Slashdot Mirror
Intel 335 Series SSD Equipped With 20-nm NAND
crookedvulture writes "The next generation of NAND has arrived. Intel's latest 335 Series SSD sports 20-nm flash chips that are 29% smaller than the previous, 25-nm generation. The NAND features a new planar cell structure with a floating, high-k/metal gate stack, a first for the flash industry. This cell structure purportedly helps the 20-nm NAND overcome cell-to-cell interference, allowing it to offer the same performance and reliability characteristics of the 25-nm stuff. The performance numbers back up that assertion, with the 335 Series matching other drives based on the same SandForce controller silicon. The 335 Series may end up costing less than the competition, though; Intel has set the suggested retail price at an aggressive $184 for the 240GB drive, which works out to just 77 cents per gigabyte."
Maybe we won't need so much of that rare earth stuff anymore. I still find it amazing that a hard drive with all that monkey motion going on inside is any cheaper than these SSDs.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I'm a bit surprised that Intel seems to have abandoned doing their controllers in-house(which they did for some of their early entries in the SSD market, back when there was some...um... extremely variable quality available. *cough* JMicron *cough*). Does SandForce have some juicy patents that make it impossible for Intel to economically match/exceed them even with superior process muscle? Has building competent flash controller chips now been commodified enough that Intel doesn't want to waste their time? Did some Intel project go sour and force them to go 3rd party?
20 is 20% smaller than 25.
25nm - ( 20% * 25nm) = 20nm
Whatever your feelings are about Intel's products, this product is cheaper than a similar product 1 year or 2 years ago, it's better, it's faster, it's less power hungry, it has more capacity.
Clearly the investment into the original batch of SSDs paid off and Intel was able to use the profits it made on them to invest into better technology. That is economics (as I said, some call it 'trickle down' economics), but really all real economics is 'trickle down' economics. The more profitable a company becomes, the more it can invest into its products and the lower the prices will be eventually, because more profits brings in more competition.
MY OTHER COMMENTS
that you know more about electronics than economics, or anything having to do with the real world. I'd like to think tha tyou are an idiot savant and not just an ordinary idiot.
Wow... This is both offtopic and wrong...
This is the most *interesting* example of 'trickle down economics' that I have ever seen.
its not even cheaper, its average
so having an average price to what everyone else is charging is trickle down economics? not to mention intel was a bit late to the starting gate on SSD's
Just wondering: Is there a point (or is this close to it) where in using HDDs and certain RAID configurations, you can match or beat speed while maintaining better redundancy with larger capacity, cheaper drives? What is the main application these excel at? I assume power would be one, and cached content on webservers? Help me understand :-)
while they might have just got the price & performance to the same point as everyone else, they have far exceeded everyone in quality for a long time.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
It is not cheaper than Intel's offers from 1 and 2 years ago?
Actually 3 years ago I bought a couple of X-25Ms, 160GB, they were 639USD each.
This one is 240GB at 180USD.
That is not cheaper? Obviously it is 'trickle down' or normal economics, that's how it works. A company sees profits from its product, works on the product more to sell it to a wider market, more people get the product at lower prices.
I see a company giving me a better offer in a positive light, so why are you so upset? You don't like better cheaper deals?
MY OTHER COMMENTS
There's 2 dimensions in play on a chip.
Still not sure where the 29% comes from since the square dimensions would be 36% smaller, but perhaps they've spaced the cells a bit apart for some reason.
This is an example of what is known as 'trickle down economics' in action, which means that the more productive a company becomes (by getting profits from its current sales and re-investing the profits into the business, creating more efficiencies, new technologies) the lower it can set the prices accessing bigger and bigger markets.
Those who are poor (compared to Intel for example, because they do not have their own factories to produces these SSDs) are gaining from the rich (Intel investors) and see their lives improve (if they need and buy this product at the lower prices).
That is what all economics is, not a centrally planned economy, aiming at equal outcomes for different people and thus destroying the society by creating discrimination, which requires destruction of individual freedoms. But this is just normal economics (some call it 'trickle down') in action. A company searching for more profit investing its profits and creating new products that end up improving people's lives, and it's done with only the free market feed back loop, signalling the company that it is on the right track with its products.
Umm.. No, that's not what trickle down economics is. Instead, what you've described is simply capitalism actually working -- in a quest to find more revenue a firm is providing supply to customers at lower prices by improving efficiency via R&D.
Trickle-down economics (effectively -- but not exactly -- a pejorative term for supply-side economics) is the idea that a dollar given to those at the top of the socio-economic food chain will be redistributed down through the economy benefiting rather than being horded. It is used contrast against the "classic" or Keynesian view which is that the same dollar given to someone at the bottom will immediately be spent and will therefore work it's way across and up the socio-economic ladder benefiting all. A simple thought exercise which should make you question the validity of that idea:
Give $10 to a bum on the street (or Rush Limbaugh): ...
You -> Bum (Rush) -> Crack dealer -> Liquor store -> Liquor Distributor + Gun shop -> Liquor Distiller + UPS + Gun factory -> Farmer + Gas Station + Steel Factory ->
Give $10 to Bill Gates:
You -> Bill Gates -> Nothing
That $10 did not impact Bill's participation in the economy one bit. Bill will buy what he was going to buy before he got the $10. Hell, he could have simply used it to light up a palette of Androids and iPhones to heat his chalet.
Of course, this is grossly oversimplifying the debate, but it highlights why the majority of real economists are not supply-siders. Do yourself a favor and research this on your own before you buy into whatever nonsense you've been hearing (including mine, I suppose) and please try to stop spreading it yourself.
Last I heard, failure rate was directly tied to process size. Does any of this fix that?
Also: Sandforce controller? Way to go, Intel - Sandforce is a bucket of fail:
https://www.google.com/search?q=sandforce+freeze
and:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SandForce#Issues
and more...
Please help metamoderate.
"Capitalism simply working" has been turned into pejorative 'trickle-down' economics in the West. Probably you should take your own advice and do research on this topic, start with wiki, why not.
Awesome, so now we're down to what, nine erasures before it's cooked?
And without Intel, they have been going down in price steadily. Intel does more to form barriers (patents for things obvious to those skilled in the art, allowed because they are magic to those not skilled in the art), and anti-competitive practices, and only after years of losing share to the "poor" do they try to re assert their dominance to kill the poor and take their spoils.
Learn to love Alaska
As long as the hardware can provably outlast a spinning HDD, I'd be more than happy.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Are there any examples of these obvious Intel patents?
That's because capitalism doesn't work. No place has tried it. And it leads to runs on tulips.
Learn to love Alaska
My experience with Sandforce based Intel SSD's was rubbish. Bought a SSD 330 120GB, constant freezing. Sent it back, got a replacement - still freezing. The seller gave me a free 'upgrade' to a SSD 520 120GB as an apology for the trouble. Guess what? Still freezing all the time. Got a refund, went and bought a Samsung SSD 830 128GB (based on Samsung's own controller), and is as solid as a rock - might not be as speedy, but it was £20 less and actually *works*.
If I remember correctly, Intel is using their own firmware on the SandForce controller. So an Intel SSD will still be different then those from their competitors.
"god your stupid" by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 29, @10:54PM (#41813597)
See subject and look into using "you're", as in YOU ARE (stupid).
I know you said your example was grossly simplified, but it's also simplified to the point of misrepresentation. Rich people don't just let their money sit there. If they did, they'd become less rich through inflation. The hypothetical Bill Gates sequence runs more like this:
You -> Bill Gates -> Investment Manager -> Expanding Business -> Employee -> Supermarket + Landlord + Gas Station -> Farmer + Logistics Company + Oil Company -> ...
Now, whether that actually benefits low socio-economic groups is another question, but the rich don't generally just sit on their cash.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
I think the point is that a hypothetical billionaire given more money will not change his behaviour perceptibly. Give Bill G an extra $10 and sure he'll probably invest it but that will not significantly flow back into the economy. He won't go "Oh this $10 is just what I was waiting for to enable me to buy the latest Devo CD" - If Bill wants something he's already bought it. Also, an extra $10 when you have $1Bn under management is not going to increase anybody's fees.
The same $10 given to someone with next to nothing will be immediately spent (not necessarily wisely) but it will be spent. The money will then circulate as described in the grandparent.
Trickle down economics is - quite simply - hogwash, designed to fool stupid people into voting for politicians that take money off of them and give it to the very wealthy who pay for the politicians. Simply put, if you earn less than $250,000/year (possibly more) and you vote for the current incarnation of the republicans you are acting against your best interests. It wasn't always so but it has been ever since Reagan.
Give Bill G an extra $10 and sure he'll probably invest it but that will not significantly flow back into the economy
What do you think investing is, if not flowing back into the economy? "Significantly" is a meaningless qualification, unless you'd care to define it further.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Now that is a troll.
As opposed to all the other times, when /. moderators mode something as a troll, they clearly do not understand the concept of what a troll is, which is clear now, since this one is not moderated accordingly.
Why is it a troll? Because it is contrary to the most obvious fact that there were and there are and there will be plenty of people who use their own savings (capital and private property) to start a business by arranging scarce resources (by managing capital, land an labor) in order to achieve profit by providing customers with some product or service that they would pay for voluntarily.
It is obvious that the above poster understands and knows this simple fact, yet he chooses to post a comment that is contrary to the facts, that is what a legitimate troll comment looks like.
MY OTHER COMMENTS
This is ridiculous! Intel previously had a flash memory division, which made their famous StrataFlash, which they later spun off into a separate company called Numonyx (which was a merger of their and STM's flash memory division) which even later got acquired by Micron. In other words, Intel exited the flash market b'cos they were dragging down their margins.
In that context, I'm just not getting why Intel is making any flash - be it NAND flash or NOR flash. First of all, memory fabs are somewhat different from logic fabs, where the equipment is more geared towards highly array-efficient chips. Then doing their latest processes, w/ the latest wafer sizes - in this case, the 18" wafers - means that they would be using the latest and most advanced equipment, implying that their costs here would be real high. I understand that they'd want to drive volume and are therefore planning to put a fab or more out like this just to crank out an unlimited #NAND chips, which can then go into drives. Doing enough of that would help them accelarate the depreciation of equipment and the fab, but it's not like they would then be able to use them to make say, the next Atom.
On the controllers, since there are a number of companies that make ATA controllers, it would just be a matter of Intel fabbing it for them and buying what it needed for the agreed-upon margins. Incidentally, I know Intel has world class fabs and all that, but do they do their own assembly & test as well?
Which is why I'm not getting their strategy here. The only thing that seems to make sense - that after the ww shortage in hard drives due to the Thailand floods, they've decided not to leave the supply of an essential part of computers to the likes of WD or Seagate. Otherwise, there are a lot of PC parts that Intel does not touch b'cos it just doesn't make sense to do it. SSDs are not much different.
Serious users should insist on SSD with a battery or super capacitor. If not, then you might lose data in internal caches in an unclean shutdown.
Unlike the Intel 320 series, I can't find anywhere whether the 335 series has backup power, so I strongly assume that it doesn't.
True indeed.
So, tax the people at the top and give this to the people at the bottom or give them jobs which will benefit society (building new roads, picking up litter etc.) and the rest should be encouraged to use their savings to promote new business.
The people at the top get hammered with extra tax but stimulating the economy should increase should trickle-up to their high value business ventures.
This economics thing is a breeze!
You've fallen for the fallacy that when rich people have money, they invest it, and all investment leads to more economic activity. Unfortunately, it's not true. Real investment that creates wealth only happens when there's enough demand for the wealth created.
Clearly you are too obtuse to comprehend written words.
Well, if your conclusion is that the productive people need to be taxed more to give unproductive people more money to spend, then clearly "this economic thing" is not a breeze. How do you derive your conclusion?
The people at the top spend only as much as they need out of their earnings, the rest is obviously invested. By taxing them you do not take away from their spending, that would make no sense for them, they will keep their spending at the same exact level as they need. You tax their investments. There is such a thing as 'economy of scale', so when you remove money from investments that are used by economies of scale, you reduce economic activity much more than if in fact you taxed somebody who is in a much lower bracket, where the productivity is much less efficient.
Note, that I am not advocating for any income taxes at all, AFAIC there is no more destructive tax than income tax. If somebody wanted to come up with a tax, on purpose, that would hurt economy in the most profound way, they could not have designed a tax more insidious than an income tax for this purpose.
Building new roads, picking up litter, all of this is good for the economy that has enough excess capacity that it can waste it, because that's a wasted effort. It is only marginally better than offensive wars, because while effort is wasted in either case, at least when people pick up trash there is less trash laying around. However neither of those activities (trash, wars, roads) improves the balance of trade.
It does not matter how much trash is picked up. Unless your importers are happy to be paid in trash that you pick up, this trash (and the fact that it is picked up) only does one thing: it requires reduction in real economic activity (via taxes) and requires the money, that otherwise can be spent on real economic activity (productive activity) to be given to people who are at that point not part of the legitimate economy.
Actually that is where there is the true multiplier effect (not the nonsense that the Keynesians like to talk about). The productive investments are reduced, to there is less economic activity. The people are moved into the public sector, so government grows and all the activities grow that depend on the taxes. The people are moved from the productive private sector into the public sector, so that there are fewer resources in the private sector, this may have an effect of raising prices in an inefficient manner. The people are paid money from the taxes and end up buying goods produced elsewhere, thus the trade imbalance grows bigger rather than getting smaller.
What you call 'stimulating economy' in fact is the exact opposite, it's chocking the economy. That's the reason the economy is where it is in the first place. This economics thing is a breeze.
MY OTHER COMMENTS
"thanks English professor, no one gives a shit" by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 30, @12:30AM (#41814201)
See subject and your downmod (others cared too). Quit being so stupid.
However neither of those activities (trash, wars, roads) improves the balance of trade.
This sounds like a bad joke.
Roads and other public infrastructure are the cornerstone of any modern economy. If you think this stuff is wasteful then you should invest your money in those blossoming third world economies where much less money has been wasted in this way.
Military spending is wasteful and terrible for sure, but it is also the way in which the US created and subsidized its emerging tech industry by funneling tons of tax payer money into it.
As for trash. I'm sure everyone just having his trash and sewage lying to rot in the streets wouldn't harm the economy by making people sick in ways we haven't experienced since the middle ages.
The problem with giving money to Bill Gates is that the people immediately downstream of him take large cuts of the cash for basically moving paper around. At least if you give it to the bum more of that cash ends up in a larger number of people's pockets, instead of just being creamed off by a few and spent on big luxury items that only generate employment for small numbers of people.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You've fallen for the fallacy that when rich people have money, they invest it, and all investment leads to more economic activity. Unfortunately, it's not true. Real investment that creates wealth only happens when there's enough demand for the wealth created.
When there is not enough demand for the wealth, the cost of that wealth is reduced until there is demand for it.
A bank is not going to just sit on a pile of money, they will re-loan that money even if they only get a small return on it because a small return is better than no return. That would be called 'lowering interest rates'.
(not counting the roughly 10% that the feds require banks to keep on-hand)
Rich people don't just let their money sit there.
Yes they do.
The New York Times estimates that there is between 20 to 30 trillion dollars stashed in the Cayman Islands.
Apple's 80 billion dollar warchest isn't doing anything. Bill and Melinda Gates are using a bit of their money, but most of it is sitting around hedging against fear of want, same as the money of most super-wealthy. They don't feel safe unless they have a big pile of money/gold/property/ locked up somewhere.
"Trickle Down" is a lie. And it is clearly a lie. The economy isn't as screwed up as it is for no reason, and it's certainly not because of the behavior of people with nothing.
Is this a breakthrough? No. 29% is nice, but it's not like they found a whole new revolutionary way of doing it.
Is there some controversy, like someone claimed in the past that they could never get more than 10% better and Intel broke through the barrier? No (or if it is, Slashdot doesn't seem to have heard of it).
Does having them get this much better make them useful for applications they weren't useful before, or make them affordable to a whole new range of customers? Not really.
Is it at least a nice round number like "SSDs are now 100 times faster than when they were invented"? No.
This is either an ad, or a fan who's so rabid that he basically makes his own ads. What next, if they went up to 35%, 40%, and 45% would we see three more articles? Would shrinking to 18mm produce yet another article, and going down to 72 cents yet another? I mean, 40% is at least as newsworthy as 29% (which is to say, not at all), right?
Actually your example is incorrect, here is how it really goes:
1. Savings are generated by underconsumption.
2. Savings are used to invest and start (or expand) a business.
3. Expansion of business through investment leads to more productivity (SSDs for example, after all this is the story about SSDs and I can relate to it rather than to Bill Gates, I don't buy MS stuff).
4. Expensive SSDs hit the market.
5. Early adopters and businesses buy (maybe, or they do not, then the business loses the investment).
6. If there are sales, the company takes the money as both, a return and as a proof of a valid business mode. The money is invested into more tech and management and sales, more efficiencies are found, prices can be taken down to access wider markets.
7. Cheaper SSDs eventually hit the market (like in this story).
That's the REAL path of the trickle down, the other path is actually a side effect of the first path.
Here it is:
1. Money is invested, business generates revenue and profits.
2. People are hired, salaries are paid.
3. Gov't racket also gets its cut.
--
MY OTHER COMMENTS
"Capitalism simply working" has been turned into pejorative 'trickle-down' economics in the West. Probably you should take your own advice and do research on this topic, start with wiki, why not.
Late to the party on this, but the wikipedia entry you link to makes no assertion that trickle-down is in anyway the new term for capitalism. The closest it comes is 'Today, "trickle-down economics" is most closely identified with the economic policies known as Reaganomics or laissez-faire.' which still doesn't say what you say it says.
It's a marginal utility issue. The marginal utility of $10 to Bill Gates is significantly less than to a bum. Because the marginal utility is less, neither Bill Gates nor his investment managers will expend much effort putting it to the most efficient use in terms of overall social welfare.
The bum will spend the $10 on booze, which will immediately and significantly increases his welfare, and on down the through the low-wage sector it will go. Overall social welfare is much better off.
The investment angle is a red herring. That $10 will soon end up in a bank, and banks are the principal investors. Capitalism doesn't require the super wealthy for capital so much as it needs them to add a certain amount of unpredictability, which is necessary for evolutionary change. That unpredictability is ipso facto inefficient, however, in terms of the present state of the world.
Actually your example is incorrect, here is how it really goes:
1. Savings are generated by underconsumption.
2. Savings are used to invest and start (or expand) a business.
3. Expansion of business through investment leads to more productivity (SSDs for example, after all this is the story about SSDs and I can relate to it rather than to Bill Gates, I don't buy MS stuff).
4. Expensive SSDs hit the market.
5. Early adopters and businesses buy (maybe, or they do not, then the business loses the investment).
6. If there are sales, the company takes the money as both, a return and as a proof of a valid business mode. The money is invested into more tech and management and sales, more efficiencies are found, prices can be taken down to access wider markets.
7. Cheaper SSDs eventually hit the market (like in this story).
That's the REAL path of the trickle down, the other path is actually a side effect of the first path.
Here it is:
1. Money is invested, business generates revenue and profits.
2. People are hired, salaries are paid.
3. Gov't racket also gets its cut.
--
Your example is valid except the bit where you call it "trickle down." You've given an example of financial markets assisting in the creation of efficiencies, however, there is no requirement stated that the savings used for expansion be acquired from the wealthy. Trickle-down specifically identifies a target segment of the population to receive benefit with the assumption that they will be the most likely to "share" that benefit throughout the economy as a whole.
From wikipedia: '"Trickle-down economics" and "the trickle-down theory" are terms in United States politics to refer to the idea that tax breaks or other economic benefits provided by government to businesses and the wealthy will benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy as a whole.'
If you want to make the argument that lower taxes, no taxes, flat taxes or whatever taxes benefit the economy more than "lower taxes for all (except those guys up there)" then that's fine -- I would agree with you and Ron Paul*. Just don't use the wrong term for it. If you really do think those that make the most money should be able to put more of it in their money bin before expanding the cuts to everyone else, then you need to explain why their savings are more magically useful economically than the savings *and* economic activity of the other 320 million people.
* though, I like PBS, so let's end medicaid, medicare, BushCare Part D and social security first and see how that goes, shall we?
EXACTLY. Deserves upmodding.
The average Joe can't afford to stash his money. He needs it to pay the bills.
Well, if your conclusion is that the productive people need to be taxed more to give unproductive people more money to spend, then clearly "this economic thing" is not a breeze.
By definition, only the rich can be "productive" so taxing the rich and giving it to the poor makes for more people that can be "productive" increasing the overall productivity.
Note, that I am not advocating for any income taxes at all, AFAIC there is no more destructive tax than income tax.
So you think a "wealth tax" would be more fair and less destructive?
Learn to love Alaska
You absolutely cannot increase productivity by reducing productivity in the bigger economy of scale. You can't take money from a company that produces wealth (yes, products are wealth) and then use that money to pay for various campaign contributions, road building and WTF governments do, that is not productive use of resources, otherwise the free market would be doing it.
Taking money from a company that, for example builds SSDs and spreading that money among 'the poor' does not increase productivity, it only steals from the SSD company. TWICE.
First time it steals from the SSD company when the taxes are taken, the second time it steals from the SSD company when the money that the SSD company CREATED is used to buy their own products.
Actually that's the reason why the Chinese are still not able to buy their own products, because their government does precisely that: it buys US dollars and to do it the gov't prints renminbi. The US dollars are then used to buy US treasuries (not so much anymore, but they are holding them and are still rolling them over). This is the money that China GIVES to USA. Of-course the Chinese products go to USA as well, so the Chinese people are not actually trading, they are accumulating IOUs from USA, they will never be able to cash them in.
With the corporate and income taxes it's a similar situation: the money that the company makes (company creates money by creating wealth, money is just a convenient representation of wealth, without wealth money has no meaning, so without products created by companies, money has no meaning and no value, so the paper is not money) that money that company makes is taken away from the company by gov't by force (threat of violence).
So the company has less money to invest (the people who have less money to invest, will still spend the same, but they will invest less), so company cannot increase its efficiencies as much. Then that same money comes back to the company washed through the gov't and people who did not work for that money.
You think this INCREASES productivity? This STEALS productivity. Any time a person gets some money he didn't work for (in a free market, not gov't, all gov't workers are by definition on welfare even if they have to show up in gov't offices for their 'jobs'), that person uses that money to buy something that was made by a company that was taxed to give this person that money. Any time that happens there is a real multiplier effect of economic destruction.
That person didn't have to work to earn the money, so he didn't add any wealth to the economy, but he is extracting the wealth to spend it, not to produce anything.
Productivity is not in spending, it's not in consuming something, productivity is in producing, creating, manufacturing. Consumption is a trivial consequence of production, not the other way around, consumers do not produce, they are not building factories and products, they are not creating better SSDs or cheaper TVs or whatever. They will be lucky if a company creates an expensive one and the people who are wealthier buy those things (like the first expensive SSDs), so that eventually companies have enough investment to make more efficient production lines and better tech, so that the prices can come down and now the poorer people can get the product.
And yes, actually 'wealth tax' would be less destructive than income tax, it's still a terrible tax, but at least it doesn't tax PRODUCTION, it taxes whatever is allocated for consumption. So an individual could AVOID a wealth tax on all of his investments, while he would probably be taxed on all of the money he allocates for his consumption.
Yes, if the wealth tax only hits CONSUMPTION (if the rich are taxed on the consumption side and not on the investment side), then its hugely less destructive.
MY OTHER COMMENTS
You can't take money from a company that produces wealth (yes, products are wealth) and then use that money to pay for various campaign contributions, road building and WTF governments do, that is not productive use of resources, otherwise the free market would be doing it.
So if a private company builds a prison, and charges the government $10,000,000 a year to run it, that's "wealth", but if the government does it and runs it for $5,000,000 per year, that's waste and draining wealth? I just don't get how a road is "wealth" if paid for with private funds (my driveway, a store parking lot) and not "wealth" if built by the government (the road from my drive to the store).
Learn to love Alaska
So if a private company builds a prison, and charges the government $10,000,000 a year to run it, that's "wealth",
- another strawman.
A private company builds a prison, there shouldn't be any government money in it. That's because the criminal and court systems either should be completely public or completely private and obviously the 'completely public' route is the wrong one.
but if the government does it and runs it for $5,000,000 per year, that's waste and draining wealth?
- yes. BTW, USA has more prisoners than all European countries combined. This has something to do with the government being completely on the wrong side of things.
Drug war. These two words should make you stop this line of thinking, because that's something that you cannot defend, it's indefensible.
I just don't get how a road is "wealth" if paid for with private funds (my driveway, a store parking lot) and not "wealth" if built by the government (the road from my drive to the store).
- I understand that you do not. Here, I talked about it long ago.
But here is the point: private sector only does things that increase efficiency, government doesn't build roads for that purpose, it builds roads whether they can be profitable or not, because nobody in government has his personal money in it and is not expecting a return.
If it was left up to the private sector, then the only roads that would be built, would be those that make sense. There wouldn't be roads for the sake of roads or for the sake of government power (H1).
There wouldn't be the urban sprawl, the inefficient, subsidized, environmentally damaging, economically unsound sprawl of houses into the wide areas, the suburbia.
Instead it would be much more concentrated living, people would have to pay a serious premium to live in a suburbia, because it would be up to the corporation that would build it for them to make it all work with profits in it, including the infrastructure.
MY OTHER COMMENTS
That's because the criminal and court systems either should be completely public or completely private and obviously the 'completely public' route is the wrong one.
Nope, the completely public route is the right one. Any empire worth a damn has complete control over its criminal and court system. This ensures the empire stays in power, at least, stays in power for long enough for the ruling class to run off with the money.
- yes. BTW, USA has more prisoners than all European countries combined. This has something to do with the government being completely on the wrong side of things.
No, government is completely on the right side: the side that's not behind bars, lol.
But here is the point: private sector only does things that increase efficiency
Yes, the private sector is stupid like that. They could be doing things for more than just efficiency. They could be doing things to further their own power, but they don't. So as far as I'm concerned, they're suckers.
government doesn't build roads for that purpose, it builds roads whether they can be profitable or not, because nobody in government has his personal money in it and is not expecting a return.
No, government builds roads only profit - profit for the government themselves. Sure it's not their personal money, which just makes it better: every cent they take in is pure profit since it's somebody else's money
If it was left up to the private sector, then the only roads that would be built, would be those that make sense. There wouldn't be roads for the sake of roads or for the sake of government power (H1).
Nonsense. The roads built by government make perfect sense. See, power is a good thing to have. Thus, building roads for the sake of getting power is good, and makes sense.
Ask yourself: would you like to have more power, or less power? You'd be stupid to want less power. Only altruistic hippies don't want more power.
There wouldn't be the urban sprawl, the inefficient, subsidized, environmentally damaging, economically unsound sprawl of houses into the wide areas, the suburbia.
So what? The politicians are making tons money (again, since it's none of their money, every cent they take in is pure profit). That's all that matters: personal profit. They don't care, nor should they care, nor are they obligated to care, about your altruistic moral guilt trips on how other people or "the economy" or "the environment" are hurt by their actions.
If what they're doing is so horrible, the market would have driven them out. Nobody would have listened to their ideas or give them their money. They would either starve or stop doing what they're doing. But obviously, they're still getting rich and powerful doing what they're doing. So clearly what they're doing is worth doing, and they'll keep doing it.
Until it becomes unprofitable, they'll keep doing it.
Instead it would be much more concentrated living, people would have to pay a serious premium to live in a suburbia, because it would be up to the corporation that would build it for them to make it all work with profits in it, including the infrastructure.
Listen to what you're saying. You're saying things will be more expensive. That's a horrible thing to have. It's the opposite of what Americans have been brought up to know about free market capitalism (that it lowers prices and everybody's standard of living will improve)
So it's no wonder Americans do whatever it takes to avoid the scenario you're presenting.
Your views on economics and how you think the world works are not only wrong, they are scary, laughably bad. Please don't vote.
Drug war. These two words should make you stop this line of thinking, because that's something that you cannot defend, it's indefensible.
Yes, the War on Drugs, declared by the big-government party, the Republicans, is a horrible thing. I've never said anything that could be construed as supportive of it. I think you are trying to change the subject because you realize I caught you in an inconsistency when the government and private industry can own the same thing, and you declare the one you like "wealth" and the other "wealth-less theft" or whatever.
I understand that you do not. Here [slashdot.org], I talked about it long ago.
Nevermind. You don't answer questions. You are a chat bot. You take questions and comments, and generate an unrelated pre-set reply. Your argument is apparently "roads aren't wealth because they are built by taxes, and taxes are theft." You said:
products are wealth
But apparently, once someone steals a chair, it's no longer "wealth" Odd that something which happens years after manufacture would materially change the definition of the item itself. It is also not unnoticed that you don't ever define it in terms of ownership. Capitalism is where capital (the economic definition of capital) is held privately. Socialism is where the government owns the capital. Fascism is where the government owns the capital. In the US, "ownership" is defined by "controlling interest" And from that definition, the corporations own the government, thus, the government controls the capital. So, is the US socialist or fascist? And, isn't that the natural end of all democracies? The rich spend trillions convincing the poor that
1) They have it good (please don't revolt)
2)They have power (they get to vote in every election, even if the only two choices are selected by the elite)
3) What's good for the rich is good for the poor (trickle-down voodoo economics).
The reason being that the capitalists are more interested in their piece of the pie than a working system. I do believe a Free Market economy would be better than any tried before, but it's impossible. Perhaps the problem is that I'm too realistic and so select practical choices based impractical and unrealistic ideology, rather than slavishly cling to ideology that's been proven wrong in the real world millions of times.
Learn to love Alaska