Money, in the form of direct transfer payments to individuals, fixes both problems. Why can't the Fed fund a basic income at zero cost, as it funds banks?
Index everything to inflation as a hedge. But prices shouldn't rise because you are improving the General Welfare with created money. Supply isn't affected, since we have untapped production capacity. Why would prices rise again?
But the same troll was likely used about GPS. Fuck cost effective. Banks create 10 times more money than governments. Fund space at zero cost through the Fed because it is a good idea, in the General Welfare. Why would creating money for space exploration cause inflation?
Re your sig: Jobs are not the goal. Make a basic income available to everyone (funded by the Fed, not the taxpayer, at zero cost). Hold challenges, public and private, to stimulate innovation.
"Should the power companies be FORCED to just eat the fees of hooking up and stabilizing a power source that's only producing cheap power during periods where demand is lowest?"
This is where "market signals" conflict with "the General Welfare". Government should run the power companies in the public interest, without profit motivation. Fund them at zero cost through the Fed, which (also being not profit-motivated) returns interest to the Treasury each year, and can forgive or keep rolling over the loans.
The large, high-altitude ones kill birds. http://catchingwindpower.com/ presents a low-altitude design that is bird-safe and purportedly provides more power. Maybe the guy had one of those in his yard?
Don't we have to have faith that the scientists aren't cherry-picking chunks of data that give them (almost) the significance they want?
Remember Feynman, in "Cargo Cult Science", describing how experimenters replicating Millikan's famous experiment found ways to fudge their data to match his flawed results? Didn't they have faith he was right?
The Fed has proved it can create money at will, and the stock market soars. No taxpayer funding is needed. Let the Fed fund fiscal policy, at zero cost (since interest is returned to the Treasury each year, by law).
Taxpayers don't have to shoulder any costs. The Fed is not taxpayer-funded. And the Fed can forgive loans, or simply keep them rolling over forever.
As a hedge against inflation, we should index everything (bank accounts, transfer payments, everything) to CPI so that purchasing power never decreases. Israel has used this scheme for decades successfully.
Why not subsidize it with Fed-created money, used to fund fiscal policy at zero cost? The Fed has proven it can fund the market; let it now fund fiscal policies.
The key is preserving the choice to go barefoot. Tools give us more choice.
If you want to break through that glass ceiling the summary mentions, you can take up the fundamental skills on your own, at your own pace. MOOCs are a good place to start.
I think the goal should be Star Trek holodeck computers that you can program in natural language, with general statements. Maybe you choose a program in which you debug vacuum tubes by cleaning out the bugs in them, or whatever you want. Punchcards? Assembler? Your choice!
Compensated emancipation should have been enforced. The government should have bought the slaves (whether the slaveowner agreed or not) and freed them. It would have cost about the same as the civil war, and there would have been a lot less violence.
As someone else pointed out, cheating is a victimless crime. Why even make it a crime? Just be open about it. Design assessments that do not rely on grades. One thing MOOCs track is participation in forums. If you are consistently helping others with questions, isn't that a good indication of your skills? Why even need to enforce censorship on exams, if you can pick out good students by how they interact with the material directly, and how they are able to explain it to other students?
Comparing cheating to murder is hyperbolically paranoid hysteria. Get a grip!
Knowledge transmission is fundamentally not capitalist or economic in nature. Teachers often gain new knowledge in the act of giving knowledge away. Conservation laws don't apply to knowledge or education.
Public schools should not credential, but simply teach. Good students can be recognized by how much they help others, by how little help they need, by how fast they solve problems. You don't need grades to assess knowledge. Eliminate grades, and the incentive to cheat is gone.
Slashdot Mirror
Money, in the form of direct transfer payments to individuals, fixes both problems. Why can't the Fed fund a basic income at zero cost, as it funds banks?
Index everything to inflation as a hedge. But prices shouldn't rise because you are improving the General Welfare with created money. Supply isn't affected, since we have untapped production capacity. Why would prices rise again?
Bilgecoin...the preferred choice of money for murderers!
Let's put some nuclear reactors in your backyard!
But the same troll was likely used about GPS. Fuck cost effective. Banks create 10 times more money than governments. Fund space at zero cost through the Fed because it is a good idea, in the General Welfare. Why would creating money for space exploration cause inflation?
Re your sig: Jobs are not the goal. Make a basic income available to everyone (funded by the Fed, not the taxpayer, at zero cost). Hold challenges, public and private, to stimulate innovation.
Yeah it would be better to just take it on faith. Think of the money you'd save! You're always right, no need to check, deductive logic all the way!
Scientists want to build themselves pyramids as burial tombs?
Why shouldn't the Fed feed individuals loans at zero percent, so we can buy t-bills at 3%, and keep the loans rolling over?
"Should the power companies be FORCED to just eat the fees of hooking up and stabilizing a power source that's only producing cheap power during periods where demand is lowest?"
This is where "market signals" conflict with "the General Welfare". Government should run the power companies in the public interest, without profit motivation. Fund them at zero cost through the Fed, which (also being not profit-motivated) returns interest to the Treasury each year, and can forgive or keep rolling over the loans.
The answer, according to this solar energy MOOC, is a resounding yes: the panels produce much more energy than they took to build.
What about bird kills, though.
And an added bonus, you get to drink polluted water even when far away!
The large, high-altitude ones kill birds. http://catchingwindpower.com/ presents a low-altitude design that is bird-safe and purportedly provides more power. Maybe the guy had one of those in his yard?
Don't we have to have faith that the scientists aren't cherry-picking chunks of data that give them (almost) the significance they want?
Remember Feynman, in "Cargo Cult Science", describing how experimenters replicating Millikan's famous experiment found ways to fudge their data to match his flawed results? Didn't they have faith he was right?
How about animals?
The Fed has proved it can create money at will, and the stock market soars. No taxpayer funding is needed. Let the Fed fund fiscal policy, at zero cost (since interest is returned to the Treasury each year, by law).
Taxpayers don't have to shoulder any costs. The Fed is not taxpayer-funded. And the Fed can forgive loans, or simply keep them rolling over forever.
As a hedge against inflation, we should index everything (bank accounts, transfer payments, everything) to CPI so that purchasing power never decreases. Israel has used this scheme for decades successfully.
Sadly, it's becoming all too true in factory farming.
Meat is murder.
What does the name matter? It's arbitrary. Focus on the theory.
It's like looking only at Jesus's finger, when he's pointing at the moon.
Why not subsidize it with Fed-created money, used to fund fiscal policy at zero cost? The Fed has proven it can fund the market; let it now fund fiscal policies.
The key is preserving the choice to go barefoot. Tools give us more choice.
If you want to break through that glass ceiling the summary mentions, you can take up the fundamental skills on your own, at your own pace. MOOCs are a good place to start.
I think the goal should be Star Trek holodeck computers that you can program in natural language, with general statements. Maybe you choose a program in which you debug vacuum tubes by cleaning out the bugs in them, or whatever you want. Punchcards? Assembler? Your choice!
"Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something."
- Robert A. Heinlein
With the same logic, shouldn't thieves be morally justified, because victims provide the products they want?
Compensated emancipation should have been enforced. The government should have bought the slaves (whether the slaveowner agreed or not) and freed them. It would have cost about the same as the civil war, and there would have been a lot less violence.
As someone else pointed out, cheating is a victimless crime. Why even make it a crime? Just be open about it. Design assessments that do not rely on grades. One thing MOOCs track is participation in forums. If you are consistently helping others with questions, isn't that a good indication of your skills? Why even need to enforce censorship on exams, if you can pick out good students by how they interact with the material directly, and how they are able to explain it to other students?
Comparing cheating to murder is hyperbolically paranoid hysteria. Get a grip!
Knowledge transmission is fundamentally not capitalist or economic in nature. Teachers often gain new knowledge in the act of giving knowledge away. Conservation laws don't apply to knowledge or education.
Public schools should not credential, but simply teach. Good students can be recognized by how much they help others, by how little help they need, by how fast they solve problems. You don't need grades to assess knowledge. Eliminate grades, and the incentive to cheat is gone.
See Alfie Kohn, The Case Against Grades, for more.