apple pays more out in patent royalties on the iphone than they pay the chinese to build it.

    40. Re:is it just me? by jd · · Score: 1

      That's only when the fun begins. Not only are people elected because they hate the Government, those elected (by now being in Government) are now paranoid of those who elected them (who now hate them for being the Government), thus creating new causes for those who do the electing to hate the Government.

      I'd suggest that there be one or two elections in which there was a minimum level of sanity to either stand or vote, but it would leave nobody running and 10 voters.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    41. Re:is it just me? by c0lo · · Score: 1

      What makes you think the leaders will change when the people won't?

      Think? Well, that's preposterous... You need to have faith to maintain the minimal degree of optimism required to continue living.

      Here, repeat after me:
      1. "Creationism is as good as Darwinism, both theories must be equally presented to the kids"
      2. "Scientists arguing for and against AGW are equal. Who one chooses to believe is an undeniable freedom".

      Now, repeat this mantra a few times a day. After a while you'll realize that nobody needs to worry about technological decline in US.

      (GRIN)

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    42. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A strong middle class is what made America great.

      I thought that it was freedom.

    43. Re:is it just me? by hoggoth · · Score: 2

      Apple brings in a fair amount of money to APPLE. Apple employs 49,400 people worldwide according to Wikipedia. One of Apple's subcontractors, FoxConn, employs 400,000 at ONE of their iPhone assembly complexes.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    44. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      The poor (and the left) have also done a good job of lumping the upper-middle class in with the wealthy when they start villianizing. The upper-middle (you know, around $250,000 a year) are the ones who start new businesses, not so much the middle class.

      I'd agree with a lot of leftist rhetoric if they would put the 'evil rich guy' number a little higher. $250k a year is just enough to save for a few years and then self-invest or find some investors and risk it all forming your own company, especially if you've got a family. It's not until you earn your first million that you start thinking about how to screw the little guy to get to a billion.

    45. Re:is it just me? by internerdj · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry, you misunderstood. Your product is technically a hard product, but you started with a refined product, added what your customers perceive as value, and sold a more refined product. If buy a threaded rod from you, does the removal of metal to form the threads add value? You started with 2 lbs of metal and give me 1.8. Now say I'm making a jet, I need a threaded rod. You sell it to a company that then sells it to me with the addition that it insures it to a certain strength. If it fails then they take some of my risk. The value you added is no different than the value they added. Your product is a phsical change, but other than that a process that makes something more useful to me is worth extra cost and the form of that value does not make either job less important.

    46. Re:is it just me? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      The problem is it isn't just anecdotal whining. There's statistical evidence that we've been in decline for decades (3-4 can't remember). But, we're the king of the hill and it'll take a long slide to come off it. It takes sharp periods of decline for people to notice.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    47. Re:is it just me? by mlts · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd probably pin the decline of the US on a number of factors:

      1: The view that engineers, mathematicians, and computer scientists are "nerds" and deserve contempt, while someone who might kick around a ball for 5-10 minutes is considered a superhero. China and Russia value their scientists, like how we in the US did in the 1950s-1960s. Now since science is considered "beneath" most Americans, compared to business or law, not sowing out seeds in the field means a crappy harvest. You are right, we had a long while where attorney was the meal ticket. Now, there isn't much they can parasite off of, so those fields are drying up. Until people in the US as a whole start valuing the people that innovate, as opposed to a sports hero, or Justin Beiber, the economy will remain stagnant, and the jobs that don't move overseas will be taken by H-1Bs.

      2: Lack of interest in R&D. Companies here either license new stuff, buy the company that has it, or litigate the company that has something they want out of existence. Actual old school R&D like PARC or Bell Labs isn't done anymore, and it is blamed on "product liability". Even the government isn't that interested in keeping innovation. So, obviously (OB car example), when the gas is turned off to the engine, it stops moving. No seed funding == no cool new things coming from labs.

      3: Espionage. To a PHB, security has no ROI. They really don't give a shit if their corporate trade secrets mysteriously appear in Beijing or Tehran as long as they have good sales numbers for this quarter. So, even with innovation, it is stolen by other nations that actually value security. Until companies actually give a shit about keeping their stuff secure, any research done in the US is a freebie given to BRIC.

      4: Lack of education in the US. Other countries value education, and help fund it for their citizens. For an American to get to a similar education level as an average French or German adult at the age of 25-30, it will take $20,000 to $50,000 worth of tuition. For an average American to get to the level of education of a German cop (not a lawyer, a street policeman) it would take over six digits of tuition spent.

      Until these are addressed, the slide will continue.

    48. Re:is it just me? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 5, Interesting
      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    49. Re:is it just me? by c0lo · · Score: 1

      But long term this is investment in future demand for our goods and services.

      Mate, I'd be happy to invest some more on the stock market. Reality is my bank asks me to pay the mortgage on the spot every month.

      Has US paid the "cumulated" mortgage that went bust a couple of years ago? Can US afford to invest in neighbors? If yes, would it be a better investment in R&D?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    50. Re:is it just me? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      There are numerous issues.
      1. Geek/Nerd Culture - where the people who were excited about learning and technology were placed in an outcast environment. Stereotyped as tall lanky with thick glasses with taped glasses and socially inept. This idea came ingrained in the Late Baby Boomers and Gen X. This made interests in Science, Technology, Engineering an outcast job. Media liked this image as it made the "Normals" feel better about themselves.

      2. Rise of religious fundamentalism + Rise of intolerant atheism - I am a religious person myself, I can see why others may not believe in god. But what is happening the Religious Fundamentals cannot/refuse to integrate science into their faith as they cannot get past the first chapter without creating a conflict with sciences current most logical theories, refusing to take these ideas as metaphoric thus creating a growing group of openly hostile to science. As well there is a growing number of Intolerant Atheists who try to shove the science down these people head to prove their entire religion is wrong. Creating an aggressive opposing group, were both sides can use to pull more people into their side, where were once more moderate. So there is a rising group of people preventing the acceptant and funding of science.

      3. USA #1 - We are the largest Military and largest economy and have a very good standard of living. When things are good you innovate less. With USSR gone we are safe from a full war against the US.

      4. Environment - A trade off for a better environment is slower growth in overall technology. We are focusing on making what we already have run better without making much that is new.

      5. Bubble Economics - Tech, Housing, Medical... These areas of rapid growth followed by a pop prevents serious long term development in these area. Just a rush then stagnation.

      6. Globalization - US had a strangle hold for a long time. We are now having to compete globally.

      7. Education - Policy has Math and Science as the Red Headed step child of education. Every High School Grad should have at least Pre-Calc and taken Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Geology. Anyone with a B.A. or B.S. Degree should have up to Calc II (and non of that lets call it Calc but teach algebra class), and 2 additional Natural Science classes.

      8. Education/Government/Industry Gap - Neither side trusts or respects the other. Creating difficulty of getting smart cheap labor from Education, Long Term funding from government, and innovation and implementation from industry.

      9. Aging population - Many old farts out there without young whippersnappers to replace them all and put new approaches on problems. Leaving a population who is happy to do it like in the good old days.

      10. Aging infrastructure - US became #1 because it had the top modern infrastructure. It has gotten old and now it is a problem. And they all have gotten old at the same time.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    51. Re:is it just me? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    52. Re:is it just me? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Kinda hard to send pizza to India. But it would be something a franchise could do. That brings money into the US. Our 'goods' are whatever we can produce - Music, art, software, games, Levi's blue jeans, Coca-Cola. Isolationism is the worst thing we could do.

      The trouble is trickle down economics works, it works when you have a good sized population of people earning 7 and 8 figure salaries. That money tends to find its way out into the economy an enabling lots of other people to earn 5 figure salaries.

      When you have a handful of people earning 12+ figures most of that money ends up stuffed in the proverbial mattress. This is what you get when companies outsource (Apple, Levi, are examples from this thread who don't make anything hardly at all here), yes lots of money comes in from over seas as a result of their activities but it ends up in a very small number of American hands; who can't spread it around literally because they haven't the time.

      I suppose you could tax it and have government spread it but that usually terribly ineffective. I actually think a this globalist strategy is NOT good for the Average American, a good healthy dose of protectionism might be what our economy really needs.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    53. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Now they're just trying to figure out ow to get the rest of our assets. Social Security in particular. Once they've bled us dry, the can make the final move to India or China. The problem is that neither of those nations are really developing a middle class so who's going to buy their stuff?.

    54. Re:is it just me? by xednieht · · Score: 1

      That is exactly what brought it to this point ... everyone is waiting for "our leaders have done anything to address it"

      Americans need to get off their fat lazy asses as take grab that ol' bull by the horns.

      --

      Hope is the currency of fools
    55. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're successfully sending quite a lot of pizza to India. American chain restaurants are a worldwide phenomenon.

    56. Re:is it just me? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      2. - Says who? apparently there are a large number of people who buy there music. You and I may not like it, but so what?

      Of course, what must happen is good science education and a tax on all goods that come from someplace that don't meet our federal wage and safety guidelines do bring the cost to parity.

      Yes, Americans will pay more, but only for the cheapest goods, and they will have more money to spend.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    57. Re:is it just me? by chispito · · Score: 1

      I love how you find a way to blame this on Fox News and Glen Beck. Yes, the reason that the US doesn't produce as many innovations is because of a cable news channel and a talk show host.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    58. Re:is it just me? by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

      Just start dating somebody who speaks Mandarin, much easier and fun.

    59. Re:is it just me? by dohnut · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While I have no love for the wealthy (they do just fine without it), it is not they (directly) who have killed off the middle class. Globalization (which I'm also not against) has killed off the middle class. And it is killing off the middle class (in America) because the middle class let it.

      Everyone who, when presented with multiple products to purchase to fulfill a specific need or desire, will usually pick the cheapest one (everything else being equal). Well, guess what? The cheapest one is not made in America. So every time you do this you send jobs overseas. It's a vote that tells corporations that if they want your business then they have to use cheap foreign labor to get it.

      So cry me a river middle class America -- for once you got what you voted for. Why shouldn't tech (and pretty much everything else) leave America? We obviously won't pay for it anyway. I sure as hell do not want to invest in a company that is going to employ Americans (I'm an American btw). You're paying a premium for nothing. Simply wasting money to sustain a way of life that is rapidly losing momentum as it further enters the atmosphere of global reality (excuse the poor analogy).

      --
      Stupider like a fox! - H.S.
    60. Re:is it just me? by magarity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Interesting thing about that that refutes your point

      And the even more interesting thing about that chart is they choose when the Great Society programs started to hit full stride as when to notice low income earners stopped improving. No longer do the poor in America see themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires but instead as deserving something for nothing. Thanks Kennedy/LBJ/Nixon/Ford!

    61. Re:is it just me? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      I went to a Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson lecture last night. Interestingly enough, he showed a chart that resized each nation on a map based on their total scientific output. The US totally dwarfed the rest of the world except Europe and Japan. However, if you take the derivative of this (i.e. the rate of change in scientific output over the last decade) the US becomes a small country. We are falling HARD. China, Europe, and Japan with Japan and Europe leading the forefront are totally obliterating us when it comes to growth in science and technology. We are only riding out the rest of our momentum from our forefathers. A crash is inevitable unless we seriously invest in science and technology projects. Interestingly enough, the nations with the highest scientific output also have the longest life expectancies, the best economies, and the fairest wages for their people. They also weather disasters much better than other nations. Case in point : Haiti had a 7.0 magnitude earthquake and 250,000 people died. Japan had a 9.0 magnitude earthquake, a tsunami, and a nuclear disaster and less than 28,000 people died. Keep in mind that the Richter scale for earthquakes is logarithmic. So a 9.0 magnitude earthquake is thousands of times stronger than a 7.0 magnitude. As Dr. Tyson said, THAT IS A TRIUMPH of science. People need to seriously consider this when they vote next election and when they talk about cutting funding for our science programs like NASA, NIST, etc. Its an investment in our future economy. It takes longer than most MBA "captains of industry" are willing to wait for profits, but the payout is HUGE.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    62. Re:is it just me? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      All technology looks like easy growth with hindsight. It's one of the reason I say hindsight is not 20-20, hindsight is a lying bitch.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    63. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in large part they are right, American in general has become more consumer than builder. Machine parts to medicine to software engineering. Till we find our way back we will keep lagging behind. divert some of the talented brain power than wants to build the next facebook to something like energy and medicine.

    64. Re:is it just me? by ThosLives · · Score: 2

      I think the GP is correct actually; it's not "fair". "Fair" would be if a product cost the same no matter where it was produced.

      The problem is that, fundamentally, workers in some countries simply demand far less in exchange for their labor than in other countries. In the US, people demand food, clothing, a car (or two or three), single-family dwellings, entertainment, health care, and some kind of retirement savings in exchange for their labor. In other countries, workers are happy to exchange all their labor for only food, clothing, and an apartment. You can't force people to buy more than they want; even if you give them cash they may just sit on it (just look at the US bank bailout; the banks were given all sorts of cash, but they didn't "buy" anything with it (no increase in loans offered).

      The other problem is that people are happy to pay for the lower-priced goods, but they forget that unless they are doing something for which other people will continue paying more, the folks with higher demands will tend to lose their ability to maintain their high level of demands.

      Mathematically, the population requiring the lowest pay will always be able to stress the population demanding more pay. Note that this is different from things like slavery which artificially hold prices low (or its complement, forcing prices to be high); this is just the natural willingness to be content with less.

      --
      "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
    65. Re:is it just me? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1
      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    66. Re:is it just me? by geekoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      5) The sale of key technologies.

      People seem to overlook that the key technologies, from wing design, to making steel, was sold from companies to foreign companies. THAT is what really killed the majority of manufacturing.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    67. Re:is it just me? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Where "those that run the US" these days are corporations looking for short term profit. Look to the moronic phrase "Free enterprise works" as the sentiment that's doing this. We've seen the economic damage that letting big business and finance have its own way has had.

      In reality, enterprise works given leadership and regulation from the state. It's a partnership.

    68. Re:is it just me? by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      What do they care? They'll be dead before the money runs out

    69. Re:is it just me? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      True, but it's very dangerous to start believing the boom-bust cycle is a natural thing and there will always be another boom. Growth will always return but I'm not confident the US - or us here in western Europe - will be in a position to take advantage of it. Never before have we faced this level of global competition from China on manufacturing and India on services with a mature Internet backbone to let people work globally. We will have to work extremely hard to justify the wage difference between us and them, or they will simply expand there not here.

      The consumer side is not much better, we are all crumbling under our debt. We simply can not continue being the big spenders we were, which is unlike any previous recession after WWII. I don't think we will ever return to being that attractive a market as we have been up until now. Greece, Ireland, Portugal have already needed emergency loans and if Spain goes too then the EU is bankrupt. The US has a 1.5 trillion budget deficit and is in no position to help. People are talking about this being the worst economy since the Great Depression but they don't realize we're not at the bottom. We've fallen down to a ledge at the edge of the abyss and you'd better pray we manage to climb our way out.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    70. Re:is it just me? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      no, it was said in the 50s, and 30's.

      Seriously, we have been on the verge of collapse for 200 year. Any day now, yep yep.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    71. Re:is it just me? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Outsourcing does this dude : http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110408/ts_yblog_thelookout/off-the-charts-income-gains-for-super-rich . Furthermore, goods and products next door mean nothing if Japan and Europe have the best ones because they actually invest in technology projects, science education and infrastructure.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    72. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'll be the first one to advocate for serious changes in the economic incentive structure in the US economy--basically, there needs to be a lot more competition, with less corporate protectionism, but also greater incentive for long-term industrial profit (there's no easy way to discuss this briefly).

      However, there's also a simple case to be made that there's more global competition now than there was before. There's a lot of economic evidence that the US was relatively advantaged due to everyone else's misery during the post-WWII era, and now that they have caught up, it's going to be harder for the US to dominate everything (which isn't a bad thing--and I'm saying this as an American).

      I.e., it's not necessarily that the US is declining, it's that everyone else is improving.

      There are a lot of things that could be improved in the US--no doubt about that--but it needs to be understood in the context of a global economy that is becoming more competitive and diversified.

    73. Re:is it just me? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110408/ts_yblog_thelookout/off-the-charts-income-gains-for-super-rich

      I went to a Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson lecture last night. Interestingly enough, he showed a chart that resized each nation on a map based on their total scientific output. The US totally dwarfed the rest of the world except Europe and Japan. However, if you take the derivative of this (i.e. the rate of change in scientific output over the last decade) the US becomes a small country. We are falling HARD. China, Europe, and Japan with Japan and Europe leading the forefront are totally obliterating us when it comes to growth in science and technology. We are only riding out the rest of our momentum from our forefathers. A crash is inevitable unless we seriously invest in science and technology projects. Interestingly enough, the nations with the highest scientific output also have the longest life expectancies, the best economies, and the fairest wages for their people. They also weather disasters much better than other nations. Case in point : Haiti had a 7.0 magnitude earthquake and 250,000 people died. Japan had a 9.0 magnitude earthquake, a tsunami, and a nuclear disaster and less than 28,000 people died. Keep in mind that the Richter scale for earthquakes is logarithmic. So a 9.0 magnitude earthquake is thousands of times stronger than a 7.0 magnitude. As Dr. Tyson said, THAT IS A TRIUMPH of science. People need to seriously consider this when they vote next election and when they talk about cutting funding for our science programs like NASA, NIST, etc. Its an investment in our future economy. It takes longer than most MBA "captains of industry" are willing to wait for profits, but the payout is HUGE.

      I apologize for the repost, but I had to say this to you as well.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    74. Re:is it just me? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Learning mandarin for business is generally a waste.

      A) The mandarin dialects can be so different, people from different areas can't talk
      B) China is learning English.

      I mean, learn new languages, it's a healthy thing to do. But don't learn it because you think Mandarin will become the business language.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    75. Re:is it just me? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Not fair to blame it only on the government. When the average people can't keep track of their own lives, the average household debt is huge; how can you expect the government to keep track of itself? Maybe if we had a dictator, but in a democracy, the politicians are only going to do the least amount necessary to keep the populace happy. And that doesn't include running a balanced house.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    76. Re:is it just me? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Wish I could mod you insightful. It's just like those people every decade or so who think the world is about to end. And that goes back for a thousand years or more.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    77. Re:is it just me? by binary+paladin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That went away with the middle class too. Two sides of the same coin. The rich want control and the poor want big brother to tend to them (generally speaking). A strong middle class is necessary for a free society.

    78. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it seems we've been diagnosed with end-stage liberalism.

    79. Re:is it just me? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Funny

      So the American bourgeoisie are finally getting slammed? Well, here's the world's tiniest violin. They had it coming for a long time.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    80. Re:is it just me? by sourcerror · · Score: 2, Insightful

      " the banks were given all sorts of cash, but they didn't "buy" anything with it (no increase in loans offered)."
      Of course they didn't. It was better investment to buy up small banks that didn't get TARP money.

      " You can't force people to buy more than they want; even if you give them cash they may just sit on it ... Note that this is different from things like slavery which artificially hold prices low (or its complement, forcing prices to be high); this is just the natural willingness to be content with less."

      Boy, you're so full of shit! They're not content.
      1, They're living in a dictatorship, where they don't have the right to strike
      2, They can't legally immigrate to US or Western Europe. Hell, even an Eastern European EU citizen can't migrate to Western-Europe*. Even though goods and services can go through borders.

      *UK is an exception in this regard

    81. Re:is it just me? by karuna · · Score: 1

      The soviet command economy collapsed rather spectacularly, and wasn't that wonderful for the comrades (slave laborers) who had to live and die with it.

      The Soviet command economy had certain problems but it wasn't the cause of the collapse of the USSR. It was the other way around. When the USSR collapsed due to its political weakness, then any meaningful economic structures were destroyed in the name of "free market" and the economy took real nosedive. Chaos, unemployment and hyperinflation ensued.

      For the majority of former USSR citizens the quality of life today is worse than in the Soviet Union. Even for the Baltic States that are EU members now the GDP hasn't reached the pre-independence level yet.

    82. Re:is it just me? by jaypifer · · Score: 1, Troll

      It's not a hatred of America as much as an ignorance of capitalism. Many people can't comprehend how it works and need to subscribe to the religion of authoritarianism.

      --
      Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three.
    83. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be forgetting that the USSR bore the brunt of Germany's aggression and still managed to rebuild, just as it had rebuilt in the wake of its civil war. The USSR (and the Warsaw Pact, and Yugoslavia, and Albania) rebuilt with a command economy and Europe (and Japan) rebuilt with heavy state investment and trade protectionism (and the USA continued to build with state investment without worrying about destruction back home).

      The real lesson here is that a modern industrial state with some reasonable quality of life doesn't come about by the invisible hand; it takes focused, directed work at the goal to get anything done.

      Sure, the USSR was awesome and a bastion of worker freedom and happiness! What with the Gulags, unknown numbers killed in various purges, political camps and such. Yep, it was so awesome. The USA with all it's stupid capitalism and investment and such. Bah! They didn't create hardly any wealth or prosperity. Now that Socialism is on the rise, the USA has the brightest future ever! Right? Right? *watches the deficit rising into the stratosphere and debt piling up the the sky*

    84. Re:is it just me? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      We could still pull it around, but it's going to be difficult given that the GOP has a distinct hatred for the lower classes. It's really hard to maintain our position as a world power economically if we're dismantling the tools we used to produce wealth and other nations lose their interest in being exploited so we can have a service sector economy.

      Just look at all the blow back over closing the loophole that allows corporations to subsidize foreign investment with US tax payer money. A minor tweak to making them book profits before they can book losses is some sort of an outrage to many.

      Or health care reform, we were the only developed country not to have a recognized right to access health care and it was a very serious problem for our competitive edge. At the rate it was growing it was going to have to change otherwise it would very quickly take up all of our GDP.

    85. Re:is it just me? by cdrguru · · Score: 0

      The only ways to compete with cheap foreign labor are things that are going to look really bad or destroy the economy of the West.

      Sure, we could just import all the cheap labor that is needed. Not H1B-type importation but real, honest immigrants in ghettos. Create a special class of workers (foreign) that aren't citizens and aren't subject to minimum wage, OSHA, worker's comp and a host of other things the competition doesn't have and isn't interested in. Then the US and Western Europe can have the jobs back. Right now in the US I would suspect that there would be plenty of people - citizens - that would happily take a job at 1/2 minimum wage just so they had a job, any job at all.

      Certainly in the US we could make it clear that "exploitation of cheap labor" was the point of the entire program and there would still be people streaming in. Perhaps it might reduce it a bit when letters home started complaining that the foreign worker program wasn't paying people any more than they could earn in Guatemala or whereever they are coming from. This would affect the supply of cheap workers somewhat - but the US has always had a huge foreign worker influx. Look at the Chinese labor that was imported in the 1800s.

      I'd say the only other way to "compete" is to not even try. Offshore and outsource everything that is possible to outsource and offshore. Realize that if it is possible to pay factory workers $0.25 a day that someone is going to take advantage of it and it might as well be people in the US that benefit from it. Understand that prison slave labor is cheap and effective for some types of work. All jobs in the US become high-skill, high-tech jobs mostly focusing on making use of the cheap overseas labor for the unskilled work. Make it a federal crime to outsource or offshore anything that allows IP to fall into foreign hands. Start a huge program of paying people to move overseas if they do not have the required skills, training or intelligence.

      Unfortunately, the first way looks really bad and the second way only works for a little while - maybe 100 years or so. The "goal" of the US and Western Europe would seem to be to eliminate cheap labor by raising the standard of living everywhere. The problem is that in places like Indonesia, China, and India the people really in charge there aren't interested in raising everyone's standard of living and the people are happy with the scraps they are getting tossed now. Sure, India is getting a few more scraps than before but in a country of 800 million with most of the people in abject rural poverty there is an awful lot of depth in cheap labor still to go. It will be a long, long time before the people in rural India are earning even 1/100th of a poor Westerner and that is a huge cheap labor pool.

    86. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How ignorant. LOL'ed fist then serious'ed. The reason the Soviets made any progress is because the whole country worked for peanuts and millions worked for free (incarcerated political dissidents, concentration camps in Siberia). It doesn't take central planning to get great things accomplished. All is needed is free and just incentive system. Capitalism has it's flaws but it still remains the best system for getting results.

    87. Re:is it just me? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 0

      No problem with your point. The peons need bread-and-circuses to keep them preoccupied while the rich steal all the money. We really should force all the super rich to stay in America by revoking all of their passports, take half their assets, and invest it in science and technology projects and infrastructure. If we tax them slowly they will simply leave to other countries. Better to take it back with one fell swoop.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    88. Re:is it just me? by peragrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      if you can't compete then the free market is working.

      you can't be capitalistic and complain about cheap foriegn labor. that's is being a hypocrite

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    89. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reality is that the U.S. is already in second(or lower) place for every major assessment of power, except military strength.

      You seem to have forgotten the only measure of power that actually matters: economy. The U.S. is still the single richest nation in the world by a wide margin. And for as long as it maintains that position it will remain the world's only super power.

    90. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you keep posting the same link over and over? You've posted it already. We've seen it. Move on.

    91. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be forgetting that the USSR bore the brunt of Germany's aggression and still managed to rebuild, just as it had rebuilt in the wake of its civil war. The USSR (and the Warsaw Pact, and Yugoslavia, and Albania) rebuilt with a command economy and Europe (and Japan) rebuilt with heavy state investment and trade protectionism (and the USA continued to build with state investment without worrying about destruction back home).

      The real lesson here is that a modern industrial state with some reasonable quality of life doesn't come about by the invisible hand; it takes focused, directed work at the goal to get anything done.

      Stalin built a modern industrial economy by fear and murder. The Soviet Union rebuilt it on the backs of eastern Europe after World War II. They milked it like a cow until it was about dry. It couldn't keep up in the "arms race, the space race and the peace race" (yes, that's a Dr. Strangelove quote / paraphrase). Their economy is vastly more productive now than it was under a command economy. Western Europe and Japan rebuilt with hard work and some US assistance (although Europe recieved far more help than Japan). Government is always involved, to a greater or lesser extent, in economic activities (especially infrastructure) but the incentive to work / innovate that expands economies rapidly just isn't there under state control (unless your willing to coerce and kill). It takes oversight, not heavy handed control, to create "a modern industrial state with some reasonable quality of life" and a government willing to do those things that are not profitable (immediately anyway). It doesn't need a political system to do the work, just to keep an eye on it. And the people keeping the eye on it need to understand economics. Too often all our politicians understand is how to pander to the electorate and get reelected.

    92. Re:is it just me? by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      The problem is that there isn't any real point in making anything in the US anymore - the labor costs are too high when compared with the rest of the world. If it costs a machine shop $100 to make some complicated part it can certainly be done for $20 somewhere else. Maybe not quite as good, but cheaper. And just about everyone is interested in cheaper. Quality is something that governments can think about but cheap and just barely good enough is fine for consumers.

    93. Re:is it just me? by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      rich... yes we are just so rich... with our homeless and our poverty ridden cities... The conditions we would have to live in to compare wage to wage to China or India are not possible with the cost of living in this country. Well not possible and eat daily or have a roof over your head (both tend toward being prerequisites to having a job in the US). 30 or 40 years ago, you may have been able to have a room at the local WMCA in a big city like NYC and hold down a job. Those days are long gone, you need a phone at the least to have a job. Usually a permanent address (not a PO box) is also required. Taking a bath every morning and 'smelling nice' are also important to getting an HR person to hire you. Looking the way that person or even that business wants is key to. It is very hard to keep a tailored suit looking nice and live in a homeless shelter.

      Our society is just damn well built wrong to ever hope to compete. Yet you somehow think it is. I don't think you've ever tried to live on a very low income in the US.

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    94. Re:is it just me? by MagikSlinger · · Score: 1

      I love how you find a way to blame this on Fox News and Glen Beck. Yes, the reason that the US doesn't produce as many innovations is because of a cable news channel and a talk show host.

      That says more about you than about what I posted.

      (For the reading challenged, like chispito, I blamed it on a whole host of things. I just think Fox & Glen fanned the flames. The fire was already started. The fact he saw Fox/Glen and assumed that was my entire argument shows why America is in decline. Get your reading comprehension up, chispito, and maybe I'll respect you.)

      --
      The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
    95. Re:is it just me? by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Money does not get stuffed into a proverbial mattress. Rich people don't buy gold bullion and store it in a safe somewhere like Scrooge McDuck (or at least that's not where they keep the majority of their wealth). They keep it in stocks, bonds, savings accounts, property, all of which have positive effects. The money is still working, even if it isn't spent on retail goods. Quite frankly I think it's better if a rich person buys into an IPO rather than buying another 15 lambos... And as for the "they don't have the time" excuse, I'm sure they pay money managers to invest their resources for them, which in addition to creating another job helps them to use their money more efficiently. I hate the class warfare that we are creating. The middle class in the US has NOT disappeared, the lowest classes have... It's just that the people in the middle class don't see anyone below them anymore, and they see anyone above them as the "upper class".

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    96. Re:is it just me? by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

      Freedom? It also has past!

      I hope you've been paying attention to what's been happening for the last 30 years!

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    97. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russians are so brainwashed

    98. Re:is it just me? by c0lo · · Score: 1

      We're successfully sending quite a lot of pizza to India. American chain restaurants are a worldwide phenomenon.

      Well, well... if this is the example you found appropriate, I'd say TFA is damn'd on spot... from the "send a man to the moon" worldwide phenomenon to "Americas chain restaurants" worldwide phenomenon... in only 50 years (it was May 25 1961).
      Ummm... yes... I'd call this progression "stupid design" rather than evolution.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    99. Re:is it just me? by genghisjahn · · Score: 1

      American's have been predicting the demise of their country since July 5th, 1776.

      --
      Sorry about the mess.
    100. Re:is it just me? by spinkham · · Score: 1

      We're over, but in the same way that England is "over". A time is coming soon when we won't account for 1/2 of the world's military spending. When we have to be a little bit kinder and a little more humble. Lets start doing that *NOW* before it comes from the barrel of a gun.

      This is what the peace-nicks are on about.

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
    101. Re:is it just me? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      rich... yes we are just so rich... with our homeless and our poverty ridden cities.

      It should perhaps be pointed out that an American living at the poverty line has a higher standard of living than most of the people currently living on this planet.

      Reminds me of a quote from many years ago to the effect that "America is the only place where you see people drive their car downtown to pick up their welfare checks"....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    102. Re:is it just me? by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      It is not fair, we can't compete

      This is true. We cannot compete in our current form (hint, we must change.)

      with cheap labor, that's not fair.

      This not true (or irrelevant.) The only way to compete with cheaper labor is to be unfair by a) denying our market to them or b) bomb them back to the stone age.

      I tell you what is unfair: to expect we (and I say, "we" as an American) can go back to the way things were, expecting to have some of the best salaries for doing things others can do sufficiently well (not equal or better, but less and yet good enough) for significantly less. That. Is. Unfair. Unfair to us and to our future generations.

      We as a nation are indeed facing a Sputnik moment, but it is not a technological one. It is a financial one. We must adjust our salaries (and obviously the cost of living) if *we* are to remain competitive and have a hope for sufficiently decent salaries and job opportunities for those who seek it (which is the embodiment of the American Dream.)

      Either that or we are unfair and bomb the living shit out of rising countries so that we remain the sole producer and seller of manufactured goods (and thus command $40K/year or more plugging pieces A on pieces B with a guaranteed financial cushion upon retirement.)

    103. Re:is it just me? by c0lo · · Score: 1

      2. - Says who? apparently there are a large number of people who buy there music.

      Not nearly large enough to even dent the US trade deficit (1975 being the last year US had a trade surplus).

      Yes, Americans will pay more, but only for the cheapest goods, and they will have more money to spend.

      Sleep well, my friend, I see you already have sweet dreams.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    104. Re:is it just me? by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 2

      The real lesson here is that a modern industrial state with some reasonable quality of life doesn't come about by the invisible hand; it takes focused, directed work at the goal to get anything done.

      Why do you hate America?

      Glenn Beck, is that you?

    105. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thanks, Glen Beck and Fox News!

      Glen Beck, Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, MoveOn.org, or whatever politically motivated media you prefer to consume to has little to nothing to do with the topic of American Innovation and serves nothing but to continue to misdirect the valuable discussion into a flamewar of political shouting. If anything, it's this type of "political Godwin's Laws" that's a problem to having some good frank discussions on the topic.

      America's decline isn't from government

      There's no one single variable that you can point to and blame. The system is far more complex than simply blaming Wall Street, Lawyers or what have you, but to dismiss government as one of those variables is woefully ignorant. Particularly given a government is arguably the most important part of a given state, especially when you consider education, which is certainly a major topic concerning innovation.

    106. Re:is it just me? by magarity · · Score: 0

      Ah, yes. Kristallnacht for rich people. Nice brown shirt you've got on there.

    107. Re:is it just me? by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      I be willing to bet that every dollar apple brings back in to the US system, (and not just recycle it back out) 3 are over seas

    108. Re:is it just me? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      The US is a huge exporter of many things. Food being the obvious one (heck the US has a $10 billion trade surplus with China in agriculture). It is the world's third largest exporter.

      And the being an even larger importer, which isn't a problem in itself but that's supposed to a feature of a country building it's infrastructure not of the top of the developed world, is going to fix itself at some point. The dollars been on a downward trend (with upward spikes every so often as with everything) for a long time, as imports get more expensive and exports earn more local currency that will reverse itself.

    109. Re:is it just me? by SlippyToad · · Score: 1

      I suspect we'll have a pre-WWI England/Germany type race, where the US outspends china for a long time to the great expense of both nations,

      No, I don't think we will. At least not if you are talking militarily. The defense budget needs to be drastically cut, and it needs to be done soon. We are militarizing ourselves into serfdom and permanent bankruptcy if we do not begin to regin in our completely unjustified 10x the rest of the world military spending.

      --
      One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
    110. Re:is it just me? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Nice Godwin. You have a better way to do it? It will never happen the way I said it, but higher taxes on the rich won't work in this day and age. They will take all their money to Europe, Japan, China, etc. Maybe if we were to institute some kind of huge tax on exporting personal funds and corporate funds overseas that is above a certain amount? Even that would cause all sorts of problems with selling American exports. If we tariff goods coming from overseas more then that causes international political problems. The problem is that now the super-rich have 95 percent of the money there is no easy way to get it back in the hands of who they stole it from. However, Id rather have a government run by the people in control of assets for the betterment of all of us rather than relying on the selfish and/or misguided philosophy of a supposed philanthropist.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    111. Re:is it just me? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      Learning mandarin for business is generally a waste.

      A) The mandarin dialects can be so different, people from different areas can't talk
      B) China is learning English.

      I mean, learn new languages, it's a healthy thing to do. But don't learn it because you think Mandarin will become the business language.

      As I said, I learned Mandarin for fun. But some of my fellow classmates were diplomats and engineers working directly with factories over there, and so for them it was a lot more applicable. I've actually done work that needed Mandarin, and made about $100k off the experience, so I'd say my time invested in it was worthwhile...

      As far as A) goes, yes China is full of dialects. But they all (to a greater or lesser extent), learn standard Mandarin in addition to their local dialect. When I was in China, I found occasional people that couldn't speak Mandarin, which was annoying (one taxi driver, especially, who I couldn't communicate with), but over 90% of the people I met there could speak Mandarin. Less than 10% could speak English to any degree of understanding, so there goes B.

      Even in Japan, which teaches many years of English to all of its citizens, you'll have a horrible time getting by if you expect people to know English. They'll just stare at you with a look of fear in their eyes (attack of the AP English teachers!) and use hand gestures to try to communicate. In China, where English levels are much lower, you'll have a hell of a time trying to get by if you don't know Mandarin.

      Hell, I got stuck at an elementary school in the middle of nowhere, 60 miles outside of Zhengzhou (taxi driver dropped me off at the wrong destination with the right name). Even though they taught English to all of the kids there, and I had a rudimentary level of Mandarin, we couldn't communicate. Finally, one of the women there pulled out a cell phone and called her English-fluent friend, so that they could figure out what was going on. Without that, it's unclear what I would have done. (Well, I probably would have dug around through my dictionary to put together the sentences I needed.)

    112. Re:is it just me? by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      You mean to say, that while Americans and the rest of the free world were rebuilding at leisure, creating that enviable culture of postbelic golden years, in the USSR and the rest of it's companions it was mostly work, work and work, bringing so much pain, that even 20 years after their fall it's signs are still obvious.

      Well, you are both true. The post-war rise of the USSR is not an example of how a country would like to rise. The free world did it in a way that was right for them, in their context and time..

      On the other hand, royalthefourth still has a point (despite the poorly chosen example and poorly chosen verbiage.)

      "The real lesson here is that a modern industrial state with some reasonable quality of life doesn't come about by the invisible hand; it takes focused, directed work at the goal to get anything done." ^^ This applies to us. In this post-cold war context, we are becoming less and less of a "modern industrial state". We were a "modern industrial state" in the late 60's and 70's. We slowly started our decline in the 80s when we lost the semi-conductor war to the Japanese. That was a preview of the things to come, and yet we failed to respond in kind.

      To build ourselves into a modern industrial state, we need "focused, directed work" towards that goal. We do not have that which we sorely need. We were leaders in a world where 2/3 of it lived in the modern version of a stone age (where we could command great salaries by manufacturing trinkets).

      We now need to become leaders in an ever increasingly industrialized world where people more and more have a shot at living decently (or at least no so miserably as before) by making the same trinkets we used to make for far less.

      We need that focused direction. We do not have that. If we continue doing the same stupid shit we have been doing since the 80's (being in denial about the changing world around us), we will be the fallen USSR of the future by the end of this century. I hope to God we are smart enough to adapt and not let that happen. And if it does happen, I hope I've died before that (and that my children had a chance to migrate to better pastures.)

      It is good to praise what the post-WWII free world achieved, but we cannot let that praise and pride blind us to the great problems we are facing now.

    113. Re:is it just me? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Guess I should go check out Mandarin for Dummies from the library."

      That's a symptom of curiosity. STOP THAT, Fox News is on!

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    114. Re:is it just me? by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Long term, raising up your neighbors only helps you.

      Not when it comes at the cost of your own children.

      What does this even mean?

    115. Re:is it just me? by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      If they get welfare. Plenty of poor people don't actually get on or even qualify for state or federal aid. You do realize that right?

      There are also much different dynamics in the US. I mentioned some of them like phones in my post before. Things like electricity and water are considered basic necessities and in lots of ways you can't have a house or apartment that doesn't at least have access to both. We also require certain things of buildings. Even a shack has to meet certain standards for the area it's built, so of course it will be better than many places in the world. It will also cost more to have. Which is why the gap between homelessness and basic poverty is so large in the US.

      Again our culture, laws, and economy require both a higher standard of living and cost more to have and maintain. We can't simply 'give up' those three things and just 'live on less'. That is not how it works.

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    116. Re:is it just me? by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

      Funny you should mention it. I pointed this out, using precisely this phraseology on the HuffPost blog during the 2008 election.

      The US is reaching a critical junction, where it will have to decide if it wasn't to go forward as a leader in science and technology or in the spewing of T-party and republican anti-science, destroy-the-government rhetoric. It won't be able to do both. The fact that we will have to wait another 1 1/2 until November 2012 to decide and then another 2-3 years after that, assuming it is the former just to get things going again, is not a particularly good sign for our economy or our future.

      Technology companies of all kinds will need to soon quickly weigh into this debate in a serious way to either massively fund politicians who support education, science and technology programs or face the prospects of off-shoring all of their operations to remain in business.

    117. Re:is it just me? by AdamThor · · Score: 1

      An excellent link you have provided, thank you.

      I've been formulating the position current income disparity is a result of the decrease in tax rate for the top tax bracket. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_federal_income_tax

      You can see here that the tax rates on top earners dropped significantly in the '80's. Previous to that, why pay someone a lot of money? They would only benefit from a small portion of it, the rest would go to taxes. I find myself thinking that money now going into executive pocketbooks used to be invested in the corporate structure. Maybe in R&D, maybe elsewhere.

      --
      -- "Oh. This guy again."
    118. Re:is it just me? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      You almost say it, but it's worth remembering how Russia, basically just one short generation before WW2, was a sort of colony; a country in almost colonial dependency, at the least. Very backwards and impoverished place, generally.

      All the more... impressive what they managed to do (among it one of the greatest ironies of history - how, despite all the victims, life expectancy in Soviet Union increased dramatically under Stalin; or another one: yes, censorship... but also the first literate generation). And were in the end decent enough to recognize they're broke; and dissolve the Union mostly peacefully... can we treat it as a given?

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    119. Re:is it just me? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      For America, the problem is that for the last 20 years, being a lawyer or Wall Street-type manager or financial manager was where the money was. Unfortunately, those types don't actually create anything. They are, at best, enablers of the people who do and make things. In most cases, though, they are simply fat parasites on the free market draining our best & brightest into pointless careers making derivatives, etc.

      America's decline isn't from government, or even necessarily the Rich and Powerful, but from her people. They've turned their back on getting rich by working hard (understandable because of above) or inventing & discovering things. They've turned their back on learning and education (See for example, TLC's transformation from a science/learning channel to reality TV channel). They've also begun turning their back on science and logic in favor of "gut feelings" (Thanks, Glen Beck and Fox News!).

      While we all like to bag on lawyers and financial types, if their jobs were truly worthless they wouldn't exist. High-powered lawyers are the corporate equivalent of a country's nuclear weapons: you have them so you don't have to use them. Saying that they don't create anything is like saying fire alarms don't create anything. It's true right up until a fire starts. It's harder for me to defend financiers, because it looks to me like they've created an ecosystem for themselves, carving profit out of cash flow, but there's lots of competition for that money so it's hard to justify the claim that they're not creating anything.

      America has *always* turned its back on people who invent & discover things: we've always had a deep-seated suspicion of smart people, wonks, eggheads, or nerds. My dad was ridiculed in school in the 1940's for spending his time making model rockets and mutating goldfish with x-rays, because he wasn't interested in football: there was tremendous pressure to be a jock. Likewise in the counter-culture 1960's, tune in/drop out wasn't about getting a nice lab job, it was about rejecting modern science-based society for eastern mysticism.

      I *think* the difference is that for what we think of as America's scientific golden age, you could make good money in science, and now you can't, compared to finance or law (or professional sports) so now that's where all the kids want to go, and who can blame them for going where the money is?

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    120. Re:is it just me? by royallthefourth · · Score: 1

      Work work and more work?? It was the Bolsheviks who standardized the 40 hour work week, gave all workers sick leave, free health care, and education, not to mention equal rights for women.

      There's no denying many mistakes of the USSR, but you are a philistine if you do not learn from both the good and bad examples set by it.

    121. Re:is it just me? by scot4875 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In other words: "I agree with all of the leftists (nice name calling: fuck you too), I just disagree about the specific numbers used."

      $250k/year is certainly well off enough to be paying a little more in taxes than someone living at the poverty level. None of the "leftists" you seem to despise so much lump them in with people making $10m/year. The problem with spending all of your time arguing about what number qualifies someone as "rich" means that nothing will ever be done, because there's always going to be *someone* stupid enough to say, "well that's not really rich!" (remember the Valenti quote about "The working stiffs"?)

      That's where a progressive (ooh, another bad word!), graduated taxing scheme works. Earnings in a higher income brackets simply get taxed at a slightly higher rate than earnings in a lower bracket. So increasing taxes on those earning over $250k does not mean that those making $250k (actually, making exactly $250k would mean you pay the same tax rate as making $249k) would be taxed at the same rate as those making $10m/year. If you don't understand this, please shut the fuck up about taxes. Please.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    122. Re:is it just me? by lgw · · Score: 2

      I generally agree with you, but I've been alive long enough to call bullshit on "Rise of religious fundamentalism" - America is simply moving in a direction more and more in conflict with religious fundamentalism, which itself shows the decline in power of the fundamentalists. Heck, most of the largest and most popular churches in America outrage the fundies, because they barely mention Jesus and never mention sin. Religion as a social function is as strong as ever, but fundamentalist values are associated with fewer churches over time. It's not that there's some new rise in teaching creationism, for example, it's that the effort to actually stop people from teaching creationism finally has enough traction that the creationists are taking to the courts in their fight for survival (as opposed to decades of saying "sure we'll teach evolution, you betcha" and then not doing so, with the administration playing along).

      I think the rest of your points are great, though.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    123. Re:is it just me? by El+Torico · · Score: 1

      So it's only a matter of infrastructure and basic services? I have to disagree if that is your supposition. I agree that it is a factor.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    124. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What...you don't think the lower class also buys the cheapest stuff? You don't think the lower class is maybe larget than the middle class, and also even more likely to buy cheap than the middle class, and hence the greater contributor to this problem than the middle class?

      Interesting.

      I will also point out that for middle-class Americans, innovating makes no sense. The cost of RnD is very high, and if you do succeed in comming up with something both very innovative and very valuable, you get sued into oblivion for patent infringement.

      So the only people who can afford both the high cost of risky RnD investments and the ensuing legal battles are the wealthy corporations. However, these same corporations don't want new products to compete with their old products, so their RnD investment is carefully capped.

      Fix the broken patent system and watch innovation rise.

    125. Re:is it just me? by karuna · · Score: 1

      The USSR especially in its later years was not North Korea. The Soviet command economy had many faults but it was better than the absence of a system.

      When the Soviet political system collapsed, millions of people were thrown into poverty and depression far exceeding the Great Depression known in the US. "Free market" without proper oversight or planning does not work at all.

    126. Re:is it just me? by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      I believe the charts you're referring to are these ones:

      Science Research

      Science Growth

      Assuming these are the same ones you saw yesterday, the problem I have with conclusion that the US is falling behind "hard" based on these charts is that there was still growth. But if the US is already pumping out, say, 1000 papers a year, then increasing to 1200 a year is quantitatively more than a country that published 20 papers at the first year of measurement and 40 papers at the end. But, the growth of the second country will look more impressive. Not to say the US isn't leveling off, but it's like expecting a hot new product to double its sales every quarter, it's just not possible due to eventual saturation (cue xkcd comic about extrapolation).

      Also, the research chart is for publications in 2001, while the growth chart measured the change between 1990 and 2001. E.g. before the Bush II administration and the Republican war on science. Since both charts' data ends at 2001, it's clear that (at the time) the US was still way ahead of everyone else in scientific paper output.

      (No, I'm not American).

    127. Re:is it just me? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Probably should have said health 'care'. Our health care system has its flaws, but it is still pretty good.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    128. Re:is it just me? by chispito · · Score: 1

      I can't stand Fox and I can't stand Beck. But you're the one who brought them up in a completely unrelated discussion.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    129. Re:is it just me? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      I'm saying that infrastructure and basic services are the building blocks to societies advancing. When people aren't spending time trying to get clean water and power and such things, they are now more able to focus on advancement rather than just subsistence.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    130. Re:is it just me? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Is it just me or is the America-is-over sentiment growing by leaps and bounds lately? ... yet none of our leaders have done anything to address it.

      Why would politicians do something to address a sentiment they created? Confident, optimistic people are hard to push around. You want people to feel helpless and afraid if you want them to be your political zombies.

      Of course the key ingredient that turns people into zombies is cynicism. You want your zombies to confuse cynicism with skepticism. A skeptic weighs new ideas and occasionally decides one is a good idea. A cynic just rejects them out of hand rather than thinking critically about them. A *scared* cynic is a first class sucker. He needs a plan of action, but can no longer think for himself. He's primed to believe anything you tell him to.

      Fear. Helplessness. Cynicism. Scapegoating. Credulous nostalgia. These are the basic tools for politically emasculating an electorate.

      When Churchill rallied Britain in WW2, did he encourage Britons to be *afraid*? To despair? To lose confidence in their public institutions? To turn on each other? To feel helpless? To believe their best days were behind them? Obviously not. When you *really* are facing a crisis, you want people to be confident. To hope. To support public initiatives. To feel united, and capable, and optimistic about the future.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    131. Re:is it just me? by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

      Aircraft. Computer Networks. US Agriculture. One could go on, there is a fairly long list. The problem you talk about is in the manufacture of consumer goods and basic commodities, most notably OIL, which we import at higher and higher prices, ironically because the government is too broke to support further subsidies to our oil/gas/coal industries.

      If we stop subsidizing oil, coal, and gas and instead built a high-tech green energy industry and a non-oil based transportation infrastructure, we would climb, like a rocket, out the hole we have been digging for ourselves since the 1960's and 1970's, when we pretty much began to start turning over the keys to the keys to the treasury to the oil/gas/coal/MIC. A further obvious benefit is that we won't fry our agricultural land with higher temperatures and dramatically reduce the overall costs of additional pollution directly and indirectly related to these industries in terms of the massive negative financial impact associated with their extraction, pollution, regulation, transportation, health related costs, etc.

      Its a no brainer from a science and economics perspective. The only problem is that 1/3 of the country watches FOX News as remains uneducated and fooled by self-interest advertising and oil/coal/gass industry punditry designed to block change in industrial policies that could quickly solve the problem. So in the meantime we further subsidize oil/gas/coal/MIC and financial fraud made legal by the absence of effective governmental regulation and keep on digging making the hole deeper.

    132. Re:is it just me? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, goods and products next door mean nothing if Japan and Europe have the best ones

      I'm just saying that providing assistance in whatever form to the rest of the world has benefits. You still have to be able to compete. And yes that requires investment at home too.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    133. Re:is it just me? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Agree completely. I'm just saying that investment abroad also pays dividends, never said we shouldn't be investing at home as well.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    134. Re:is it just me? by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      Post World War II there were basically two countries that either weren't former colonies or bombed back decades in development. The US and USSR. The Cold War pretty much was the two big boys fighting and keeping everyone else down.

      Except that India, Malaysia were impacted to varying degrees, but probably not "bombed back decades", neither was Sweden. I'm not sure about Finland, but I don't recall it being as badly mutilated as Germany, China, France and the UK. Germany has bounced back very well, but I wouldn't say that the competitive threat to the US lies in either England or France. Similarly, during the cold war era the US worked fairly closely with western europe on technological developments, and were relatively afraid (and had draconian laws about) sharing various types of technology outside of that clique. Now the US and europe both are mostly running to Asia.

      I think you're partly right, but it's not about anyone "keeping the man down" or WWII damages. We generally avoided Asia (except Japan) because of the ties to our enemies. Once that threat was removed, it was a grab for cheap labor. The concept of keeping "high value jobs" in America (or Europe) is a myth itself, but it doesn't really pan out even if it were true, because our population isn't uniformly super-educated, nor are there sufficient resources available to make such achievement worth while. We have some very well educated, very smart people, and we have some hard cases. The well educated, smart people are going to drive their lives and careers towards high return investments, which is NOT technology due to both to the decreasing number of positions, and decreasing salaries (also due to offshoring and to a lesser extent H1Bs). Meanwhile the less fortunate are just left in the cold, since the manufacturing jobs which are their staple income are moving away, and these people will be consuming more of the social services. The net effect on everyone is we're getting poor and we're not innovating and bringing jobs in.

      I'm going to use a dirty word, called protectionism, and suggest that we are probably not doing enough to protect our own interests by allowing our corporate interests to run amok. I'm not saying we should throw up walls and cease all trade and turtle up, but the reality of effectively adding 6 billion people to your economy in the space of 10 years is a hardship. More to the point, in order to create the economy that is going to provide for so many, we need to have a backbone with sufficient funding and overall health to get things done. You may be a very charitable wealthy person, but you don't give all your money to the poor, your best bet is to go built a factory for them, teach them how to run it and make it go (even if you don't make a dime on it). Countries that are more insular right now are able to keep their edge for this same reason, while those who have a more hands off attitude are being pillaged.

    135. Re:is it just me? by lgw · · Score: 1

      The defense budget is quite minor in the scheme of things. As a rough breakdown, in terms of total federal revenue:

      100% - money given to the old and poor
      30% - defense
      10% - interest on the debt
      20% - everything else the government does

      Sure, we need to cut defense spending - we're spending 160% of our income, we need to cut everything. But you could set defense spending to 0 and it wouldn't come close to solving Americas budget problems.

      We need to raise taxes, but you can tax the rich to death, but taxing all income above $250k/year wouldn't balance the budget (and would only work one year) - realistically we're close to the top of the Laffer curve, and no tax scheme is likely to raise revenue more than maybe 10%.

      And if interest rates go up (sure to happen if we keep printing money)? That 10% debt service cost could easily become 30-40%.

      Everyone seems to pick the program they like the least and imagine that if we only cut Military spending/health care for illegals/the EPA/whatever we can avoid "serfdom and permanent bankruptcy". Sorry, we need to cut spending on our favorite progams, and cut deep, to avoid that fate.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    136. Re:is it just me? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      How is enabling American businesses to do business overseas a bad thing?

      I posit there's a lot more money is basic business services than there is in space travel at the moment and for the foreseeable future.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    137. Re:is it just me? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      would seem to be to eliminate cheap labor by raising the standard of living everywhere

      A noble goal, not so much stymied by "the people really in charge there" but perhaps more by the fact that dividing the wealth of the US working class evenly between the two billion Indian and Chinese people living in abject poverty will probably buy them an extra scoop of rice.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    138. Re:is it just me? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Yes Apple makes a lot of money for Apple. Who else would they pay for it? You know who buys iPhones? the *entire* world. That money comes back to us too. It pays taxes (or rather it *should* - a whole different argument). It pays salaries for 50k people, who spend it and it goes into *our* economy.

      Are you saying 50k jobs should go away?

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    139. Re:is it just me? by Qzukk · · Score: 0

      It's not a hatred of America as much as an ignorance of capitalism

      Why does America hate capitalism?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    140. Re:is it just me? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      yes lots of money comes in from over seas as a result of their activities but it ends up in a very small number of American hands

      You mean like the Apple shareholders? Apple is a single example. They are building something (even if overseas) and selling it world wide. That money does get into the US economy and multiplies as it does.

      My point is that good ideas still win out and I think we can produce good ideas that the rest of the world will want to pay for even at a premium. We're America, people still want to be like us, though perhaps you aren't the most gung-ho. The rest of the world still looks up to us, even after the last decade.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    141. Re:is it just me? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      So what's your point? that we shouldn't get that 25%?

      My point was those 3 dollars overseas are raising the standard of living over there so that in the future those people will have more money to buy our 'stuff'. Its called investment, and we're still making money in the process as you so noted.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    142. Re:is it just me? by MagikSlinger · · Score: 1

      While we all like to bag on lawyers and financial types, if their jobs were truly worthless they wouldn't exist. High-powered lawyers are the corporate equivalent of a country's nuclear weapons: you have them so you don't have to use them. Saying that they don't create anything is like saying fire alarms don't create anything. It's true right up until a fire starts. It's harder for me to defend financiers, because it looks to me like they've created an ecosystem for themselves, carving profit out of cash flow, but there's lots of competition for that money so it's hard to justify the claim that they're not creating anything.

      Interesting and fair point, but don't we need nuclear weapons because the other guy has them? If we didn't have lawyers, would you need one? I don't think the fire alarm analogy is apt, but the nuclear weapons one is. I wish I could find the article again, but there are several lawyers campaigning for lawyer-less law reform. The idea being that if people dealt directly with each other instead of through lawyers, we'd have better outcomes: socially and financially. So I don't buy the idea we need as much lawyers as we have, and that they are properly compensated. They seem to make themselves necessary, not because the need really existed. I can see your point of view, but I can't agree with it.

      For finance, as we discovered with the recent pop, a lot of that wealth was on paper and didn't have even currency behind it. For example, the claim X had $2 billion in assets turned out to be worthless because the value was based on the future cash flow, which was never going to materialize. But at the moment the deal was struck, the finance guy got a bonus based on the percentage. So there was a lot of money being siphoned off, but it wasn't because we were making a lot of things. It turned out that money was coming from the global savings glut flooding into America, and most of that cash went into the financiers pockets while the investors got little to nothing in return. Thus my argument for parasitism.

      But overall, I think you made excellent points. It doesn't change my opinion, but I want to make a point to thank commenters who make intelligent points, like yourself, as opposed to the knee-jerk rebuttals I usually get. :-)

      --
      The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
    143. Re:is it just me? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      They are basing it on increase in output per-capita. This being the case the data is normalized this way. I.e. divide number-of-papers by a smaller number it is bigger than dividing by a bigger number. If A B and C is some constant, then C/B C/A . Since China has a population of 1.2 billion at the time their growth is incredibly impressive. Europe's entire population is about .85 billion which means it should be harder to have growth (measured with this metric) than here in the US since we have less population. Japan was sitting at about .12 billion so maybe you could say its not as impressive as it shows in the chart.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    144. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh no... I guess if by wealthy you mean socialist politicians and their corporate/union cronies.

    145. Re:is it just me? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      They are basing it on increase in output per-capita. This being the case the data is normalized this way. I.e. divide number-of-papers by a smaller number it is bigger than dividing by a bigger number. If A is less than B and C is some constant, then C/B is less than C/A . Since China has a population of 1.2 billion at the time their growth is incredibly impressive. Europe's entire population is about .85 billion which means it should be harder to have growth (measured with this metric) than here in the US since we have less population. Japan was sitting at about .12 billion so maybe you could say its not as impressive as it shows in the chart.

      Sorry, correction. I used notation not thinking about it being parsed as html.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    146. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Out-sourced breeding, obviously.

    147. Re:is it just me? by tendrousbeastie · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is the problem, not the other things.

      Modern western economies have such a high GDP because, on avergae, each worker is more productive than those in developing countries.

      Yes, the US (or my native UK) workers can't compete with Mexico, India and China when it comes to unskilled work. Basic factory work, low tech manufacturing and industrial work, etc. is most efficiently done by unskilled cheap labour and we should take advantage of this by hiring the most efficient labour we can.

      US/UK/French/German workers are best placed doing skilled work. The average western worker is more skilled than the average developing world worker. So they can earn more, and create/produce more, than others.

      It is the simple theory of comparative advantage.

      The policy implication is that western economies should focus on moving as many people as possible into (highly) skilled employment. Complaining about the fact that they can't compete with unskilled labour is just pissing in the wind.

    148. Re:is it just me? by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      realistically we're close to the top of the Laffer curve,

      That is not even vaguely true; we've cut taxes on the rich by a tremendous amount over the last almost 50 years and seen none of the benefits the Laffer curve would predict. Frankly, we probably never got to the top of the curve, even when taxes were at their highest.

      A very large part of the solution to our budget woes will have to involve raising taxes, particularly on the rich.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    149. Re:is it just me? by mibe · · Score: 1

      It seems pretty reasonable to at least mention divisive talk show hosts who serve as vehicles for ignorance when talking about the decline of American innovation. He could have mentioned some Democrats who were dumb too, I suppose, but that doesn't mean Fox News is irrelevant here.

    150. Re:is it just me? by El+Torico · · Score: 1

      I agree that's true, but there are countries that have infrastructure and services but make very few scientific advancements. There must be other factors.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    151. Re:is it just me? by alexborges · · Score: 1

      Im gonna tell you why it isn't fair to anyone, and it doesn't seem (nor isn't) fair to you americans anyhow: the United States of America spends more in defense contracts and high tech shit for killing people than the next twenty countries combined.

      Wikipedia lists many, many vessels of the US Navy and equivalent in other countries navy with operational numbers: go look at it. Tell me how many high tech tomahawk delivery destroyer does the US have. You will find that if you add up all of the next twenty countrie's similar vessels, that number is still smaller than what the US Army has now.

      Now you tell me why shit isn't fair: did the rest of the world decide how your government should spend its money?

      --
      NO SIG
    152. Re:is it just me? by tendrousbeastie · · Score: 1

      " the banks were given all sorts of cash, but they didn't "buy" anything with it (no increase in loans offered)."
      Of course they didn't. It was better investment to buy up small banks that didn't get TARP money.

      Well, that and the fact that most western govs simultaneously insisted that banks increase their capitol reserves to a much higher level. So the banks are supposed to simultaneously lend more and spend more?

      "Hell, even an Eastern European EU citizen can't migrate to Western-Europe*. Even though goods and services can go through borders."

      Absolute, utter rubbish. Inter-EU migration is lower in most western EU countries than in the UK, but that is not because it is restricted in any way.

    153. Re:is it just me? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the same attitude took hold in Britain after WWI. Does an empire in decline *realize* it's in decline?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    154. Re:is it just me? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      The problem in the US is that the means of producing a quality of life has left the country, as if it had all been destroyed by war, for the better part of a generation. There is more rebuilding necessary here than had there been a protracted 10-year war: entire industries, not just regions, are simply "gone", off-shored to other countries. What isn't gone has been largely marginalized to the point of severe specialization, with so few people familiar enough with the trade that passing it on to the next shift/generation becomes difficult.

      Hell, we've even outsourced a lot of R&D - the only thing which really kept things booming during the 90s on the production side of things. What's being created anew in America these days? There are a couple small incremental changes still happening, pharma is still seeing advancement, and there's always IT... but other than that, it seems most industries are in a "maintenance" mode, and have been for some time. (Meanwhile, innovation is occurring apace in other countries with respect to building trades, technology, industry, etc.)

      There is not a dearth of people in the US who still have the "get 'r done" mentality. The problem is that these people have been culturally and economically marginalized by the efforts of 'companies'. We currently have the lowest per-capita employment since the early Reagan administration, and it's still dropping (this was in the 'news' today, as if it wasn't evident to those looking about). There are many, many people - men, mostly, because they're the ones losing their jobs most often - who have exhausted their will to find a job, simply because there are none. If you were to give them the opportunity, many, many would work.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    155. Re:is it just me? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 2

      I disagree. If the rich weren't so greedy we would each have enough for us, and the rest of the world would still be progressing at their current pace. http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110408/ts_yblog_thelookout/off-the-charts-income-gains-for-super-rich

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    156. Re:is it just me? by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Not really. The poverty line for a single person is less than $750 a month.
      It isn't possible to pay rent, basic utilities and buy food on that anywhere in the US, much less afford gas, automotive taxes and mandatory drivers insurance as well.

      You try feeding a family of 5 on food stamps of $100 a month. now do that when you don't have a car to drive to a cheap grocery store and have to use the shops in walking distance (in rural USA, there are none, in the inner city they charge 3 to 10 times more for the same food as a bulk grocery store).

      In the US laws are passed that prohibit the building of "shanties" and multiple cohabitation's, when these are the only way for the poor to be able to afford a place to live.

    157. Re:is it just me? by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

      "we've shifted from having a great industrial base to having a service-based economy,"

      We still have an industrial base that remains the envy of most countries, its just that we continue to invest the bulk of our industrial tax credits to oil/gas/coal and transportation and energy production that subsidize these industries. Ultimately this means importing oil and hence running up huge trade imbalances and transportation costs, not to mention all the environmental and health costs that don't get added into the spreadsheets, when calculating the costs of these industries. Just ask the poor fishermen living on the Gulf coast where they fit in the spreadsheet.

      This problem is made much larger by making stock-options legal, since it has created a two tiered tax system, where those who make the most money are permitted to be taxed at a rate roughly 25-30% less than those who make almost no money by comparison. If corporations were forced to pay their executives big salaries that presumably they are "worth" in dollars, then they could be taxed at the same rates as rest of us, there would be no federal deficit, not to mention the endless need to cut education and spending on social services, infrastructure, health care, aid for the poor, science and technology, etc. Ironically, the republican party has instead chosen to give up on Christianity rather than eliminating stock options. Also, ironically, the wealthy recipients of stock options have then turned around to use stock options to buy politicians to fool the public into further cutting regulations on their ability to further game the system and to subsidize political parties and media empires that are used to fool many into believing that "government is the problem". It is not an accident that the concept of "trickle-down economics" and stock options evolved at the same moment in time, nor is it an accident that "free-market government is the problem"-enthusiasts" always use perverted arguments such as "the government will piss in your pocket and tell you it's raining" to deflect an examination of the full costs to society of making stock-options legal.

    158. Re:is it just me? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      There are those that argue that's bad for us. In the short term, perhaps it is, but as more of the world achieves our standard of living, there are more consumers for our goods as well. Long term, raising up your neighbors only helps you.

      No, it doesn't.

      (See, I can do meaningless platitudes, as well.)

      We've been pumping trillions of dollars into Mexico for decades for economic stability purposes. Mexico is no better off now than it was 50 years ago (arguably, much worse). There are other factors involved (as well as other examples).

      "helping your neighbors only helps you" when there is an overseeing governance which prevents your neighbor from becoming stronger than you, and then taking what's your's for their own. The culture in, say, China, is not like it is here in the US. We may not lose our ability, and they may not overtly overtake us overtly as they come to par, but when they're at even footing you can bet they'll throw their weight around more effectively and with more effort than we have in the past. We'll lose that fight, because as a country, we've lost the edge for such conflict (emotionally, economically, culturally... we're done).

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    159. Re:is it just me? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Wrong. The wealthy managers, board members, and CEO's made the decision to transfer all the jobs overseas. If you don't have a job, you can't afford expensive things so you buy things cheaper. The person that just took your job in China is now selling the cheap shit to you, bleeding the money out of the states while keeping an ungodly massive portion for the super-rich. http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110408/ts_yblog_thelookout/off-the-charts-income-gains-for-super-rich

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    160. Re:is it just me? by slyborg · · Score: 2

      >effective military
      As you note, these 'asymmetric wars' are part of the reason for negative sentiment, because the US is losing them. The people in the areas we are occupying don't want us there, and it is impossible to win a counter-insurgency war without engaging in mass genocide or a decades-long colonization strategy (usually both are needed, actually) if the population does not support you. So the military has been, and will be ineffective and that certainly makes the US look weak.

      Worse, this ineffective military of ours is heinously expensive, we spend more than the next five largest militaries on the planet combined. And this expense is borne by deficit spending, which drains the non-military economy of capital and requires us to get the rest of the world to pay for our armed forces. It's not a sustainable situation, and the "defense" budget is one of the biggest problems with the government deficit. We're bleeding billions of dollars a month overseas that goes straight out of the economy.

    161. Re:is it just me? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Understood, but I'm saying the reverse. Are their any without basic services and infrastructure that are making scientific advancements? I posit those are very few and far between, hence services and infrastructure are generally required before you get continued scientific advancements. Doesn't guarantee you'll get advancements, but without the basics you can't get to the advanced stuff.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    162. Re:is it just me? by Kohath · · Score: 2

      I'd probably pin the decline of the US on a number of factors:

      1: The view that engineers, mathematicians, and computer scientists are "nerds" ...

      The right answer is only ever the most comfortable answer by sheer coincidence. So while it may be appealing to jump to that conclusion, it's a poor methodology if you actually want the right answers.

    163. Re:is it just me? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 0

      Well if capitalism knows what it's doing, the solution to America's tech decline is social networking sites, Chinese-manufactured iPhones and iPads, moving American manufacturing plants to China and Mexico, and moving the jobs that run them to India, or at least giving them to immigrant workers.

      Go Capitalism! Do yo' thang!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    164. Re:is it just me? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Tax the rich. It would work if you taxed their money even more the minute they tried to move it overseas. http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110408/ts_yblog_thelookout/off-the-charts-income-gains-for-super-rich

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    165. Re:is it just me? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      There was nothing "unfair" about America's richness immediately after WWII. The European countries had stupidly destroyed themselves and their industrial capacity, and America was untouched. So they got rich rebuilding Europe. It's all Europe's fault: if Europe hadn't gotten themselves into WWI (one), which was nothing more than a colossally stupid land-grab with no justification whatsoever, then hadn't excessively punished Germany, Hitler would never have happened, and WWII would never have happened. It's hard to say what the world would look like now if the early-1900s Europeans hadn't been a bunch of warmongering idiots. Europe's a pretty nice place now, 100 years later, but if WWI had never happened, it'd probably be even better, and America probably would never have become a superpower (nor the USSR).

      It's not unfair when person A has more money than person B when person B idiotically pisses away his money on stupid shit and person A makes wise investments.

      (Unfortunately, America's been making colossally stupid investments for the last 40 years or so, so America's relative richness will soon be a thing of the past. History always repeats itself.)

    166. Re:is it just me? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      "It is not fair, we can't compete with X" is not the right attitude if you need to compete with X.

      Hiding and putting up walls is not the answer.

    167. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried to run for office as an honest politician, but I couldn't find anyone to help pay for my campaign.

      With ideas like the ones you posted, I don't think 'honesty' is the main selling point.

    168. Re:is it just me? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      See the thing about China is that once you give your working poor, something to actually value if taken away? Those working 'poor', now your middle class, tend to get upset and throw you out of power.

      Poor, oppressed people generally don't revolt, or succeed at it. They are too busy trying to survive. Once they are middle class, like China is creating, forcing them to give up what they have gets dicey for the people in power.

      The great firewall of china is a perfect example. They are desperate for the people to not find out the truth about many things. Except they can't stop the internet. As more people learn the truth about, say, Tiananmen Square, it's funny how people tend to decide those rulers aren't acceptable anymore. Bloody, and sometimes taking decades, freedom will win out. And then we don't have a China problem, but a partner in the world economy. Right now China is much as you say, a bully throwing its weight around because it isn't accountable to its own people.

      As far as Mexico, is it perfect? no. Corruption is a problem and we should be doing what we can about it. Same thing as with China applies. Get the prosperity to the people, even through corruption, and pretty soon the people will throw out the corrupt. And again it may be bloody and take a while, but time and time again it works.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    169. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Machinist just may not be a particularly good field to be in anymore. I needed some work done and priced out American machinist who on average bid $50k. Then I found a Chinese company who'd do it for $2k.

      The first time had a minor defect (which may have actually been my design) but the second time was perfect. So $4k or $50k. Now I'll just look in China in the first place.

    170. Re:is it just me? by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      The Russian Empire had a feudal economy by the time of the 1917 revolution. It was only barely industrialised. Add two World Wars that caused an amount of destruction and killing never seen anywhere, in any time. It's almost a miracle they've turned a completely destroyed medieval country into a modern one in a few decades. You wouldn't expect them to to it while watching TV, dancing to Rock n' Roll and driving Cadillacs, would you?

    171. Re:is it just me? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Your parents were right, and you got lucky during the late 90s with a boom brought on by a number of things:

      1) The President reduced the input/sequestering of oil into the national petroleum preserve, allowing it to diminish. This led to that $0.99/gallon gasoline we (mostly) all remember fondly (in part).
      2) OPEC produced a lot and had lower prices (possibly as a result of Bush Srs aggressive war in Iraq, I don't really recall).
      3) An entirely new industry was getting off the ground floor - information technology/computers. For the better part of a decade - until offshoring started and the dotcom bubble burst - there was nothing but growth in the economy (largely due to IT industry, both the useless and the useful).

      Truth be told, things have been on a decline since the late 1960s, economically. That's when we started earnest 'aggressive' wars, quickly followed in the 70s by destroying domestic "working man" jobs by sending them elsewhere, replacing them with clerical jobs at a less-than-parity rate. The US economy has been on a steady decline for the better part of 10 years, now, and it'd have been much longer had it not been for the fortune of high technology development.

      Unless there's another major technological breakthrough in something that will revolutionize daily life (automotive or energy technology, maybe), I'd count on it continuing the decline (particularly with sellout parasites like we've got at the helm in charge). Even then, you've got to contend with all the innovation getting eaten up by the larger companies and hidden, for fear of it disrupting their cash cow and market value.

      I'd not be surprised if energy is the "next big thing", but I think China will get there first. The anational corporations like GE and GM very well hop on that bandwagon, too - but only when they can no longer fleece people for existing fares.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    172. Re:is it just me? by imric · · Score: 0

      Typical. The poor want big brother to tend them? More of the right's obsession with wealth, those with wealth want to believe that they are by and large 'better' than the poor. Poverty usually happens by some moral fault, in the dogma of the right. And if they start poor, and are moral, they will become wealthy! And the working poor on the right buy this, and follow their sainted rich and do what they say in hopes that they will 'deserve' wealth themselves. Suckers.

      --
      Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
    173. Re:is it just me? by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      It is not fair, we can't compete with cheap labor, that's not fair.

      Yeah, having to compete with the cheap labor from rich Europe with their high taxes, and powerful unions enforcing high wages and strict safety regulations, and... Heeey, what a minute...

    174. Re:is it just me? by lgw · · Score: 1

      That is not even vaguely true; we've cut taxes on the rich by a tremendous amount over the last almost 50 years and seen none of the benefits the Laffer curve would predict. Frankly, we probably never got to the top of the curve, even when taxes were at their highest.

      Were you not alive during the Reagan years? Federal revenues went up due to cuts on the highest marginal rates. Voodoo economics worked. And if you think people making more than $250k/year wouldn't work less if tax rates went way up, you clearly don't know many of them - at least, those I know are in high-stress jobs, and would find working through June to make $250k and spending the rest of each year on the beach quite attractive, if the payoff were removed.

      Yes, of course we have to raise taxes, but not just on the rich. Rasing SS or payroll taxes by 1% would collect as much as raising the higher marginal tax rates by 4% - and we need to do both!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    175. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, it is the wealthy that pushed to sell the cheaper products, because they could ship parts around the world to 3rd world factories cheaper than doing the same work right next door to where the materials come from.

      I also feel a good portion of the blame, if not most of it lands on the government (which is more influenced by the wealthy), because they do not use tariffs effectively to keep American made goods more competitive within the market, as was taught in history courses here. The US is between 20-25% of the world market (going by GDP), no business can turn a blind eye, so as an American we should be able to fix a great deal of the trade agreements as we have the buying and producing power.

    176. Re:is it just me? by zeroshade · · Score: 1

      If you think that making $250k/yr is not wealthy then I want some of whatever you're smoking. It's not in the realm of super-rich etc. but I'll be damned if you can call that not being wealthy when the average person is lucky to break even $120k/yr

    177. Re:is it just me? by gaiageek · · Score: 1

      7. Education - Policy has Math and Science as the Red Headed step child of education. Every High School Grad should have at least Pre-Calc and taken Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Geology. Anyone with a B.A. or B.S. Degree should have up to Calc II (and non of that lets call it Calc but teach algebra class), and 2 additional Natural Science classes.

      To this day I have never needed anything I was taught in calculus. I would swap your Calc II requirement for something like "Interpersonal Communication Skills II" in a heartbeat.

    178. Re:is it just me? by lgw · · Score: 1

      There's no possible way you could prevent that money from moving overseas before the law was passed (and ex post facto laws are unconstitutional, if that still means anything), and the result would devastate the American economy, especially now when we're so desparately in need of job creation (which almost always requires new investment in business). It would also mean that anyone in the next 100 years who started to become wealthy would leave before reaching the point of those punitive laws, arrange to get paid out of the country, and we'd lose all the money being spent here.

      Mostly, though, it won't work because it's never worked in the hstory of mankind - only murdering all the rich and looting their stuff has ever worked, and almost always that ends quite badly for everyone.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    179. Re:is it just me? by danbuter · · Score: 1

      I think one of our biggest problems is that all the politicians in Washington DC, both Republican and Democrat, don't care about anything that happens outside the Washington beltway. They are more than happy to prostitute themselves to any corporate lobbyist willing to offer a sweet gig to their family members or themselves after they retire.

    180. Re:is it just me? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Some people can't produce $40/hour worth of value.

      We ought to have a society where people who can only do "cheap" labor can still afford to live and work. But that would require fewer expensive government programs, fewer environmental requirements, and basically less of everything that makes products and services more expensive. When you can only afford "inferior" items, it's important that those products are not outlawed because they're not "efficient" enough.

      Poor people shouldn't have to buy a $2 light bulb when they want a $0.20 light bulb.

    181. Re:is it just me? by c0lo · · Score: 1

      How is enabling American businesses to do business overseas a bad thing?

      And... where did I say that?

      I posit there's a lot more money is basic business services than there is in space travel at the moment and for the foreseeable future.

      I may be right, you know? But, if TFA article is also right, you'd be right for the wrong reasons. I mean, space travel aside, wouldn't it be preferable to sell technology than pizza chains? Or did indeed US vision about its future changed to "heck, by the end of this decade, nobody will sell more pizza than we do"?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    182. Re:is it just me? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      A few problems here:

      All jobs in the US become high-skill, high-tech jobs mostly focusing on making use of the cheap overseas labor for the unskilled work.

      Americans aren't any more special than Chinese or anyone else. In fact, they seem to be getting stupider by the minute. High-skill jobs require educated, intelligent workers, not blithering morons. So what are you going to do with all the morons? There's only so many barista jobs to go around. Put them on welfare? That doesn't ever reduce the poverty problem, it increases it and increases the population of poor people with no education and no skills to do the high-skill jobs you talk of.

      Make it a federal crime to outsource or offshore anything that allows IP to fall into foreign hands.Start a huge program of paying people to move overseas if they do not have the required skills, training or intelligence.

      To where???? There's only a few countries where people are allowed to migrate to if they have low intelligence and no skills. The USA is the main one. All others are very, very picky about who's allowed to come in. Check out Canada's immigration laws sometime: you're not allowed to move there unless you already have a good job lined up (not a barista, but one requiring real skills), the company hiring you has to show that they weren't able to find a Canadian citizen to take the job, OR you need to have $300,000 to deposit into a Canadian bank account, or they don't want you. Australia and New Zealand are even worse IIRC. Most industrialized nations are the same; they don't want the trash from other countries, only the cream of the crop. It's only America where you can just walk across the border, pop out a baby, and automatically get a check from the government (because of the baby, not you), and no one asks too many questions, and anyone who complains is branded a "racist". Everywhere else, immigration is tightly controlled, and any babies you have on their soil are not automatically considered citizens unless one of the parents is also a citizen.

      So unless you're thinking of converting Guam or something into a "Devil's Island" for bums and surplus baristas, your ideas are totally unworkable.

      A better solution is to go completely opposite this. Stop all the free-trade nonsense, and erect barriers to trade to make it more fair for our lower-income citizens. Cut out the welfare, but set up some programs to match people with jobs, even if it requires moving them across the country to pick crops. Give people an option, but if they won't take the option ("I can't leave my family! waa!"), then don't help them any more, and let them starve. They'll take a job, anywhere, if they have no choice but to starve. Bring back manufacturing, and use advanced technology to make it cheaper. Cut out the importation of so much food from places where the FDA isn't able to inspect and ensure the safety of this food for our citizens' consumption; we have tons of land here that's perfect for growing food (except maybe bananas). We might need to bulldoze some excess subdivisions though, and stop allowing new ones to be built on nice, fertile farmland. In a decently-run society, there's a place for everyone.

    183. Re:is it just me? by rmstar · · Score: 1

      The defense budget is quite minor in the scheme of things. As a rough breakdown, in terms of total federal revenue:

      100% - money given to the old and poor
      30% - defense
      10% - interest on the debt
      20% - everything else the government does

      That numbers... are completely wrong. Who is feeding you these lies?

    184. Re:is it just me? by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of frontiers for America to forge ahead. Great leaders in America are forging technologies that will take us to the next frontier. It's unfortunate that the last four or so Executive administrations haven't put on a decent marketing campaign, but good things are coming in space exploration and that new frontier will change our world society for the better.

    185. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've noticed this as well. I think a lot of this stems from the economy. I noticed a tendency to value soft skills of valuable technical ones. I think this is leasing to a technical decline.

    186. Re:is it just me? by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      I know some people who have become rich, a couple very much so. They did by going out and creating things of value. They didn't steal anything. So just fuck you, loser filth.

      They didn't steal anything like say...oh... the ridiculously high salaries they earn to flush our savings accounts down the toilet on bad investments and then rely on our tax money to refill those accounts? That isn't stealing at all, is it?

    187. Re:is it just me? by WNight · · Score: 0

      It is not fair, we can't compete with cheap labor, that's not fair.

      Haha! Had you helped more nations instead of installing convenient dictators there wouldn't be whole countries of cheap labor. And now they're pissed because you kept them down when it was profitable to do so, so when they get the top position they won't be nice.

      But you brought that on yourselves so in a sense it is totally fair. You and ten-thousand people could congregate at GW Bush's next speaking engagement and arrest him to be delivered to the Iraqis (maybe to Sweden, on behalf of the Iraqis) for war-crimes trials, but the idea that even the most responsible of you be held responsible for your obvious crimes so disgusts you that you'll laugh at this. And that is why not only is the world against you, but that they find it so funny to watch you stumble.

      What we need are patriotic (a dirty word here) business people.

      Patriotism to your nation even if it fucked someone else over is a filthy idea. The USA is a criminal entity that should not be supported.

      But forget it most have been brainwashed into the fair and open market, which in reality does not exist.

      Hmmm, what huge country went out of their way for force copyright, patents, and a million other restriction on the free market onto the rest of the world? Oh yeah, the USA.

      I dunno, if a non-free market is your goal when it helps you I don't see how you get to bitch when it rolls around and hurts you.

      You can keep on hating America and believe in fairness eventually it will catch us all and you'll learn the hard way that hating ones country and globalism leads to no good ends.

      Globalism rocks. Global trade at the behest of the USA, and only when it benefits them, does not.

      BTW, if we "Hate America" it's because of people like you who don't see why we would. You're like a mob wife crying about getting hurt in a drive-by - what did you think your way of life was based on you idiot?

    188. Re:is it just me? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      You can see here that the tax rates on top earners dropped significantly in the '80's. Previous to that, why pay someone a lot of money? They would only benefit from a small portion of it, the rest would go to taxes. I find myself thinking that money now going into executive pocketbooks used to be invested in the corporate structure. Maybe in R&D, maybe elsewhere.

      The 1980s brought us the sentiment that "greed is good", and we've increasingly run the country as a cream-skimming operation for the rich since then.

      Not just "for the benefit of the rich", but "for the short term benefit of the rich". Everyone expects to MAKE MONEY FAST.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    189. Re:is it just me? by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      Earnings in a higher income brackets simply get taxed at a slightly higher rate than earnings in a lower bracket. So increasing taxes on those earning over $250k does not mean that those making $250k (actually, making exactly $250k would mean you pay the same tax rate as making $249k) would be taxed at the same rate as those making $10m/year. If you don't understand this, please shut the fuck up about taxes. Please.

      --Jeremy--Jesus was a liberal

      Jesus also said go forth and sin no more. Developing complex tax code over a million words in length sounds like someone is hiding a whole lot of sinning.

    190. Re:is it just me? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Wrong. The wealthy managers, board members, and CEO's made the decision to transfer all the jobs overseas. If you don't have a job, you can't afford expensive things so you buy things cheaper. The person that just took your job in China is now selling the cheap shit to you, bleeding the money out of the states while keeping an ungodly massive portion for the super-rich. http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110408/ts_yblog_thelookout/off-the-charts-income-gains-for-super-rich

      If one company offshores, it's a smart business move. When everyone offshores, it's economic suicide. The well-to-do consumer class is disappearing, and that person in China isn't making *nearly* enough money to buy goods at the prices traditionally charged in the USA.

      The rich are getting richer at the price of cannibalizing the economy. When it's gone, they'll be screwed too. But short-term interests prevail.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    191. Re:is it just me? by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      So the American bourgeoisie are finally getting slammed? Well, here's the world's tiniest violin. They had it coming for a long time.

      No wait! We can get a union together, control all the politicians through returning dues in campaign financing, and then force them to legislate unpaid benefits that will have the full faith and whatever....

    192. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the USA devalued their currency by about 50% in the past two years to reduce their debt to China, so something got to give eventually.

    193. Re:is it just me? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      And... where did I say that?

      "yes... I'd call this progression "stupid design" rather than evolution." I'd say calling it stupid isn't exactly a resounding endorsement.

      I mean, space travel aside, wouldn't it be preferable to sell technology than pizza chains?

      If 'pizza chains' were anything more than an example you'd have a point. It's an example nothing more but one that proves my point that raising your neighbors up, allows them to then buy your stuff.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    194. Re:is it just me? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      In the 1950's - 1960's the tax rate on the highest earners was between 70-90 percent. They didn't leave then.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    195. Re:is it just me? by ajlisows · · Score: 2

      One thing I've also noticed is that there is a segment in academia that think it is a good thing that manufacturing is disappearing from the states. They talk about machining being a hard labor intensive job that we don't really want people from a civilized nation like the United States performing. There is no convincing them that there are people who actually prefer physical labor. I've been finding it difficult to sit in the same room with some friends of mine who rail about this all the time.

    196. Re:is it just me? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      "Freedom" is worthless if you're broke and have to go crawling to rich people for a few table scraps. You can only have a reasonably "free" society with a strong middle class that has enough money to pursue their own agenda rather than beg from the few rich people.

    197. Re:is it just me? by karuna · · Score: 1

      And were in the end decent enough to recognize they're broke; and dissolve the Union mostly peacefully... can we treat it as a given?

      The Soviet Union failed exactly because Gorbachev introduced glastnost (openness) and perestroika (reforms). The irony is not that the USSR was economically successful country because it simply proves the point that the invisible hand will not make prosperity. The real irony is that attempts to introduce free market in the former Soviet republics created massive unemployment, inflation and poverty.

    198. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real lesson here is that a modern industrial state with some reasonable quality of life doesn't come about by the invisible hand; it takes focused, directed work at the goal to get anything done.

      It seems like the invisible hand got us there pretty efficiently. You think the lack of federal control is causing the current problems?

      Plot the health of various industries vs the amount of regulation of those industries. You'll see an inverse relationship.

    199. Re:is it just me? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      I generally agree with you, but I've been alive long enough to call bullshit on "Rise of religious fundamentalism" - America is simply moving in a direction more and more in conflict with religious fundamentalism, which itself shows the decline in power of the fundamentalists.

      The USA is moving in two directions. About 2/3 of us are trying to move into the 21st Century, and the other 1/3 are trying to move back to the Middle Ages.

      And I'm not sure the power of the fundamentalists has declined significantly. Sure, they've made missteps and misplayed their hand a few times. But they've still got a clique of religious nutters in Congress. Look at the recent games with John Ensign, and the support of a corrupt "Christian" in the Ivory Coast over the Muslim who actually won the election.

      And they continue to erode the legality of abortion and public money for family planning. ("religious right" is a euphemism for "sex-obsessed control freaks")

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    200. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The real lesson here is that a modern industrial state with some reasonable quality of life doesn't come about by the invisible hand; it takes focused, directed work at the goal to get anything done."

      And in the case of japan lots of financing and the USSR lots of technology from the US.

    201. Re:is it just me? by cobrausn · · Score: 1

      Funny, I use leftist to refer to liberals, socialists, progressives, etc., and right-wingers to refer to moral conservatives, neocons, fiscal conservatives, etc... because it groups them together. Don't think the original AC meant it as an insult. Bit defensive?

      Anyway, here. If you read the article, you will see that those in the 250,000 ~ 500,000 range (which the article refers to as a HENRY, or High Earner Not Rich Yet) pay a higher tax rate than those who make millions, because millionaries tend to make so much money on low-taxed dividends and investments. So it seems that between the leftists looking to tax the rich guys and the right-wingers and their 'trickle down economics' theory, the upper-middle class (lower-upper class?) gets the shaft, which is what the original AC said. If you really want to get at the 'evil rich guy', you need to increase the tax on earnings through dividends.

      I am also of the opinion that the upper-middle class is where it's at - that's the point at which investing in a business of your own looks reasonable option. Any less than that and you're probably stuck paying off school loans and a mortage.

      --
      How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
    202. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another "well reasoned" presentation in support of mediocraty over superiority in populations.

      The Truth is: In any generation about half a dozen people make any civilization great, the rest of us are just baggage along for the ride.

    203. Re:is it just me? by LDAPMAN · · Score: 1

      No, for the most part the "Rich" got that way and stay that way by providing goods and services that people want. Are there scum that profit from crime, dishonesty, and abuse? Sure there are and always have been but punishing the "Rich" will just result in lowering the amount of "value" in the world. Less "value" means a lower standard of living for all.

      Who is John Galt?

    204. Re:is it just me? by karuna · · Score: 1

      Regulation is not the same as planned conquer :) Also the control can be good or bad.

      The Soviet Union was partially successful because of planned command economy. The USA was more successful for the same reason but their plans and control was better, more subtle and effective.

      In computer terms you can compare this to brute force and refined algorithms. Brute force still requires systematic approach and given enough resources it can give good results. But optimized algorithms will win in most cases.

    205. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real lesson here is that a modern industrial state with some reasonable quality of life doesn't come about by the invisible hand; it takes focused, directed work at the goal to get anything done.

      Why do you hate America?

      Yeah, theres nothing more transparent than an invisible hand!

    206. Re:is it just me? by lahvak · · Score: 1

      Look, this is like if you slowly chip at a building for 40 or 50 years, neglecting to do any maintenance, letting it rot, ripping out wires and pipes from the walls, occasionally patching the worst holes with plaster that does not stay there more than two months, and then abandon the building right before it collapses. Then a new owner comes in and attempts to save the collapsing building by some understandably rash measures, but fails. You then go and blame the new owner for the collapse.

      The reason communism fell was because it lost support of pretty much everybody save few fanatical die-hards. In the late 80's, everybody who looked at the state of the economy and the prospects down the road in the eastern Europe simply ran away screaming, and there was nobody left to support the system. When even the organized crime (read KGB and other local intel agencies) abandoned the Party, it was all over.

      --
      AccountKiller
    207. Re:is it just me? by LDAPMAN · · Score: 1

      There right... "terms of total federal revenue:". We are indeed spending as much on entitlements as we are taking in.

      Who is John Galt?

    208. Re:is it just me? by c0lo · · Score: 1
      Now, look... both of the issues answered by the assumption of appropriateness of your example to the context of TFA. Here's the quotation in my message you didn't answer, thus I assumed you accepted it.

      if this is the example you found appropriate, I'd say TFA is damn'd on spot...

      I'm not saying selling pizza to Indians is bad, but I do say that being pleased/complacent in just selling pizza to Indians (as opposite to have a vision in regaining the momentum in technological dev) is bad.
      C'mon, mate, US used to have visions inspiring the world, should I understand they are no longer capable of this?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    209. Re:is it just me? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      1: The view that engineers, mathematicians, and computer scientists are "nerds" and deserve contempt,

      I don't know many people who hold them in contempt, but the simple fact is that there's less economic gain in creating something useful than there is in being a manager in the company that makes it or the salesman who peddles it. Or a shareholder.

      It's hard to maintain a work ethic in a society where knocking yourself out only makes the leeches rich.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    210. Re:is it just me? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      A song of most movements of the 80s :p (and earlier) ...not even too strictly about what Gorbachev did. Economic issues were pushing most uprisings behind the Iron Curtain (whatever ideologically-guided people like to believe, and would like us to believe).
      Ordinary people simply wanted better pays in relation to rising prices; better benefits, more free days, keeping holiday company funds & assets; they were fed up with some crisis of the moment, when the system was having some hiccups in providing goods and services they were used to, at the cost (to them) they wanted; political postulates were mostly added by "intelligentsia", piggybacking on mass discontent...

      ...and yes, ironically enough, many former protesters sort of reversed their views, when they got what they "wanted" during political & economic transformation of the 90s - but by then, huge unprofitable workplaces were no longer kept alive by the state, protests directed at the latter couldn't do much.

      At least, that's the story of my place (but occasional closer look at neighbors doesn't really challenge it). Also why in Belarus the opposition is so impotent, and why it should remain so for a year or two at least - so far, people at large are content from having bread (and circuses)... which looks like it might change in a year or two. Maybe.

      But yes, the irony wasn't about their successes (just "Stalin the murderer" vs. actual demographics; likewise censorship vs. literacy). OTOH about that "free market" and one very rampant in this thread (I doubt there's any point in debunking it...) myth (really good one - similarly, looking just at cold demographic data vs. the "myth of past middle class glory"... how it works out pretty much exactly backwards to the cherished ideology, how "you can use the fact that people did not feel poor in the 1950s as an argument for a more radical egalitarianism than even most leftists would be willing to espouse"); or "land of opportunities" vs. how the US is at the bottom of developed countries in social mobility, how "American Dream" is apparently just another product to sell.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    211. Re:is it just me? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      2: Lack of interest in R&D. Companies here either license new stuff, buy the company that has it, or litigate the company that has something they want out of existence.

      Also, companies are under such pressure to produce a good quarterly report that it's hard to justify investing money in anything that won't pay off right away.

      We're screwing ourselves for the long term by emphasizing short-term returns.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    212. Re:is it just me? by lahvak · · Score: 1

      If you look at almost any modern totalitarian system, you can see some initial growth. That's partly because at the beginning, each such regime has a support of fairly large part of the population, who is willing to sacrifice things for the success of the new system, and because the rest of the population is simply forced to sacrifice things for the success of the new system. In the cases where the country was economically in very bad shape prior the arrival of the new regime, there can even be quite a bit of growth, while if you look at some countries that became totalitarian while relatively prosperous, the initial growth is much smaller or even nonexistent. In all cases, though, the initial growth was always followed by long years of stagnation and decay, as long as the regime stayed in place.

      --
      AccountKiller
    213. Re:is it just me? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      While we all like to bag on lawyers and financial types, if their jobs were truly worthless they wouldn't exist.

      Worthless to WHOM?

      Making sh*tgobs of mone is *always* worthwhile to someone. Whether it's worthwhile to society is another matter.

      I recognize that we need lawyers, salesmen, middle managers, etc. But the relative rewards of doing those things vs. you know, actually doing something that increases the GDP, drains talent from the areas that make an economy strong.

      Phishers and bank robbers also exist because somebody expects to benefit from those activities.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    214. Re:is it just me? by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      "Absolute, utter rubbish. Inter-EU migration is lower in most western EU countries than in the UK, but that is not because it is restricted in any way."

      Ever heard about the deportation of Romanian gypsies? Ever seen German immigration law?

      http://ec.europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/work/jobseeker/work-permits/index_en.htm

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_enlargement_of_the_European_Union#Free_movement_issues

      "With their accession to the EU, free movement of people between all 25 states should apply. However, due to concerns of mass migration from the new eastern members to the old EU-15, some transitional restrictions were put in place. Mobility within the EU-15 (including Cyprus) and within the new states (minus Cyprus) functioned as normal (although the new states had the right to impose restrictions on travel between them). Between the old and new states, transitional restrictions up to 2011 could be put in place, ..."

      " In Austria, to be employed the worker needs to have been employed for more than a year in his home country prior to accession. Germany had bilateral quotas which remained in force."

    215. Re:is it just me? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      i've lived in the US since 1981 and it's always been like this. in the 1980's it was Japan was going to rule us. now it's china.

      I think Japan was a bit earlier than that. We've been through "Made in X" for a lot of countries since it was a joke about the quality of Japanese products.

      What's different now is that you could always easily buy stuff that *wasn't* "Made in X". But these days damn near everything you buy is Made in China.

      And utter crap to boot. But still costs more than you used to pay for good quality stuff.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    216. Re:is it just me? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      That is exactly what brought it to this point ... everyone is waiting for "our leaders have done anything to address it"

      Americans need to get off their fat lazy asses as take grab that ol' bull by the horns.

      Maybe, but we also need to elect leaders who won't reward behavior that screws us over the longer term.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    217. Re:is it just me? by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      $250K puts you in the top few percent of all earners. That pretty much makes you rich by definition.

    218. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it does, if it's handled properly. But considering you guys can't even keep a wrap on your current 'democratic' government, I guess that means you're fucked. But just an FYI, communism is not necessarily authoritarian. And that the USSR could create a stronger economy, despite demoralizing the populace with such hefty levels of oppression, shows that capitalism is not necessary for economic growth.

    219. Re:is it just me? by mochan_s · · Score: 1

      1. It's only on TV where engineers, mathematicians, and computer scientists are shown contempt. TV has become such a big part of people's live since everyone is so compartmentalized that people believe the world operates like what they see on TV.
      2. Bell Labs was possible because of all the excesses of the monopoly side of Bell.
      3. Like what? The whole patent system was invented so that new ideas could be shared from which newer ideas could come from. If it's not a revolutionary idea, then it can be reverse engineered.
      4. US has the best universities; very easy access to funds for education (loans, scholarships, assistantships) and schools that range from community colleges which are $80 per credit to private colleges. If planned properly, one could go from kindergarten to a doctorate without paying a penny.

    220. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Government is always involved, to a greater or lesser extent, in economic activities (especially infrastructure) but the incentive to work / innovate that expands economies rapidly just isn't there under state control (unless your willing to coerce and kill). It takes oversight, not heavy handed control, to create "a modern industrial state with some reasonable quality of life" ...

      Could you elaborate on this point please? I don't quite understand why there is no incentive to work/innovate when the government controls the economy.

    221. Re:is it just me? by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Being humble is for losers. America currently has enough military power to provide security for the country but it is the US citizens who are the most well armed populace on the planet. If it ever comes to civil war in the US it will make the middle-east look like disney land.

    222. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    223. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capitalism's supporters always seem to forget the rest of that quote:

      "out of all that we've tried".

      Someday, something will come along and Do It Better.

    224. Re:is it just me? by Third+Position · · Score: 1

      It is not fair, we can't compete with cheap labor, that's not fair. I know this is slashdot where kicking America it the thing to do, but when we move everything overseas from meat head jobs to now engineering what do you expect? What we need are patriotic (a dirty word here) business people. But forget it most have been brainwashed into the fair and open market, which in reality does not exist.

      You can keep on hating America and believe in fairness eventually it will catch us all and you'll learn the hard way that hating ones country and globalism leads to no good ends.

      "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains."

      --Thomas Jefferson

      --
      American Third Position
      Finally, a real choice!
    225. Re:is it just me? by mlts · · Score: 1

      I have seen that sentiment too. What is ironic is that after the manufacturing jobs go, the other jobs will go as well.

      Academia used to have some insulation from the economy. However, with student tuition almost doubling yearly, there is a bubble forming which may end up seriously hurting universities as a whole once it pops, and they can't get the students in. As of now, a tenured professor can rail and say how evil it is to have manufacturing jobs, but when students can't pay his salary and the university shuts down, he will be competing to keep a roof over his head just like everyone else.

    226. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the average for techies and managers. The median household income is only some $46-50k/year. Making *five times* the median has to count as wealthy, right?

    227. Re:is it just me? by mlts · · Score: 2

      I'd say it isn't we as in readers here. We here know that seeding long term things will end up with cool, salable products down the road. We all have seen the lesson of Corning and Gorilla Glass, a technology that has sat on the shelf for decades previously.

      The "next quarter uber Alles" came from the MBA grads (ironically they have to pass ITIL/ITSM classes, but never seem to grasp the concept after graduation.) Other countries don't have this. Take China. They run in five year plans, and have extremely successful results. I'm hoping this eventually filters to the US.

    228. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I need my hand tools warranted against loss, not breakage. I don't see the need for trophy tools so I buy the Sears house brand.

    229. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The wealthy have killed off the middle class. A strong middle class is what made America great.

      How is this? The wealthy take nothing from the middle class, it's the leechers that are draining the middle class by using local, state, and federal governments to fleece them.

      The middle class isn't being held down by the rich, their being fleeced by the poor.

    230. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello McFly, is anyone in there? What rock have you been living under for the past 2 decades? America isn't in the business of exporting much of anything these days, having offshored most of its manufacturing and R&D capabilities to other nations in favour of a service and consumer-based society. Hence, the massive trade deficit and consumer debt. Long term, you've raised your neighbours to be largely self-sufficient. What is "made in the U.S.A" these days that they can't produce themselves or import elsewhere for less?

    231. Re:is it just me? by kryliss · · Score: 1

      And the fact that Germany and Japan both have had American bases in them since WWII which brings billions/trillions of American dollars in to help fund all the rebuilding of that infrastructure.

      --
      --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
    232. Re:is it just me? by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      Yes, but is it cheaper after you have paid the unemployment/welfare/? for the low skilled worked with no job? I would argue that it is better to keep the low skilled jobs here, keeping people employed. Giving people something useful to do is much better for society than having them wait for the dole. I don't know how you do that in a WTO treaty though. Basically you need to subsidize the low skill jobs with what the unemployment would cost instead. If johnny or suzy can't read, what are the odds they will make it as a physicist? Nope, they will be unemployed since we have exported all the low skill jobs.

    233. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, instead they loan it out, making those suckers who take it from them pay them back more than they take.

      Nobody gets rich by spending money. None of those billionaires actually have a billion dollars, they have a billion promises to pay, backed by the US government's willingness to destroy capitalism if that's what it takes to make sure those promises are made good.

    234. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Voodoo economics worked only if paired with dishonest voodoo math. Remember, tax revenue goes up pretty much every year no matter what due to inflation and population growth; what's important is whether a tax change made it up up MORE than it otherwise would have. And if it did go up more, the next important thing, for determining whether that was fair or sustainable, is seeing how what we gained compares to what we gave away.

      It turns out that when you cut taxes on the rich, most what it really does is go towards making the rich richer; the economy as a whole doesn't improve any faster than it already was. Further, when you're doing this through deficit spending (as did Reagan and every budget since, except for a couple Clinton budgets), it's by far a net loss for everyone but the rich; they get more money *right now*, and in return everyone else has to pay even more money later. It's a plan destined for failure.

    235. Re:is it just me? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      So keep them downtrodden and poor you say? how downright 'neighborly' of you

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    236. Re:is it just me? by Third+Position · · Score: 1

      $250K also means you probably are still paying a mortgage, making car payments, have monthly bills and you'd be just as screwed as anyone else if you lost your job. I suspect those are problems Bill Gates will never have to confront. I submit that someone earning $250K a year still has a lot more in common with the burger-flip at McDonald's than he does with Warren Buffet.

      --
      American Third Position
      Finally, a real choice!
    237. Re:is it just me? by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes. Kristallnacht for rich people.

      They had that already. It was called the French Revolution.

    238. Re:is it just me? by rve · · Score: 1

      1: People in general are rational. People with a business degree make way more money than engineers, live in nicer houses, have bigger cars, and more attractive sexual partners. This is true here as well as in China, Russia or India. Perhaps there is more opportunity to be a lawyer or a business man in the US than there is in China.

      2: citation needed.

      3: Espionage, all countries that are capable of it do it. Asians do it, Europeans do it (though only Russia and France still seem to have the means there) and especially the Americans. Not because Americans are inherently more dishonest, they simply have the means to spy in ways no other country is currently capable of.

      4: This may be true, but an American college graduate will have made up that difference in education investment in just a few years, due to the considerably higher wages.

      There is no decline, only a relative decline, which can be entirely explained by the fact that some previously extremely poor countries with huge populations opened up their economies somewhat and have been getting less poor as a result. China is well on its way to getting an average standard of living comparable to Mexico. You just need to keep in mind that their population is four times that of the USA, and so is that of India (which is still shockingly poor in per capita terms).

      The USA has less than 5% of the world's population. China and India together have 35%. It makes sense to me that over time, the former will slowly move in the direction of 5% of the global economy and the latter in the direction of 35%. Probably not in our lifetime though. This is the golden age. Western, and especially American civilization are at their peak. Try to enjoy it more.

    239. Re:is it just me? by John+Saffran · · Score: 2

      China is greatly increasing the number of patents it issues--that will be good for us the day they actually support patents for extraterritorial inventors. They'll do that when they have enough IP and we refuse to honor their patents because they don't honor ours. There will be political games, but long-term it may be good for us. (Although we do need better science and math education--and more importantly, better cultural education on the value of science and math).

      Sorry but unless something fundamentally changes in the chinese attitude towards the rest of the world, equal treatment of non-chinese will never happen.

      To take an example, late last year chinese fishermen illegally fishing in korean waters deliberately rammed their boat into a coast guard ship, which caused the fishing boat to sink. The response from the chinese government was:

      “South Korea must bring the perpetrators to justice, to pay compensation for the disappearance of our properties, and make concrete action to prevent similar cases happening again,” said a spokesman for Chinese Foreign Ministry, Jiang Yu.

      That their foreign ministry regards the fishing boat as 'our' speaks volumes, this is china vs the world. In other words, the PRC will stand behind any chinese regardless of how illegal their actions, which in the past have included the killing of unarmed coast guard staff boarding to inspect fishing vessels.

      In the patent scenario, you can expect that patents for chinese companies will be strongly upheld, but extraterritorial patent holders will at best get lipservice. You might think that you can get away with doing what the chinese do now, ie. ignoring their patents, but the PRC will back chinese companies with political methods such as the use punitive tarriffs and other types of trade disadvantages (see how the chinese restricted rare earths to japanese companies during their version of the illegal fishing incident).

      Sure that hasn't happened to US or european companies/countries yet, but as soon as the PRC feels able to they'll apply the same methods they've been using against their neighbours.

    240. Re:is it just me? by suutar · · Score: 1

      This will hardly be rigorous, but... there's a difference between a service that adds net value (barbers, construction, manufacturing) and a service that only transfers existing value (lawsuits). Sure, the services of a lawyer may add lots of value to their client, but (in perception, at least) it's generally at the expense of someone else's value (the loser in the lawsuit). Whereas the services of a barber add value to their client at approximately zero cost to anyone (except the barber, in time and equipment, and that's why you pay them). There's probably lots of niggling little details, but that seems to be the core of it: some professions create value, and some professions just move value around.

    241. Re:is it just me? by Greguar · · Score: 2

      How do you define middle and upper-middle class?

      I personally like nice even fifths. The bottom 20% are lower class, next 20% lower-middle, next 20% middle-middle, next 20% upper-middle, and the top 20% as upper class. The middle class, being the bulk of the population, can be those three middle fifths, which leaves quite a spread but focuses nicely on the middle of the bell curve.

      So where does a household (solitary individuals, other non-family households and families combined) earning $250K/year sit in that breakdown? In the 2009 tax year (the most current data), there were roughly 2,372,000 households earning $250K+/year out of a total of 117,538,000 households in the US. That puts a household earning exactly $250K/year above 97.98% of the whole batch. That seems quite a lot towards the upper end to me, and not very middle at all.

      So how do the fifths break down?

      Lowest: $0 - $20,453 (Mean $11,552)
      Second: $20,454 - $38,550 (Mean $29,257)
      Third: $38,551 - $61,801 (Mean $49,534)
      Fourth: $61,802 - $100,000 (Mean $78,694)
      Fifth: $100,001+ (Mean $170,844)

      And for good measure, the top 5%: $180,001+ (Mean $295,388)

      I would imagine that the vast majority of new businesses created are created by people earning substantially less money than you claim. I see a lot of small firms of professionals, construction & trades contractors, mom & pop corner retail stores, basement tech startups, or even just entrepreneurs with a crazy big idea they try to make real. Some may have had a sweet job earning the big bucks before striking out on their own, but I doubt it's anywhere near most. A lot of people mortgage their houses to get startup money, then seek out venture capital as things get rolling. Many fizzle and fail in the first year.

      Where you have a point about business creation is for people earning $250K+/year in investment income. They tend to be able to start businesses left and right, and can afford to have a few fail without disrupting their portfolios. But we call those rich people, because they usually have net worths in the multi-millions.

    242. Re:is it just me? by canadian_right · · Score: 1

      Yes, the rest of the world has noticed how much the USA is in favour of free markets, except when the rest of the world out competes it.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    243. Re:is it just me? by lgw · · Score: 1

      There wasn't a law confiscating all their wealth if they tried to leave, was my point. That would never fly.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    244. Re:is it just me? by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      investment at what cost?

      I could invest everything I own and loose it the next day, that is what we seem to be doing

    245. Re:is it just me? by lgw · · Score: 1

      That numbers... are completely wrong. Who is feeding you these lies?

      Check the link in my sig (and its cites), or Wikipedia (and its sites). You may have been deceived: take a bit of time to check this out. I know I was shocked.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    246. Re:is it just me? by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1

      To this day I have never needed anything I was taught in calculus.

      Technically, I haven't needed anything in Biology, Chemistry, Physics, or Geology either. However, if you know enough basics in the entire set, you may become more skeptical in some of the claims that are used to manipulate you (e.g. Power Bracelet).

      However, overeducation causes problems as well - usually with morale where some people wonder why they had to take all that when the only job they land is a big-box retailer greeter.

      I would swap your Calc II requirement for something like "Interpersonal Communication Skills II" in a heartbeat.

      The Calc II requirement is actually part of B.A. or B.S., which is well beyond high school. As such, it shouldn't be swapped but complemented.

      Of course, you probably want to add basic physical education as well (and not the cheap "shotgun" or "bird" type courses). Allegedly, you're supposed to lift twice your body weight if going for strength, but there's also agility and endurance you need as well.

    247. Re:is it just me? by lennier · · Score: 2

      No longer do the poor in America see themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires but instead as deserving something for nothing. /quote>

      There's a difference between those two?

      Or do millionaires literally "deserve" their wealth in some absolute sense?

      I find it hard to understand that the country that declared "all men are born equal" should also have brought itself to believe - at the same time and while claiming to hold to the same political philosophy - that one person can be thousands to millions of times more valuable than another, and that this temporary disparity of financial standing should be considered a "right" as if it has some kind of absolute moral value. Like, every breath Bill Gates or Oprah Winfrey takes somehow has hugely greater intrinsic moral worth than a random guy on the street in New York? Doesn't make sense to me that it should.

      Yes, it takes hard work to make a million dollars, but it also takes hard work to rob a bank. Why is one way of getting rich considered more "good" than the other? They're both transferring money from many other people to one, consolidating power under one person's control. (When it comes to making millions in finance and banking, the difference between "productive captain of industry" and "white collar fraudster" becomes even harder to work out.)

      If we're going to evaluate people's worth, shouldn't we do so based on how well they treat their family, how loving and caring they are, what ideas they contributed to the public good, and other absolute measures, rather than a game of figures that in the end, don't mean anything?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    248. Re:is it just me? by lennier · · Score: 1

      We can't simply 'give up' those three things and just 'live on less'.

      Sure we can. We can all live in the Mad Max future if we decide not to do anything to change the trajectory we're on.

      Failure is always an option. It's just an unpleasant one.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    249. Re:is it just me? by lennier · · Score: 1

      WWI (one), which was nothing more than a colossally stupid land-grab with no justification whatsoever

      That it was. And we in the British Colonies are all so jolly proud of our part in it that next week we celebrate a particularly pointless mass slaughter which achieved nothing whatsoever.

      Good show chaps! Keep up the good work, what!

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    250. Re:is it just me? by lennier · · Score: 1

      "It is not fair, we can't compete with X" is not the right attitude if you need to compete with X.

      Why not?

      Why do we need to compete with regimes which use abusively low wages and poor labour conditions, support repressive regimes, and destroy the environment?

      Why is "we will refuse to import these products at any price because it is a Faustian bargain and our souls are not for sale" not a perfectly valid and moral answer?

      Must all our ethical principles be traded on the open market to the lowest bidder?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    251. Re:is it just me? by Lanteran · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of 1984. It is revealed later in the novel that the proletariat (approximately 85% of oceanic population) are relatively unmonitored, uncontrolled, etc. because all revolutions come from the middle class.

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
    252. Re:is it just me? by lennier · · Score: 0

      The real lesson here is "focused, directed work at the goal to get anything done" either needs to get it paid for by someone else like a welfare queen

      Yep, that would be what things like the GI Bill and military science programs did for the postwar USA's technological development.

      Those lazy, shiftless Greatest Generation welfare queens. Who did they think they were, just because they took a short 1940s European holiday at the taxpayers' expense? Came back all spoiled rotten, expecting the government to give them a house and pay their way through university.

      I blame the French.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    253. Re:is it just me? by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Sure there are and always have been but punishing the "Rich" will just result in lowering the amount of "value" in the world. Less "value" means a lower standard of living for all.

      As usual, reality disagrees with right-wing rhetoric.

    254. Re:is it just me? by buybuydandavis · · Score: 1

      Regulation, including legal regime around patents.

      Lots of regulations make it harder to start a business and bring your product to market. The patent regime allows big companies to squash small companies who can compete in the marketplace, but can't compete in the courtroom.

      I predict we're going to get overtaken in drug discovery, application of genomics, and inexpensive medical devices very quickly - if we haven't already.

    255. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the GP is correct actually; it's not "fair". "Fair" would be if a product cost the same no matter where it was produced.

      You started out well, but then you went on to contradict your own point. A shitty apartment in the slums cost hundreds of dollars a month to rent in the US (it varies based on location [this is the point!]) and $1 per month in some third world country. Demanding the same things in both countries costs tremendously different amounts of money. The only way Americans and Europeans can compete with outsourced wages is if the cost of goods is likewise decreased. A dollar a day will not feed an American, no matter how much he wants to compete for work. The car and entertainment are nice, but the basics are orders of magnitude more expensive here.

      Globalization is about outsourcing the production, but keeping the consumption local. It's just a way to milk the wealth from the local population. The bulk of that money is not going to the outsourced labor, it's going to the owners and execs.

    256. Re:is it just me? by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Why is "we will refuse to import these products at any price because it is a Faustian bargain and our souls are not for sale" not a perfectly valid and moral answer?

      Because if the average US citizen had to deal with a similar cost of living to the rest of the world, he might realise how badly he's been getting screwed for the last thirty-odd years.

    257. Re:is it just me? by lennier · · Score: 1

      how "American Dream" is apparently just another product to sell.

      Well, it's not called "the American Reality"... ;(

      A friend visited New Zealand from Texas the other day. She was saying "You might think you have the poor here, but you guys don't have poverty anywhere near like we have - at least you can live on the welfare in NZ."

      Makes me cry.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    258. Re:is it just me? by lennier · · Score: 1

      the reality of effectively adding 6 billion people to your economy in the space of 10 years is a hardship.

      Why a hardship? All those people aren't going to just sit on their hands and break stuff, right?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    259. Re:is it just me? by lennier · · Score: 1

      Well, guess what? The cheapest one is not made in America.

      But that needn't be the case if you implemented some basic requirements on imports: that the companies that produced them have equivalent worker rights, wages, quality and environmental protection measures to US companies. Then set up an international organisation (say the WTO, since they're already in the trade regulation business) to monitor those conditions and enforce compliance.

      That wouldn't be protectionism per se - any country who obeyed the same rights/protections regimes could compete - but it would stop the "race to the bottom" effect and would make consumers feel a whole lot safer about their purchases. At the moment, I don't like buying, say, Thai tuna because I feel queasy about how workers are treated in Thailand and whether they have proper sustainable fishing quotas in place. But this would give me assurance that I'm not contributing to slavery or overfishing or toxic spills by buying what's on my supermarket shelves.

      Once you had such a regime in place, then the USA would be in the same position as any other country, able to compete on the true merits of their production efficiency without unfairly penalising either labour or the environment.

      You've already got the will and the muscle to push through things like international copyright treaties. An international framework like this would merely extend the protections afforded to abstractions like intellectual property, to labour and the environment. You could apply exactly the same arguments and diplomatic pressures to get it done as you do to back WIPO and the like.

      What part of this simple, obvious solution is not politically achievable?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    260. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think there's a real difference between those two cases. The company that threads the rod is doing something essential: without it, the jet will never fly. The company that insures the rod is doing something non-essential: without it, the jet will still fly - just with a different allocation of blame in the case that it crashes.

      Putting it another way: the first company creates wealth, while the second company just redistributes it. And since the second company requires resources in order to operate, its net effect is actually to destroy a bit of wealth.

    261. Re:is it just me? by jaypifer · · Score: 1

      I'll take the path of social networking, and chinese leveraged manufacturing over focused, directed, multi-front wars and future leveraged debt any day.

      --
      Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three.
    262. Re:is it just me? by lennier · · Score: 1

      4. Environment - A trade off for a better environment is slower growth in overall technology. We are focusing on making what we already have run better without making much that is new.

      This one's a good thing, though, right? Rushing to make new stuff that has nasty environmental side effects is like drinking slow poison because it's tasty - initially might seem fun, but you'll pay for it in the end. If a lack of visible innovation is the price we pay for putting our environmental house in order, then I'm all for it.

      But I'm not convinced the shift to green sustainable tech is actually happening - at least not fast enough, yet, to forestall the massive declines we're seeing in species diversity and habitat sustainability across the globe. We're still making, eg, new iPads with a 2-3 year lifespan and no obvious plan for cradle-to-grave reuse. That's not doing any favours for our future selves.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    263. Re:is it just me? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Why do we need to compete with regimes which use abusively low wages and poor labour conditions, support repressive regimes, and destroy the environment?

      If we make a product for $10 and they make a product for $5, and we are both trying to sell to the same customer, then we compete. It's not a question of need. It's a description of reality.

      Forcing the customer to buy from you at gunpoint is competition too. It's the mobster/gangster/government kind.

      I don't think we want to be the country that leads in forcing unwilling customers to buy overpriced products. Maybe you do. Why give the customer a product in return at all if you want to rob him? You'll have a higher profit margin if you simplify the robbery. Producing goods for such an exchange is just a needless complication of that sort of transaction.

    264. Re:is it just me? by lennier · · Score: 1

      And they continue to erode the legality of abortion

      As somewhat of an outsider to US religious politics, I find it interesting that the civilised West still considers infanticide "wrong" while considering abortion an absolute right. Seems to me, to be really consistent you should make up your mind and either allow both or disallow both. The secular "you're only a human being after birth" argument seems like more magical thinking than the religious argument - as if the act of drawing breath adds a soul which wasn't there at conception. The line between protected citizen and "medical waste" doesn't seem so obviously black and white to me.

      But applying logic to this issue seems to be political suicide on the Left for some reason.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    265. Re:is it just me? by lennier · · Score: 1

      how can you expect the government to keep track of itself? Maybe if we had a dictator

      If the problem is sheer complexity, I'm not sure how even assigning one person to say "Make it so!" would help that person's commands to be actually workable.

      Just saying that "if we had a dictator..." isn't really even a good devil's advocate position today. Poor guy would be as screwed as the rest of us.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    266. Re:is it just me? by lennier · · Score: 1

      Long term, raising up your neighbors only helps you.

      No, it doesn't.

      ...We've been pumping trillions of dollars into Mexico for decades for economic stability purposes. Mexico is no better off now than it was 50 years ago (arguably, much worse)

      So if Mexico is still worse off then it hasn't actually been "raised up" at all, so your point is?

      There's a big difference between doing and trying-but-failing (or what might be in the real world, claiming-to-have-tried-while-actually-doing-something-else-and-then-failing).

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    267. Re:is it just me? by lennier · · Score: 1

      Bloody, and sometimes taking decades

      Mmm, I can see how that prospect would be very appealing for a nation only just recovering from about a century-and-a-half of dynasty change followed by cultural revolution, and now experiencing its greatest period of peace and growth since forever.

      But hey, freedom, I guess?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    268. Re:is it just me? by lennier · · Score: 1

      Were you not alive during the Reagan years? Federal revenues went up due to cuts on the highest marginal rates.

      Interesting claim. Citation?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    269. Re:is it just me? by MagikSlinger · · Score: 1

      There's no one single variable that you can point to and blame. The system is far more complex than simply blaming Wall Street, Lawyers or what have you, but to dismiss government as one of those variables is woefully ignorant. Particularly given a government is arguably the most important part of a given state, especially when you consider education, which is certainly a major topic concerning innovation.

      I see your point, but I think America's government truly is of the people and by the people. It simply reflects what America's people wants. When the American people wanted a man on the moon, the government made it happen. When the American people wanted to win WWII, it did. When the American people believed government was the problem, government behaved accordingly (mechanism: electorate votes government hating politicians who appoint inept people to government functions for reasons other than good governance which creates problems returning us to the beginning :-))

      I am saying Government's negative influence is a symptom. The rise in the stature, power and wealth of lawyers and financiers is a symptom. A symptom of American society's values. A runny nose doesn't cause the cold; the cold causes the runny nose.

      --
      The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
    270. Re:is it just me? by lennier · · Score: 1

      Who is John Galt?

      The Unabomber with a better haircut.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    271. Re:is it just me? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      The secular "you're only a human being after birth" argument seems like more magical thinking than the religious argument

      I've never heard anyone espouse that view.

      I and a lot of other people hold the view that a fertilized egg is not a person, and a baby ready for the exit is. The difficulty lies in defining a point where the change occurs, which of course does not happen suddenly.

      Are there any published statistics on how far into the process the typical elective abortion occurs?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    272. Re:is it just me? by turing_m · · Score: 1

      you can't be capitalistic and complain about cheap foriegn labor. that's is being a hypocrite

      Well you can be mercantilist then. I would argue that countries like China are much more mercantilist than capitalist anyway.

      However, an individual action by a businessman to support his own country in the face of market reality is suicidal, especially where the other businesses in his country have no qualms about doing anything for a dollar. The only way that would work is if they lobbied together for protectionist laws that would affect all businesses within the US.

      --
      If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
    273. Re:is it just me? by lennier · · Score: 1

      My dad was ridiculed in school in the 1940's for spending his time making model rockets and mutating goldfish with x-rays

      Yikes!

      Are you sure some of that "ridicule" didn't come from men in black suits wearing three-letter badges? Ridicule or job offers...

      (Ve must eliminate the mutant goldfish gap, Mein - er, President!)

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    274. Re:is it just me? by lennier · · Score: 1

      Phishers and bank robbers also exist because somebody expects to benefit from those activities.

      But you see, phishers actually provide a useful service! They increase, um, market liquidity?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    275. Re:is it just me? by DocHoncho · · Score: 0

      I will first note that I have never myself done any comprehensive study regarding the statistics of "Self Made Men" verses "Inherited Rich Men."

      That being said, I believe that it is a logical fallacy to state categorically that being Rich necessarily implies having earned those riches. Without a doubt, behind every trust fund baby there is a Self Made Man SOMEWHERE in the family tree. But it just doesn't make sense to glorify the ultra rich by saying "They earned it, let em keep it." Exactly what did Paris Hilton do to earn her riches? George W. Bush? I'm sure we could find example after example. For every Warren Buffet (whose "earning" of large sums of money certainly conflicts with the common sense definition of "earn") we can find at the very least twice as many examples of Inherited Riches who not even the staunchest free market proponent could claim earned it.

      America has a fundamentally twisted view on what is actually important. We value "Teh Rich" and their lifestyles over anything which could potentially raise the basic ability for even the most ordinary individual to be happy. We have twisted views on "Fairness," which value an individuals ability to Get Rich by any means necessary rather than ensuring that everyone has certain basic needs taken care of, allowing them to finally focus on possible entrepreneurial activities. We raise the proud few who happened to be born "under the right star" with the right ability, in the right place, at the right time over the rest of the citizenry who "just aren't trying hard enough."

      We hem and haw about the so called "Welfare Queens" who laze around, pushing out kids and living the high life on whatever pittance they get from the dole. While at the exact same time turning a blind eye to the parasites at the top who are bleeding our treasury dry with bailouts, gold parashutes, revolving doors between Wall Street and the regulators and all the other un-ethical shit 'Teh Rich" get away with each and every day.

      But never mind that, it's those goddamned Welfare Queens. They're bleeding our country dry with their $600 a month in welfare. And don't forget those Medicare teet-suckers. If it weren't for them, we'd have a lot more money to funnel into bailouts, corporate welfare and other, more important, entitlements for the modern Aristocracy.

      Don't fool yourselves. Even now, in the 21st century, our once proud American society, founded For the People by the People is now the proud owners of an Aristocracy every bit as parasitic as the ones which bled the life out of Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries and which our system of government was established to get away from.

      Just keep hating the poor, it's their own fault anyway. Lazy shits.

      Oh and the first person to call me a socialist can go get themselves fucked, straight away. I am advocating that the fundamentals of our society are predicated on an unhealthy love of Riches and are thus skewed in the favor of those Rich to the detriment of the rest of society. Let those who can be rich. But why base the whole system on gaining that particular state and venerate that state practically to the point of being a national religion while the rest of the country muddles on, sometimes in the squalor of abject poverty?

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    276. Re:is it just me? by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      And as usual those same right-wing proponents squawk about "value" as if that word had any a priori meaning. It's the same thing Marx got wrong. Value isn't defined by how much work went into a good. And it certainly isn't defined, nor caused, by the "Rich." Value exists solely on an interpersonal level and is defined by each and every individual with respect to a particular good.

      I may highly value a certain kind of Cigar, while you will scoff and say it's a waste of money. Value in and of itself can not be used in an aggregate context and has absolutely no meaning outside the context of an individual (and a particular good.)

      The only thing that will save our society is to end the mindless veneration of Richness as the ultimate goal of life. The Declaration of Independence asserts the right for all of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" and yet nowhere in that venerable document does it define the "Pursuit of Happiness" as the pursuit for riches above all else. Our priorities are all wrong. And no-one wants to admit it.

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    277. Re:is it just me? by OneAhead · · Score: 1

      Nice Godwin. You have a better way to do it? It will never happen the way I said it, but higher taxes on the rich won't work in this day and age. They will take all their money to Europe, Japan, China, etc.

      Funny how you quote a set of places that tax the rich way higher than the US. Oh wait... there just are few developed nations that tax their rich as low as the US.

      As for "a better way", the key is ironically in your sig. Put into place a set of laws that severely limit campaign financing. Put stringent restraints on televised campaign ads. Perhaps something like the current disclaimers for medical ads, but more like: "the largest financial contributors to this advertisement are (in order of importance):..." You could actually even do that for all advertisements - companies advertising actual products would be exempt providing that their logo is prominently shown (which they're doing already regardless). Or ban political ads altogether like in some European countries. Redefine corruption as anyone associated with someone holding public office accepting money from a private entity, and put into place very strict anti-corruption laws - have a McCarthy-style anti-corruption witch hunt if you must. You might even go as far as to put into place a non-partisan committee to enforce journalistic standards. All I say is: purge special interests from the political system! Special interests influencing politics and media are the only thing that keeps the US from having a sensible healthcare policy, decreased dependence on foreign oil, an end to subsidies or tax breaks for non-competitive industries, sensible taxes for the super-rich, effective enforcement of antitrust legislation encouraging real competition beween ISPs, cell phone providers,... Get rid of the special interests an all the rest will slowly but surely fall into place.

    278. Re:is it just me? by styrotech · · Score: 1

      Personally I think ANZAC day is celebrated for a different reason. It was a bit later on after that (due to the massive bungling of Gallipoli by the British and waste of life) that Australians and NZers started to identify themselves as Australians and NZers rather than just subjects of the British Empire.

      If that campaign had been successful, then that growing feeling of independence would have started much later - probably not until after WWII (eg after the British screwed up the defence of Singapore instead hehe).

    279. Re:is it just me? by lennier · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the same attitude took hold in Britain after WWI. Does an empire in decline *realize* it's in decline?

      Pretty much. There's a reason why British TV shows are so bleak and their comedy blacker than black.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    280. Re:is it just me? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. The premise of my argument was to tax the rich more than everyone else. They already have 95 percent of the assets, and I think we should get 40 percent of those back minimum in ten years. However what I am saying, regardless of if my choices for tax havens is right or not, is that the rich will bolt if we tax them too much. A study would need to be done to find some optimal taxation rate to keep them here and still get the money. Frankly, they owe it to back to us as a society since our very existence enables them to be rich in the first place. But yes, we are of like mind on the purging of all corporate and wealthy campaign donations. Id actually like to see non-partisan, secular elections funded with tax dollars where people debate on government funded programs, are given a free platform to speak, and are able to run for office if they pass some preliminary vote. Then, ban all campaign contributions above a few million. Make the voter look harder for someone to vote for rather than being brainwashed by TV ads. Its utopian and probably bullshit, but Im absolutely positive that middle class people exist who would make a better politician or executive officer than any every single one of those men and women currently in office.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    281. Re:is it just me? by pclminion · · Score: 1

      The poor sit around thinking "Why is that guy fucking me over like that?"

      The rich sit around thinking, "Why don't you do what I'm doing and be rich as well?"

      As long as you treat the rich as an enemy, somebody not to be emulated, their strategies will accumulate more and more wealth and yours will not. Do what they're doing, and it starts to balance out. You're the one keeping yourself down.

    282. Re:is it just me? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Its not possible to "do what they are doing". Furthermore, if you have any idea what they are doing or are aware of some resource to read about, share it with me and we'll see if you know what you are talking about. You need to go to an Ivy League school and be a schmoozer. Attending these schools is unaffordable for most people and undesirable for many since engineering may be something the want more. The competition for these schools is immense, you will be beat unless you are a born genius or the most charismatic person on earth simply because there is always someone more charismatic than you, or smarter than you and/or richer than you AND these schools want "diversity" so they take more people from overseas than domestically. You also need to be willing to enter into parasitic professions like law, finance or management. Im not saying these professions started out this way, but they are this way now if you want to get ahead. The rewards are high but the cost is that you walk over everyone else and are literally the reason poor people exist in the US in first place. If it were true that I could "do what the rich do" I would have already and I would be creating more jobs and donating a hell of a lot more than they do (which is probably why I am not rich since I am also not selfish). As it sits I achieved a level of education at the top 8 percent of US citizens with well above average grades, am attempting to get into the top 1 percent of US citizens in education and yet I still am not rich. No one wants to pay me to work in Scientific fields. They are too busy trying to employ people to steal money from everyone else in the stock market or as a lawyer.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    283. Re:is it just me? by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Oh, I though it was yet another sad attempt to appeal to emotion via yet another "think of the children" logical fallacy. Silly me.

    284. Re:is it just me? by Nursie · · Score: 1

      Do you read back what you write? If you did you may have noticed the horse-shit that your post is.

      Do what the rich do... LOL. Be born into wealth?

      There are only so many people that can be that wealthy and somebody has to clean the toilets. The plain fact is that most very wealthy people have got there by the fruits of other people's labour. Not that they didn't work damned hard, sure, but nobody's labour is worth thousands of times another persons.

    285. Re:is it just me? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Got another one for you. What its really like :

      The poor sit around thinking "I may as well give up because I will never achieve anything. Ive tried very hard to get ahead and every time I fail because I get laid off, treated like shit and cannot tolerate it anymore, or am forced to work very hard for very little wages and I can't feed my family. I may as well take free handouts from the government because its a alot easier then being laid off, let down, and treated as second-class citizens while my family starves to death every day of my miserable life"

      The middle class sits around thinking "Why is it that I work so hard, I am educated more than many rich people, and I never can get ahead? Year after year I get paid the same thing for more work or have to get laid off meanwhile being treated like I am owned by my boss who is a dilettante that brown-nosed and cutthroat his way into his position?"

      The rich sit around thinking "What excuses can I make up to blame the middle class and poor for not being rich like me so I can justify being rich and continue being a selfish piece of shit that skims the majority of my underlings production and investments so that I make much more money than I will ever deserve? MY money works for me so I really don't have to do anything and I would still be richer than everyone else, so I have to think of some excuse to make the little-people more complacent as to how badly I am screwing them every day of their lives."

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    286. Re:is it just me? by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1
      That way you can turn even mining the metal and refining it into services. Even finding where in the ground the ore is is a sort of a service.

      What is *not* a service?

    287. Re:is it just me? by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      What that particular slaughter achieved was not what was originally intended, but - much as I might prefer it never happened at all - it did have other impacts.

      As an Aussie, next week I'll be spending some time remembering both that we fought with irreverent courage and bravery, and that we let ourselves be sent to die on foreign soil for foreign pride (take that as you will).

      Both are important to consider.

    288. Re:is it just me? by ghostdoc · · Score: 1

      I think his point was that the actual jet is actually being built somewhere else. There could be 1000 US service companies in the chain, each adding a little bit of value to the end product, but the end product is now being built in China, whereas it used to be built in Detroit.

      Your product is a phsical change, but other than that a process that makes something more useful to me is worth extra cost and the form of that value does not make either job less important.

      Service companies add value as you say, but you can't build a ship from service guarantees. You actually need someone to produce the threaded rod at some point, guaranteed or not. That doesn't happen in the US much any more.

      --
      Business/App ideas are like arseholes: everyone's got one, they're mostly shit, but very rarely they contain a diamond
    289. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      increase their capitol reserves

      They need extra buildings where congress meet?

    290. Re:is it just me? by RewriteQuran · · Score: 0

      Former USSR republics are relatively free from corruption and prospering rapidly http://doingbusiness.org/rankings

      Georgia - 12,
      Estonia - 17,
      Lithuania - 23
      Latvia - 24,
      Kyrgyzstan - 44,
      Armenia - 48,
      Azerbaijan - 54,
      Kazakhstan - 59,
      Belarus - 68,
      Moldova - 90,
      Russia - 123,
      .
      .
      INDIA - 134 (China 79)
      .
      Tajikistan - 139,
      Ukraine - 145,
      Uzbekistan - 150.

      --
      Govt must constitute a panel to rewrite US Constitution and Quran
    291. Re:is it just me? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Well, I'd be happy to hear how US helped Mexico and Canada.
      You helped the richest Canadians get richer by outsourcing most of our industry south to the States. Of course that didn't work out too good for you as the richest Americans learned, added Mexico to the free trade zone and outsourced those American jobs further south therefore making the richest Americans richer.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    292. Re:is it just me? by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      In regards to intel, google, and microsoft. While the parent company is based in the US they are multi-national companies that hire and have bases around the world.

      Is it really U.S innovation if you have indians/british/australian people doing the creating?

      The pentium M which later became the core series processors were designed in israel.

      With companies like that, country doesn't matter, you seriously think they would keep their headquarters in the US if for instance the tax office started cutting down on workarounds for paying tax? they have no loyalty.

    293. Re:is it just me? by blahplusplus · · Score: 0

      "The soviet command economy collapsed rather spectacularly, and wasn't that wonderful for the comrades (slave laborers) who had to live and die with it."

      The same can be said of capitalism: Mental illness, depression, suicide, heart disease, foreign imperialist wars (america) and early death. I really REALLY hate the "capitalism is the win! it has never killed anyone!" bullshit that many people on slashdot believe. Capitalism in earlier era's was just as brutal as anything out of the soviet union let us not forget that CAPITALISM spawned it's own nemesis because it was so cruel historically speaking.

    294. Re:is it just me? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Thing is that Germany exports more than even China does. Manufacturing is alive and well in some 1st world countries. In the UK we destroyed our manufacturing base deliberately in the 80s, and cheaper labour overseas was not the primary cause of its downfall.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    295. Re:is it just me? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It's not a matter of complexity, it's a matter of not following common sense....obvious things like keeping a balanced budget. This is true both on the individual American level, and at the governmental level.

      I only mention a dictator, because a dictator will not always fall to the same weaknesses as the people; but for a democracy, that is rarely so.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    296. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't counter argue then don't say stupid thinks like that.
      And people wonder why US is falling behind.

      Being realistic is not hating America, warnong others of dangers or trying to explain what is wrong is not hating America.

      People that put their head in the sand yelling how America is heaven while doing nothing to solve its issues is hating america,,,

    297. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every member of the Chinese Central Committee leadership is an engineer by training. Speaks volumes compared to the frat-boy/jock crowd in the White House and Congress.

    298. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe Europe will step up and start big war they can't finish on there own again. If we make sure and get the orient/Africa and all the "almost not 3rd world" countries involved again we should be able to get back on top with ease.

      Prosperity through massive death tolls. It's the American way.

    299. Re:is it just me? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      You seem to be forgetting that USA turned its economy from agricultural to industrial within the 19 century, while causing the USD to appreciate in value by a factor of 2, increasing everybody's wealth, creating new goods and services that never existed before than, causing massive increases in wealth, which in turn caused massive increases in human ability to concentrate on things other than growing food - people's rights is just one of the achievements of the free market that USA had before 1913. All done not only without, but despite gov't intervention, which always caused only one thing - creation of large corporate entities - tycoons, robber barons, bailed out financial and other institutions.

      It is the 'invisible hand' that causes huge increase in wealth production, not any directed effort from the above gods of high gov't offices.

    300. Re:is it just me? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I disagree entirely with your point.

      The middle class of USA was formed in 19 century, it was small business and professionals. The post WWII 'middle class' was blue collar workers in position to dictate monopolistic wages, due to the rest of the world's production capacity being wiped out. The gov't that feeds off the income taxes grows during such fluke times very quickly but it does not shrink back to match the reality of the decreasing economy, instead it inflates the bubble (in USA helped by the USD being 'reserve currency'). This destroys the savings rate, moves capital savings out of the country. Coupled with excessive regulations (what else can a large gov't do, but regulate everything and tax everything?), also coupled with various socialist programs (paid for by IOU promises and political hot air and pyramid schemes) this causes massive outflow of capital and production capacity, which in turn leaves the population devoid of any real wealth production ability, removes the jobs from the economy, all while growing the inequality between the rich and poor by promoting gov't involvement into everything, which destroys competition and pushes prices up (this only adds the insult to the money printing/counterfeiting injury).

      There is no reason for any middle class to exist in America. America now is the land of beggars and liars - beggars are the general public and they elect liars into high offices.

    301. Re:is it just me? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      But hey, freedom is like air, it's only important when you aren't getting any.

      China is experiencing amazing growth; that's the part I mention where the lower class starts to accumulate wealth. The next part is when the government starts cracking down on this new found wealth.

      Try to think about more than 'right now' sometime...

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    302. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Espionage

      The PHB's boss ought to care about whether the company's research ends up in the hands of its competitors. If not him, then his boss, or his boss, or [trace parents to the root] the CEO, appointed by the stock holders, and any inefficiency in the company comes eventually out of their pocket (or is less money in their pocket).

      Lack of education in the US

      Whether people pay for education from their pocket or the state pays for their education from their pocket, they still need to pay to have an education. If people are rational, privately paid tuition fees will make people not overspend on education (yes, that's possible---I think the market for humanities majors is too small to absorb all the grads, so some will have spent a boat load of money on an education they won't get to use).

    303. Re:is it just me? by spinkham · · Score: 1

      Woah, woah, whoah!

      $250,000 and above is the top 1.5%. That's not the middle of ANYTHING.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

      Upper middle class is a clearly defined term. It uses a quintile system, where earners are broken down into 5 equal sized groups.
      Upper middle is currently $55K-$88K.

      If you prefer to use a quartile system, the inter quartile range (called the middle by normal people) is 25K-75K.

      The median income is $44K.
      The mean income is $60K. It's significantly higher then the median because the rich are SO much richer then the poor, and they skew the scale.

      Any way you want to define middle, the top 1.5% DO NOT QUALIFY.

      Perhaps it's good that people don't have a good grasp of the true nature of wealth distribution in this country, there would be riots in the streets.

      For people who don't like statistics, perhaps the funniez? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b66u-mzfBPE

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
    304. Re:is it just me? by rmstar · · Score: 1

      Check the link in my sig (and its cites), or Wikipedia (and its sites). You may have been deceived: take a bit of time to check this out. I know I was shocked.

      Okey, okey. Wow I say. But I would also say that you are really being ripped off. Because for that money you are getting the worst social security system among developed countries. There are countries that live in what you would call socialism (which is nonsense, of course. I mean social democratic capitalism, like germany) and they aren't paying that much (in terms of revenue %)

    305. Re:is it just me? by mr1911 · · Score: 1

      I disagree. If the rich weren't so greedy we would each have enough for us, and the rest of the world would still be progressing at their current pace.

      What are you smoking? The majority of the much-lamented "rich" got that way by being greedy, and working their asses off to get ahead. It isn't a zero sum game -- one can get rich without making someone else poor, and you sit-on-your-ass-and-whine-about-it types will never be satisfied redistributing the pie because those "rich" folks you detest so much are still working to grow the pie.

      Work as much as you whine and you might wind up being rich yourself.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    306. Re:is it just me? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. I hear the same excuse time and time again from super-rich apologists and rich to super-rich people themselves. Its easily defeated by logic and evidence. Did you even read the link I had in my prior post? Does it make sense that the top 1 percent of the wealthy has had a 253 % increase in cumulative growth in salaries over the last 30 years while the rest of us Americans are getting a 5 percent cumulative increase? Inflation averages about 2-3 percent of the last ten years or so, so that means we are getting scraps off the table of all the wealth generated by this country while the rich people are literally getting approximately 95 percent of everything. Does that seem fair to you? Shouldn't the workers who actually generate this wealth share in the wealth or are we all the serfs of those that have property (money is property as well)? Contrary to your misguided beliefs, American citizens on average are not getting lazier, they are getting paid a pittance more for working harder or they risk getting laid off because some people on Wallstreet decided to be a bunch of greedy, unethical scum bags and caused a recession thus increasing unemployment rates. Competition for a job is up, hence productivity is as well. There is a finite amount of money at any particular time, the super-rich and rich own about 90 percent of it, so unless you advocate printing money enmasse and handing it out to poor people a group of people holding 90 percent of all US assets ACTUALLY DOES MAKE SOMEONE ELSE POOR. Go shovel some more shit out of your mouth with that platinum spoon of yours.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    307. Re:is it just me? by drsquare · · Score: 1

      In that case, if tertiary and secondary industries have the same value, why do countries which emphasise secondary, such as Germany, enjoy large trade surpluses, whilst countries which gave up their manufacturing in favour of services, like Britain, have ever-growing trade deficits?

      Big-spending developing nations seem to have much more need for threaded rods than they do financial derivatives and tall skinny mocha lattes.

      Primary industries are more valuable than secondary, which are more valuable than tertiary. If a country has a platinum mine, a semiconductor fab, and a fast-food chain, which do you think you'd have the best chance of replicating?

    308. Re:is it just me? by mr1911 · · Score: 1

      I am not "the rich". Just a plain ol' middle class lifestyle. But that doesn't cause me to begrudge the rich.

      I see my middle class neighbors buying houses and cars they can barely afford, if they can afford them at all. Why is this important? Because they are consuming instead of putting their resources to work to improve their situation. That is what the majority of the rich do, which makes them richer.

      But you keep on whining. I'm sure that even if you were the #2 richest person in the world that you would bemoan that the #1 richest guy is beating you down. You are entitled to nothing. I certainly don't owe you anything, and neither do "the rich".

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    309. Re:is it just me? by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Yet Germany has a much healthier economy than the US. Inventing things means very little unless you have the manufacturing to back it up. If a dozen Americans design a product, and a thousand Chinese make it, China will benefit more than America. Just look at the balances of trade.

      If a McDonald's outlet is opened somewhere in the world, most of the money will go to the people growing the corn to make the burgers and drinks, and the people running the actual operation. America at most will receive a small brand royalty.

    310. Re:is it just me? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      You are right. We are entitled to nothing FOR FREE, but we are entitled to benefit from the fruits of our labors which is typically usurped by the wealthy class. Its a big pyramid scheme. Skim a little off of each of your employees and you will have a lot. Its happened all throughout history. If an engineer generates 1 million in revenue for his company, he will only see about a hundred thousand of that. The CEO will get a huge bonus, and the upper management will get raises all based on his effort.

      A company is not its board room, a company is its employees and investors. If employees are generating more revenue they deserve to share in it proportionally as the investors did for putting money down on the company in the first place. What is happening today is a dramatic shift towards investors getting all the benefits, while the employees get the same wage regardless. Typically, the rich are the investors so they get richer and richer, and pay everyone else less and less so they can't become investors in the first place. The end result will be 1 percent of people with all the money and the rest of us in debt to survive.

      If there is to ever be a fair balance in the world workers need to be fairly compensated for their labors. Please don't say "The World Isnt Fair". It can be fairer than it is, and the only reason its not is because assholes exist that believe that ridiculous shit.

      I firmly believe wealthy people work hard (at least the ones that stay wealthy after being born wealthy generation after generation), but not a single one of them works 1000-1000000 times harder than any one of their employees or anyone else for that matter except maybe chronic welfare people. Its not that I am against a society that has poor people and rich people. Its the disparity in wealth that matters, and if its not corrected it ends up in oligarchy or monarchy and then ultimate failure. Just like the Roman empire, one day we will have everyone on welfare and no-one generating wealth.

      The wealthy should actually WANT to pay people better, and should WANT to distribute wealth more fairly, because it will turn out badly for them when the masses of poor decide communism is a good idea. Obviously they arent so smart, because they should take a hint from history like a fucking red hot poker in their eye.

      You could argue poor people live better today than 100 years ago so they are wealthier, but I could argue : Slaves lived better than Cavemen, so clearly a slave is wealthier and sharing in the wealth of his society. Slavery Is AOK! When in fact there are wealthy plantation owners that are living like gods in comparison. Like I said, its the disparity in wealth and distribution that matters.

      If I could afford to pay bills, not be in massive debt for student loans, and own a three bedroom house so I can raise kids I would be happy. Maybe owning a better guitar and buying a functional car would be nice as well. Unfortunately getting this means I am a slave to the bank for the rest of my life. Serfdom in present form.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    311. Re:is it just me? by nobodie · · Score: 1

      When I arrived in the US in 1960 there was a wonderful sense of "the future will be better for our family" in everyone which had been sadly lacking in Europe (esp. Germany where we had been)
      When I arrived in Thailand in 1994 it was only a matter of hours before I recognized that same sentiment in the air. People were taking risks, sleeping on cardboard in a concrete box that was their new store, they would make a future out of it for their kids.
      When I arrived in China (Yunnan) in 2000, the same sentiment pervaded the air. Families (3 generations) lived together in a closet in back of their store so that the kids would get a good education and go to a good school. The kids studied.

      Now I live near Shanghai and you know what? They have already lost it. What we call the "90s kids" are full of themselves and the idea that they are owed a job, money, a house, a future because of nothing more than their existence.

      I sense that this is a global movement, as people move out of poverty they are moving into a place where the children carry a sense of entitlement that crushes their innovative spirit.

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
    312. Re:is it just me? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Not really. The poverty line for a single person is less than $750 a month. It isn't possible to pay rent, basic utilities and buy food on that anywhere in the US, much less afford gas, automotive taxes and mandatory drivers insurance as well.

      Well, no. Actually, it's a bit over $900 per month. It should be noted that in spite of "mandatory auto insurance, many people (especially poor ones) don't actually buy it.

      You try feeding a family of 5 on food stamps of $100 a month. now do that when you don't have a car to drive to a cheap grocery store and have to use the shops in walking distance (in rural USA, there are none, in the inner city they charge 3 to 10 times more for the same food as a bulk grocery store).

      Note that poverty for a family of five is $2180 per month. Note further that a family of five gets rather more than $100 per month in food stamps if it lives at just below the poverty line (and more the farther below you live). The number I got from the Fed's calculator showed more like $440.

      In the US laws are passed that prohibit the building of "shanties" and multiple cohabitation's, when these are the only way for the poor to be able to afford a place to live.

      Not usually relevant, since we frequently have things like Government funded housing for the poor. And if worse comes to worst, there's always housetrailers.

      Note, by the by, that my Grandfather collected food stamps. And Welfare. and owned his own home (yes, you can be eligible for either if you have your own home). And owned car(s). Usually, but not always, more than one. And drove them. Not sure if he ever had auto insurance, but then I'm not even sure he ever had a driver's license....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    313. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About the poverty rate? You are wrong. The poverty rate for 1 person is under 9000 a year. I DID check my figures before posting.

      About food stamps? You are wrong. I was on food stamps as a child and my mother got $100 to feed herself and her four children with a $0 annual income.

      About housing? You are wrong. Subsidized housing is not free, and the house we were placed in for HUD was unlivable with close to inch thick of black mold encrusting every wall. What the hell is a housetrailer?

      About your grandfather? And? most impoverished people don't own their own home and and never will. The cost of rent or a mortgage is almost always a factor except for people who become impoverished in their retirement because they couldn't be bothered to save up after a long and otherwise successful life successful life.

    314. Re:is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless America opens up its borders again, I'd say: get used to it.

      Huh? What are you talking about?

      Our borders are fairly open.

    315. Re:is it just me? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's pretty much the point: giving money to the poor may be morally virtuous, but that does not automatically make any given implementation of that a good thing. A "you must save for yourself" system would be much better than our current "young must pay for old" system.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    316. Re:is it just me? by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      Something always replaces what came before. Mad Max anarchy isn't exactly anarchy. What you quickly find is certain people who become 'warlords' and replace that anarchy with their own culture, laws, and economy. If it doesn't happen from within outside forces tend to force it along. Witness the recently 'freed' middle east.

      Not only that, but I doubt we can implode quickly enough for your view to work. Left to it's own devices and without apocalyptic events things take considerable time to devolve.

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
  2. Next revolutions will be social by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Look, we've hit limits with what we can do with materials and kerosene. That's why a 747 from 1969 is the same as today's.

    We're starting to hit the limits of what we can do with information processing. Once you hit atoms, where do you go from there?

    As the world runs out of cheap chemical energy, the social model of continuous growth, suburbanisation, car culture and "jobs" requiring no more than typing away at a computer will have to change.

    We'll start seeing innovations in how people will live.

    1. Re:Next revolutions will be social by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2

      We're starting to hit the limits of what we can do with information processing. Once you hit atoms, where do you go from there?

      Quanta?

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    2. Re:Next revolutions will be social by v1 · · Score: 1

      We're starting to hit the limits of what we can do with information processing. Once you hit atoms, where do you go from there?

      Well obviously quarks

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    3. Re:Next revolutions will be social by mehrotra.akash · · Score: 1

      That's why a 747 from 1969 is the same as today's.

      We had the Concorde for a short time

    4. Re:Next revolutions will be social by Anon-Admin · · Score: 1, Insightful

      As the world runs out of cheap chemical energy, the social model of continuous growth, suburbanisation, car culture and "jobs" requiring no more than typing away at a computer will have to change.

      We'll start seeing innovations in how people will live.

      I hate to break it to you but I have heard the same tripe for over 30 years. When the cheap gas runs out we will all change the way we live. I hate to break it to you but the way it works is that as gas prices go up, so does inflation. As inflation goes up, so do wages.

      As oil prices go up, the incentive to find new and inventive ways to get at the remaining oil, goes up. This means that new methods enter the market and lower the price on the oil. With them comes new lower cost "Chemical energy" sources!

      And lets not forget that Titan has whole oceans of "Chemical energy" just waiting for us, if the cost of local energy gets to the right point it will be economical to strip mine titan and ship it here. LOL "Earth first, well strip mine the other planets later"

      The social change you are expecting will never happen. At least not in my lifetime or yours and probably never.

    5. Re:Next revolutions will be social by c0lo · · Score: 1

      We'll start seeing innovations in how people will live.

      ... or how they'll die, for the matter. For example, UAV drones spring first into my mind.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    6. Re:Next revolutions will be social by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      We had the Concorde for a short time

      And nothing of value was lost. Really. There are limits to what is sane and sustainable. Then there are cartoon fantasies from the 1960's. Certainly the US is going through a period of turmoil and decline. That tends to happen - history is replete with the rise and fall of civilizations and I know of no counter examples. The US (and other western social democracies) picked up an arc of power and influence after WWII whose slope seems to be changing. Perhaps it will be a permanent decline, perhaps only temporary (yeah, right). It's uncomfortable for sure but it's probably inevitable.

      Unfortunately, in the larger picture, the rest of the world has appeared to pick up the majority of our bad habits and the human race is busily chomping up the planet faster and faster. Again, history (this time studies of ecology and evolution) show us what happens when an organism pushes the boundary of the environment's carrying capacity for the organism.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    7. Re:Next revolutions will be social by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      You don't understand thermodynamics very well do you? Nor the implications of closed systems. If you're planning on keeping Business As Usual going with methane from Titan, you need to brush up on economics as well. Yep, you've heard the 'same tripe' for 30 years. Because there are a whole bunch of people who can think about issues that affect us in time frames more distant than next month or next year. But when your whole world requires you to stare at your feet to keep from falling down, it's sometimes hard to see that rock wall.

      The Chinese have a curse - 'may you live in interesting times'. Grab on to your butts.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    8. Re:Next revolutions will be social by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right, but the problem has been recently that we've been suffering "stag-flation." Things that are important to living: shelter, transit, food, and medical care have had their prices rising above commodity inflation and wage inflation for approaching a decade now. This is unsustainable, and will result in the choking off of a middle class in the united states. The importance of a middle class is not just a consumer base(as we have been told), but the creation of a broad range of educated people capable of understanding the world well enough to make strides in innovation. We're not losing current GDP, we're losing the next generation's GDP.

    9. Re:Next revolutions will be social by Americano · · Score: 1

      For real? If we're ever approaching the point where shipping methane from the moons-of-fucking-Saturn is the most economical way to power our lifestyle, we're in for a nasty, and expensive, awakening. Not to mention that if shipping from Saturn is economical, you probably don't have the funds to build & launch a rocket to Saturn, much less a huge fleet of them large enough to create an actual supply line delivering a constant volume of methane back to Earth.

    10. Re:Next revolutions will be social by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Everything that can be invented has been invented.
              Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. patent office, 1899

    11. Re:Next revolutions will be social by Anon-Admin · · Score: 1

      Thermodynamics has little to so with it. The earth is not a closed system. Heck, there is quantum evidence that universe is not a closed system. Now, as to the economics, Things change. You are basing your hypothesis on the fact that the current economics will not support it and will not change. You accuse me of not looking distant enough but you are the one looking at your feet. There are many ways we could reduce the overall energy cost of putting stuff into and out of earth orbit, such as the space elevator, Magnetic launchers, etc, etc. Not to count the reduced energy costs of building ships in orbit (Man power wise) The availability of H3 on the moon, etc, etc, etc, etc. The universe is full of energy, we just need to tap into it.

    12. Re:Next revolutions will be social by Anon-Admin · · Score: 1

      And rockets are the only way to get to orbit? or the only way to move between planets? There is not and will never be another way? Stop thinking of today and start looking down the road.

    13. Re:Next revolutions will be social by Americano · · Score: 2

      And rockets are the only way to get to orbit? Or the only way to move between planets?

      Even if we magically had some no-cost way of putting things in orbit and propelling them to Saturn, scaling up that solution such that:

      1) Constructing a self-sufficient autonomous or minimally-manned mining operation on Saturn;
      2) Constructing the fleet of transports you'd need to move that cargo back to Earth from Saturn;
      3) Moving the material you've mined from Titan's surface up to those transports;
      4) Making a ~750 million to 1 billion mile one-way trip;
      5) Moving the material from transports to earth's surface;
      6) Having the capacity at both ends to keep the transports turning around smoothly;
      7) Building machinery capable of withstanding the extremes for long enough to make it economically reasonable to build & ship them in the first place;

      And doing all of this in real-time as a "supply/fueling" operation is economically retarded. If your solution to our energy problems involves some sort of magical matter-transmission technology we haven't invented yet, then your solution is not a solution, it is a fantasy.

    14. Re:Next revolutions will be social by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the fact that the fuel is getting more expensive and no one wants sonic booms over land are just trivial details that will be fixed with more technology.

    15. Re:Next revolutions will be social by Anon-Admin · · Score: 1

      I am not saying we can do it today, or tomorrow. I am saying that in the future, it is a possibility. Hell, moving the transports the ~750 million to 1 billion mile one-way trip could be done economically with ion engines, nuclear batteries, a little fuel, and a gravitational slingshot from Saturn on one end and the earth on the other. Moving material from orbit to the earths surface could be done with free-fall capsules or a space elevator. # 1 and 2 are time based, The infrastructure does not exist now but could be built.

      All in all It should be doable in 100 to 150 years if we put our minds to it. That is with today’s tech and assuming that we will not invent anything new.

      Everything changes over time and energy usage gets more efferent. Heck, 60 years ago a microwave weighed 750 lbs and took 1.6 kW to operate. 100 years ago cars got 13 mils per gal of gas and had a 20HP engine with a top speed of 40mph, today the microwave is 20lbs and uses 500w cars get 24+ mpg with a 300hp engine and top speeds of 150+ mph. Do you really think it will always be out of reach?

    16. Re:Next revolutions will be social by Americano · · Score: 1

      Do you really think it will always be out of reach?

      Yes. It will always be "technically possible", and practically stupid, placing it squarely out of reach.

      As the technology here increases to make everything more economical and more efficient, energy sources such as solar, wind, fuel cell & battery technologies, biofuels, etc. will continue to be *more economical,* and thus nobody will pursue these vast methane deposits a billion miles away which would likely require hundreds of trillions of dollars invested over decades to be able to exploit in any meaningful sense on any practical scale for power generation here on earth.

      Methane from Titan burns just like methane from here on Earth, except you also have to extract it in a location that is hostile to human life which happens to be a billion miles away, and then ship it back to earth over a span of months or years (months assumes we have vastly improved propulsion systems) - increasing the cost of that methane astronomically.

      Furthermore, there's the safety consideration: methane is volatile, and will burn or explode quite readily. "Free fall capsules" would involve giant containers filled with tons of explosive being dropped, in free fall, through the atmosphere, and - hopefully - not exploding during re-entry or landing. A space elevator would be a great concept, until something goes wrong and a container develops a leak and explodes, halting all offloading of methane until the damage is repaired. So you either build multiple redundant systems (at tremendous cost), or you're back to taking off and landing with many tons of payload, constantly.

      In short: if dropping multi-ton bombs of methane through the atmosphere on a daily basis is our only way of "economically" generating energy back here on earth, we're already fucked.

    17. Re:Next revolutions will be social by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why a 747 from 1969 is the same as today's.

      Today's 747s are very different from the original design. Different wing shape, different engine, different airframe, various computer systems, different materials, etc..

      Today's desktop computers don't look too different from 1981 PCs, but inside they're a different beast. Hell, even today's keyboards don't look too different from WWI typing machines...

    18. Re:Next revolutions will be social by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      I hate to break it to you but the way it works is that as gas prices go up, so does inflation. As inflation goes up, so do wages.

      OK, so what happens when gas prices go up faster than inflation and real wages stay basically flat for 3 decades? Because that's what's happening.

    19. Re:Next revolutions will be social by geek2k5 · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall that this quote was intended to drum up more support for the Patent Office. They didn't have enough manpower and the number of patent applications was soaring. (It shows that sarcasm marks have been needed for over a century.)

    20. Re:Next revolutions will be social by geek2k5 · · Score: 1

      We might be mining methane for the hydrocarbons using automated skimmers. But they would likely be launched from space or perhaps the moon using mass drivers.

      Chance are we would NOT be using the hydrocarbons for fuel though. The energy cost of doing the hydrocarbon harvest would likely be much greater than the energy provided by the hydrocarbons.

  3. Re:trouble finding radiation gear for our dogs? by Script+Cat · · Score: 1

    Was this generated by a program using a context free grammar. http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/

    Kudos and Erdos for you.

  4. Lamentabley so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Blue sky projects and huge investment in R&D (admittedly largely due to the Cold War) were the reason we were number 1. The decline is all to do with the respect for stupidity that we see today, from reality shows, to youtube "fail" videos, religious obsession with celebrity, the rise of Anti-science, commercial fanboy-ism in all its forms etc.
     
    That's not the way it used to be, even as recently as the 90s. The country is now suspicious of intelligence and academia.

    1. Re:Lamentabley so by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Blue sky projects and huge investment in R&D (admittedly largely due to the Cold War) were the reason we were number 1.

      Bombing, bankrupting or pushing your competitors into communism were the reasons why America was number one. No-one could compete with America as a productive power for many years after WWII.

    2. Re:Lamentabley so by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Right on what this country really needs is a fierce and deadly competitor. The Soviets gave us that and we broke them. It had to be that way too, one side had to prevail sometime. In the interim period it drove some of the best in both our nations.

      China is good new potential adversary but we need to stop trying to be friends, there won't be any "winning the future" for us by trying to cuddle. We need to COMPETE with them and set the goal of defeating them. We need let go of this stupid progressive notion that the world is big enough for them to do it there way and us to do it ours because well its NOT.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    3. Re:Lamentabley so by Animats · · Score: 1

      What this country really needs is a fierce and deadly competitor. The Soviets gave us that and we broke them. It had to be that way too, one side had to prevail sometime. In the interim period it drove some of the best in both our nations.

      I've made the point previously that the current problem with capitalism is the absence of ideological competition. When communism looked like a serious threat, capitalism had to deliver a higher standard of living. Communism had a pro-worker ideology, and the USSR made a serious effort to provide most of its citizens with a minimally adequate standard of living. Almost everybody in the USSR from 1950 to 1985 or so had food, clothing, shelter, and a job.

      So the capitalist world had to provide at least comparable amenities. US companies used to boast about the American standard of living. Homelessness was rare in the US from the end of the Great Depression until the Reagan administration. The US used to have a reasonably strong welfare system. There were a lot of people doing nothing, but it kept them out of jail. The US now has far less welfare, but 4x as many prisoners. Prisons are much more expensive than welfare housing.

      (It's not clear that communism in Russia failed because it was communism. Russia has had imperial rule, communism, anarchic democracy (1990s), oligarchy, and now strongman rule. Of those, communism was the most effective at raising living standards. Anarchic democracy was the worst. Russian history is grim.)

    4. Re:Lamentabley so by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "The country is now suspicious of intelligence and academia."

      That's why brighter folk who want to do well have moved into business where they can milk the masses.

      The US is a Hellmouth, and living well is the best revenge. The scary fact is that the utter contempt our masters hold for most of the public is completely justified.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    5. Re:Lamentabley so by geek2k5 · · Score: 1

      I recall reading an article about a Russian woman who came to the US to 'prove' that all our talk about a better standard of living was propaganda. She cried when she got a tour of a typical supermarket, realizing that the propaganda was true.

      Then there was the case of a science/SF writer that took a Czech engineer to Disneyland. The engineer was frightened by the level of technology that went into simple entertainment. The logic behind his fear was simple: If the tech that went into entertainment was that advanced, what was the top secret military tech like?

      I like to say that Pepsi, MTV and Levi jeans were what brought down the Iron Curtain. While you can't diminish the fact that the military kept the USSR contained, the amenities were what broke down the Wall. (Was the Wall there to keep the evil capitalists out or to keep the people in?)

  5. Second Wind by redemtionboy · · Score: 2

    My observation is that it's much harder for country to garner it's second wind than it is it's first. We've become complacent as all we've ever known is greatness, and when that starts to slip, we don't really know what it will be like not being number. Of course, there is a lot to be said about whether or not many of these up and coming countries will be able to sustain their growth. There are many that suspect that India will not and will eventually collapse rather than establish itself permanently as a tech leader. China is much more likely to maintain it's growth, but there is a lot of question about whether the government will be able to keep it's oppressive control over the people as the nation becomes more advanced (probably not) and what effect that will have on it's growth. There is also much to note that while America may lose it's dominance as THE key player in everything, that does not mean that it will fall into irrelevance or still not be a force to be reckoned with. I propose the idea that the US will have a brief collapse, mostly due to currency destabilization within the next 20 years. With that collapse it will have the opportunity to do two things, to either continue increasing the same bureaucratic nonsense that got it into the mess in the first place, putting more regulation on things and strangling ideas, or to go back to the same low level of regulation that caused all the great prosperity in the first place.

    1. Re:Second Wind by hitmark · · Score: 1

      I wonder if part of the problem is the focus on growth, what to me appears to be an artifact of the last 200 or so years of human history.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    2. Re:Second Wind by internerdj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Despite the negative financial impact regulation in and of itself isn't necessarily bad. I don't want to say drop the heavy metal regulations on toys just so I spend $50 rather than $100 on my child's next birthday. I think in many cases the populations of these growing nations will impose stricter regulations on their industries as they begin to approach our level of wealth. Not that all regulation benefits the consumer but things like public health, enviromental stewardship, and anti-trust protections are handled poorly by the free market.

    3. Re:Second Wind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Rome disagrees. When they stopped growing and innovating, they collapsed in on themselves due to social infighting. Sound familiar?

    4. Re:Second Wind by redemtionboy · · Score: 1

      I'm not against all regulation, but we most certainly overly regulate. It seems that rather than working with businesses to accomplish any griefs society may have, governments first reaction is to regulate it. The problem is that government never has to prove that it's regulations or legislation works or doesn't have any other consequential negative impacts, and if it doesn't work or does more damage than it fixes, such things are rarely ever repealed. This is my primary issue with government. In the business world, we have to prove our ideas work before anything is ever adopted by the rest of the industry, but government doesn't. It's like launching a $500 billion company without ever getting a single customer.

      These regulations strangle smaller businesses while the bigger businesses help lobby and write the regulation so that it doesn't effect them, essentially creating a barrier that is most difficult to break through. If you want innovation, if you want to be a world leader, then we need a volatile market where no company is safe. Where only the best ideas survive rather than just the biggest corporations. And the only way that is going to happen is with less regulation, more competition, and no bailouts. These older companies are clinging to date structures to prolong their livelihood while preventing change from happening.

    5. Re:Second Wind by redemtionboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Rome over expanded and destroyed it's currency. It wasn't that it stopped growing. It's that it grew unsustainably. There was no way that it could possibly control all that it did for too long.

    6. Re:Second Wind by cobrausn · · Score: 2

      Heh, wars on multiple continents and a deflated currency... that also sounds familiar.

      --
      How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
    7. Re:Second Wind by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      Rome was the last of the major superpowers to ever totally collapse, and it was a part of a different world. The rampaging Huns *literally* tore the Roman Empire apart and refused to allow it to recover. It's fall was certainly internal, but its failure to recover was at least largely external. Since then major superpowers don't fall, they just sort of stumble and become less major, but still very important players. Look at the major powers from the last 500 years: Spain, Portugal, Britain, France, Germany, Japan... None of them are horrible places to live (Well, Japan has its downsides at the moment...). Some are in better shape than others, but all of them are still first world counties with fairly significant economies and reasonable power on the world stage. That's the likely fate of the US in the next 50-100 years. We will continue to be a first order power on the world stage, we just won't be *the* power on the world stage.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    8. Re:Second Wind by hitmark · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is that during their most prosperous period Rome used a copper based coin that had its value from a senate controlled amount rather then some kind of metallic scarcity. As they switched to gold and silver things went crazy...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    9. Re:Second Wind by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

      That regulation leads to more "financial hardship" is the most bogus argument out there. If one looks closely at the accounting of the costs, it NEVER is a full accounting and just takes into account the costs to those arguing against regulation. For example, this kind of argument was used to do away with the regulations on Wall Street, but failed to account, by several orders of magnitude, the costs to the entire financial and economic system. Rest assured that it wasn't environmental and safety regulations on off-shore oil drillers that created the cost of Deepwater Horizon, which will largely be born not by BP, Halliburton, or Transocean, but rather the residents of the Gulf of Mexico and those who eat and make their livelihoods from its former bounty.

      The use of stock options as a legal instrument for doing business is another, as it is just an invitation for non-governmental actors to manipulate and pass off the unseen costs to non-insider shareholders and ultimately the public at large. Want to talk about what has lead to the huge budget deficits? It is the cost of stock-options, since they permit insiders to pay a tiny fraction of their earnings in taxes, since the tax rates for capital gains is a small fraction of the tax on incomes, taking into account all the special kick-backs in other deductions available to insiders who dispense the proceeds among themselves. However, the FULL cost of legislation (regulations) overseeing or allowing stock-options is nowhere to be found in discussions of their consequences.

      Be highly suspicious of those who argue against regulations because "they cost too much". Their accounting and math skills are usually extremely bad and their knowledge of biology and human ecology is almost always much, much worse.

    10. Re:Second Wind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... go back to the same low level of regulation that caused all the great prosperity in the first place.

      You're aware that the recent collapses of housing and financial markets were enabled by deregulation? The ENRON debacle too. Also: between 1951 and 1963, the marginal tax for the top bracket was 91%; it was at least 70% from 1964 until it dropped to 50% in 1982.

      America's ascension was not the right wing, deregulated, invisible-hand guided ideal you might think it should have been.

    11. Re:Second Wind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My observation is that people who think they're clever can't even tell its from it's. Seriously dude, it's like an icepick in the eye each fucking time.

    12. Re:Second Wind by redemtionboy · · Score: 1

      I highly disagree that it was caused by deregulation. I would argue that it was government manipulation of the interest rates rather than market controlled interest rates that caused lending to occur well past it's normal stopping point. Normally market controlled interest rates rise the more lending occurs and lowers when less occurs, ensuring that over lending doesn't happen. Then the federal reserve forced the rate lower because we decided everyone should own a home and it came back and bit us in the ass. You can't blame greedy wall street bankers for being greedy wall street bankers. Notice also that most of the regulation that was removed was brought on by the left under the guise of allowing more lower income and minority families to purchase homes, but none of this over lending would have happened if interest rates had naturally risen to the 15%+ percent it should have given the amount of lending that was occurring. Central banking and planning are to blame for the housing crash, not deregulation.

      Also note that we got the same rough percentage of GDP no matter what the tax rate was, around 18%. The 90s had one of the highest percentages of GDP ever at around 21% during the midst of extreme economic boom with the internet bubble despite the tax rates being lower than they had in the past. You can't look at tax revenue as a rate or as a total, you have to look at it as a percentage of GDP in order for any scope to be accurate.

      America's ascension was due to the freedom of capitalism which allowed smaller companies to rise to the top with new ideas and inventions. This over regulation creates a barrier preventing the smaller businesses from competing on the same level as the mega corporations. If you want to be at the top, we need a volatile market with many competitors. Our current system prevents that from happening.

    13. Re:Second Wind by redemtionboy · · Score: 1

      My apologies. I guesstimate that it was the complactedness of English and it's many stupid rules that are inconsistent throughout the language. Irregardlessly, if you understand my statements and your a kind human, than I am sure I have you're understanding and acceptancement.

      (I imagine you're blind by now. It was a pleasure.)

    14. Re:Second Wind by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Despite the negative financial impact regulation in and of itself isn't necessarily bad.

      It was de-regulation that allowed the banks to trigger our current Great Recession.

      From after the Great Depression until recently there were rules that prevented the behaviors that led to it. But politicians bowed to pressure from people who wanted the 'right' to MAKE MONEY FAST, and you're living the consequences.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    15. Re:Second Wind by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      I doubt that countries like China are going to self-impose stricter regulations as their populations gains wealth. Unless their society allows public market forces to punish companies, politicians, and their top leadership for bad decisions, there won't be any incentive to regulate.

      Until a regular person in China can sue a company or the government for polluting drinking water, or vote out a politician that isn't protecting public health, nothing will change.

  6. Reading guide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can someone put a video for it up on youtube? OKBYETHNX.

  7. Buy them off by Sperbels · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why not just buy off the World Economic Forum and force them to publish more favorable results? That's right...we're America! That's how we roll!

    1. Re:Buy them off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they already bribed their way from, say, seventh to fifth?

    2. Re:Buy them off by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      Why not put Steve Jobs in charge? He'll extend his reality distortion field across the globe and everyone will be drooling over American Blue Jeans again in no time.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
  8. Cat got my tongue. by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    Not so much that the US has really declined as the rest of the world has caught up.

    When I see even North Koreans have cell phones (ok, they're probably reissued japanese discards on a closed network) I'm thinking there's getting to be less difference based upon location.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Cat got my tongue. by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      Yes, well, that's nice and all, but the UN world hunger commission believes that something like 75% of North Koreans are under nourished, and expects an acute food shortage this spring with a measurable percentage of the population starving to death. Maybe cell phones aren't where they should be concentrating.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    2. Re:Cat got my tongue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  9. Win the Future by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

    USSR fell. But that give rise to BRICS. The decline in R&D is not a talent issue ( there is another topic not long ago here in /. about the high unemployment of PhDs), but of a financial issue. $$$ is tight everywhere, and scientific advancement is usually considered as a "vanity" rather than "necessity".

    1. Re:Win the Future by jd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe. The space program might be a counter-example. When the USSR was in the lead, America pushed hard to keep up and "win the race". These are two very different strategies. The USSR was much more into conquering and exploiting the new frontier and had developed technology with that in mind. Arguably it's a damn good thing they didn't win (from any kind of ethical standpoint) for that very reason. The US got bored silly after "winning" and essentially dismantled all of NASA's projects on getting people to Mars (which they actually could have done by the mid 80s). They won the race, they got the prize, contest over. And when a contest is over, the normal thing is to go home and that is exactly what happened.

      It has been argued that had Russia actually got men on the moon first, both Russia and the US would have active space colonies by now, not just a crudely-assembled and much-reduced space station that's too damn small for the kind of science needed to continue justifying it.

      I would alter the argument a little, as I don't think the Cold War in Space would have been pretty: I think the US is fundamentally incapable of generating momentum in and of itself but is extremely capable of very efficiently tapping into the momentum of others and developing it in new and highly creative ways. In other words, the highly compete-till-you-die aggression of the US is only good if there's a competitor to compete against, that the US has less of a "work ethic" and more of a "win ethic". That other nations have a responsibility, particularly supernations like the EU, to be that competition and not defer a damn thing.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:Win the Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure that USSR did not win? Who is the only one NOW that is capable of sending astronauts up there? USA? Another guess?

    3. Re:Win the Future by sznupi · · Score: 2

      In the meantime, Russia works for few decades on a sustainable (vs. crash projects in the style of Apollo) means of deep space travel. BTW, ISS is a part of that work...

      Heck, they have few decades of experience operating a manned spacecraft essentially capable of beyond-LEO operation (have $100 million? Get yourself a ride around the Moon - those are people behind almost all "orbital tourists"), a spacecraft which was the first to carry a macroscopic life beyond LEO (...around the Moon) and back, as Zond.

      The technology which allowed them early lead in space was probably also largely a consequence of geopolitical reality and established US lead, in other field - huge bomber force. With "bomber gap" being just a myth, jumping on the next step was only reasonable for something perceived very much as a defense - so they had the first operational ICBM, R-7 Semyorka (not like "missile gap" wasn't a myth too - with just few rockets ready for launch a day later, and only if the policy of storing rockets and warheads separately was breached...). Not very good as an ICBM, not very practical. But - partly by chance, partly probably by the genius of Korolev & others involved - it turned out to be a fabulous launcher family; the most reliable ... most frequently used launch vehicle in the world (and one of least expensive ones).

      It launched Sputnik ; gave us the first photograph of far side of the Moon, first lunar flyby, first spacecraft reaching the escape velocity of the Earth & on circumsolar orbit; first lunar impact, soft landing + photos from the surface some time later; first flyby of another planet and atmospheric probes (well, and reaching the surface... crushed)

      Also Gagarin. In fact, after Yuri, it launched every manned Soviet and Russian spacecraft (plus all "orbital tourists"). A century of service seems within its grasp (with new - yet unused - launchpad in Kourou...)

      (BTW, will we ever drop the politically-motivated & quite absurd astronaut?)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    4. Re:Win the Future by jd · · Score: 1

      As satellites and deep space probes are the only objects that actually navigate by the stars (astronaut = those who sail by the stars), wouldn't it be more correct to call those astronauts?

      Mind you, cosmonaut is as bad or worse.

      Part of the problem is scarcity. We don't generally call people "aviators" these days, we use specific professional titles that relate to what they do rather than where they happen to be at the time (such as the sky). On the other hand, there simply aren't enough people who have travelled into space for such titles to have matured. Worse, space terminology has been heavily influenced by the military and the military prefers to identify by rank and location (air, sea, ground, space) rather than by anything practical.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    5. Re:Win the Future by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Cosmos / universe is quite... universal. Its small print ("excluding Earth") is not too bad in comparison to a word which basically means travel on stars (aeronaut / aeronautic means travel through air, not by air / in LEO), something which humans aren't likely to ever do (maybe as a funeral, as ashes...).

      It's at odds with official criteria for astronaut wings, "height above 100km" (or 80, in places) - nothing there about getting closer to any star (heck, considering cycles of normal fluctuations of planetary orbits, it's unlikely that any of the astronauts were the closest homo sapiens sapiens to our nearest star)

      Plus navigating, sailing by the stars - in a looser sense - is an ancient practice.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    6. Re:Win the Future by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The USSR didn't "win", because it no longer exists. Russia still exists, and is capable of sending up astronauts, but Russia had to go through some severe changes to survive to this point and still retain those capabilities. Instead of a command economy and running all those satellite nations in eastern Europe, it's lost control of them all, and has a free-market economy now. So it actually resembles America now more than ever.

      I wouldn't call it "winning" in an ideological contest if you have to adopt your opponent's ideology to win.

    7. Re:Win the Future by karuna · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, Russian space program is just a remnant of the Soviet accomplishments. So, it is a win of the Soviets in the space race even though it no longer exists.

      Besides Russian free-market economy is not working well and a lot of people are poorer than in the USSR.

    8. Re:Win the Future by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It's been less than 20 years since Russia transitioned to a free-market economy. It shouldn't be a surprise that it's a slow and rocky start. How long did it take China to get to where it is now? Decades, though China seems to have the advantage of having only changed their economic system, and not their political system at the same time. China also seems to have less problems with corruption than Russia. IMO, a democratic system doesn't work well in countries where the population is tolerant of corruption for whatever reason: we see this in Russia, Mexico, and the United States. China isn't perfect, but in their authoritarian system, there's less room for corruption (because the people in government aren't all trying to get elected), and when it's discovered, it's rewarded with a bullet in the brain, unlike the USA where it's overlooked or rewarded with a short stay in a country-club prison.

      Russia probably would have been better off in the short term if they had stuck with a slimmed-down authoritarian system and moved to a free-market economy, rather than trying to change everything at once. China is evidence that this approach seems to work well.

    9. Re:Win the Future by lennier · · Score: 1

      The USSR was much more into conquering and exploiting the new frontier and had developed technology with that in mind. Arguably it's a damn good thing they didn't win (from any kind of ethical standpoint) for that very reason. The US got bored silly after "winning"

      "With regard to space dominance, we have it, we like it, and we're going to keep it." -- Keith R Hall, NRO Director, 1997

      Nope, no "conquering" attitude there, at all.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    10. Re:Win the Future by jd · · Score: 1

      Maybe he was a Russian spy. :) (The Indians and Chinese are getting fairly close to manned missions to the moon, the Russians are planning an inflatable space hotel and the EU and Russians have pretty much divided all the commercial launches between them. The NRO seems... a bit behind the times.)

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    11. Re:Win the Future by jd · · Score: 1

      That is largely the fault of Ronny Reagan. If he'd stopped with the political posturing and helped Gorbachev achieve stable market reforms, Russia would be in a lot better shape today. (Particularly regarding securing nuke sites.) By bankrupting the USSR, a lot of things became extremely unstable very rapidly. It's hard to say if it contributed to the rise in extremism we see today, but it would be a fair bet that it didn't help.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  10. Want to see the future - look at education by Maclir · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Innovation and discovery comes from people with inquisitive minds - minds that have been nurtured by a well rounded education system; one that encourages critical thinking, experimentation, and a good understanding of what scientific knowledge we have already. Now look at what is happening in the US - a drastic cutback in public education, "teaching to the test", and in many areas, official dismissal of science and scientific discoveries. Quite a few school districts are actively pushing creationism against evolution, dismissing global climate change, and many "non-essential" curriculum activities.

    I was once told "If you think the cost of education is expensive, consider the cost of ignorance."

    1. Re:Want to see the future - look at education by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 2

      Chinese educational system is similar --- "teaching to the test", "cramming", no extracurricular activities etc. All that differ is they have a much "efficient" government, and they direct all resources towards science and engineering, instead of other stuff such as humanities.

    2. Re:Want to see the future - look at education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Now look at what is happening in the US - a drastic cutback in public education
       
      I don't know how you got modded up with this kinda crap. Edcuational spending on a per student basis is at a historical high and we're seeing less of a return on our investment than ever before. While there is cutbacks that are going though today they certainly don't cause today's problems. These students won't see the working world for another 5 years minimum. Education cut backs aren't a problem today and they weren't a problem decades ago when the US was producing a bumper crop of innovators.
       
      But I do wonder if the way that public institutes get their funding has changed. I know when I was in high school, 20 years ago, state funding was based on each passing student per day of attendence. This made it easy for a district to maintain funding if they made the enviorment lax and the materials easy. Dumbing down what was expected of the students while letting trouble children run wild was and probably still is profitable for a school district. This kind of thinking needs to come to an end. Let those who won't get with the program by 8th or 9th grade go off and find jobs pushing brooms instead of bringing down those who are willing to put in the effort to better themselves.
       
        Quite a few school districts are actively pushing creationism against evolution, dismissing global climate change, and many "non-essential" curriculum activities.
       
      While I do not feel that creationism should be taught as a science I also do not feel that this single point is hurting innovation at all. It's a foolish myth, yes, but has nothing to do with serious innovation. Now if they were flying in the face of Newtonian physics I might be a bit more upset. For today we have bigger battles to fight in education.

    3. Re:Want to see the future - look at education by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      The US doesn't support the humanities at the expense of the sciences. Music and art classes in American schools have been cut back over the last couple of decades. At the height of American Cold War innovation, there was a healthy balance of science and the humanities in schools.

    4. Re:Want to see the future - look at education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If flat out lying at the podium on the floor of the US House of Representatives gives an accurate indicator of the direction our society is taking, we'll burn 10X faster than Rome did!

    5. Re:Want to see the future - look at education by jiteo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1960's: "Little Johnny, what do you want to be when you grow up?" "An engineer for NASA, helping build the craft that will take us to Mars!"

      2010's: "Little Johnny, what do you want to be when you grow up?" "A rapper who brags about his bling and his bitches!"

    6. Re:Want to see the future - look at education by Richard+Dick+Head · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I disagree...innovators tend to educate themselves. I think today it is Internet addiction biting us. Although it may seem funny, it is really not...

      I watched many smart people fail out of my alma mater because they stuck their heads in the sand and did raids in WoW instead of going to class and facing that competitive, time-consuming course load.

      A former roommate, who would have other wise easily made it through the engineering curriculum, is now working for Colonel Sanders.

      We're in the information age, not the relevant information age. The classroom environment is quickly becoming outmoded and irrelevant. Things like Facebook and WoW simply serve to further enforce conformance to a moronic social averages.

    7. Re:Want to see the future - look at education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Innovation and discovery comes from people with inquisitive minds - minds that have been nurtured by a well rounded education system; one that encourages critical thinking, experimentation, and a good understanding of what scientific knowledge we have already. Now look at what is happening in the US - a drastic cutback in public education, "teaching to the test", and in many areas, official dismissal of science and scientific discoveries. Quite a few school districts are actively pushing creationism against evolution, dismissing global climate change, and many "non-essential" curriculum activities.

      I was once told "If you think the cost of education is expensive, consider the cost of ignorance."

      The ongoing decline of education programs is a symptom of a more fundamental problem: intellectual activity is not respected in our culture, except for where such activity has a direct correlation with personal income. In other words, it's all well and good if you're well off because of your education, but anyone with innate curiosity, who likes to study and learn because of intrinsic motivation, is regarded with a degree of disdain. You are supposed to conform, not question.

      If our culture valued intellectual curiosity as much as it valued its military, then the funding situation would be different. It isn't.

    8. Re:Want to see the future - look at education by internerdj · · Score: 2

      There is a content issue here and a quality issue here. As a nation we are fighting petty battles over content in school, while ignoring the fact that we have stripped the quality from the courses long before. Without critical thinking and experimentation, it doesn't matter if you can teach a child the state of the universe with perfect accuracy even far beyond our current understanding. With critical thinking and experimentation, it doesn't matter nearly as much what crap gets fed to them because the crap will fall away with study and experimentation. Not saying that accuracy doesn't matter, but there will always be a new topic where the facts are ignored if we don't focus on teaching important skills first.

    9. Re:Want to see the future - look at education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Now look at what is happening in the US - a drastic cutback in public education"

      You're joking, right? The U.S. spends more per pupil than any other country. The question is: Why aren't we getting what we pay for? Start with Political Correctness and go from there.

    10. Re:Want to see the future - look at education by ShakaUVM · · Score: 2

      Innovation and discovery comes from people with inquisitive minds - minds that have been nurtured by a well rounded education system; one that encourages critical thinking, experimentation, and a good understanding of what scientific knowledge we have already. Now look at what is happening in the US - a drastic cutback in public education, "teaching to the test", and in many areas, official dismissal of science and scientific discoveries. Quite a few school districts are actively pushing creationism against evolution, dismissing global climate change, and many "non-essential" curriculum activities.

      Plenty of misinformation here. First of all, start by looking at this graph from NAEP (NCES, Digest of Education Statistics: 2007, Table 171.).
      http://assets.podomatic.net/mymedia/thumb/1226777/460%3E_2921611.jpg?1272811726

      Or this chart:
      http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_171.asp

      Per-pupil spending has *doubled* (in constant dollars) since the 1970s, and funding is *ten times as high* as during the 1930s (still, in constant dollars), and we haven't shown the slightest gain in test scores since then. So... shut the fuck up about "drastic cutbacks in public education". Seriously.

      If you want to bash on people for their anti-scientific behaviors, you should start by looking in the mirror.

    11. Re:Want to see the future - look at education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right. You can't mention evolution and science anymore in the classroom without some parents getting all offended. Political correctness has taken over. You have to all hold hands and get in a circle and sing, "All theories are equal, kumbaya! Intelligent Design is equal to evolution, kumbaya!"

    12. Re:Want to see the future - look at education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An engineering and manufacturing company I once worked for had a mug with the mantra on it, slightly altered from the one you mentioned above:

            "If you think training is expensive, try ignorance."

      What was interesting was that these mugs were still floating around a couple of years later when they cut training, and even decided to get rid of the internal library in cost-cutting measures.

      This is simply a microcosm of exactly the same thing we're doing in the U.S. as a whole right now; the Obama administration may have touted "paying teachers more money" based on performance, but the reality has been anything but that. Public schools and universities are having their federal funding cut, as they have been for years.

    13. Re:Want to see the future - look at education by cptdondo · · Score: 1

      As someone who has kids in school, and also is a bit older, I have to disagree with you. The dumbing down of school curricula is real and is a symptom of the dumbing down of the general level of discourse in this country. Look at the rhetoric flying around, the derogatory language used to describe people who work with their brains instead of their muscles. It's as if this country has decided that the only two worthy classes are the moneyed rich (the busines s owners) and the blue collar workers, and everyone else is a leech on the face of society.

      It's bad, it's worse than at any time I've seen it, and it's deep rooted in the very partisan discourse we hear every day. America used to be a country where people gave each other a hand up; now more and more we seem intent on crushing anyone who has more than us. Take away their paycheck, their benefits, their retirement; if I don't have it neither should they. We don't want decent health care, we don't want decent retirement, we don't wand consumer protections, we want to drive the other guy to a level where he's worse off than we are. WTF?

      I heard on the radio today that a baseline income for a family of 4 should be $68K / yr. That would pay for food, shelter, transportation, day care, health care, and retirement. But we don't want that. That's too much money. We want to drive that family into destitute because - well, because we need to provide tax breaks to the ultra wealthy! That's why!

    14. Re:Want to see the future - look at education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its worse than this. A big problem with education in the US is low expectations. I speak from direct experience as an educator. Many parents don't want their children to have too much homework and scholastic responsibility. School administrations support parents and students because they don't want conflict and want the easy way out; it is much easier to tell teachers to be cool and keep things easy. Students love the excuse for being less industrious.

      I have countless examples where teachers are encouraged to reduce homework, change test dates, etc. because of an upcoming rallys or sporting events. I believe what is needed is a tiered education system, at least at the upper-middle school and high school levels. Those that wish to excel (and have supportive parents) can try to get into the school geared for a rigorous education; others can opt for the more vocational training education. It would help immensely because then students who want to excel are not pulled back by the ones who don't want to work. Teachers would benefit because they would not have the frustrating environment of workers/slackers and parents/administration who support that. Students would benefit because they get what they want play or work. Administrators would benefit because they would not have to be slaves to the parents and could support the teachers.

      Don't pump more money into schools unless and until it addresses the above problem.

    15. Re:Want to see the future - look at education by Americano · · Score: 1

      And interestingly, given the studies done on the benefits to students of a reasonably rounded "arts & music" program, some of the Cold War innovation may have been helped by that healthy balance of science and humanities. Anecdotal example - I work with some people who I know are very smart, but if you ask them to write their ideas down on paper, they come across as mildly retarded and functionally illiterate.

      If they had tried to run the race to the moon with people like the guy I just watched scribble meaningless doodles on a whiteboard for a half hour while rambling about his project, I suspect that whole "Apollo program" thing would've turned out very differently.

    16. Re:Want to see the future - look at education by SolemnDwarf · · Score: 1

      "Quite a few school districts are actively pushing creationism against evolution, dismissing global climate change, and many "non-essential" curriculum activities."

      Creationism/evolution and AGW are applicable reasons for declining results in education, but not due to which side is supported. Rather, it's because they are topics at all. For decades now, there has been little emphasis on the three R's: Reading, Writing and Arithmetic. Instead, the focus has shifted to sociology, politics, multiculturalism and modern history.

      We're in such a hurry to instruct children on the "rights and wrongs" of the world we forget to give them a good foundation from which to work. Hell, I've spoken to high school kids who know all about Che Guevara but still can't understand when to use "there", "their" or "they're". (though the same can be said for my peers)

      I will agree with you on needing more critical thinking, experimentation and scientific knowledge. However, it should be related to the fundamentals listed above. Can you support a conclusion with facts and logic? What mathematical processes do you use for a certain experiment? How do certain elements react with others?

      We burden our kids with the social and geopolitical controversies of the present without giving them a rock to brace themselves for the onslaught. They get washed from issue to issue without knowing why it's important or why they believe what they believe.

      Or is that the point? People are much easier to control when they don't know how to think for themselves...

    17. Re:Want to see the future - look at education by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      A major problem is that the US simply does not invest much anymore in science or technology projects. If you actually create jobs in these fields, people will line up at universities to major in what would let them get these jobs. Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson had a great point. Paraphrased, he said that if you invest in science and technology projects, like NASA manned missions, etc, you will get people to apply themselves in something they are passionate about, and you would not lose them to the finance or business industry. There is a very, very high correlation between life expectancy, economic performance, fair wages, and the ability to withstand natural disasters in countries with high scientific and technological output. Look at Haiti. They had a 7.0 magnitude earthquake and 250,000 people died. Japan had a 9.0 magnitude earthquake, a tsunami, and a nuclear disaster, and less than 28,000 died. Japan has the highest output in science and technology per capita, and is also accelerating the quickest in scientific and technological output. Europe is second, China is third (as far as the rate in change in scientific/technology output). The US still has significant scientific output, but it is declining, and doing it RAPIDLY.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    18. Re:Want to see the future - look at education by BlortHorc · · Score: 1

      Innovation and discovery comes from people with inquisitive minds - minds that have been nurtured by a well rounded education system; one that encourages critical thinking, experimentation, and a good understanding of what scientific knowledge we have already. Now look at what is happening in the US - a drastic cutback in public education, "teaching to the test", and in many areas, official dismissal of science and scientific discoveries. Quite a few school districts are actively pushing creationism against evolution, dismissing global climate change, and many "non-essential" curriculum activities.

      I was once told "If you think the cost of education is expensive, consider the cost of ignorance."

      Of all the comments I have read, this is the one that holds water.

      You want a society that leads in science, technology, innovation, then promote those qualities in your society. Clearly China has, and just as clearly the US has not. Nor does this disease of promoting anti-intellectualism restrict itself to the US, or indeed to the west. Knowledge, through education for all is what lifts societies up, ignorance breeds only the crippling of societies.

      Do I see Fox News pontificators, or radical jihadist Imams, or indeed any authority that seeks to curtail independant thought and enforce a regimen of blind acceptance as being different in any meaningful way? No, they all seek to keep the masses in ignorance.

      Education. REAL EDUCATION, not just what some turkey who got elected somewhere thinks is education, but education where those things taught as science can at the very least pass the most important test of any scientific hypothesis, falsifiability. Where history does not need to reflect the political bias of the current government. Where truth is valued over spin, and intellectual talent is valued over social or physical prowess.

      Treasure your nerds, or join the barbarians.

    19. Re:Want to see the future - look at education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and the Dollar is worth 7 times less since a few years ago. Let alone to the 30s! (But other currencies too, so it's hard to notice.)

      Of course, since you hand-picked the year ranges, and left above all infos about value loss, you could further your argument... in imaginary land.

    20. Re:Want to see the future - look at education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why aren't we getting what we pay for? Start with Political Correctness and go from there.

      Yes, we need to do like other countries do and start telling our kids they are too stupid to become anything they want to be and toss them into the fields to toil in poverty for the rest of their lives while smart kids get educated.

    21. Re:Want to see the future - look at education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Your chart is a little bit old. There are 17,000 fewer teachers in my state since 2007. This is the second year of double digit budget decreases to my school district. State funding to higher education has dropped from 60% to 30%. So, uhh, eat shit and die. 2) Your metric is pretty shallow. Unless of course, you honestly contend that the cost of education is a static quantity, which I doubt you'll claim because that would make you a fucking idiot.

    22. Re:Want to see the future - look at education by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Yes, and the Dollar is worth 7 times less since a few years ago. Let alone to the 30s! (But other currencies too, so it's hard to notice.)

      Idiot. I said, twice, that those were inflation-adjusted dollars. Our per-pupil spending has gone up 10 times *in constant dollars* since the 1930s.

      >>Of course, since you hand-picked the year ranges, and left above all infos about value loss, you could further your argument... in imaginary land.

      Since you obviously didn't look at the data (it is very nearly monotomically increasing over the last 90 years), I'm imagining you just used your imagination to try to further your argument about me being in imagination land.

    23. Re:Want to see the future - look at education by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>This is the second year of double digit budget decreases to my school district.

      And, so what? If they decreased by 50%, which is highly doubtful given the strength of teachers' unions, it would still be on par with the 1970s.

      The sad fact is, per-pupil spending doesn't appear to affect student performance in the slightest. It's a false causality caused by rich schools tending to have better performance than poor schools, when the actual reason (generalizing here) is the difference in parents, not the schools.

      >>State funding to higher education has dropped

      The person I was responding to was talking about public education, which generally means K-12, plus public universities and community colleges to a certain extent. College funding has dropped significantly due to the fact that states have realized that students will simply take out larger student loans to finance their education. The UC System used to have something like a 90% subsidy rate for in-state students. Now it's down to 50%. (IIRC)

      >>Unless of course, you honestly contend that the cost of education is a static quantity

      Who said anything about costs? The myth that people love to repeat is that long-term spending on public education has been on a downward spiral, whereas the reality of the situation is the complete opposite. I was also noting with amusement the GP complaining about fact-blindness in others, while failing to see the log in his own eye.

    24. Re:Want to see the future - look at education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, what are you disagreeing with? I did say the materials in modern schools were dumbed down. I just don't know what you really took from my post but if there is some confussion here I'd like to know about it if you don't think it was presented plainly where I said "This made it easy for a district to maintain funding if they made the enviorment lax and the materials easy. Dumbing down what was expected of the students while letting trouble children run wild was and probably still is profitable for a school district. This kind of thinking needs to come to an end."
       
      The rest of your posting, while true in and of itself, had nothing to do with anything I said.

    25. Re:Want to see the future - look at education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Per-pupil spending has *doubled* (in constant dollars) since the 1970s, and funding is *ten times as high* as during the 1930s (still, in constant dollars), and we haven't shown the slightest gain in test scores since then. So... shut the fuck up about "drastic cutbacks in public education". Seriously.

      This is true. If you plot spending increases vs results in education, you'll see that the two are basically completely unrelated. There is some correlation at the very bottom, but that's only relevant in marginal cases. In general, putting money into education has absolutely no effect.

    26. Re:Want to see the future - look at education by nbauman · · Score: 1

      That is a bullshit argument which the right-wingers keep dragging out in places like the Wall Street Journal.

      Of course the cost of education has gone up since the 1970s.

      First, they had to educate all the Negroes. Most of us think that's money well spent. In the 1970s, they were still dragging the former Confederacy kicking and screaming to comply with the federal legislation that required them to educate Negroes. Before then, they had black schools with a fraction of the budget of white schools. So a lot of that money went for equal education.

      Second, they had to educate handicapped people, after the Handicapped Act of 1974. In the 1970s, a lot of states didn't educate handicapped children. They warehoused them instead. I remember a guy who worked with blind people describing how he went to an institution and saw a blind girl of about 9 tied up in a chair. The people at the institution said they tied her to a chair "so she didn't hurt herself." That's all she did all day, sit tied to a chair. After the Handicapped Act, the states had to educate blind (and other) handicapped children. That costs money. But we as a society decided we want to give handicapped children the best education they can get.

      I know what the right-wing argument is: We're spending too much money on education because we're paying union teachers too much. Well, we're not. We pay teachers less than a lot of the countries that are beating us in education.

      You find one study that you don't understand, and then you tell *other* people to shut the fuck up. Typical ignorant right-winger.

    27. Re:Want to see the future - look at education by davesays · · Score: 0

      THAT is a Parenting problem, NOT an education problem.

    28. Re:Want to see the future - look at education by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>We're spending too much money on education because we're paying union teachers too much. Well, we're not.

      Hmm, my friend started at $60,000 per year as a math teacher at a high school, while my other friend started at $35k as an electrical engineer. Draw your own conclusions about who is getting "too much".

      >>We pay teachers less than a lot of the countries that are beating us in education.

      Our per-pupil spending is 41% higher than other similar countries. (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010/section4/table-ifn-1.asp) In fact, only Norway, Luxembourg, and Switzerland are higher than us, and 27 countries are below us.

      Most of the education budget (~80%) goes to teachers.

      So, again, the numbers show that you're full of shit.

      >>First, they had to educate all the Negroes

      With compelling arguments like that, it's hard to see why your liberal viewpoints haven't come to dominate the airwaves. Also, your narrative fails to account for the fact that per-pupil education spending has been monotonically rising for the last 80 years. About $1200 per pupil per decade. There's a blip between 1960 and 1970 (+$1500) that might account for your "negros", but the numbers simply fail to bear out your hypothesis. Also, it doesn't explain similar rises in per-pupil expenditures in states with low numbers of black kids.

      >>You find one study that you don't understand, and then you tell *other* people to shut the fuck up. Typical ignorant right-winger.

      My favorite part about your post? You didn't post one single statistic or number. That's one of the clear signs that you're trying to run some bullshit here. Beyond the fact that, you know, you're wrong.

    29. Re:Want to see the future - look at education by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      You are correct on one thing - innovation and discovery do come from people with inquisitive minds.

      However you are wrong about 'well rounded education system' and 'drastic cutbacks in public education'.

      I left a couple of comments on this here.

      First of all - US gov't getting into education causes huge price increases but destroys quality.

      Secondly not everybody needs a 'well rounded' education.

      Thirdly innovation and education are a function of a productive economy - if the market needs more innovation and higher education levels, without gov't there to prevent these things from happening, the market will get what it needs.

      --
      When you say ' consider the cost of ignorance', realize that ignorance is only a symptom of a stagnating economy. The cause of it is not low budget for education (it's not even low in USA), the cause of it is an economy that does not require the education.

      In the West the economies are not requiring the education, because people are not expected to produce anything, but instead they themselves expect to be taken care of regardless of whether they produce anything or not.

      This is the own doing of the people, who expect something for nothing and enact a socialist system upon their economy through political and economic means. From the creation of the Fed to IRS to FDIC to FDR programs to Nixon's gold shock and 1965 public health plans and SS and minimum wage and business regulations and money printing and US bond printing, and 'too big to fail' and all the corporate subsidies (not tax cuts, actual subsidies), to wars and growth of gov't - all of this and more, it's all the gov't that is causing the US economy to collapse (and the same applies to other western nations.)

    30. Re:Want to see the future - look at education by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      First science goes, and then the arts. Many here hate rap, but objectively speaking it is an art, and it isn't what it used to be - bling and bitches got in 5 years ago, I think. Before that, it was the music of the bitter, rebel, wounded, angry, those who wanted to get out of whatever trench they are in, and live the life they wanted, without getting trampled on. Though the stars of the old industry had such a hard time, most see it as a raging idiot who somehow got to a microphone. And it has degenerated with the rest of American culture to megalomania and conformism.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  11. It seems to me... by BigDaveyL · · Score: 1

    There's no investment in long term growth. It's all about "let's sell our soul for a profitable quarter." There's no long term R&D and employee development. And it doesn't help when the government has hit all time highs as far as debt/deficits.

  12. TFA is way off the mark by jet_silver · · Score: 3, Interesting

    TFA lists as concerns the wrong ones. 1) STEM "education", which is really training. You don't train people to innovate, you train people to push buttons or flip burgers. Education begins with independent, critical thinking and that is less and less fostered by the educational system. 2) Why would a smart student do STEM when the money is in pie-dividing, not pie creation? Besides, B-school is about parties and sex, not cracking books all night and all weekend. 3) The progress toward a knowledge-based economy -should- be slowest for the early adopters, then people can copy it and learn from those mistakes. 4) The benchmark of "green energy" is wrong, it is now viable only because governments mandate it. From TFA: "Clean energy is an industry the government has cited as important to future growth." And the government will piss in your pocket and tell you it's raining. Government initiatives are playgrounds for rent-seekers, perpetual-motion nuts, and con men.

    America's tech decline is fostered by a government in thrall to companies that ship profits to Jersey, Bermuda and Monaco; jobs to China and Vietnam; and toxic waste to Africa. Simplification of the tax code, taxing companies and individuals on parity (after all, companies are people) and letting the bastards walk if they don't like it, and a serious crackdown on malfeasance under color of authority are what the government should be doing.

    1. Re:TFA is way off the mark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're swinging in anger and missing the mark.

      1) You know what the S in STEM stands for and you say what we need is critical thinking? You know what scientific enquiry is entirely based upon? Critical thinking. Fostering an advance of scientific teaching will give you that critical thinking, and also some really good thoughts for your knowledge-based economy (3)

      2) A good point, but it may be that the big money in parasitic jobs has passed its heyday already. Surely there's plenty of bad blood between the government/people and the vast money-siphoning corporations.

      3) A knowledge-based economy is by necessity only possible atop a manufacturing economy. It cannot replace it in whole or even in part, because no matter how cool Dak'kon made it sound, there is no way to *know* your way to a plate full of food. A progression to a knowledge-based economy is another short-term approach to making the ledger look good for shareholders. You must produce if you wish to consume, and only if wishes were like horses would all beggars ride.

      4) A good idea put forward by the government can remain a good idea. Just because you're sick of The Man and have all the answers doesn't mean the behemoth you hate can't cough up a good idea from time to time. Green energy isn't just important - it's non-negotiable. We will run out of cheap consumable energy as we currently know it. Renewables are necessary for us to continue to have modern civilization. Let me tell you a few government initiatives that you probably don't hate much: interstates. Railroads. There are a couple others, too.

      Your ideas aren't bad, and you probably have a lot of support in what you offer in the last paragraph, but the first one seemed way off.

    2. Re:TFA is way off the mark by jd · · Score: 1

      I'll agree and put in a journal posting an alternative idea on how you could run an educational system to avoid the problems you mention. Problem is, such a solution would not be cheap, would certainly not be easy, and would not generate insta-profits (just add water).

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:TFA is way off the mark by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Investment in science and technology projects is crucial. Then we don't lose engineers, physicists, and mathematicians to big business "pie-dividing" as you put it.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    4. Re:TFA is way off the mark by internerdj · · Score: 1

      Maybe in disease research. Imagine what would happen to the cost of cancer drugs if the company didn't have to "make up for" its R&D money and the government could hand the process to whoever to promote true competition. But God forbid we interfere with the free-market or undermine the political contributer's profits.

    5. Re:TFA is way off the mark by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      Besides, B-school is about parties and sex, not cracking books all night and all weekend

      Sacrificing some mod points to reply to this. That is exactly the sort of attitude that is killing us when it comes to higher education: that parties and sex are what college is all about. The media drills this image of college into everyone's heads, and freshman show up expecting to see orgies and gallons of liquor everywhere on campus.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    6. Re:TFA is way off the mark by radl33t · · Score: 1

      4) The benchmark of "green energy" is wrong, it is now viable only because governments mandate it.

      You are incorrect. Sealing gaps and super insulating new homes is green energy technology and both of these menial tasks reduce the cost of new construction. Double paned windows with low e coatings are green technology and they reduce the TCO of residential buildings without any incentives. In a cold climate, pointing your new house at the sun, is a green technology that is viable without government mandates... There are no government mandates for CFLs, dual flush toilets, 1.6L turbo diesels, or bicycles, and about 37,000 other things and yet these are all green energy technologies that are cost effective compared to alternative technology. However, I feel the target of your misinformed rant is technologies such as solar thermal or PV, which are also viable without government mandates for millions of homes. You can buy an integrated collector/storage solar thermal system for the cost of a hot water heater and never pay fuel prices. These systems aren't littering the roofs of the American southwest (unlike say the entire developing world) due to general ignorance and widespread deluded thinking by people like you who simply refuse to acknowledge, that perhaps, under many (and a growing set) of conditions they are hopelessly wrong. But yeah, U.S. government mandates are necessary for green energy technology, which explains why poor people in developing countries are adopting these technologies in spades...

    7. Re:TFA is way off the mark by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      America's economic decline is due to people assuming that gov't must buy them shit.

      1913 was the year that started the beginning of the end - IRS and Fed were created. Collecting income taxes on one hand and being able to print money to buy gov't debt on another provided US gov't with ability to grow quickly and much beyond what gov't is supposed to be - a spending item, which reflects the economy by growing and shrinking when economy grows and shrinks.

      The gov't is a spending item, like any other spending item you cut back on it when times are hard. Instead the Fed provided gov't with ability to grow at all times by taxing the existing monetary supply - inflation, and IRS provided more water for the mill as well, but also with a side benefit of being able to actively participate and regulate all business activities.

      After the WWII US was in position of having a unique combination of intact infrastructure and a large labor force that returned from the was, its currency became the reserve (instead of gold, as it should be) and US blue collar worker became the 'middle class' (which is a misnomer, middle class is small business and professionals, not factory workers.)

      The so called 'middle class' of US had a monopoly on production (compared to the rest of the world) and it commanded a quickly growing salary, the American Dream was achieved. Within 20 years the world has recovered its ability to produce, but by that time the US gov't was addicted to the huge income taxes it was collecting from individuals and companies, and it wouldn't shrink itself even though the US production force started shrinking just after 1965 (also the year that US got itself into public healthcare business in big way, quickly forcing costs up). All the costs associated with gov't regulation provided enough incentive for manufacturers to start looking for cheaper places to do business - from lower salaries, to lower cost of doing business due to regulations, income taxes, etc., all of this pushed manufacturing out of USA.

      Production and manufacturing - this is what pushes forward the necessity to innovate, to do R&D, and this is a market signal that a more educated work force is needed. This is what creates a more educated population, not gov't grants, which only drive up cost and destroy quality, as the present clearly shows.

      At this point the US gov't is destroying currency so quickly, while US population is producing so little on per-capita basis, that it makes little sense for businesses to want to move to USA. Manufacturing moves to where it's cheaper to do, and it makes perfect sense. When you say 'let the bastards walk' - you are kidding yourself and everybody. "The bastards" have walked already. They are producing cheap goods of pretty good quality, they are doing it elsewhere, so there is no reason to pay any income taxes to US gov't.

      The people of USA facilitated this, even required this (judging by your post they are actively pursuing this now,) with every vote for anybody who promises them something for nothing.

      As long as IRS and Fed and huge gov't exists, which promises to you the foodstamps, welfare, education loans, mortgage guarantees, FDIC, business regulations, etc.etc.etc., the production capacity of USA will be decreasing.

      However it is much worse now, that USA is monetizing its debt to feed its gov't beast at ever increasing rates. There is a reason why gold was USD350/ounce in 2003 and cotton was USD50/pound in 2003 and now gold is over USD1400/ounce and cotton is over USD200/pound - they keep the same ratio (1:7) but they went up in price by over 4 times in US currency, as well as in all other currencies - this is monetary inflation caused by gov't printing.

      This is currency destruction, and it will only worsen the situation.

      I hope to see this shortly: all socialist states fall economically and lose every ability to pay for all of their social programs, some turning into dictatorial prisons, some finally turning to the correct way of running their econ

    8. Re:TFA is way off the mark by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      With overzealous parents, expecting their children to live the lives of saints, with much study, toil, and work, and no sins, where the hell do you expect them to blow off steam? I'm not saying that college is the best place, but somebody should designate such a place, probably in high school, when you really have a lot of steam.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  13. Consumerist ranking criteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Adoption rates of PCs, wi-fi, mobile phones, internet bandwidth and so forth seem to be rather superficial measures of a country's technological prowess or achievement. That's like ranking countries for automotive industry capacity based on the relative number and sizes of cars owned by their populations.

  14. we need to get rid of job based health care in the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we need to get rid of job based health care in the us as OUT side the USA the JOB DOES NOT PAY the costs of heath care.

  15. Andy Grove's comment on offshoring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Wrote Grove: "You could say, as many do, that shipping jobs overseas is no big deal because the high-value work -- and much of the profits -- remain in the U.S. That may well be so. But what kind of a society are we going to have if it consists of highly paid people doing high-value-added work -- and masses of unemployed?""

    Nailed it. Offshoring makes companies and their management richer. It saves a little for consumers of the relevant product, if the savings are passed on to them rather than simply taken as profits ... but those consumers have fewer and fewer jobs from which to get income to buy the products.

    The endgame here is for the local market for consumer goods to dwindle, and then for the company to move it's main office to a tax haven and/or somewhere with a population that still has money to spend. They've basically mined the consumer market until it's depleted, and then they move on. This is what happens when you consistently underpay your regular workers and/or ship their jobs elsewhere: you undermine the entire economy. Apparently modern industries have forgotten basic lessons from way back in the days of Henry Ford: pay your workers reasonably well, and they will ultimately help your community and business thrive.

    1. Re:Andy Grove's comment on offshoring by PPH · · Score: 2

      I've got a solution to offshoring: Fix the corporate tax system.

      1) Reduce the tax rate dramatically. 10% would be good, less would be better.
      2) Switch to an (almost) no deduction, gross revenue based tax (see #3).
      3) Allow one deduction: W-2 Wages and salaries paid to employees. That would be employees here in the USA. Every other input is a non-deductible cost.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Andy Grove's comment on offshoring by brainzach · · Score: 1

      Taxing gross revenue would kill most businesses who have low profit margins. The only businesses who will benefit are consulting companies where majority of the costs in wages and salaries. All others will move their business overseas where they aren't punished for investing in capital and raw materials.

    3. Re:Andy Grove's comment on offshoring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Andy Grove is a fucking hypocrit. He led the efforts to outsource mfg AND engineering @ Intel.

    4. Re:Andy Grove's comment on offshoring by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      This is what happens when you consistently underpay your regular workers and/or ship their jobs elsewhere: you undermine the entire economy.

      From the point of view of an economically rational capitalist, here's the basic thinking: "Sure, I could pay my workers more, but with nice high unemployment I really don't need to - I can just threaten to fire them if they don't like it, and thanks to the economy and effective blacklisting of anyone who is currently unemployed, they have no other choice. Now, that could conceivably cut into the middle class that I think is my consumer base, but even if my employees can't pay for my product the employees of those other companies can and will." This is perfectly smart thinking for an individual rational capitalist, but when everyone makes the same decision the results are exactly what you've been seeing in the US for about 30 years.

      Also, the primary reason Ford paid his workers as much as he did is that he had real trouble recruiting people to work on his assembly lines. That's because word had gotten out that his jobs involved a lot of noise, a lot of repetitive motion, a lot of boredom, and a lack of safety (this was the pre-OSHA days, remember). So he raised the price he was paying until he got recruits. Smart thinking, but nowhere near as altruistic as it's made out to be in the popular imagination.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    5. Re:Andy Grove's comment on offshoring by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      You will see these big corps move to Europe, Japan, and China. The US will be a empty husk that has nothing left but delusions of grandeur and a bunch of tribals in the streets. I say tribals because their will be uneducated, homeless, poor, sickly, uber-religious people that are afraid of the number 13, ghosts and demons.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    6. Re:Andy Grove's comment on offshoring by hoppo · · Score: 1

      If you were to just stick with #1, it would be a much better policy. As another reply had stated, taxing gross revenue would pretty much kill a great number of businesses.

      However, there is nothing to say we can't put a tax on imported services and products (including in-house payrolls). Or, change accounting P & L regulations, so that only a percentage of overseas costs can be charged against revenue when calculating profit -- this would probably be the more palatable option, as it would stand less of a chance of violating any trade agreements, and the percentage scale could slide as the economic climate dictates.

      Remember, it wouldn't take much to have companies in other countries using us as their tax shelter, nor does it take much to swing the flow of offshored jobs back into this country. All told, in spite of the huge difference in wages, offshoring jobs doesn't save a company so much money that there's nothing which would bring the jobs back. If you remember, back in 2008 when fuel prices were going through the roof, manufacturing had started to shift back from overseas to the US. A shift in tax policy would have a similar effect, I would guess.

    7. Re:Andy Grove's comment on offshoring by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      People can't change their views? Things can't be good for an individual (or company) but bad for society as a whole?>

    8. Re:Andy Grove's comment on offshoring by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      And destroy your economy in one 3 simple steps.

      You just made the do-nothing-useful service sector even bigger and annihilated the manufacturing sector. Oh and welcome to the mega-mega-corporation.

    9. Re:Andy Grove's comment on offshoring by FallinWithStyle · · Score: 1

      1) Reduce the tax rate dramatically. 10% would be good, less would be better.

      If you were to just stick with #1, it would be a much better policy.

      Right, so then why does GE, with a 0% tax rate, still cut 1/5th of its U.S. workforce in favor of offshore labor? Can't get a much better deal than that.

      --
      Does this smell like Chloroform to you?
    10. Re:Andy Grove's comment on offshoring by slyborg · · Score: 1

      Lolno. GE already pays 0% US tax and is a poster child for offshoring jobs. The tax system is not the problem here.

    11. Re:Andy Grove's comment on offshoring by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      As long as there's no actual risk in offshoring, then economically it makes sense, setting aside such fuzzy, non-PHB things as morality, etc.

      The US and the world in general has enjoyed a 66-year span of great power peace, unprecedented in the modern era. I'd say that most people have no sense at how abnormal this is.

      When there is a great power conflict, and suddenly manufacturing becomes strategically important and longer supply lines mean vulnerability - once again domestic manufacturing will matter...for a while.

      Then again, in the next great power war, it may be over in about 2 hours, and whatever people are left over will be too busy dodging giant radioactive cockroaches, to care about the mistakes we made, nor any industry left to reorganize.

      --
      -Styopa
    12. Re:Andy Grove's comment on offshoring by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      I dunno if a tariff, (a tax on imported services and products) is the best thing for being globally competitive. Protectionism doesn't really jive with globalism.

      Also, taking the whole idea, and then "compromising" so only the tax-cut for corporations is left seems to be the default plan of late.

    13. Re:Andy Grove's comment on offshoring by kronosopher · · Score: 1

      Some low profit margin businesses will not have the option of moving overseas and therefore will resort to further consolidation in order to offset expenses. Either way it will be bad for small to medium sized business.

    14. Re:Andy Grove's comment on offshoring by men0s · · Score: 1

      They've basically mined the consumer market until it's depleted, and then they move on.

      That sounds like a.. oh.. what's the word... parasite?

    15. Re:Andy Grove's comment on offshoring by geek2k5 · · Score: 1

      I have to agree with Grove's statement. If you are exporting jobs overseas while depending upon the US market to buy the product you make, you will eventually reach the point where the US market doesn't have enough customers because they are unemployed.

      At that point you better hope that your overseas market makes up the slack.

    16. Re:Andy Grove's comment on offshoring by geek2k5 · · Score: 1

      Add in deductions for pollution control and safety measures. That would address the 'problem' of regulatory differences. (Or you could have a pollution/safety tariff on imports.)

    17. Re:Andy Grove's comment on offshoring by PPH · · Score: 1

      Some low profit margin businesses will not have the option of moving overseas

      Granted. They'll just have to increase their prices.

      and therefore will resort to further consolidation in order to offset expenses.

      Why? The principle argument for consolidation is to save on labor costs. With this system, the only deductible expense is labor. So all other things being equal, the business with the higher labor cost per dollar of revenue (that's domestic labor only) gets a bigger tax break.

      Either way it will be bad for small to medium sized business.

      Not really. See above. And since one of the labor savings (not something we'd like to encourage) of larger corporations is not duplicating accounting and tax preparation costs, a simpler tax system benefits the smaller company. Multiply your revenue less wages by X and send it in. If you are running a loss (higher labor costs) maybe the gov't sends you a refund. Or you bank the credit against future tax debts.

      On a macro economic level, all costs* are labor costs somewhere up the line. Raw materials are natural resources (initial cost of zero) extracted and processed (labor).

      *OK, taxes (state and local and some remaining federal). Allow deductions for these as well.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  16. Short Term Gain, Long Term Pain by OKCfunky · · Score: 1

    Can't say this article is shocking. Perhaps if our society valued intellect, abhorred a gov't that is larger than all manufacturing jobs combined, and made personal responsibility a cornerstone and not a sound-byte.... nah, who am I kidding. We reaped our profits and sowed the seeds of our own destruction. Case in point: ChiCom... give China your IP if you want access to their economy, never mind that they'll create a knock-off the next day and bury you with your own product.

  17. After the arms race- by Darth+Snowshoe · · Score: 1

    First we had the legs race. Then we had the arms race. Now we're going to have the brain race. And, if we're lucky, the final stage will be the human race. - John Brunner

    If you want innovation in America, rather than complaining about it, you need to change something. Science and technology are fundamentally social endeavors as much as technical ones. Take a quarter of the defense budget and instead put it towards public education and basic research.

    Also, I think it's a blind alley to consider innovation a zero-sum game. It is helpful rather than harmful that other countries are making serious contributions. Ultimately we are going to discover intelligent life elsewhere, and which-country-scored-fourth-in-high-school-math is going to seem like small potatoes compared to getting humanity prepped for the next phase, whatever that turns out to be.

  18. I prefer by Shivetya · · Score: 3, Insightful

    to think of all of this as, the world is catching up with the US (and in general, the rest of the world is catching up to Western Civilization). Yeah the US certainly has its problems, but like the article stated, comparing it to four countries who added together don't have half the population of the US, let alone the land area, is no different than having your answer before your facts to support it.

    Saying the China is moving to a digital economy faster than the US is odd, but then again the favorite thing to do among such people is to ignore all those China doesn't count when it wants to look good, who happen to be the same people it counts when it wants to look good in other areas. Let alone, moving from where they were to anywhere would show more progress than most countries can make. After seeing the real estate situation in China I figure it is just a few years before they have similar problems. They are just better at hiding the problems they have, from practice and intimidation.

    The only problem the US faces that is has not tried to fix is Washington DC. Entitlement spending will cripple this country. The discretionary spending (where those mythical 39 billion dollars from recent cuts came out of) is less than a third of the budget. The rest is guaranteed spending. Meaning we could cut everything but Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Defense, and still be spending negatively.

    So, the threat is real, but it is from the leadership of the country, not some foreign bogeyman. As with all power structures that have crumbling support they need external bogeymen. Hence through their sycophants in the media they create them on demand.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:I prefer by dev.null.matt · · Score: 1

      The only problem the US faces that is has not tried to fix is Washington DC. Entitlement spending will cripple this country. The discretionary spending (where those mythical 39 billion dollars from recent cuts came out of) is less than a third of the budget. The rest is guaranteed spending. Meaning we could cut everything but Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Defense, and still be spending negatively.

      You are absolutely correct, except for one thing. Defense spending is part of the discretionary budget.

    2. Re:I prefer by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      Entitlement spending will cripple this country.

      This is so wrong it hurts.

      Meaning we could cut everything but Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Defense, and still be spending negatively.

      One of these things is not like the other. Medicare, Medicaid, and SS are paid from separate taxes.

    3. Re:I prefer by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      Medicare, Medicaid, and SS are paid from separate taxes.

      *blink* You say this as if it's relevant...

      The Budget is "total taxes vs total federal expenditures". Just because the federal government has decided to label them as different taxes (political games) doesn't mean they're somehow excluded from the debt our country is generating.

    4. Re:I prefer by TarPitt · · Score: 1

      Entitlement spending will cripple this country.

      And Sweden is higher ranked than the USA because they refuse to spend on welfare programs?

      --
      If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
  19. Of course. by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 2

    Our current school system discredits creativity, and forces everyone into the same mold. Arguably, this mold is 100% useless in the real world, especially in a world that requires any innovation.

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
  20. Short Attention Spans by chill · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The problem is short attention spans, and a difficulty in communicating the benefits of long-term, fundamental research combined with a political, financial and popular culture obsessed with a "that was yesterday, what have you done for me lately" mentality.

    A perfect illustration is shortly after the "merger" of France-based Alcatel and U.S.-based Lucent Technologies was the virtual kneecapping of Bell Labs.

    Then CEO Patricia Russo announced that long-term, fundamental research would no longer be performed at Bell Labs as that wasn't the culture of Alcatel. If a project couldn't be productized in 7 years, it would be shelved.

    To me that was a "break out the shovels" moment. As in, "It has been a long, hard decline but we can see the bottom. Break out the shovels, we're going to dig this hole deeper."

    The same thing goes on with Congress and funding basic scientific research at placed like NASA, the various National Labs (Sandia, Lawrence Livermore, Fermi, Oak Ridge, etc.). Just look at what happened to the Superconducting Super Collider.

    The problem is you can't always predict what benefits will come from fundamental research, thus you can't give the bean counters a predicted return on investment number. When is an even harder number.

    The only real time the United States as a government priority has pumped money into research is if that research could be used to blow shit up. Actually, this is probably true of Britain, Germany, Russia, Japan and China as well.

    We need to be able to clearly articulate the benefits to society and the economy as a whole that fundamental research brings. If we want to drive forward into the future imagined by the visionaries, and not end up in the one envisioned by the dystopians (no Mad Max, please), this and education need to be our top priorities as a nation. Which nation? Any and every nation.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    1. Re:Short Attention Spans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TLDR :)

    2. Re:Short Attention Spans by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      Well said.

    3. Re:Short Attention Spans by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much of our science decline has to do with the consolidation of media ownership by a handful of profit driven corporations, which has a wide range of negative effects, from who we elect, to how issues are perceived.

      The country seems to be run by ideology now, and facts seem to be largely irrelevant to any decision making. Just look at how many of the new Republican house members discount evolution.

  21. Pessimism. by MaWeiTao · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My impression has been that those with money and those looking to acquire it are trying to do it the easy way. The challenging ways of building wealth have been abandoned in America. This is why we don't make much of anything. And when we do, it's often crap where someone in some other country is building it for cheap.

    I've also come to the conclusion that the reason there is such an obsession with intellectual property is because people subconsciously know that nobody needs us. We're not much more than middlemen, still resting on the laurels of those who've come before who actually did innovate and build things. It's only a matter of time before the Chinese, like the Japanese, strike out on their own. This defense of IP is desperate attempt to stave off the inevitable.

    Although, admittedly, I'm not convinced that China has the culture and devotion that the Japanese have. From my experience Chinese entrepreneurs are primarily driven the same things as Americans, how to make the most money for the least amount of effort. I predict that eventually China will price itself out of cheap manufacturing and everyone will migrate to South East Asia and South America. I foresee a future where most manufacturing based in Africa; the Chinese interestingly are already moving in that direction.

    Either way, I'm pessimistic on America's future. And while it's fun to blame someone else it's really everybody's fault; starting with the government, management and ending with the worker.

    1. Re:Pessimism. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      I've also come to the conclusion that the reason there is such an obsession with intellectual property is because people subconsciously know that nobody needs us.

      Perhaps, but I think the main reason is that it lets people spend a bit of money to acquire something that will make them a whole lot of money, without any need for further work or creativity on the part of the new owner.

      When a computer game has an exploit, people use it. All the more so when it's the economy.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  22. and look at china big on copying others and cheati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and look at china big on copying others and cheating in classes and colleges.

  23. Socialists! by dcollins · · Score: 4, Funny

    How dare you assert that any of our resources be directed by the government into research and development for the greater good of the nation? When CEO's could instead have the total freedom to take the money and run? As Reagan's assistant secretary for productivity & technology said in 1984, outlining a plan to restructure all of higher education, "Accountability and expertise must come from the private sector where the user needs are best identified. This is our intent." Thank god that has been so successful!

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    1. Re:Socialists! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there a Poe's Law for unrestrained feral capitalism?

    2. Re:Socialists! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find this breed of ignorance to be particularly dangerous. Socialists love to point at the greedy "fat-cats" in a capitalist society and say "see, capitalism doesn't work and is bad."

      Have you seen what happens under a socialist system when greed creeps in? At least in capitalism, you retain your rights, even if you're poor. When socialism takes hold, greed results not only in poverty, but in despotism.

      Go study more history.

    3. Re:Socialists! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's that? Can't hear you too well... getting some interference over these intertubes. Must be from all those rent-seeking capitalists buying whatever laws benefit them the most.

    4. Re:Socialists! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick, there's a problem, someone blame the CEOs and the evil corps!

  24. The End of Nationalism by Millennium · · Score: 1

    For all the good that tolerance and openness has done, the realization that one group of people is not inherently 'better' than any other does have its not-so-pleasant consequences too, and in particular it tends to not turn out well for those traditionally favored. We're dealing with one such case now. In this case, when one can do things just as well anywhere on the globe as in America, American workers just plain don't provide good value for the labor dollars being spent. In IT and manufacturing, one can get the same productivity (in terms of both amount and quality of product) or even better elsewhere at considerably better rates, and in manufacturing the difference is often so large that it even covers the overhead of shipping the finished product "back" to the target market. Why wouldn't a business jump on that? Like anyone else, they have little choice but to maximize the value they get for their money; whether or not it is good, it is what they do to survive.

    There are fields where this equation doesn't hold: namely, what I call "location-tied fields" where the work needs to be done at or very near the place where its end products will finally go. Customer service is something of a counterintuitive example here, but it holds: natively speaking the language of one's target market is too huge of an advantage to ignore, as anyone who has had to deal with outsourced call centers can attest. Skilled manual labor (i.e. the trades) almost universally falls into this category as well: you cannot work unless you can work onsite. But with very few exceptions, location-tied fields don't get a lot of respect in the US, and this isn't just a matter of pay: these jobs are never considered even when politicians cry out for adding more "good jobs" to the economy. The only real exceptions to this are the fields of medicine and law, both of which are location-tied (you can't treat a patient unless you are with the patient, and while it is technically possible to practice law in places other than where one lives the complexities of jurisdiction make it quite difficult) yet make so much money as to essentially buy their way past the stigma.

    This doesn't bode well for the US, and in particular for "born-Americans" (a group I'm defining as people born into American culture or steeped in it as an insider from an extremely young age, as opposed to immigrants, isolated cultural groups within the US, or non-Americans) in general. The value for the jobs that born-Americans respect just isn't in America anymore, and the jobs with value in America are not thought worth considering by born-Americans. The answers to this include either a greater focus on location-tied work (which in turn will require more respect for such work) or a correction in the cost of non-location-tied work to bring it closer to its value, but nobody really wants to do either of these things. Where, then, will their jobs come from?

  25. You want to help it return? by C_Kode · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you want to help it return, kill all patent trolls.

    1. Re:You want to help it return? by HikingStick · · Score: 1

      Couldn't someone patent the process of trolling for patents, thereby allowing them to cash in on the cash cows that are causing a cash crunch for many firms?

      --
      I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
    2. Re:You want to help it return? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by 'kill' you mean 'put out of business' or 'illegalize', then yes.

      If you mean 'kill' in the literal sense, even jestingly, remember Gabby Giffords. Don't even joke about that shit.

  26. Yes, that's it! by Benfea · · Score: 1

    Instead of trying to figure out why America is in decline and doing something about it, let's just assume that America is not in decline and keep doing all the things that brought us to this point! Then, if that's not enough sticking-your-head-in-the-sand, we can ridicule the people who suggest doing anything about it, perhaps with catchy phrases such as "blame America first" or something.

    1. Re:Yes, that's it! by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Except that those who are the target of the "blame America first" phrase are IM(no so H)O the reason we are in decline. Egoist philosophy and Imperialism build the greatest nation state the planet has ever seen.

      So lets stop doing the things that have brought us into decline. Lets quit trying to generate equality of result, lets stop with the globalist agenda and start using our influence to ensure we get favorable trade partnerships. Lets quit fighting other peoples wars unless there is something in it for us.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    2. Re:Yes, that's it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America only ever fights other peoples' wars when there's something in it for us!

    3. Re:Yes, that's it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lets stop with the globalist agenda and start using our influence to ensure we get favorable trade partnerships.

      As someone from a country who has entered in trade agreements with the US, you do get VERY favourable partnerships, so much so it can be entirely one-sided.

  27. You Are Dead Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your feel and sentiments are just no comparison to hard data and facts.

    A simple google search will reveal that the US is still the largest manufacturing country in the world by far.

    1. Re:You Are Dead Wrong by cobrausn · · Score: 3, Informative

      Aaaaand... the second result from a google search. By far? Look at more than the first google result and try again.

      --
      How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
  28. college needs to change in US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    college needs to change in US.

    We need stop sending all people to college we need more tech / voc / apprentices.

    there are smart tech people out there who are not good fit for the old college system.

    Cost needs to come down.

    Cut down on the number of filler classes.

    4 years maybe to long why have more 2-3 year plans?

    CS may need be more split up / and or have more then 1 track as the tech feed is so big that you need more just a board CS program and some people who just come out of CS are not that good at some IT jobs out of the gate.

    We need better people then the PHB at some work places. Clueless PHB are a tech killer.

  29. Trust someone to bring religion into this by MikeRT · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Quite a few school districts are actively pushing creationism against evolution, dismissing global climate change, and many "non-essential" curriculum activities.

    That's right, blame it on religion instead of harder targets like teacher's unions that have protected terrible and under-performing teachers. I'm a great example of why they should be broken up. My math education was so bad in "good public schools" that I am now staring down the prospects of having to go to a community college to make sure I have all of the foundations plus engineering calculus down pat before I can apply for a M.S. in any respectable subject.

    How about the fact that we throw kids of wildly different abilities into the same class and teach to the lowest common denominator? This means that most classes are incredibly slow for the students who can perform. Heck, this applied even to the AP classes I took in high school.

    But oh yeah, it's teaching creationism that's destroying kids' ability to do Math, Physics, etc. A few minor points of contention between religion and science are to blame for why kids are completely turned off.

    1. Re:Trust someone to bring religion into this by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      I'm a great example of why they should be broken up.

      How do you propose doing that without violating a person's right to free association?

    2. Re:Trust someone to bring religion into this by cobrausn · · Score: 1

      I'm a great example of why they should be broken up.

      How do you propose doing that without violating a person's right to free association?

      Allow them to organize, bargain, and represent the interests of the teachers, which includes such things as bringing public attention to issues within the school system; after all, the school system answers to the public. Don't allow them to hold school systems hostage when they don't get their way.

      --
      How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
    3. Re:Trust someone to bring religion into this by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Don't allow them to hold school systems hostage when they don't get their way.

      A common means by which they get their way is to agree among themselves to strike at a certain time. How do you intend to stop that without violating their right to free association?

    4. Re:Trust someone to bring religion into this by cobrausn · · Score: 1

      It's a government provided service, and you are a public servant. You don't just get to 'get your way'. If you don't like the way things are going, you appeal to the public.

      --
      How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
    5. Re:Trust someone to bring religion into this by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      It's a government provided service, and you are a public servant.

      Public servants retain the right to freely association and decide not to show up for work on the same day as their colleagues.

      You don't just get to 'get your way'. If you don't like the way things are going, you appeal to the public.

      While you may wish that to happen, you cannot stop teachers from maintaining unions and calling strikes without violating the freedoms that all Americans enjoy.

    6. Re:Trust someone to bring religion into this by cobrausn · · Score: 1

      Not all Americans. Military personell 'enjoy' reduced freedoms. They get paid and they can deal with greivances, but not in the same way. Maybe when we stop pretending a public sector job should be 'the same' as a private sector job, we can get somewhere.

      --
      How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
    7. Re:Trust someone to bring religion into this by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Maybe when we stop pretending a public sector job should be 'the same' as a private sector job, we can get somewhere.

      So you favour militarizing American schools? Seems like an awfully drastic measure, and probably an unnecessary one, because other countries that are beating the US in student achievement (e.g. Finland) have a union tradition that is just as strong, if not stronger, than in the US.

      The reason for ensuring that public sector employees retain their full rights to freedom of speech and association is so that they can keep their jobs when a different political party than the one they personally support comes to power.

    8. Re:Trust someone to bring religion into this by level_headed_midwest · · Score: 1

      The union often gets its way by infringing on the right of free association. Unions that are solely around because people freely choose to associate with them (as in unions in right-to-work states, where employees can choose to join or not to join the union) have far less power than unions in non-right-to-work states (the unions force people to join them if they want to work at a certain place of employment.) Also, don't forget the union harassing employees who still want to go to work for whatever reason when the union is striking.

      --
      Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
    9. Re:Trust someone to bring religion into this by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Public servants retain the right to freely association and decide not to show up for work on the same day as their colleagues.

      Then the principal should retain the right to fire them for not working.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    10. Re:Trust someone to bring religion into this by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Then the principal should retain the right to fire them for not working.

      Hiring and firing ultimately lies with the school board, not the principal. In any event, the administration may have the right to fire striking teachers, but where is it going to get a schoolfull of teachers at short notice? You can always bring substitutes, but even the best substitutes would need considerable time to become familiar with the curriculum and the students.

    11. Re:Trust someone to bring religion into this by OldeTimeGeek · · Score: 1

      So why, exactly, would anyone in their right mind want to go through the necessary years of education, the long hours of work, the continuing re-credentialing requirements on top of having to deal with parents that send their kids to school for no other reason than it is required by law, to be told "we value you, but not very much".

    12. Re:Trust someone to bring religion into this by HeckRuler · · Score: 1
      Way to tie (young-earth) creationism to religion rather then to the fringe nutcases. Religions, and specifically Christianity, on the whole are perfectly fine with evolution.

      But I've got some questions for you. First off, your public education was bad, so you're afraid about applying for a Master of Science due to a lack of math and engineering principles? Aren't you forgetting, you know, getting a Bachelors of Science first? I think most universities offer calc classes.

      Secondly, you complain about shoving all the kids into the same class AND point out in the very same paragraph that AP classes which do EXACTLY what you're suggesting suffer from the same short-comings. Amazing. Now tracking students, in terms of setting them on the "you're smart" track or the "you're doomed to salt mines" track, is definitely a idea. It's one that needs to be explored and tested and carefully implemented. Like, oh I dunno, with AP classes, magnet schools, honors programs and whatnot. Expanding those programs could be a good idea. But we're gonna take this slow, ok?

      But oh yeah, it's teaching creationism that's destroying kids' ability to do Math, Physics, etc. A few minor points of contention between religion and science are to blame for why kids are completely turned off.

      Well yes, that is, in part, to blame. It's certainly not the entire reason. Nothing on a sociological scale is that simple. But it certainly doesn't help to teach them internally inconsistent facts.

      But your alternative, to bust up the teachers' unions, probably isn't going to help get good teachers into the field. Making teaching a good-paying job is more likely to do that, and busting their unions is a sure-fired way to do the opposite. I think your idea needs work. Perhaps if you had a better grasp of calculus.

    13. Re:Trust someone to bring religion into this by Duradin · · Score: 1

      "instead of harder targets like parents that have produced terrible and under-performing children... it's (lack of) parenting that's destroying kids' ability to do Math, Physics, etc."

      All the hate for teachers and none for the real culprits...

    14. Re:Trust someone to bring religion into this by cobrausn · · Score: 1

      You could say the same thing about America's military soldiers, but they keep enlisting. I should point out that I'm also in favor of giving teachers authority over who can and cannot be in their classrooms - as far as I'm concerned, the union probably would not be necessary if teachers could oust the children that repeatedly drag down the rest, especially when the parent refuses to cooperate. I have a friend who teaches, and the horror stories she tells... what teachers need is authority and respect. There are no college professor unions, because they have the authority and respect they require to do their job. Teachers aren't just blue collar workers, and the unions make them appear as such. They should start being treated like what they are - valuable public servants. The most successful public schools I've seen are the ones that give teachers this authority, allow the public school to concentrate on those who deserve it, and private schools for the 'troubled' children step in to fill the gap.

      --
      How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
    15. Re:Trust someone to bring religion into this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean you weren't trying to get laid in that time? Plus fighting bullies, hormones, and just all around rebellion/depression to current circumstances. Things sure changed since I was in.

    16. Re:Trust someone to bring religion into this by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      That's right, blame it on religion instead of harder targets like teacher's unions that have protected terrible and under-performing teachers.

      Maybe you'd like to make us a list of other jobs that pay the same as what we pay the people we entrust the next generation's education to.

      Most teachers work long hours and put up with endless amounts of crap, for low wages and people like you wanting to crap on them as the cause for all our ills.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    17. Re:Trust someone to bring religion into this by nbauman · · Score: 1

      That's right, blame it on religion instead of harder targets like teacher's unions that have protected terrible and under-performing teachers. I'm a great example of why they should be broken up. My math education was so bad in "good public schools" that I am now staring down the prospects of having to go to a community college to make sure I have all of the foundations plus engineering calculus down pat before I can apply for a M.S. in any respectable subject.

      That's right, blame it on the unions. Most of the school systems that score better than the U.S. in international comparisons are union systems, like Finland.

      http://www.mcgraw-hillresearchfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/pisa-intl-competitiveness.pdf

      McGRAW-HILL RESEARCH FOUNDATION
      Policy Paper: Lessons from PISA

      WHAT THE U.S. CAN LEARN FROM THE WORLD’S MOST SUCCESSFUL EDUCATION REFORM EFFORTS

      3. Ontario, Canada

      An interesting fact about high-performing Ontario, Canada is that the teachers there are heavily unionized. In fact, every teacher is required to join the union, which is as strong and
      as fiercely protective of teachers’ rights as any union in the U.S.

      But in Ontario, they have shown that a strong teachers union is not inimical to successful education reform.

      Here's what unions do:

      Alfonse D'Amato, who went up the ranks in the Republican party on Long Island, and finally was a U.S. Senator, got sued after he left Congress. In a lawsuit, both sides have to disclose a lot of documents. One of the documents that came out was a letter from D'Amato to one of his assistants discussing how much of their income civil servants should be required to kick back as campaign contributions to the Republican Party -- should it be 2.5% or 3%, something like that. Because of the statute of limitations, they couldn't be prosecuted for it, but everybody who had a county job knew this was going on. My friend's daughter applied for a job as a lifeguard, and they told her that if her parents weren't members of the Republican Party, she shouldn't bother applying -- they would check.

      That's what it's like without unions. You need the approval of the Republican Party bosses to get a job. You have to contribute to the Republican Party to keep your job. And if your boss doesn't like you for some reason, he can claim you were really incompetent all these years and fire you.

      In the non-union states, the schools are firing teachers with 20 years experience making $60,000 a year and replacing them with recent college graduates making $25,000 a year. That's the future of conservative America: you work 20 years at a job, get fired, and have to spend the rest of your life in semi-employment.

      The unions, and the teachers themselves, have been targets for right-wing wackos, most of whom don't even understand education. Read the Wall Street Journal comments pages sometimes.

      It has repeatedly turned out that anti-union school "reformers" who claimed they had to fire incompetent unionized teachers, and replace them with young, inspiring teachers, were getting good test results because their teachers were cheating on the tests.

      That happened in George W. Bush's Texas, it happened repeatedly in many places, and it just happened again in Michelle Rhee's DC public school system. If you read the USA Today story http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2011-03-28-1Aschooltesting28_CV_N.htm you'll see that the testing company, McGraw-Hill, reported to Rhee that the test results had a large number of wrong answers erased and replaced with correct answers, a sign of cheating, and Rhee covered it up.

      Meanwhile, the same people who are attacking teachers' unions -- originally Republicans but now also "moderate" Democrats -- have ended free college, like City College in New

    18. Re:Trust someone to bring religion into this by nbauman · · Score: 1

      other countries that are beating the US in student achievement (e.g. Finland) have a union tradition that is just as strong, if not stronger, than in the US.

      The reason for ensuring that public sector employees retain their full rights to freedom of speech and association is so that they can keep their jobs when a different political party than the one they personally support comes to power.

      Good point (actually 2 good points).

      http://www.mcgraw-hillresearchfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/pisa-intl-competitiveness.pdf

      McGRAW-HILL RESEARCH FOUNDATION
      Policy Paper: Lessons from PISA

      WHAT THE U.S. CAN LEARN FROM THE WORLD’S MOST SUCCESSFUL EDUCATION REFORM EFFORTS

      3. Ontario, Canada

      An interesting fact about high-performing Ontario, Canada is that the teachers there are heavily unionized. In fact, every teacher is required to join the union, which is as strong and
      as fiercely protective of teachers’ rights as any union in the U.S.

      But in Ontario, they have shown that a strong teachers union is not inimical to successful education reform.
       

    19. Re:Trust someone to bring religion into this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not a few minor points of contention. That's saying "You can disregard the scientific method if your pastor tells you to". It's saying that truth is derived by the pronunciation of an authority (the Bible in this case) rather than by induction or deduction. That is a pretty big deal!

    20. Re:Trust someone to bring religion into this by lennier · · Score: 1

      Allow them to organize, bargain... Don't allow them to hold school systems hostage when they don't get their way.

      So allow teachers' unions to bargain in an organised manner... but don't actually let them have anything to bargain with?

      That seems like a perfectly possible thing and not a self-contradiction at all!

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    21. Re:Trust someone to bring religion into this by lennier · · Score: 1

      It's a government provided service

      No, teaching is a service provided by the teachers and only paid by the government.

      One might think that the people who actually provide the service ought to have some say in how that service is provided, and be given the right to decide whether or not they will provide it to the standard requested of them given the payment and conditions they are offered.

      Isn't there a word for that? Something begining with "f"? Something about fries?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    22. Re:Trust someone to bring religion into this by lennier · · Score: 1

      Not all Americans. Military personell 'enjoy' reduced freedoms.

      Yes, and that's a very bad thing.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    23. Re:Trust someone to bring religion into this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree wholeheartedly. My math education from a public high school was terrible. I had finished "pre-calculus" and "tested into" Calc 1 my first semester at college. That sucked pretty hard. I ended up dropping the class because I was so far behind everyone else in the class. I had to take the "pseudo"-calculus (a less "math intensive" calculus class for non-hard science majors) before I took real calculus.

      I ended up getting a chem major / math minor and I'm currently pursuing a PhD in chem. I still don't consider math a strong point of mine. I wish I really would've learned it. That and programming...

    24. Re:Trust someone to bring religion into this by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      I don't think it is so clear that teachers' unions are to blame.

      Really interesting debate.
      http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/dont-blame-teachers-unions-for-our-failing-schools/

      One (of many) interesting points, is that school districts without strong teachers unions tend to have lower test scores than those that do. And if you look at other wealthy countries, many of them have strong teachers' unions, and are ahead of us in science/math scores. Take Germany for example.

      One of the key differences between us and other western European countries, is the level of social safety nets and support that pushes the bottom up. Good teachers try to instill as much knowledge as possible, and to do so, they have to try to teach to the average intelligence/capability of the class. The US allows families to fall down way further than other countries, and it creates a cycle of poverty and ignorance.

      You also have to keep in mind, that while yes, teachers' unions make it harder to fire bad teachers, they are also the ones that push for smaller class sizes, more resources for students, bonds to get increased school funding, etc..

      I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of system to rank and judge teachers. I bet the results would show that there is only a very tiny percent of teachers who are bad at their jobs. Who goes into teaching without wanting to teach? It certainly isn't for the pay, nor for the working conditions. I think if we really looked at the issue, we'd find that there are dozens of factors involved in a class being poorly educated, and that the majority of those factors are not something that the individual teacher can control.

  30. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  31. 20 July, 1969 by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    That is the day the decline began. As soon as those guys touched down, the budget ax started swinging and interest just shriveled up. As if they decided there's nothing left to do.

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  32. Hollywood is out of ideas! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    AWWWWW CRAP does that mean we have to endure a remake of this ?

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:Hollywood is out of ideas! by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Good god. That movie sounds awful.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
  33. Why educate when foreigner will take your job? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why should an American spend all the time, money, and effort, required for a STEM degree, just to train his/her H1B replacement? Don't tell me that doesn't happen, I know that it does. The same thing is happening to other US workers, like teachers, and pharmacists.

    And if something can be offshored, you can be sure it will be offshored. Software development, legal research, tech support, network monitoring, medical research, engineering, radiology, and much more; are all in the process of being offshored.

    If you have a job that requires a college education, and that job does not require a top-secret clearance, then your job is at risk, and your education will just go to waste.

  34. James Goldsmith tried to tell you this years ago by ciderbrew · · Score: 2

    Here is a very interesting video from 1994.
    To sum up. If you outsource all of your jobs. You'll not have any paying customers left.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PQrz8F0dBI

  35. You forget... by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    Don't forget their lawyers and their congress-critters.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  36. Breaking Wind by turkeyfish · · Score: 1

    There is plenty greatness and technological leadership of all kinds in the US. The problem has been the rise of anti-government, anti-science rhetoric and budgeting that is hollowing out any opportunity for the scientific community to lead and be listened to. Consequently, what you see on the political and social front is stagnation and the rest of the world catching up or passing us in many fields of endeavor.

    Unfortunately, we are in that period of "currency destabilization" or to put it more precisely "dollar devaluation" now, not 20 years from now. The collapse won't bring with it opportunity here, only a much higher prices and scarce government resources for doing most anything technological or not going forward. Instead of supporting science and technology T-party and republican rhetoric, which makes up 1/3 of our government and the body politic these days, is hell bent on diminishing it. You can see this in the insane notion that we can default on our debts to force their ideology on the other 2/3rds. They seem more intent on breaking wind rather than addressing the consequences of the issue.

    We like to think our economy is dominant because of our military, but both are highly dependent on foreign resources and brain power, not to mention capital. Our economy has largely specialized in financial transactions, which as we learned with credit default swaps, much of the derivatives-based speculation is little more than an unstable, government sanctioned Ponzi scheme that produces little in the way of social or technological advance.

    You lost me with your comments on "bureaucratic nonsense" and "strangling ideas", the later to me just an empty sophism. I doubt the Patent Office or the Intellectual Property Courts and Law are at the heart of our problem, which ultimately is one of the inability of about 1/3 of the country not being able to reason effectively nor see the adverse consequences of that. Much of this comes from poor education and direct efforts by some to distort the truth about a broad range of science and technology issues from global climate change to regulation of the internet. With respect to the latter, it is hard to argue that its the bureaucrats that are the problem, as essential current efforts and policy are to keep things as they are. It is special interests who want to be able to be granted special rights to manipulate the infrastructure to control the flow of information through the "tubes" and legislators with such poor educations in science and technology that they haven't any idea of what it is they are doing, not necessarily that the are not well-intentioned.

    This is symptomatic of a much larger issue, namely that science has given the average man and woman great powers and capabilities, but who are unable to think clearly or cogently enough about the consequences of what they are doing with that power.

    You can see it from Fukushima, to global warming, to the computation of derivatives on mortgage backed securities, and just about every other problem humanity has. Without science there was relatively little damage such thoughtless individuals could do the planet, but that is no longer the case. With 7 billion humans now inhabiting the earth that problem becomes so large as to overwhelm what good science can achieve.

    1. Re:Breaking Wind by redemtionboy · · Score: 1

      I agree with you that dollar devaluation is happening now, I was simply stating that I believe the resulting collapse will happen within the next 20 years. The budget argument isn't inherently anti-science. it's just that many of those people who are anti-science find a foothold with this argument. The budget and overspending is a major problem and those of us who are pro-science need to be in support of budget cuts, but in different places, responding with alternative cuts instead of no cuts. Those against science spending are using this real problem as leverage to accomplish their goals and the response seems to be deny/ignore the real problem so that they can't accomplish their goals of forcing ideals on society when instead we should be doing the exact same thing they're doing and finding common areas where we agree cuts have to happen. I am completely in favor of military cuts, fixing social security and medicare (the biggest cause of our financial shortcomings), ending subsidies, etc etc.

      Did I say that IP and patent offices are at the heart of our problem? I was refering more to tax laws and slanted legislation that allows the biggest to prosper while hurting the smaller businesses and preventing them from ever becoming serious competitors. You're right that special interests are trying to control this regulation, which is the real heart of much of the problem. The more regulation we pass, the more they try to control it and slant it to their advantage. Eventually we will lose and they will grab a foothold. The solution is to not pass things that allow them the foothold.

      The real culprit in all of this is central planning. The idea that a few select individuals in the capital have a better idea of what is best for this country over the rest society. The fewer people you give power to, the more chance they have to incorrectly stear the future by passing regulations and mandates which do more damage than the good that is intended. The perfect example of this is Al Gore in the 2000 election. He campaigned heavily on Ethanol. Years later he admitted he only did so to pick up votes in Iowa. The EU recently did a study that proved switching to Ethanol would have increased CO2 immisions significantly. Central planning is only successful when those in charge aren't wrong, misguided, or corrupt. I believe in the law of spontaneous order. If you spread the power out thin enough that society will ultimately choose the best option. No one individual or group of individuals should have the power to alter things in their self interest. Society may take longer to make the correct decision, but over time they do and they advance, because the parts of society that have the best decisions excel over those that don't.

  37. My take by ErichTheRed · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm the submitter, so I figured I'd reserve my comments for here so this wasn't rejected with the comment "tl; dr". :-)

    Here's how I feel -- I'm not 100% sold on the argument that everything is crashing down, but I do have some serious concerns for the future. Some of them could be easily fixable if people would just get on board, and others will take a long time and tons of investment to fix. Here's my list of issues:

    • Lack of economic diversity -- We still lead the world in manufacturing output last time I checked, but one problem is that this is mainly due to the export of big-ticket items like airplanes. Boeing only has so many jobs available for a massive population. Previous generations had a large, decently-compensated middle class and a good chunk of those people worked in domestic factories. Now, your only hope seems to be to go to college, get a degree even if you don't need one, and hopefully get a white-collar service job. Sounds great, right? What if you can't handle college? Not everyone is brilliant, but a lot of non-brilliant people in the past had a good shot at a decent wage. Bottom line: We need more work for the other half of the population who isn't cut out for knowledge work, and that work needs to pay more than minimum wage like it used to.
    • Lack of R&D spend -- The transistor and UNIX were invented at Bell Labs, AT&T's pure research arm. Larger companies may pay lip service to R&D now, but such spend rarely survives market downturns. Increasingly, even companies with large R&D operations are being pressured to focus on things that will immediately turn a profit or produce patents that the company can license. AT&T might be an outsized example -- for you kiddies, that rinky-dink cell phone provider used to have a monopoly on any kind of phone service, and set the world's telecom stanards. That gave them some serious money to play with. But companies of all sizes are cutting back funding for pure research in pursuit of short term profits.
    • Focus on short term goals and profits -- The nature of the markets and individual compensation forces companies to focus on next quarter's profits instead of the future. Tell the average board that you might possibly produce a 5-fold ROI in 4 years vs. a 2-fold guaranteed ROI next quarter, and you know what wins. This kind of thinking leads to some of the dumber things companies do, like giving up control of proprietary processes to third parties for a one-time cash hit.
    • Always-on stock markets -- Following on the last point, everyone's retirement is tied up in the markets either directly or indirectly through mutual funds. Because of this, investors demand constant rising stock prices and will not tolerate anything that could possibly impact profitability. IMO, if we returned control of the markets to companies and the ultra-rich, and had individuals a little more removed from it through pensions, annuities or other less volatile investments, companies might get slack they need to actually pour money into something that may pay off in the future. Equities markets should be reserved for billionaires to fund business ventures, not be a person's sole source of later-life income.
    • Education -- Put the anti-intellectualism debate aside for a bit; one of the reasons it exists is the poor quality of education. Taxpayers refuse to fund it, only a lucky minority of students are in good schools, and the rest are stuck. Getting students interested in something other than business or the "soft squishy" stuff is difficult when (a) you don't have a good pre-college foundation to work off of, and (b) the payoff for business and soft-squishy stuff is astronomical compared to STEM fields. I know a few science Ph.D's who went into management consulting and crank out spreadsheets and PowerPoints all day because the compensation is so much higher than staying in their field.

    So -- all we need to do is break companies' addiction to short te

    1. Re:My take by slyborg · · Score: 1

      The main problem with the short-term mentality is the structure of corporate management and financing, as John Bogle has pointed out. The 'owners' of most large corporations are passive investors. The company is controlled by top management for its own personal renumeration; essentially the enterprise works for the top dozen or so executive managers. In the current compensation system, most of their gains come about via either gross profit based bonus plans or stock price increases. Almost all of these are typically short-term, i.e. 10 years or less systems, so it is economically rational for these managers to pursue whatever strategy will best produce the highest 10 year return to themselves. Given that the compensation generally will produce permanent great wealth for these managers in that time period, the fate of the enterprise past that timeframe is irrelevant.

      I don't claim to know how you fix this, it's intrinsic to the current Western corporate structure.

    2. Re:My take by virginiajim · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised at how little mention has been made of the internet. You can raise funds for research, study any subject no matter what your age or language, access more books from more places, collaborate widely, promote any idea or concept, buy and sell practically anything. I'm 70 and listen to some 50 podcasts each week that deal with research, economics, culture, computers, medicine, politics, a foreign language, entertainment and world affairs; have to use fast playback speeds to get thru so much material. Much of it really good stuff, too. Is there any way to look at the impact this has?

    3. Re:My take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreement on most counts. However I've heard that some numbers show China having now surpassed the US in manufacturing output. Even if these are off and we are still #1, it will probably only be a few more years where that can even be argued as being the case.

      The key to America's strength is its middle class, make no mistake. We need quality, blue collar jobs in order to have a healthy middle class. When you have college graduates of any discipline working in Starbucks, you have a problem.

      We need strong R&D both in the private and military sectors to remain competitive. This means we need scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and researchers. Being scientifically minded is not seen as being "cool" to many Americans, but that's not the only problem. Why bust your ass in school working on a hard science or engineering degree only to have your potential job outsourced or be filled by an H1B, when you can make money by being part of the problem by getting your MBA?

    4. Re:My take by Torodung · · Score: 1

      Thank you so much for that wrap up. I have nearly the exact same concerns.

      Add to it:

      Profound lack of real optimistic outlook, and an unrealistic view of our current circumstances (mostly false optimism) -- Sure, we're in the worst rut since the Great Depression, but we need to put away the long knives. It seems like the outlook of everyone (not individuals, necessarily, but organizations) is to carve away the largest portion of what is presumed to be a limited resource. American industry has an outlook more akin to Mercantilism, where commerce is a zero-sum game. Workers/unions are terrified of making any sacrifice and are holding out for packages that were reasonable in a time of unprecedented growth, but hang like a millstone around the neck of everyone's prosperity in the current depression. To hell with who caused it, our various collective entities, without exception, are acting like a bunch of thieves because they are convinced that this is the last of what this nation has to offer, and that it's time to carve up the pie. Talk to individuals, and people are more optimistic. Deal with an organization, and its lawyers are already venue shopping for the most favorable court. The hell with arbitration and compromise, we're going to court or it's being decided by executive fiat.

      And the more we argue, the more ordinary commerce and negotiations break down, the more we're asking for dictatorship.

      I think it would be more productive to realize that this isn't the end, and if it is, no amount of bullying one another is going to save us. We either hang together or separately. Everyone will need to sacrifice, and we need start working with whatever good ideas we have left, when we, to paraphrase John Lovell, "Figure out what we've got on this thing that still works." Right now, America is in that broken Apollo 13 spacecraft, but amazingly most everyone is just doing the same things as if nothing is wrong with the ship, no one's worried about skipping off the atmosphere or even checking the CO2 gauge, and while we do this we're arguing about who deserves credit for the Apollo 11 mission, and whether we can afford Apollo 14. As if any of that matters if we don't get home.

      Um, hell folks, we need to get this craft back to earth. That's a fact. We should be optimistic about our future, and not optimistic about the busted up ship, and plan to survive this. Instead, we are noisily discussing whether we should eat the Commander or the CM Pilot, lacking the insight to see that cannibalism is both unnecessary and unhelpful to that aim. We need to land.

      It's go time. This is a great country. We need to work together at least until the crisis is over. At least until unemployment is single digits. This is how we got through the first Great Depression. We can get through this, but not if we keep glorifying a ship that just won't get us to the moon anymore.

      --
      Toro

    5. Re:My take by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      1. USA mostly assembles parts made in other places.

      2. Once the economy is not manufacturing, it will not be doing any real research/development - there is no pressure to out-compete anybody. Manufacturing is the key to increase in R&D spending by companies.

      3. Profit is the only real yardstick as to how your product/service is performing. If you can't generate profit then the market doesn't need you to do what you are doing. If you are arguing for gov't spending into this, sure, some gov't spending provided some positive output, but how much money is sunk into all gov't programs to get any of that positive output? Definitely the private sector does it better when there is a reason to do it (market pressure).

      4. Education in the West is done wrong. Gov't pushes its agenda and money, the education is inflating in all aspects - financial (people owe mortgages in education loans by the time they graduate from their sociology programs). There should be only market directing the need for any kind of education, any other money will only create a problem - oversupply of certain types of education and inflating prices and will produce shortage of other types of education, the kinds the market maybe needs - like apprenticeships, where young people learn trades.

      --

      I am opposed to the general sentiment among the crowds that gov't must be involved in economy. Gov't is the reason economy has gone to shit in the first place - it has an appetite for money that cannot be reduced, it never shrinks, even though it's all consumption and no production, and while other forms of consumption shrink during bad economic times, the one that doesn't is gov't.

      It does so now by destroying not only the economy, but also the monetary system, which may undo the way society operates completely.

    6. Re:My take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Education -- Put the anti-intellectualism debate aside for a bit; one of the reasons it exists is the poor quality of education. Taxpayers refuse to fund it, only a lucky minority of students are in good schools, and the rest are stuck.

      I think if primary schools was less taxpayer-funded and more parent-funded and there was a lot more competition, schools would be better. You know how windows sucks because Microsoft is (more or less) a monopoly? How do you think being a monopoly is going to affect school? Are they immune from the laws of supply and demand? The most prestigious universities in the world are US private universities; do you think that's a coincidence?

      Getting students interested in something [...]

      I can tell the problem.

      An education is not something you do to someone else, it's something you discover, design, assemble, redesign, tweak and reassemble (etc.) for yourself. Sure---it requires someone to provide you with the basics, and someone to be part of a feedback loop to keep you on course, but it's mostly (my ass says 90%) the product of the student's labor, thought and interest.

    7. Re:My take by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tl;dr

  38. R&D has a bad rap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Research and Development has for a long time been punished by bean counters. Its not sales, so its bad and needs to be cut. Manufacturing would be cut, but they can somehow make the leap that without manufacturing, you can't make sales. Research and Development is like quality control, except over the blueprints before the part is made, rather than after its made. The bean counters (this would be the GOP and everyone right of the GOP), insist that its unnecessary, and cut R&D wherever they can. You have to understand how these people operate: they aren't forward thinkers. They aren't progressive. They are entirely reactionary. Its how they operate, not just in this case, but everywhere. Its all very clubby. If someone even within their group sticks his neck out and does something different, initially he is chastised, whispers go around "what the hell is that idiot doing?", even close colleagues will pull them aside and talk to them about career limiting decisions and the need for restraint. Only when they start pulling in really big bucks, and others see that they go 'hey, give me one of those!' R&D is vital. Others are spending on it. No one buys vacuum tubes with transistors around. For decades, the GOP and the political right have taken much for granted. Education, R&D, health. Now they want to cut all of these things. 10 years before they realize how stupid a thing they have done. 50 years before catch up (if thats even possible). Americas century is over. Now its Chinas turn.

  39. Helped Canada by mevets · · Score: 1

    | Well, I'd be happy to hear how US helped Mexico and Canada.

    Well you are and endless source of amusement and really bad ideas. Without you, our smug condescension would need a new target. Don't ever change, we need you just the way you are...

    1. Re:Helped Canada by c0lo · · Score: 1

      | Well, I'd be happy to hear how US helped Mexico and Canada.

      Well you are and endless source of amusement and really bad ideas. Without you, our smug condescension would need a new target. Don't ever change, we need you just the way you are...

      Happy to serve as a target, it's at least as amusing for me as I reckon it's for you :)

      Wishing you good luck... the way I see, you'll need it.
      Your neighbor

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  40. Collapse comes to all of us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know this is slashdot where kicking America it the thing to do,

    Your post pissed me off sufficiently to make this long rant. Thank you!
    I grew up in Western Europe. I like kicking America in exactly the same sense as how you'd kick a rich fat drunk who collapsed and fell asleep outside in -20 deg. C (that's -4 deg. Fahrenheit for you Americans), so that he gets his ass into gear to save his life from hypothermia.

    Business as usual is over. Welcome to the 21st century. This is the century of transitions, of steady-state economies instead of growth economies, of humanity adapting to live from only the energy influx to our one planet that's provided by sunlight. This concept begins to dawn in most intelligent people in our world. It's just that you Americans have been so rich, so powerful, so much on top of the world, that you have lost important concepts in your vocabulary and thought-patterns:

    Sustainability is not a dirty word, it's been business as usual everywhere up until the Industrial Revolution (see Medieval demography).

    Solidarity is needed for functioning societies. When Hurricane Katrina came I followed the Slashdot discussions. You didn't even know the word.

    Economic growth is a historical trend, not a natural law

    The biblical story of the seven fat years followed by the seven meagre years (aren't there Americans still alive who lived through the Great Depression and Dust Bowl years? ask them if debt has to be paid back at some point.)

    It's either adapt *RIGHT NOW* or head for ecological overshoot. And you are unprepared. Where's your railroad infrastructure? Where's your smart electric grid? Where's your long-term nuclear waste storage, in case it becomes too expensive to build one later on in this century? Where's your functioning health-care system? (every other rich country has 'em). Those infrastructures cost a lot of time and energy to build. Your time is running out.

    You are unprepared because your politics by TV soundbites deals in trifles (gay marriage, abortion) and not in real problems (phosphate cycle, global warming, infrastructure for after Peak Oil). So does politics in many other countries, but you *are* the richest, most developed and most powerful up until now. You have set a very bad example.

    You don't listen to other countries; you have your own units system (Imperial) 100 years after everyone else except Burma has switched to metric. This points to the idea that you expect other countries to do as you, not the other way around. That's fine, but don't expect them to come helping you with advice on boring subsistence agriculture in your garden plot when you're in trouble.

    We see you lying on the ground in a stupor and freezing. But OK, if you don't want us to kick you, we won't kick you anymore: it's true that you never asked for help from anyone so we understand if you don't appreciate help now. It was nice knowing you; thanks for the old Hollywood films.

    Here's one last kick especially for you: Closing the 'Collapse Gap': the USSR was better prepared for collapse than the US by Dmitry Orlov

    1. Re:Collapse comes to all of us. by lgw · · Score: 2

      Business as usual is over. Welcome to the 21st century. This is the century of transitions, of steady-state economies instead of growth economies, of humanity adapting to live from only the energy influx to our one planet that's provided by sunlight. This concept begins to dawn in most intelligent people in our world. It's just that you Americans have been so rich, so powerful, so much on top of the world, that you have lost important concepts in your vocabulary and thought-patterns:

      Except people like you have been saying that since the dawn of time, and continue being wrong. It's not that sustainability is a dirty word, it's that technology enables growth to continue on the same resource base.

      The massive increase in world population has not caused a massive population crash due to starvation and disease, because we invented ways to grow more food on the same land, and discovered the germ theory of disease. You can see the same long-term trend for just about any resource constraint that might have limited growth - it's ignored until it actuall becomes a problem and then the problem gets solved. We're not just tool-using monkeys, we're tool-creating monkeys.

      Sure, ultimately the energy from sunlight will be some sort of limiting factor, but take America as an example: our electrical usage is about 1 Tw, the average power of sunlight hitting america (including night, clouds, etc) is about 2000 Tw. We're no where near any kind of limit. And unless we abandon the space program entirely, by the time we grow our power usage 100 fold and this starts to be an issue, we won't be limited to Earth-bound power collection for long.

      Are you really saying "you're so much more successful than me, so you need to change to do things our less-successful way"? Because that's what I'm hearing.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Collapse comes to all of us. by Captain+Hook · · Score: 1

      Except people like you have been saying that since the dawn of time, and continue being wrong.

      America has been a superpower for what, 60 years? call it 120 years if you want to count the period where it was gaining significant mindshare around the world but before it was a true super power.

      The massive increase in world population has not caused a massive population crash due to starvation and disease, because we invented ways to grow more food on the same land, and discovered the germ theory of disease.

      A population growth which has been supported by cheap fossil fuels, which provide both energy in a very convenient form for mechanization and a very handy chemical feed stock for fertilizers and pesticides.

      Any replacement we come up with not only has to provide more energy than fossil fuels do at the moment because of increasing population, but also do it without effecting the total area of agricultural land or you are going to need to push yields even higher than you would have had to do just to keep up with population growth.

      I'm not saying this is impossible, but if we get it wrong and don't find those replacement technologies and energy sources, then we are going to have to sustain a massive global population crash.

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    3. Re:Collapse comes to all of us. by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Sure, ultimately the energy from sunlight will be some sort of limiting factor, but take America as an example: our electrical usage is about 1 Tw, the average power of sunlight hitting america (including night, clouds, etc) is about 2000 Tw. We're no where near any kind of limit.

      That seems to assume humans are the only creatures on the planet, and other stuff like weather and climate don't need significant amounts of that wattage to run normally (e.g. in ways that we like).

      Then add the losses of converting the sunlight to electricity. If it's 20% efficiency you need 5TW (and 5/2000 of the area in USA) .

      So how far are you from that limit really?

      BTW if there ever was "free energy" and lots of users there would be another limit - the earth might start glowing (when seen from space) from all the waste heat (including those from cooling systems ). ;)

      --
    4. Re:Collapse comes to all of us. by lgw · · Score: 1

      Any replacement we come up with not only has to provide more energy than fossil fuels do at the moment because of increasing population, but also do it without effecting the total area of agricultural land or you are going to need to push yields even higher than you would have had to do just to keep up with population growth.

      Farmland in America has been shrinking for 50 years and the area covered by forest has grown as a result - There's plenty of land. The land area needed to transition to solar (even at the low efficiency of solar thermal) isn't a big concern, the blocking factor is simple NIMBYism, plus the people who don't want any power plant built any where for any reason. Both the social and tech problems are well within human ability to solve, but for all the predictions of doom there just aren't significant problems (in this area) affecting people's day-to-day lives yet, so there's been no real reason to change.

      Also, America's native-born poluation is shrinking - our population grows only through immigration (not that that's a bad thing).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:Collapse comes to all of us. by lgw · · Score: 1

      As I said, that 2000x available energy means we won't "run out" until we're using ~100x what we are now (and of course efficiencies will go up over time). Long before that we'd likely be putting the solar panels in outer space (PG&E was already looking at that seriously, because the NIMBYism is so bad in CA).

      BTW if there ever was "free energy" and lots of users there would be another limit - the earth might start glowing (when seen from space) from all the waste heat (including those from cooling systems ). ;)

      The laws of thermodynamics would like to have a word with you. ;)

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:Collapse comes to all of us. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You don't listen to other countries; you have your own units system (Imperial) 100 years after everyone else except Burma has switched to metric.

      Hey, you forgot about Liberia!!!

    7. Re:Collapse comes to all of us. by TheLink · · Score: 1

      BTW if there ever was "free energy" and lots of users there would be another limit - the earth might start glowing (when seen from space) from all the waste heat (including those from cooling systems ). ;)

      The laws of thermodynamics would like to have a word with you. ;)

      Earth based solar energy will never be that cheap, so it should be obvious that I was not talking about that :).

      --
  41. Market Economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No. The problem is free trade when there are extreme cost of living differentials and massive subsidies. Assuming both areas are stable, profit maximization occurs when the product is produced in the low cost of living area and sold in the high cost of living area. This funnels more money to the rich. In addition, massive subsidies take the risk out of the research and make it hard for the more efficient guy to compete. They may wipe out the very thing you are trying to create. To big to fail = no market economy.

  42. Education, Employer sentiment by Ironpoint · · Score: 1

    The obvious first problem is that American students, who have to pay tens of thousands of dollars to attend universities and stay in debt for most of their lives can't compete with students from other countries where education is subsidized or free. American students end their undergrad deeply in financial trouble and can't continue on to advanced degree programs which is why these programs are stacked with foreign nationals.

    The second problem is the preference of US tech corporations for hiring foreign nationals over US citizens. Not having an accent can be a problem when trying to get a job at a firm that is trying to put on a diverse and multinational image.

    Finally, someone came up with the idea that in the US, human beings are not supposed to expect to be able to survive. Survival is not a god-given right in American society we are told. Just because someone spent half their life learning an engineering or science discipline doesn't mean they deserve or should get an engineering or science job or any job for that matter. This is the current state of mind in the US, that employment and survival, forget about research and development, are only for the lucky.

    1. Re:Education, Employer sentiment by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Amen. I haven't found a job that will call me back even after follow ups, and I have an MS. Only 8 percent of the US population have MS's, and fewer in STEM which is what I am. Why shouldn't I be able to get hired? Im willing to work for lower than the average wage for my discipline, and I have a 3.65 GPA. I have to fucking ask my parents to borrow money to buy groceries and they aren't even rich, they are middle class. Which means they can maybe spare several hundred dollars a month without hurting themselves, but this money should be going to their retirement not some kid that can't get work. Im 27 years old for Christs sake, I shouldn't have to do this.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    2. Re:Education, Employer sentiment by mcmonkey · · Score: 1

      1) The world doesn't owe you a living, no matter how many degrees you get. If you're so smart, create a job for yourself.

      2) No one wants to hear about your GPA. If you graduated #1 in your class or with honors, that can go on your resume. After that, no one cares. #2 in your class? Congratulations, you were the first loser. (Just keeping it real.)

      3) Why are you willing to work for less than your discipline commands? (Or rather, why would you tell anyone?) You are the person most familiar with your skill level. By pricing your services at below market, you're saying, I realize my work isn't as good as the average Joe or Jane off the street.

      (And that GPA, 3.65, is nothing to brag about. If it's undergrad, it's pretty good but not great, and since you have the MS, it's old news. What have you done lately? If that's your MS-work GPA, it's not bad, but it's not good.)

      Since it sounds like you're desperate to try anything, apply to some higher level positions. And whatever you do, DO NOT talk salary until you have a written offer in hand.

      Meanwhile, if you're in the northern hemisphere and the suburbs, Spring is here. Instead of borrowing money from the folks, borrow their lawn mower. Go door to door, put up fliers around the neighborhood. You can probably get 50 bucks cash money for a couple hours of exercise and fresh air.

    3. Re:Education, Employer sentiment by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      1) I would argue differently. I am educated, my GPA is good, and I am among somewhere around 4 percent of the US population who actually have MS degrees in STEM. Im not saying I am something special, I just think I should be more employable than I apparently am. I should at least be able to beat out most candidates for a job that requires a BS. You would be surprised how many grad students have lower GPAs and actually have work teaching, tutoring, etc. I have skills in image processing, signal processing and programming which are valuable to industry, my main problem is its an applied math background so I get beat by engineers simply because they have the paper saying so, even though they are no more capable than I am OR I am at least at a point where I would be valuable on a team of engineers since I have experience in other things they don't.

      Rich assholes have ruined America from within making jobs unavailable to people that are willing to work hard. I am willing to work hard, Ive never been on social security or Medicare. I don't plan on doing so. I don't think I am owed a living, I am OWED A FUCKING JOB somewhere because I spent a lot of time educating myself while going into debt even with scholarships. I feel like I did what I was supposed to do as sold to me by the education system and politicians to get a job. If anything, thats what makes me a gullible idiot.

      Create a job for myself? Sure, with what capital? Should I go beg some rich guy to finance me? The same rich people that have 95 percent of the money and fail to create jobs time and time again whenever they are given tax breaks? I actually have a good idea for something, but I don't have the expertise yet. I would starve before I could execute it. http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110408/ts_yblog_thelookout/off-the-charts-income-gains-for-super-rich

      2) Graduating #1 out of your class literally doesn't mean shit except to pretentious asshats, or it means you are a genius which is something you are born with. It is absolutely no indication of what you learned or your capabilities. You could argue it shows you work hard, fine. I could easily graduate #1 in my class if I chose to do an MBA. I didn't because I firmly believe MBA's are worthless pile-of-shit degrees anyone can do. Its part of my principals.

      3) I never say this to potential employers. I am not an idiot. The GPA is my MS-work GPA. As an undergrad I had a 3.8.

      Im desperate because I am going to a new city for a PhD program and have no job to pay my bills. One of my recommendations was sent in late by a professor of mine in spite of me asking him repeatedly to send it in on time, and because of this I missed the priority deadline for a TA position and was beat out simply by timing. Meanwhile I have been applying to literally every single internship and research assistant position I can find. I follow up, but still cant get a damn job. At this rate I probably will have to get a job mowing lawns as you said. I used to work at horse ranches shoveling shit and building fences, and also at a machine shop where I would get my hands all sliced up, so its not that I am adverse to manual labor. Its just that I wanted to contribute to some kind of research because its my passion, and it seems like a waste of my entire education to become a manual laborer. Id be better off and more useful to society teaching high school.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    4. Re:Education, Employer sentiment by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      I'm in a similar position, BS and MS in a not-overcrowded field (geology), willing to work for peanuts, willing to move anywhere in the world. Living at home with my middle class parents, and have several thousands of dollars of debt so I can't really do anything fun with my "free time". I've submitted hundreds of applications and resumes over the past year (more than a year at this point); no call backs. I got help from my university's career center to make sure I wasn't doing anything bone-headed that was causing this, but at least according to them I'm not, and should appear as a strong candidate.

      To add insult to injury, I don't even get call-backs for retail or shitty temp jobs. I like to assume they think I'm overqualified.

      "Glad" to hear that I'm not the only one, anyway :)

      To reiterate your point: what the fuck, seriously.

    5. Re:Education, Employer sentiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think you're up for years of unappreciated work and if you can write (a difficult skill) and can work hard even when your supervisor doesn't have a good idea what you're up to anymore, consider applying for PhD scholarship position in a country where the Uni pays *you* to advance science instead of you paying for the privilege.
      You'll have to study the language seriously as well of course, since you'll have to assist courses to first-years students.
      This is what a quick googling found: http://ec.europa.eu/education/eu-usa/doc1156_en.htm see if it helps...

    6. Re:Education, Employer sentiment by Ironpoint · · Score: 1

      >1) The world doesn't owe you a living, no matter how many degrees you get. If you're so smart, create a job for yourself.

      That was my first point, that yes it does. Just as citizens owe the world to act civil, not steal or murder, the world owes citizens fairness in employment and a share of the resources of civilization in accordance with the value of that person's abilities and actions. If we are going to believe in absolutes like 'the world doesn't owe you anything' then I guess everyone should just start taking whatever they need to survive by any means necessary, right? After all, the unemployed don't owe the world anything.

    7. Re:Education, Employer sentiment by Ironpoint · · Score: 1

      PhD programs pay below the poverty line around here, and anyone qualified to enter one who is not already wealthy will have too much student debt expense to work in one.

  43. THIRD WORLD PEOPLE = THIRD WORLD COUNTRY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never mind though, let's just pretend that race has nothing to do with intelligence, while our entire country is turned into a war torn, third world cesspit. I'm sure your children will be REALLY pleased that none of you could even bring yourselves to THINK for a few minutes about what is actually happening to your country, and why.

  44. USSR wasn't "bombed back"? by Shompol · · Score: 1

    Please check your facts. Most of the European side of USSR does not have any pre-war buildings left. Not to mention 20 million war casualties and 40 million of the brightest minds executed during Stalin's repressions. True, US was never seriously touched by WW2, but USSR was occupied and bombed all the way to Moscow.

  45. i am gleefully looking forward by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    to the end of the petroleum era. rising demand (higher standards of living in india, china, brazil...) and falling supply (deeper, hard to process) means all sorts of deep assumptions change about our economies. #1: it won't make economic sense to ship cheap crap across the pacific from china anymore. we'll start making cheap crap here at home again

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  46. BS by turkeyfish · · Score: 2

    Your comments are little more than "More government is the problem" BS.

    If you really want to talk about talk about the source of budget deficits you need to look at stock-options, since they allow corporate insiders to pay tax on income at vastly lower rates, especially when coupled with insider leverage from the tax expense the rest of us get to pay for corporate tax deductions of all kinds. It isn't your government that is ripping you off, its corporate insiders who have used stock-options to largely fund their take over of government to buy politicians who spew the "government is the problem" rhetoric their by giving them even more power to set up a "government within the government"

    For example, your comments on "green energy" technology are just pure fantasy. It falsely assumes that industries competing against green energy (oil, gas, coal) are not getting any government subsidies. Perhaps your ignorance stems from your lack of familiarity with the US tax code. Do you pay at a roughly 35% rate or are you one of those who fills out the hundreds of special forms providing you with an 15% tax on the preponderance of your income that derives from stock options, which are taxes as capital gains, than can be further reduced in some cases to zero, by special deductions for "rolling stock", "ethanol and gasoline additive credits", "coal-gasification" credits, etc. [or add your favorite corporate tax-giveaway here], which amount to roughly 5T$ per year and not available to the average taxpayer.

    I won't even bother to address your canard with respect to STEM education, since you don't seem to understand that training and education and "innovation" are not entirely separable activities, and even much less so in STEM, where you can't even understand the issues unless you have been sufficiently educated (trained).

    To put it another way, you have been had by watching too much Fox News and being fooled by those pundits, who, to use your expression, have been "busy pissing in your pocket".

  47. Out of the ashes... by Greguar · · Score: 1

    If the top-heavy international finance economy centered in the US collapses, all of the necessary factors will be in place to quickly reinvent the US as a new economic superpower. There are many good reasons why the US is the wealthiest country on the planet in spite of its mistakes, and those reasons will survive any potential economic collapse.

    You have a large and educated workforce. (And any recent undermining of the education system can be easily reversed.)
    You have a well-developed nation-wide transportation infrastructure. (Maybe a little light on rail, but just look at Canada for comparison and it looks fantastic.)
    You have vast tracts of rich agricultural land and substantial areas of year-round growing seasons.
    You have immense mineral wealth, including a very good supply of rare earth elements and nuclear fuels.

    If things continue to decline, and in a period of turmoil the old way cracks apart and topples, it seems likely that a new paradigm could develop that focuses on long-term economic health rather than short term gains to share value or dividend of stocks, one that is inclusive of the working class and even more favorable to the innovative class. If that happens, the turnaround will be awe-inspiring.

    1. Re:Out of the ashes... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I don't buy it. To have a country that is prosperous with all those resources, you have to have decent leadership. In a democratic country, that requires a populace that is able to elect decent leadership. We can't, and we don't.

      For comparison, look at Mexico. That's another country that's utterly rich in resources: great for agriculture (in fact, we buy a lot of Mexican produce here in the US), lots of mineral and oil wealth, and thousands of miles of amazing shoreline that's ripe for tourism. So are they a prosperous country? No, exactly the opposite: it's actually a failed state, though no one wants to admit it, and the violence that goes on there every day is worse than just about anywhere in the world. It's all because of bad leadership, and a populace that is unwilling to put good leadership into place.

      Our (USA's) willingness to elect decent leadership has pretty much evaporated in the last 30-40 years due to many factors, and I don't see that turning around in my lifetime, even if the entire economy collapses and hyperinflation ensues. You have two major segments of society: one group thinks we need to spend our entire GDP on the military so it can run around the world starting wars and enriching a few select corporations, that we need to demonize homosexuals and put them in concentration or reeducation camps, and that we need to erect a theocratic government. The other group thinks we need to open our borders, give out giant welfare checks to anyone who doesn't want to work, give special privileges to certain people in society, and again spend most of our GDP on the military (did you see Obama advocating cutting the Pentagon budget? Nope. And all his supporters continue to back him up, even though he doesn't look much different from Bush).

      In short, this country is fucked. Will it turn around? No, not before utter disaster. That's the way it is in every human society: you have to have a collapse before you can rebuild and do things differently. It's just like how they say alcoholics have to "hit rock bottom" before they can recover. Look at western Europe: it's very nice now, but 70 years ago it was a total mess. So America might be able to recover after its inevitable collapse, but I don't really feel like sticking around for a half-century or more for it to turn into a nice place; I could be on my deathbed by then. Personally, I plan to get the hell out. Canada, Australia, and Europe are all looking like good candidates. The taxes might be higher, but with US currently rapidly devaluing, I'll still come out ahead, plus I won't have to live in a war zone.

    2. Re:Out of the ashes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing only one small point -- if the top-heavy international finance economy collapses, the "You have" part of a large part of your statements may no longer apply. The US government will end up with an under-educated workforce and no money to re-educate, with a transportation infrastructure that is left unmanaged, with the juiciest parts sold off to people asking for exorbitant tolls, with agricultural land that produces bio-ethanol or some other chemical for a foreign oil/drug cartel, and the mineral wealth auctioned by that last GS deal to several oil dictators, who remained rich during the collapse because they had good financial advisers, straight from the US department of Treasure. There will be no Robocop to help, but telescreens 1984-style, because from what we see on Slashdot, the police is not investing in the "future of law enforcement", but rather in monitoring and recording.

      The funniest part will be that a large chunk of the gun-trotting, laissez-faire new-poor that such a collapse will undoubtedly generate will be all in favor for such a sell-off after a fairly low-power brainwashing of the kind we've seen about Iraq, social security and what not.

      The chance of reinvention has gone very, very low in the past three decades.

    3. Re:Out of the ashes... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      And any recent undermining of the education system can be easily reversed

      You've got people who can barely read and write graduating highschool. Some of them go on to not just be teachers, but to teach teachers.

      I'm not sure it's as easy as you think.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  48. Solutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fix education: more math, no creationism, no tree hugging, get rid of bad teachers, separate retards and other useless students from the productive.
    Kill the lawyers.
    And other serious attitude shifts.

  49. look at the work place by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

    Seems Dilbert and The Office are the most accurate description of how American business really works. Fortunately for us, there are still many workplaces that aren't dysfunctional, or which have engineers who manage to accomplish things in spite of bad management. Education has its problems, but there, I never saw anything as bad as the problems at the work place. I've wondered if it's just me, perhaps I've been unlucky, or haven't been careful enough about accepting certain job offers and then finding out I shouldn't have. I've asked everyone I could what their work experiences have been like, and most have said more than half their job experiences were dysfunctional. Whatever laments we have over the lack of quality of STEM education, management education has got to be much worse. What kind of fool management shoves their best people into closets, out of personal and totally unjustified dislike or fear, perhaps only for being too smart? Tries to treat their employees as slaves, with heavy micromanagement and surveillance, believing people are naturally lazy slackers and must be forced to work? Thinks putting up a front of competence is the most important thing to do, denying there are problems, rather than actually being competent? Lacks the imagination to envision what is really important, and grasp what is a total waste of everyone's time? Gotta love being told your thoughts and ideas are not wanted and are all wrong anyway, then ordered to spend weeks or months on a worthless project only to have it cancelled... and then they try to blame you for it! Employment seems like it's Revenge of the Incompetent.

    And why is it like this? One reason is the pressure. We're straining to improve our already very fat standard of living on a static base. This is a recipe for angst. Another is that the meritocracy seemingly stops at the management level. Our leadership is crap. Our corporations are positively medieval in their governance. As if it isn't hard enough to perform to the level necessary to justify the relatively hefty compensation our engineers earn, we have incompetent, thieving management making life harder while upping the requirements because their far larger compensation packages and blunders must be paid for somehow.

    --
    Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
  50. Metrics and their relation to tech. innovation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you define innovation and what metrics are good indicators of an innovative country? I haven't seen any convincing arguments tying any particular metric to "innovation". Most of these metrics are about funding. Spending money == innovation. In fact, if we are spending less money on these thing and the margins as well market share are increasing for goods and services sold, I'd say that's a *good* sign. Most of these articles seem like self-interested pleading for funding rather than any serious attempt to understand innovation in America.

  51. We'd be happy if you'd answer this question mevet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are you so stupid?

  52. The great American Inferiority Complex by istartedi · · Score: 1

    I think if you look back at history, you'll see that from time-to-time America has gone through inferiority complexes in one way or another.

    I seem to recall that fairly early on, we were envious of the academic establishments and music of Europe. Result? Smithsonian, classical composers emerged.

    The one that is within some of our lifetimes is Sputnik. Boy, did that light a fire under our asses. We jumped all the way to the Moon.

    I see this as one of the benefits of an open society. We can engage in collective handwringing over our failures, and we're the better for it.

    Learning Mandarin? I saw this in the 80s. Our highschool added Japanese. How'd that work out?

    The American inferiority complex is healthy. That doesn't mean we should ignore it, quite the contrary. We should listen to it. I see parallels between our present day and the Progressive era of the turn of the 20th century. Back then, corporate influence was also an issue. We tackled it then, and we can tackle it today. The way we handle it probably won't look the same; but we have the capability of handling it.

    America. Even our inferiorty complex is great. :)

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:The great American Inferiority Complex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's always more safe to expect the worse and hope for the best. That way, you wont set yourself up for disappointment and be caught off-guard at the same time. So yes, I embrace my inferiority complex thank-you-very-much.

  53. A Product of Policy by hoppo · · Score: 1

    Plateaus in innovation are natural. People aged 25-40 are your drivers of innovation. On a macro scale, the more brain power you put toward solving problems, the more innovation will result.

    We have to look at what public policy has done to our ability to innovate. We've all but squashed our own entrepreneurial spirit through a variety of taxes, regulations, and attempts at social engineering. As control over industry goes up, only the big fish can survive. Corporate tax rates are obscene, and put small businesses at a real disadvantage. Taxes cut into a business' margins so drastically that the only way to make a business viable, outside of cheating on your taxes, is to operate on such an enormous scale that you make up for your margins in volume. Advantage: mega-corporations. With a quasi-monopoly, a company no longer is required to innovate its practices or its products. They can just keep selling the same cheap crap, because nobody can overcome the barriers to entry in order to mount a reasonable challenge.

    Also, consider that we currently have a lot of brains engaged in solving non-technical problems. GE, for example, has a staff of 970 tax attorneys, whose sole charter is to optimize their tax bill by utilizing overseas tax shelters and the like. That represents a lot of powerful brain cycles effectively being flushed down the toilet.

    Certainly there are still a great number of entrepreneurs out there, and companies like Apple are defying the trend of tech innovation. However, we should realize they are outliers, last vestiges of a bygone era, and not representative of the future. The first step to changing course is to identify policies that may be stifling us, and alter them.

  54. percent manufacturing, job training by __aazsst3756 · · Score: 1

    This is a very broad subject but two things stand out in my mind, the percent of economy that represents manufacturing, and secondly that society has a system to highly train everyone for a skilled job in the workforce.

    Germany has kept its manufacturing base at 24% of its economy, while the US has slowly slid to 11%. Today they have the second best trade ratio behind only China. Some believe this is mainly due to having primarily mid size family owned businesses that are stakeholders, instead of corporations.

    In the US getting skilled education past high school is getting very expensive, going up much faster than inflation. There is not a solid system for skilled technical or vocational training like other (mainly European) countries.

    How do you correct these 2 problems?

  55. Agreed, 110%, & outsourcing tech jobs? PROBLEM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The wealthy have killed off the middle class. A strong middle class is what made America great." - by Hatta (162192) on Thursday April 14, @11:53AM (#35818590)

    AGREED, 110%... because ONE CANNOT BUY GOODS & SEVICES produced/supplied (that are beyond just rent/mortgage, food, & utilities) IF YOU ARE ONLY GETTING A HAND-TO-MOUTH MINIMUM WAGE JOB!

    I.E.-> You need "disposable income" (extra money above & beyond the necessities noted above) for an "economy" to fluorish... to take your girl out to dinner & movies, to buy that new PC or Stereo (or car, or HOUSE even)... from an honest day's work & wage to match it.

    Funny (not) how these "economic geniuses" have "overlooked that" (conveniently, & at the bidding of their TRUE "masters" - those who hold 90% of this nations' wealth now (10% of the population is this)).

    It's why Alan Greenspan quit I imagine - this is EASILY fixable too: Just "tax & penalize away" the profit gains outsourcers make! They'll stop... because the economic incentive (massive profit on the most easily controlled thing there is, costs wise, in business - payrolls!)

    Of course/also, you'll NEVER see the "suits" taking pay cuts though... lol!

    (& yes, they are HUGE profits those suits make on outsourcing! E.G. - I had a pal doing that, costing CableVision $150/hr. here in the USA, but paying russian coders he knew to do the job, albeit ONLY AT $5 per HOUR! See the "profit motive" here? It is HUGE!)

    Tremendous profit, & no: It's not getting "sent back to the public" via "trickle-down economics" (what a load of SHIT - the rich ARE RICH, because they're stingy/scrooges - anyone KNOWS that, just common-sense!).

    Now, lastly? You'd *THINK* these suits would NOT let that happen... but, they don't care about the "USA", because they "dump dollars" on euros & yuan etc. instead, & hell with the United States.

    APK

    P.S.=> "Good Government" USED to be on OUR SIDE... & it was THE ONLY THING CONTROLLING THE "ENRON CLIQUE" that's seized control of this nation & is ruining it... not anymore! apk

  56. Quit attacking teachers by istartedi · · Score: 1

    "Quit attacking teachers". That's the soundbite you always get back. It's BS of course; but it can be effective.

    When you attack the unions, you are NOT attacking teachers. The union system is corrupt. It promotes based on seniority, not performance. It protects everybody once they obtain tenure, even if they don't deserve protection. They serve to siphon off public money into the Democratic Party.

    You're not attacking teachers. You're attacking a system under which many human beings become corrupt, because the system rewards laziness and corruption.

    Unfortunately, that logic doesn't condense into a sound bite. "The union is not the teacher"? It just doesn't have quite the same panache as "quit attacking teachers".

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:Quit attacking teachers by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Well sorta. In the same way that attacking the trucker's union doesn't directly affect the truckers or attacking the steelworker's union doesn't directly affect the steelworkers.

      Unions help raise the pay for their field. Go ahead, argue that one.

      Now, I'll admit that if a union gets too powerful, the leadership and organization can be just as bad and corrupt as business leaders and corporations. It's a balance. But if you are fundamentally against unions, then you have issues or you have no sense of history.

    2. Re:Quit attacking teachers by istartedi · · Score: 2

      If you buy into the notion that the union is a good agent for the workers, then I can see your PoV.

      Unions temporarily raised pay for some fields--as long as you weren't on strike. Then the jobs shifted to other states, and other countries.

      I'm not opposed to unions as a matter of principal; but I see them as version 1.0 of a solution to the tension between labor and capital.

      I'm not unaware of history either. I certainly don't want to carry us back to the 19th century laissez-faire.

      OTOH, the Progressive movement of the 20th century got us things like the 8 hour workday and minimum wage. Everybody has these--whether they pay dues or not.

      In other words, Rah Rah! for the workers. Unions? Meh.

      It will be interesting to see what historians have to say about the unions and Free Trade 100 years from now. At the time of NAFTA, unions were actually divided. This probably has something to do with the union association with international socialist and labor movements. Some of them actually saw Free Trade as an opportunity to expand US-style labor rights to the 3rd world. Guess what happened instead?

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    3. Re:Quit attacking teachers by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Aye, some jobs did shift over borders. But the only way to compete with that is to lower our standard of living, and that's not really a good alternative.
      And some jobs simply can't be off-shored. Specifically teachers, since that is the topic at hand. (In theory you could have some sort of crazy teleconference teacher with a uneducated goon to keep order, but that's kinda out there.) So that argument doesn't exactly work in this case.

      As for the 8 hour day and minimum wage for everybody, that's not exactly universal. A LOT of people work more then 8 hours, and thankfully most get paid overtime for it. Some don't. That's the joy of being "exempt". And there are still those not paid the minimal wage: Waitresses and people conned into commission jobs come to mind, but there's also weird exceptions like dock workers. Which includes all DHL truckers by some loophole reason. And the minimum wage regularly undergoes political attack. So these are things that the unions got us, but are still not universal or guaranteed for the near future.
      And thank god that those union pensions are still around. Oh wait.

      It will indeed be interesting what the future brings. I'm also interested in what you would see as the next version after unions. What's the alternative?

    4. Re:Quit attacking teachers by arth1 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that you can't objectively measure who's a good and bad teacher within the year they're teaching -- the results show up much later. Which is why tenure is important.
      The imposition of "accountability" that started with Mrs. Reagan and continued with the two Bushes has hurt education, not helped it, because now it's all about getting as many of your kids to pass tests as possible; not actually learn how to think.
      That's what dumbs down the American educational system, and the right-wing union-phobic voters and politicians have to take the blame.

    5. Re:Quit attacking teachers by istartedi · · Score: 2

      What's the alternative?

      1. A Labor Party that represents workers whether they pay dues or not. 2. More Progressive planks in the Democratic Party platform, and polticians that won't rip those planks out of the floor everytime a Republican threatens to whip them with a wet noodle.

      Both of these would be superior because they would be applied fairly to all workers, regardless of whether or not they were paying dues.

      To note, we've done a lot of mixing of apples and oranges here. The discussion started with public employees, and then expanded to unions in general. Public employee unions are, IMHO, a special case. I don't like them as a matter of principal because they put the union too close to the government.

      Fascism is the merger of corporations and state. Communism is the merger of unions and state.

      This is one of those discussions that would (provided we could both stay civil) be a lot easier to hash out in person. You don't sound like a raging left-wing idealogue and I bet we could stay civil. I've dealt with some Leftists who literally froth at the mouth when you dare to suggest that unions aren't the greatest thing since sliced bread. You're not one of those guys; but I've got to cut this short because there's just too much typing already...

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    6. Re:Quit attacking teachers by istartedi · · Score: 1

      If the results show up "much later", then getting rid of tenure is imporant.

      The b0rken accountability to which you refer is the result of a foolish compromise with Democrats. Real accountability involves parental feedback, management evaluation, and a wide lattitude of judgement.. The Democrats+unions never would have tolerated that, so we got stuck with the testing to which you refer.

      Performance based acceptance is the norm in private industry. Managers must cite causes, and lawsuits do arise; but for the most part It works pretty well. I heard one time (via a manager) talk of a co-workers in another office being fired for cause (day-trading on the job). Just try firing a tenured teacher who spends half the class day-trading on their iPad. See how far you get

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    7. Re:Quit attacking teachers by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Well I do make an honest effort to stay sane. You seem pretty level headed yourself. If you're ever going through the Midwest, give me a ping and we can argue over beers.
      heckruler83 over on yahoo

      Ah yes, elected officials that represent our interests. I had forgotten they can do that. One problem that seems to come up is that if you get someone who is adamant on a subject against bargaining, political bullying, and lobbying money tend to be the ones foaming at the mouth.

  57. Fix the patent system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why innovate when the reward for inventing something interesting is being sued into oblivion?

  58. Perhaps it is a zero-sum game? by waibati · · Score: 1

    Or, our standard of living could decline towards that of the third-world countries we're shipping our jobs to, until they meet - and then others will continue upwards and us down, due to momentum.

    1. Re:Perhaps it is a zero-sum game? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Yep and destroying the social safety nets we've created are a *great* way to head for 3rd world status.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    2. Re:Perhaps it is a zero-sum game? by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      One could argue that having social safety nets that are woefully ineffective and serve only to drive the country deep into debt is another great way to achieve 3rd world status. I'll never understand the love affair with SS/Medicare -- I know of no program that isn't a poorer example of bang-for-buck than those, and people embrace them like its no tomorrow.

    3. Re:Perhaps it is a zero-sum game? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      It expressly isn't meant to be 'bang-for-buck' competitive. Because it does things that the private sector does not. Like cover *everyone* - *no matter what*.

      If we had privatized social security and then had the recession...what would you do about those people who lost the bulk of their savings? I'll be waiting intently for an answer to this...

      Medicare and the VA are heads and tails more efficient than private medical insurance. Why? Because they don't have profits and salaries of executives running to $20 million or have to pay $2 billion fines for defrauding the government. Kinda hard for a government program to defraud itself.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
  59. Re:James Goldsmith tried to tell you this years ag by mbkennel · · Score: 1

    Sure you do. They just live somewhere else, and they're getting rich very quickly---great customers! Since they're a growth market, the companies have to hire more there to get local talent and undrerstanding, and of course rightsize the US cost structure.

    I mean, who cares about the Equatorial Guinea market?

  60. Envy? Really? by Kohath · · Score: 1

    Why do you think the key to greatness is class envy?

  61. revolutions by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Revolutions happen when the masses realize they got nothing left to lose.

    Revolutions are needed when stagnation is getting out of control.

    The US has stagnated.

    The masses do not yet realize they got nothing to lose.

    Therefor: This same decline has been in process for a long time. Like when Japan took over as power economy from the USA. China is just Japan squared.

    Is the US doomed? Hardly but it don't matter how slow a ship is sinking. If you don't bail, the sinking will happen. A ship taking on water isn't doomed but a ship that takes on a drop of water a day will eventually sinkif nothing is done.

    And the US is doing NOTHING.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  62. Re:James Goldsmith tried to tell you this years ag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes. But as the head of the company you'll be rich beyond measure and can afford to close up shop and move their operation anywhere you want in the world. Then you can stripmine a new market that will pay 5% less for a product without asking questions about where it is coming from, what the employees are being paid, or whether they are working almost as slaves in some third-world country with lax labor and human rights laws. Worst case, you come back to the original country once it's poor enough, and start all over again with a new cheap labor market to sell to whatever decent, middle-class markets might be left in the world.

    It's a win all around for the top managers. The only downside is that they'll probably have to build a wall around their mansion to keep the riff-raff out, and maybe send their kids to private school.

  63. Life *begins* at 40, kiddo by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    I have my name on nine patents, five of which I got *after* turning 40. Just sayin'

  64. Moving after Mandarin language class? Nah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would do you as much good moving there as it does good to the hindi-speakers who get discriminated when trying to get a job legally here. And they already speak the language fluently, though somewhat obsfuscated. Regardless, your accent and skin color would stand out to the Chinese as much as Americans can spot them here easily

  65. Inappropriate metrics by or-switch · · Score: 1

    I took offense at the idea that the US is cracking because other countries are moving towards knowledge-based and green economies and infrastructures faster than the US did. Umm, the US did it first, and did it well, and then SHOWED other people how to do it (you can't open an iPad factory and not expect people to learn something about technology, design, manufacturing, marketing, etc.). Also, the US will be slower to change to a green infrastructure because we already HAD an infrastructure. It's well and good for China to say their new roads are made with green concrete when the US already has 8.5 million miles of roadway in place. It would be environmentally irresonsible to tear it all up and replace with greener options since it's already there. I get that appropriate metrics are hard to use, but come on....

  66. Re:James Goldsmith tried to tell you this years ag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quite prophetic indeed. He saw it back then.

  67. David Duke, is that you? by imric · · Score: 1

    Hint: It ain't race. It's health that has a giant effect on intelligence. With an economy being sold off piecemeal for the benefit of the most wealthy, no-one but them will be able to afford healthcare. Without healthcare, why, many, many more people will be just like you!

    --
    Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
    1. Re:David Duke, is that you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well argued. Not.

      Like I said, it's OBVIOUSLY about race. The races are different. What are the chances that they would be the same, having to survive in totally different environments? (I take it you realise that Europe used to be all WHITE just 60 years ago? And for millenia before that.)

      I see that you couldn't actually negate anything I said.

      You are essentially saying that no white people should have freedom of association - i.e. the freedom to live with who THEY want to, and to NOT have to be forced, by their governments, to live with people who are clearly ruining their lives, and taking over their countries.

      Any comments?

    2. Re:David Duke, is that you? by imric · · Score: 1

      Yup, David.

      You made the claim with no basis, as an assertion. Now I have to prove you wrong? As if an AC spouting racism should be considered an authority on anything? So prove your extraordinary assertion with extraordinary and unassailable data. Show that any links to education or intelligence in the third world is based on genetics and NOT levels of health, as _I_ asserted. Used independent and verifiable data.

      Uh huh.

      Didn't think so.

      --
      Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
  68. Rip offs by crookery & cliques != superior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    See subject. The rich are doing all kinds of crap (enron & banking fraud + more) and we all know it. This nations heading towards a revolution because the dumb ass rich forgot one thing: People talk and spread know how to one another and the internet only makes it more possible to enlighten others by its usage for spreading truth. So, Mr. Bailout Banker (whom we taxpayers paid out the monies for your b.s. without OUR unanimous consent but put in place by your politicians you coerce via monies/lobbying bribes or even blackmail or worse doesn't fool us for a second)? You can eat shit and die.

    The controllers always throughout all history tried to keep reading and writing, the presses, better education, and media to themselves, this is why. Any invading conqueror does the same as well.

    Do you think your crap here, really fools anyone?

    Clue - Cheating and robbing others blind and using an entire network "clique" to do so? Not superior by any means. It's more inferior and the lowest of the LOW... and, all done, just to keep the poor down and unable to fight back (like you need monies for in courts to bring suit on libelers for example).

  69. Full of Sound and Fury by meehawl · · Score: 1

    It still has the most effective military on the planet.

    An effective military is one that achieves political goals. By this standard, the US military has failed. It has not created a stable, democratic and unitary Iraqi State. It has not created "pacified" Afghanistan and enforced central authority.

    It's possible that the most "effective" military is one that does not actually have to be used, but where the appearance of potential strength dissuades enemies from implementing action. In the late-1990s, and before the Bush II-era adventures into the Middle East and near-Asia, there was a lot of posturing about how a newer, leaner US military could intervene at relatively low financial cost using dramatically lower force numbers to implement rapid and enduring alterations in international balances of power and within States. The reality of the stalemate/withdrawal from Iraq and the escalating spread of the Afghan brushfire conflict into neighbouring States despite very high financial, materiel and troop costs has significantly weakened the global perception of the US military. Just as the Soviet military was considered quite effective *before* its Afghan quagmire...

    --

    Da Blog
  70. Er... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Members of the once-large middle class became wealthy by taking money away from others. Most of those others were other middle-class members. Thus they were pushed down into the lower class.

    Since wealth-accumulation is the primary incentive that drives any capitalistic economy, we should expect that this will always happen.

  71. please open both eyes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've enjoyed all the posts until this one on this forum thread. This is a vague political post at best that adds no value IMHO.

  72. tl by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

    Reading os for fags and dweebs. Isn't there like a podcast or video or something?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  73. Stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Investment in city-wide WiFi networks is a fiscal failure. Low-skill jobs are also no indication of innovation. If we want to move manufacturing back into the US, the answer is simple--force the Chinese government to stop undervaluing the yuan so badly, and prevent labor unions from pricing low-skill jobs far out of proportion to their actual value and making it impossible to fire bad employees. Companies would come flooding back to the US because the tiny gain in staying in China wouldn't be worth it anymore. That's why manufacturing is actually growing in a number of Southern states now. But none of that has anything to do with actual innovation.

    And, BTW, STEM fields pay very well in the US. My DH is making better than a doctor, with better hours--he's making enough that as soon as the kids are out of the house, I'm going back for a comp sci degree to join him. "Soft" business pays very badly. "Hard" business can pay well or not, depending on what job you get. The issue with education IS NOT LACK OF FUNDS, and only idiots claim that it is. We pay more for our education in the US than any other country. We don't need fancy schools or huge football stadiums to have excellent education. If you give me a portable building and 15 students from K to 4th grade of average ability, I could guarantee that every single one would be in the top 5% if not 2% of the nation in every subject at graduation. If you gave me the per-student national average, I'd even pay for the portable out of my regular income, and after books, supplies, and everything else, I'd still be making more than $130k a year. It's just not that hard to teach kids well. The problem is that the modern educational philosophies that our schools are based on are bankrupt. What we need are students who learn real history and real science, who read substantial amounts of literature, who are taught rhetoric, who are expected to understand arithmetic and memorize their basic facts. These requirements might sound facile, but there's not one school in 20 that actually does this.

  74. THIS IS EXACTLY HOW (to IS/IT/MIS folks in USA) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2084004&cid=35820064

    Take a read. I've been there & SEEN exactly how it's done, to my own section of the "working class/proletariat/bourgeousie" in this nation, specifically from the IS/MIS/IT sector... & stopping it?

    IT Would be easy, & I illustrate how in that link above, where I went off about it...

    That's typically been done in the past (an example is tarriffs & such on trade goods where the gov't. protects industry HERE in the states) by government "stepping in" acting as a "referee", more-or-less... & lord knows, they certainly do that to the working class (Ronald Reagan vs. the Air Traffic Controllers' union ring a bell?)!

    YES - It'd be SIMPLE TO STOP outsourcing/offshoring of labor for information tech workers by taxing away & penalizing the OUTRAGEOUS PROFITS MADE on it (because payroll IS the easiest single cost center to control is why)... & I show an EXACT illustration of that in that URL above, from experience no less & first hand watching CROOKERY like it happen (& "Trickle Down Economics"? More Reagan-Era ripoff the middle class BULLSHIT!)

    See, give the 'working class' disposable income, beyond "hand-to-mouth" jobs? You get a HEALTHY economy!

    (Because without it, & monies being spent? The wealthy KNOW that they cannot be fought against (legally that is, until revolutions startup & no "economy" is possible either, not a healthy one that grows & excels)).

    Yup, except for we KNOW who "owns" the politicians in this nation (lobbyist blackmailers & bribers, anyone?)

    APK

    P.S.=> I've seen, the past 5-7 yrs. now in fact, pals of mine in the IT/IS/MIS trade lose their homes due to offshoring/outsourcing of jobs... I have held onto MY home, but it's not been easy! You create poverty on the part of the working class, perhaps WORST of all? KNIVES start flying, out of desperation, in the workplace... because of the "atmosphere of fear" created... fear for your livelyhood, & thus, the well-being of your FAMILY! apk

  75. There is no more "up" to go by erice · · Score: 1

    US/UK/French/German workers are best placed doing skilled work. The average western worker is more skilled than the average developing world worker. So they can earn more, and create/produce more, than others.

    It is the simple theory of comparative advantage.

    The policy implication is that western economies should focus on moving as many people as possible into (highly) skilled employment. Complaining about the fact that they can't compete with unskilled labour is just pissing in the wind.

    You're a couple of decades behind. The low skill manufacturing jobs are long gone, along with the high skill expertise involved with running these factories. Now the knowledge worker jobs are being shipped overseas. These were the jobs that smart people were supposed to get into to save them from the inevitable loss of manufacturing. Where do we go now? There's no more "up".

    Localized services are a "circle the drain" idea. You may be able to skim off enough of the wealth that remains to temporarily keep yourself out of the hole but nothing you do even reduces the flow. Somebody still has to produce exportable goods and services to offset the imported things you buy.

  76. What about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like the REAL Soultion is an ethical one actually. I know buisness owners who fight tooth and nail to remain honest and local. Who value and advoctae for their employess instead of crying about taxes or competition with places where they don't allow bathroom breaks or unions. These are Business leaders who don't need to make 300x their next entry level employee to feel like they have self worth. Its a shameful sham how pople who espouse a love for a Free Market run to China the first chance they get.

  77. Midrange products and Innovation by geek2k5 · · Score: 1

    Another option would be to promote midrange products and how they can ultimately save money. If a pair of jeans costs forty dollars but lasts three times as long as a pair of twenty dollar jeans, you save money despite the bigger front end expense.

    Unfortunately, the WalMart mentality has created a situation where you have cheap stuff and extremely expensive stuff, with little if any middle ground.

    Of course, another option would be for innovation to take over. Let's say that the innovation fostered by a group like MAKE magazine encourages people to go into limited run manufacturing. It is done in garages and neighborhood production centers, so shipping and handling is minimized. If the manufacturing equipment is flexible enough, you can produce a lot of different things that are high quality AND customized. You may pay more for the jeans, but they will be a perfect fit AND they will be the colors you want.

  78. Re:Envy? Really? by lennier · · Score: 1

    Why do you think the key to greatness is class envy?

    Because "envy" is what criminals call their victim's desire for justice, and no nation can be great without first being just.

    --
    You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  79. Corn Hole by plastick · · Score: 1

    Because the government is bending the citizens over and giving them forced vaccinations where the sun doesn't shine.

    And while our pants are down, they grab our wallets.

  80. Re:Envy? Really? by Kohath · · Score: 1

    And by "justice", you specifically mean stealing from people you envy.

  81. Re:We'd be happy if you'd answer this question mev by mevets · · Score: 1

    If I knew the answer to that, I suppose I wouldn't be. Don't you think ? You should.

  82. Why listen to a troll like YOU? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because you startup crap with your betters in the art and science of computing here http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2080454&cid=35795562 first, for no reason, and then you get BLOWN AWAY for it like you did here:

    http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2080454&cid=35796230

    Where you shut up & ran, like the trolling worm you clearly, are!

    Big talker you are... but have YOU done anything outstanding noted by others in anything related to written publications, commercially sold software, books, magazines on computing (respected ones for decades in some cases) & tech shows, articles, softwares, & far more, & in this field?

    Probably not is my guess. but, you sure "Talk BIG" about people that have done better than you, including Jobs here!

    You, & "your kind"? LMAO - You're ALL TALK, armchair QB's!

    (Please - do us all a huge favor, & shut up already, "ne'er-do-well". You're the voice of the "underachieving nobody" after all - because NO ONE saw you put up having done more than the person you trolled there in & about computing (where you trolled 1st, off topic etc.), and you shut up and ran like the turkey noob you are).

    1. Re:Why listen to a troll like YOU? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um...what do you do? Just follow this guy from thread to thread and insult him? This was unnecessary.

    2. Re:Why listen to a troll like YOU? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems hoggoth followed that guy to this thread here first starting hassles http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2080454&cid=35795562 and got himself blown away for it here publicly with proofs to the contrary versus his trolling http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2080454&cid=35796230 served him right for trolling others and instigating trouble, but most of all, because he not only did that but he started it. How could you not understand that? Unless you're hoggoth trying to defend himself by posting as anonymous coward, like I am, to avoid hoggoth trolling me for no reason as he did that ac.

    3. Re:Why listen to a troll like YOU? by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      Neat. I've never had a stalker before.
      TimeCube much, APK?

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
  83. No, you provided evidence of the question's answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2080454&cid=35795420

    And you were blown away for it, & on your "trolling ballcourt" off-topic topic - others liked his writing style, goof! 100's of others in fact vs. your noob wannabe PhD in English (not) ass.

    Guess you are stupid then. Thank you for answering the question indirectly, by letting me see your post history, and evidence of your trolling off topic stupidity.

    That does the job, more than adequately.

  84. Christianity and Stock Options by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

    > Ironically, the republican party has instead chosen to give up on Christianity rather than eliminating stock options.

    I... what? :)

    Stock options are one form of pay. There have been massive loopholes in the taxes regulating them that companies have used to defraud the public. Sometimes those loopholes are closed and sometimes the companies are fined heavily for that.

    Paying people in stock options is actually a *good* idea if it's done right, because it incentivizes them to work for the best long-term interests of the company rather than the best near-quarter results. The problem is the tax structure around them, and around other forms of income, that allows for loopholes. Because the tax code is usually interpreted close to literally, and because it is highly technical, people get away with a lot.

    The republicans actually tried to simplify the tax code a number of years ago--Dole ran on that platform. But politically, it didn't go anywhere. Policy and politics, sadly, are often disjoint. (To be fair, I do not know the details of the plan--but I remember it was a large element of their platform.)

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
  85. Re:No, you provided evidence of the question's ans by mevets · · Score: 1

    Oh man, you are so cool. You must be just naturally talented and popular. I am so jealous.

  86. The dumbing down by dfuess · · Score: 1

    That's what I called it 10 years ago when I was trying to hire engineers for projects at a National Laboratory, the dumbing down. Perhaps 1 in 5 were competent. Most could do nothing without a computer to do it for them. Sad really, and a little scary because these were supposed to be the cream of the crop. They blamed each other for failures and were completely unable to diagnose complex systems. Now that others have recognised the trend perhaps something can be done about it. But given that the problem stems from our colleges and universities and programs that focus their energies on the worst performers (like no child left behind that in effect leaves all children behind) I have little hope of a reversal without a complete repudiation of the misguided government controlled education agenda.

  87. Parable of the broken window by RewriteQuran · · Score: 0

    Break all multi-billion dollar companies into smaller entities.
    Millions of new jobs will be created due to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabl...e_broken_window

    --
    Govt must constitute a panel to rewrite US Constitution and Quran
  88. USA . Is the goal profit or Tech by Kuruk · · Score: 1

    Really its now invent, patent and profit. You cant say the USA is short on profit.

    If the country shifted goals to racing ahead on tech, I am sure they would still do very well at it.

    In the end it comes down to what you want.

  89. "U Got 'P L A Y E D'" (U played yourself) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's this? 200++:1 odds of others thoughts and opinions from this forums vs. your mere no PHD in English trolling goof's "unprofessional opinion"?

    No. "Say it ain't so":

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2080454&cid=35795420

    But... it is!

    Right up there in black & white. U? "U Got 'P L A Y E D!'", & you only played yourself by trolling others first for no reason.

    I mean, who are YOU, anyhow, as far as telling anyone how to write and most importantly, if you are outnumbered here by 200 to 1 odds against you from some of the people here which is one of the most highly literate and rated forums out there there is, with the largest crowd registered (many are multiusername trolls though) of which that crowd's members said quite otherwise, vs. your "opinions" (thinly veiled word for your trolling)?

    Even IF you had a PHD in English for Pete's sake, because in case you hadn't noticed? The topic was not about that. There is also no such forums here, for that either.

    Above all else, if you had a PHD in English, you should be able to understand words within the framework of the context wherein they are used, and "catch the drift", not henpeck - it's not a class for a grade in academia here, not a job thing, not a legal document we write here. Get it?

    So, gee, after that? Well, do You know what THAT, makes YOU? A troll. The lowest of the low. End of story.

  90. I find it amusing how well you read posts now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for being someone who complained of his writing. Seeing you get shot down on your own trolling premise for attack was funny. I have to say it. When 200 others say the reverse of what you have here and got shot down in flames on mevets, lol http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2080454&cid=35795420 where other slashdotters have rated his posts highly says his posts are definitely legible, and also quite the reverse of what you stated trolling there for no good reason. So much for that versus 200 others, troll. Shooting yourself down in flames on the most viewed forums there is on the planet? Priceless.

  91. For those of you left that can read. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America's Tech Decline: a Reading Guide
    (For those of you left that can read.)

  92. old joke... by mevets · · Score: 1

    A guy sits down at the bar, and orders a drink. As soon as the bar tender serves him, this little guy appears, runs down the guys arm, kicks over his drink, and runs back up and hides.

    This goes on for several drinks, before the bartender asks "whats up with that weird little guy?"

    The guy says he released a genie from a bottle, and for his 3 wishes asked for millions of dollars, a garage full of Porsches and a 12" prick.

  93. How do you know the counterfactual? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you know what would have happened, had there not been interventionism? How do you know what the invisible hand would have done at that particular time and place?

    I ask, because what you want to compare is [1945-2011 with interventionism] to [1945-2011 without interventionism] to see whether interventionism was really the cause of wealth. How do you do that when you can only observe one?

    By resorting to evidence-backed theory? That all says you would have even more wealth without interventionism.

    What's the methodology here?

  94. Re: US angst over education by NickGnome · · Score: 1
    The USA has always exhibited excessive angst over education.

    Back in the early 1800s, a bunch of Boston busybodies were all in a dither about the numbers of children running about playing instead of being cooped up in schools. They feared that we were turning out generations of ignorant illiterates, so they commissioned a survey... and found that only a tiny percentage (less than 5%) of children had not completed grammar school (where English and usually either Greek or Latin vocabulary and grammar and a modicum of math were learned; they were also called "classical schools") roughly equivalent in most ways to having completed junior college, today.

    In northern Virginia a little earlier, a former indentured servant who had become quite successful bequeathed his fortune to set up and operate schools in what, by that time, had become 2 counties. Those funds allowed the schools to be constructed and operated until after the Civil War.

    In back-woods PA in the early 1700s, a fellow named William Tennant set up a crude log-cabin school, with very high standards; though at first it was ridiculed for its rude quarters. He inspired others, including the graduates, of course. Some of them founded other colleges and academies, the graduates of which became presidents of Princeton, and founders of Hampden-Sidney and numerous other colleges. This cluster of scholars was inter-connected with the Scottish Enlightenment.

    The USA still has the best universities in the world.

    OTOH, there are many problems. There's a definite impression that university executives and sports coaches are a little excessively remunerated for the work they do. (They don't seem to work nearly as industriously as Witherspoon did to build and improve Princeton, for instance, and yet are paid far more.) Life in academia is, well, weird. In a way, it's highly sheltered from the need to produce what those outside value. So long as the politicians are willing to extort from the public and direct considerable sums to academia, they don't worry so much about monthly, quarterly, and annual sales; academicians just keep coming back to demand another few billion, regardless of how the general public is doing financially and what the average person can afford. And yet, Americans, including politicians, value education so highly that they tend to just keep on upping the appropriations and grants.

    Of course, most US universities were historically shoe-string operations, where the more advanced students taught the newer, and students at every level worked in the labs and even university vegetable gardens and dairies and such to keep things going. Now, they're using/abusing a lot more adjuncts and and other temps, keeping grad students in multiple post-docs before they can land real jobs, holding down on the numbers of tenured posts, and that's all of a piece with the F, H-1B, J and L visa abuse.

    We've always been ambivalent about tenure, too. It's actually a relatively recent innovation in US universities, though they'd like you to believe it's been part of universities since the classical Greek academies, and the Muslim academies of the 9th century. OT1H, it gives academic freedom to follow research where it leads and protection from political winds. OTOH, it allows bad profs to become entrenched and abuse their posts to spread propaganda to relatively defenseless students who must go along to get their credentials.

    But, to shift gears back to the topic of "fairness", the issue is not just whether flooding US job markets with cheap, pliant labor which has not passed a background investigation to help ensure they're not criminally inclined.

    The big issue with these visas is the many forms of fraud surrounding the system: fraudulent credentials (though measures have been reluctantly taken which have slowly reduced that), and the "best and brightest" fraud when in reality there are no substantial standards, the "talent shortage" fraud when we've been producing nearly 3 times as many capable US citizen STEM workers than have been employed to do STEM work, and the "Americans are inadequate" when even a former cross-border bodyshopper admits that "by every measure" "American engineers are the best".

  95. Y R U so stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Y R U so stupid?

  96. Y R U so stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Y R U so stupid??

  97. Why do you troll others on slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do you troll others on slashdot?

  98. We need both. by RewriteQuran · · Score: 0

    Capitalism = Promoting race to the top
    Socialism = Preventing race to the bottom

    We need both.

    --
    Govt must constitute a panel to rewrite US Constitution and Quran