"Republicans in particular seem to want to live in a fantasy world."
Hahahaha!
Listen, I'd be the last to deny that Rebublicans live in a fantasy world, okay? But if you honestly think that they live in MORE of a fantasy world than Democrats, then you are living in more of a fantasy world that either.
Democrats think money grows on trees. Our current fiscal situation is absolute proof of that. You can't blame the Republicans, that's ridiculous. Even if you blame Bush for the TARP bailouts (questionable, since he wasn't President when most of them went into effect), those were only what, $700 Billion? Obama has increased government spending many TIMES that.
"These wallowers in unhealthy fantasies would have us believe that fixing the deficit will fix the economy."
NOT the "deficit", the DEBT. (At least if you are talking about a trade deficit... there is a very big difference between a spending deficit and a trade deficit).
"Lowest point in living memory" still does not equate to "reasonable". The government has been grossly out of hand for over 80 years.
Further, the "for-profit healthcare system", when it wasn't pouring money into government officials' bank accounts, with government officials licking its ass in exchange, used to be the best in the world.
It isn't profit that is the problem, it is government. Don't blame the profit motive. The profit motive got us where we WERE. Government made sure we didn't stay there.
The first-ever audit of the Fed (which was restricted by statute to the period from TARP to today) is completed, and the Congressional committee in charge of it has announced that during the period Americans were worrying that $700 Billion was too much for bailing out corporate deadbeats, the Fed -- unannounced to anyone, including government -- made $16 TRILLION in loans to both US banks and foreign interests.
That's $16 TRILLION dollars -- actual, U.S., newly printed dollars -- while we were all engaged in debating whether $700 Billion would be inflationary!
We need to get rid of the f**ing Fed. Immediately.
No flaming here, my friend. I am only hoping this latest economic disaster on the part of "mainstream" politics and economics teaches people a few thing.
Allow me to clarify: printing money to pay off government debts is only "trustworthy" in the same sense that someone who steals from others to pay off his debt is "trustworthy". That is to say: not.
"It's not how much you borrow, it's whether you are seen as trustworthy to repay it on time or not."
Hahahaha... by that measure, Government should have had a C rating decades ago. They have only avoided that by printing more money to pay off the debts, causing inflation.
Remember the Government telling you that a certain amount of inflation is a Good Thing? Uh-huh. I knew you would.
"... but the Google guys don't count as entrepreneurs that kick the establishment's ass and, er, have testicles?"
No, they don't. They count as entrepreneurs who HAD testicles, but who then turned around and BECAME "the establishment". For example, their "Do No Evil" slogan lasted a mere few years until nobody believed it anymore, and they have nobody to blame but themselves.
It isn't inevitable that this would happen, it is a result of their own decisions. They have been victims of their own weight. Although their original ideas were great, they don't seem to have had a new one -- especially an ethical new one -- in a long time.
This argument is an old one, and elsewhere I gave the example of player pianos. The argument about software being different because it was embodied in some kind of device, or controlled some kind of machine, was shot down well over 100 years ago. It was pretty much exactly the same concept.
And it was upheld by the courts until 1981, when precedent was pretty much ignored and the court made a different finding.
That's how software patents "agree" (in concept) with the example the other poster gave.
It is my considered opinion that the 1981 ruling was a huge mistake. And by the way: I am a programmer. I write software for a living.
Ahhh... something in Slashdot went awry and part of that comment is missing.
What I wrote was that the fact that software is an original written work is NOT immaterial. It was a central idea in the copyright / patent "wars" around the turn of the 20th century, and the court cases surrounding them.
Seriously. Go look up the history of this, because all these same arguments were made over 100 years ago. And again, up until 1981, not a single major court decision agreed with you.
To be even more specific: you were given examples of Austrian theory demonstrably working, even when the pet theories of the people making these accusations against it equally demonstrably did not work.
And yet you deny real world examples and continue with the rhetoric instead. For what reason?
"Because Austrian school doesn't use quantitative and mathematically models..."
See, there you go. Appealing to authority again. How do I know? Because this isn't an accurate statement about Austrian economics.
If you go back and look at that Wikipedia entry again (I'm not going to bother finding other references), you will see that in fact A LOT of the theory and math that is used in modern economics was invented by Austrians. To say that their model is not based on sound theory and math is complete bullshit... again, as the historical FACTS show.
This exaggeration stems from the fact -- I am compelled to repeat myself here -- that Austrian economics rejects certain mathematical "relationships" claimed by other theories such as that of Keynes. And the reason they do so is that they assert that the mathematical models are too simplistic; there are actually far more variables involved. So they simply could not work in the idealistic manner claimed by those economists.
I already gave you an actual example of exactly that: the Phillips curve, and how it was blown out of the water in the 70s.
But to say that Austrian economics is not based on math, or any solid principles that can be nailed down, is simply in contradiction of the facts.
And I also gave you ACTUAL examples of falsifiability. In fact the ultimate example: the ability to predict. You keep failing to grasp that.
If I could SHOW YOU that homeopathy actually worked (I won't try because we both know it doesn't, but hypothetically), then you would be irrational to deny it.
Yet you have been given actual examples of Austrian theory demonstrably working, and yet you continue. I am really amazed at this.
"Although the situation has been changing as China has slowly been becoming more capitalist, the fact of the matter is that China has not innovated very much at all: the bulk of their economy has been manufacturing things that were designed and engineered in other places. "
My point being that someone in China could profit from manufacturing something, but did NOT have a ready avenue for making a profit from "intellectual property", because it legally didn't exist. Anybody could take your idea and manufacture it themselves (and did, quite often). Because there was no profit in it, individuals and businesspeople had no reason to expend energy and resources to do it. So they simply didn't. It's fact.
And that's pretty much what I was saying, too. And also pretty much every court decision before 1981: software is a written work, period, no matter what eventual form it takes.
Abuse of a system does not mean the whole system is bad. It just means that certain people are. Just about any system can be abused, and in just about any system, you will find people abusing it. Should we give up the whole idea of "systems"?
Slashdot Mirror
"Republicans in particular seem to want to live in a fantasy world."
Hahahaha!
Listen, I'd be the last to deny that Rebublicans live in a fantasy world, okay? But if you honestly think that they live in MORE of a fantasy world than Democrats, then you are living in more of a fantasy world that either.
Democrats think money grows on trees. Our current fiscal situation is absolute proof of that. You can't blame the Republicans, that's ridiculous. Even if you blame Bush for the TARP bailouts (questionable, since he wasn't President when most of them went into effect), those were only what, $700 Billion? Obama has increased government spending many TIMES that.
"These wallowers in unhealthy fantasies would have us believe that fixing the deficit will fix the economy."
NOT the "deficit", the DEBT. (At least if you are talking about a trade deficit... there is a very big difference between a spending deficit and a trade deficit).
"Lowest point in living memory" still does not equate to "reasonable". The government has been grossly out of hand for over 80 years.
Further, the "for-profit healthcare system", when it wasn't pouring money into government officials' bank accounts, with government officials licking its ass in exchange, used to be the best in the world.
It isn't profit that is the problem, it is government. Don't blame the profit motive. The profit motive got us where we WERE. Government made sure we didn't stay there.
I have news:
The first-ever audit of the Fed (which was restricted by statute to the period from TARP to today) is completed, and the Congressional committee in charge of it has announced that during the period Americans were worrying that $700 Billion was too much for bailing out corporate deadbeats, the Fed -- unannounced to anyone, including government -- made $16 TRILLION in loans to both US banks and foreign interests.
That's $16 TRILLION dollars -- actual, U.S., newly printed dollars -- while we were all engaged in debating whether $700 Billion would be inflationary!
We need to get rid of the f**ing Fed. Immediately.
No flaming here, my friend. I am only hoping this latest economic disaster on the part of "mainstream" politics and economics teaches people a few thing.
"Essential" spending??? I have to ask honestly: are you out of your mind?
What is "essential" about the government increasing its budget by around 50% in the last 10 years? While at the same time, services have downgraded?
Get a grip on reality, my friend. Before it bites you in the ass.
By the decades-old BGCWRCG* formula, someone with a $60,000 a year job should not purchase a home worth more than $420,000.
* Before Government Cooperation With Ridiculous Corporate Greed
Allow me to clarify: printing money to pay off government debts is only "trustworthy" in the same sense that someone who steals from others to pay off his debt is "trustworthy". That is to say: not.
"It's not how much you borrow, it's whether you are seen as trustworthy to repay it on time or not."
Hahahaha... by that measure, Government should have had a C rating decades ago. They have only avoided that by printing more money to pay off the debts, causing inflation.
Remember the Government telling you that a certain amount of inflation is a Good Thing? Uh-huh. I knew you would.
Branson has a long history now of nailing it on the head. I would hardly think he hasn't done his research.
That's no guarantee, of course. But the man has some smarts.
By the way: if you think anything Google gives you is "free", then you don't know how it works.
"... but the Google guys don't count as entrepreneurs that kick the establishment's ass and, er, have testicles?"
No, they don't. They count as entrepreneurs who HAD testicles, but who then turned around and BECAME "the establishment". For example, their "Do No Evil" slogan lasted a mere few years until nobody believed it anymore, and they have nobody to blame but themselves.
It isn't inevitable that this would happen, it is a result of their own decisions. They have been victims of their own weight. Although their original ideas were great, they don't seem to have had a new one -- especially an ethical new one -- in a long time.
Don't be silly. It's just an expression. If it were worth getting offended over, who should be more offended than me?
Looks like Sir Richard Branson is kicking the establishment's ass... AGAIN.
What happened to the USA that WE don't seem to have many people like this anymore? Where are they? Why don't they step up?
Burt Rutan was one. He's retired now. A well-deserved retirement. And I don't think it's a coincidence that he and Branson found each other.
But you ARE arguing that point, by definition. If it was shown to work, then it is shown to be not false.
Only things that can be shown to be false or not false are falsifiable. Either one will do.
I should clarify that a little, I suppose.
This argument is an old one, and elsewhere I gave the example of player pianos. The argument about software being different because it was embodied in some kind of device, or controlled some kind of machine, was shot down well over 100 years ago. It was pretty much exactly the same concept.
And it was upheld by the courts until 1981, when precedent was pretty much ignored and the court made a different finding.
That's how software patents "agree" (in concept) with the example the other poster gave.
It is my considered opinion that the 1981 ruling was a huge mistake. And by the way: I am a programmer. I write software for a living.
I had forgotten about the "ordinary practitioner" part. :o)
Ahhh... something in Slashdot went awry and part of that comment is missing.
What I wrote was that the fact that software is an original written work is NOT immaterial. It was a central idea in the copyright / patent "wars" around the turn of the 20th century, and the court cases surrounding them.
"The fact software is written is immaterial."
Seriously. Go look up the history of this, because all these same arguments were made over 100 years ago. And again, up until 1981, not a single major court decision agreed with you.
I'm not disagreeing with his examples, at all. We simply disagree on whether the idea has any merit.
Wikipedia:
"Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets."
Production. "Capital" goods. That's what "capitalism" is all about.
To be even more specific: you were given examples of Austrian theory demonstrably working, even when the pet theories of the people making these accusations against it equally demonstrably did not work.
And yet you deny real world examples and continue with the rhetoric instead. For what reason?
"Because Austrian school doesn't use quantitative and mathematically models..."
See, there you go. Appealing to authority again. How do I know? Because this isn't an accurate statement about Austrian economics.
If you go back and look at that Wikipedia entry again (I'm not going to bother finding other references), you will see that in fact A LOT of the theory and math that is used in modern economics was invented by Austrians. To say that their model is not based on sound theory and math is complete bullshit... again, as the historical FACTS show.
This exaggeration stems from the fact -- I am compelled to repeat myself here -- that Austrian economics rejects certain mathematical "relationships" claimed by other theories such as that of Keynes. And the reason they do so is that they assert that the mathematical models are too simplistic; there are actually far more variables involved. So they simply could not work in the idealistic manner claimed by those economists.
I already gave you an actual example of exactly that: the Phillips curve, and how it was blown out of the water in the 70s.
But to say that Austrian economics is not based on math, or any solid principles that can be nailed down, is simply in contradiction of the facts.
And I also gave you ACTUAL examples of falsifiability. In fact the ultimate example: the ability to predict. You keep failing to grasp that.
If I could SHOW YOU that homeopathy actually worked (I won't try because we both know it doesn't, but hypothetically), then you would be irrational to deny it.
Yet you have been given actual examples of Austrian theory demonstrably working, and yet you continue. I am really amazed at this.
"Although the situation has been changing as China has slowly been becoming more capitalist, the fact of the matter is that China has not innovated very much at all: the bulk of their economy has been manufacturing things that were designed and engineered in other places. "
My point being that someone in China could profit from manufacturing something, but did NOT have a ready avenue for making a profit from "intellectual property", because it legally didn't exist. Anybody could take your idea and manufacture it themselves (and did, quite often). Because there was no profit in it, individuals and businesspeople had no reason to expend energy and resources to do it. So they simply didn't. It's fact.
And that's pretty much what I was saying, too. And also pretty much every court decision before 1981: software is a written work, period, no matter what eventual form it takes.
Abuse of a system does not mean the whole system is bad. It just means that certain people are. Just about any system can be abused, and in just about any system, you will find people abusing it. Should we give up the whole idea of "systems"?