> Musicians? Well, those that are good are doing OK.
Gimme a break. Making music and making money are completely different skills. There are plenty of wonderful artists creating beautiful things that have to make their living doing something else.
> If we cut a trillion dollars out of the economy, that's > actual money that isn't in the economy.
That's Monopoly money (largely unprinted) that isn't in the economy, Mr. Keynes.
Conjure up as much as you'd like, but you'll only postpone and increase the pain. Exponential functions (like our national debt) go on forever in pure mathematics, but not so much in the finite physical world.
We can choose from two kinds of pain; the pain of discipline, or the pain of regret. We (and our predecessors) have chosen the latter.
Hindsight shows some pretty bad choices for the Nobel Peace Prize. It shows some pretty good ones, too.
Bad choices didn't seem bad to the committee at the time. All choices are subject to controversy, almost by definition. The fact that the non-pacifist trajectory of a handful of recipients was not what the committee expected doesn't invalidate the real accomplishments of the rest.
And poor Peace Prize choices certainly don't cheapen an entirely different kind of prize (like, say, medicine) awarded by an entirely different kind of committee.
You guys should make some solar powered bicycles with GPS systems and 4G wireless. Then when somebody borrows your bike in Amsterdam, you can push the "Home" button and your bike autopilots back to its docking station at home.
> you're just avoiding the criticism I made of your posts. Sorry. Not sure which point I failed to address. In general I'm interested in new ideas, facts, and understandings, but I tend to ignore strangers' opinions of my character, intelligence, or blog posts.
> building roads meddles with the economy I don't think "meddle with" means "affect" or "touch." I was referring to government actions that attempt to control the economy or favor special interests. Building roads and infrastructure is a healthy and proper facilitation of the economy. But government giving selective access to that infrastructure I would consider meddling.
> Just curious what "looser rules" you're talking about Perhaps you'll forgive me for paraphrasing. The point I was making was about preferential treatment.
'(Foxconn) is making crazy demands' for tax breaks and other special treatment, the official added. Local media have reported that Foxconn is also seeking priority treatment at Brazilian customs
> Are you a screeching anti-nuke activist? Whether I screech about nukes proves nothing about AGW, just like your red herrings prove nothing.
> they have to prove themselves right That's the irony - they already have. Time after time, more conclusively with every passing year.
"Skeptics," who've never read a single scientific paper on the subject, reassure each other that climatologists haven't taken into account the Sun, or that climatologists are ignoring previous climate changes over Earth's geologic history. They immerse themselves in echo chambers of opposing opinions, be they FUD about the accuracy of data from a weather station, or Al Gore's hypocrisy, or "smelly hippies" "fucking pipelines."
But "skeptics" as a rule don't look anywhere near the proof scientists have been publishing for the last forty years.
> Do you fear AGW becoming moot? No, I fear AGW not being moot. I would really like AGW theory to be a collosal error - maybe you're the guy who can prove it is. But you'll need to post it to Nature Magazine, not the blogosphere.
If they've got the science wrong, show them their mistakes.
Otherwise, ask yourself why you are so passionate you are right and the professionals are wrong. Ask yourself why all your posts are ad hominem attacks.
impose taxes, regulations, change interest rates, regulate trade, regulate immigration... I lean strongly to the libertarian,
I think none of those activities are especially popular among libertarians. Some may be ok with tariffs, some may like immigration regulated. Virtually none of them want trade regulated, none of them want government dictating interest rates.
Who is talking about sweat shops playing by looser rules?
The article talks about negotiations breaking down over taxes and regulations. If they weren't getting special treatment, they'd get no better tax deal and no better rules than the computer shop down the street.
Because "countries (or states)" muck everything up when they meddle in the economy. Brazil is historically no exception.
Why should a chinese sweat shop get to play by looser rules than a native-born small business? How will the native industry ever be able to compete if their own government creates artificial disadvantages for them?
Well, your children could take over and create a benevolent oligarchy which streams tabloid television to gyms where the 99% toil away on treadmills and exercise bikes which power your kids refrigerators and hot tubs. Just sayin'.
Slashdot Mirror
> Musicians? Well, those that are good are doing OK.
Gimme a break. Making music and making money are completely different skills. There are plenty of wonderful artists creating beautiful things that have to make their living doing something else.
Would texting the prayer be ok? God does understand SMS, right?
I can't see the future, but I believe our deadline has passed for that. The fiat economy is crumbling, all over the world.
Now comes the time of regret.
And rebuilding. Sustainably this time, I hope.
explain how taking a trillion dollars OUT of the economy by cutting spending increases revenues
I don't believe I ever said it would.
You target your spending on things that return you more money than you spent originally.
I won't argue with that.
> If we cut a trillion dollars out of the economy, that's
> actual money that isn't in the economy.
That's Monopoly money (largely unprinted) that isn't in the economy, Mr. Keynes.
Conjure up as much as you'd like, but you'll only postpone and increase the pain. Exponential functions (like our national debt) go on forever in pure mathematics, but not so much in the finite physical world.
We can choose from two kinds of pain; the pain of discipline, or the pain of regret. We (and our predecessors) have chosen the latter.
Now is the reckoning.
Yes we should let them utilize child labor because, hey, the market *knows* best.
-1 Out of context/straw man
Better to spend money on stimulus and get money circulating through the economy and creating demand.
+1 insightful
Except that we're not really spending money anymore, we're so ridiculously far in debt we're spending our own and our kids' future/freedom.
Something's gotta give.
Have you ever dreamt you were in the window seat of an airplane and a freaky monkey thing appeared on the wing?
"What is the movie 'Enterprise,' Alex."
Certainly a question for the ages.
Hindsight shows some pretty bad choices for the Nobel Peace Prize. It shows some pretty good ones, too.
Bad choices didn't seem bad to the committee at the time. All choices are subject to controversy, almost by definition. The fact that the non-pacifist trajectory of a handful of recipients was not what the committee expected doesn't invalidate the real accomplishments of the rest.
And poor Peace Prize choices certainly don't cheapen an entirely different kind of prize (like, say, medicine) awarded by an entirely different kind of committee.
Well, before Obama there was Arafat.
You guys should make some solar powered bicycles with GPS systems and 4G wireless. Then when somebody borrows your bike in Amsterdam, you can push the "Home" button and your bike autopilots back to its docking station at home.
Brilliant idea. My superhero uniform reflects Radio Disney.
It's famous for being slow, but I like underdogs.
S car go! S car go!
> you're just avoiding the criticism I made of your posts.
Sorry. Not sure which point I failed to address. In general I'm interested in new ideas, facts, and understandings, but I tend to ignore strangers' opinions of my character, intelligence, or blog posts.
> building roads meddles with the economy
I don't think "meddle with" means "affect" or "touch." I was referring to government actions that attempt to control the economy or favor special interests. Building roads and infrastructure is a healthy and proper facilitation of the economy. But government giving selective access to that infrastructure I would consider meddling.
> Just curious what "looser rules" you're talking about
Perhaps you'll forgive me for paraphrasing. The point I was making was about preferential treatment.
'(Foxconn) is making crazy demands' for tax breaks and other special treatment, the official added. Local media have reported that Foxconn is also seeking priority treatment at Brazilian customs
> Are you a screeching anti-nuke activist?
Whether I screech about nukes proves nothing about AGW, just like your red herrings prove nothing.
> they have to prove themselves right
That's the irony - they already have. Time after time, more conclusively with every passing year.
"Skeptics," who've never read a single scientific paper on the subject, reassure each other that climatologists haven't taken into account the Sun, or that climatologists are ignoring previous climate changes over Earth's geologic history. They immerse themselves in echo chambers of opposing opinions, be they FUD about the accuracy of data from a weather station, or Al Gore's hypocrisy, or "smelly hippies" "fucking pipelines."
But "skeptics" as a rule don't look anywhere near the proof scientists have been publishing for the last forty years.
> Do you fear AGW becoming moot?
No, I fear AGW not being moot. I would really like AGW theory to be a collosal error - maybe you're the guy who can prove it is. But you'll need to post it to Nature Magazine, not the blogosphere.
If they've got the science wrong, show them their mistakes.
Otherwise, ask yourself why you are so passionate you are right and the professionals are wrong. Ask yourself why all your posts are ad hominem attacks.
impose taxes, regulations, change interest rates, regulate trade, regulate immigration...
I lean strongly to the libertarian,
I think none of those activities are especially popular among libertarians. Some may be ok with tariffs, some may like immigration regulated. Virtually none of them want trade regulated, none of them want government dictating interest rates.
Who is talking about sweat shops playing by looser rules?
The article talks about negotiations breaking down over taxes and regulations. If they weren't getting special treatment, they'd get no better tax deal and no better rules than the computer shop down the street.
> why shouldn't they?
Because "countries (or states)" muck everything up when they meddle in the economy. Brazil is historically no exception.
Why should a chinese sweat shop get to play by looser rules than a native-born small business? How will the native industry ever be able to compete if their own government creates artificial disadvantages for them?
Except for the climatologists, to whom it's about empirical data and the scientific method.
If you want to win this fight, you'll need to leave the sports bar and get in the scientific arena.
He never said the science was wrong. He said he didn't like the politics.
I give his political opinion about the same weight as I would give the scientific opinion of a winner of the Peace Prize.
The government props up the oil industry, too. And judging from their profits, they most decidedly could make it without the handout.
So it's not clear to me that money diverted to green energy is any worse spent than money diverted to black gold.
+1 insightful
Much more like a Network Management System. About as far from the OS as you can get while using a computer.
Yeah, it's all good now. Thanks.
Well, your children could take over and create a benevolent oligarchy which streams tabloid television to gyms where the 99% toil away on treadmills and exercise bikes which power your kids refrigerators and hot tubs. Just sayin'.