What if the government guaranteed a basic income, and people could work on creating infrastructure to benefit others without having to worry about "making a living"? They would still be free to make a profit of course; but if they were more interested in just building things and didn't care about finance, they wouldn't have to worry about paying their rent or whatever.
Let Wall Street play their game, but provide a Public Option in the form of a Basic Income so that we have the choice of not playing Wall Street's game.
The basic idea is that "Return on Investment" is not a factor when the government runs the utilities. The government is not a business. The government does not have to make a profit. The government can be funded by created money; the Fed loans it money and refunds the interest and keeps the loan rolling over forever. The Fed does this for banks.
Utilities and other commodities such as food should be guaranteed by the government, because it is in the General Welfare. They should be provided at below-market cost, or free. There should be no profit motive involved, just providing basic services to people.
Utilities should be public, and not operated for profit. Since they're in the public good, money can be created (by the Fed, say, which then gives it to the government at no interest and keeps the loan rolling over forever, or forgives it) to make infrastructure safe. The free market has failed to provide secure infrastructure, because the free market does not care about the General Welfare; but the government is mandated to by the Constitution.
The problem is that when physicists present the analogy, they act like the equations for the marble's motions agree with the observations of planetary motion. They make no caveats. They basically ram the analogy down our throats without explaining the shortcomings. Maybe they should start.
"If you had a "sticky marble" and took the rubber sheet into orbit and deformed it, the marble would still curve toward the divot. Not because gravity pulls it there but because the sheet is curved. That's the whole point of the analogy."
What's the "stickiness"? You've simply introduced another mysterious force to replace the gravity pulling the marble down towards the curve. Why should there be a "stickiness"? What is the stickiness? Where does it come from? Did someone apply glue to the marble, or the sheet? You aren't answering the fundamental questions any better by using a "sticky marble".
So physicists should come up with a better analogy, and stop using one with obvious flaws.
Taxes aren't needed to fund the government. The lesson of QE is that the Fed can create money to buy bonds and keep the loans rolling over forever without consequence.
"It's not a model, it's not a representation, it's a visual aid used to help get the general idea across to people with limited technical understanding of what's actually going on."
You're still left with trying to explain why the earth moves at all. In the ant analogy, it's because the ant walks, in other words exerts its will. In the rubber sheet analogy, the earth's gravity makes the ball move; if (as one post said) the earth's gravity represents time, then you still face the question of what makes the ball move from one moment to the next? Why can't it stay in the same place on the curved rubber sheet?
Then there's dark matter and how that apparently warps the sheet without being detectable.
So when you glibly imply that you know "what's actually going on", I think you're blowing smoke. Maybe you know what's actually going on in the model, but I doubt you can say you know what's actually going on, because the model didn't predict the gravity rotation curve of galaxies.
"Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth’s biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense."
If it even exists. What evidence are you going on again? Some vague memory?
Abolitionists did try to make whites feel guilty; but they had a point, because slavery was ongoing and whites were tacitly supporting it (unless they were Abolitionists). What if the teacher is teaching about Abolitionists? One technique is to put yourself into the time; so in that case the teacher could be defended in trying to make whites in the class feel guilty, because they were exploring the attitudes and techniques of Abolitionists and immersing themselves in the period.
The point is, the material is not the issue. The poster apparently has some story about how one teacher somewhere said something that made whites in the class squirm, and that is such a huge deal that he goes on to defend banning books that the teacher might have used. It's silly. The books don't say what he wants this mythical teacher to have said. He's invented some fable and used it to respond to a story about banning books, then claims that he isn't against banning books. But it's backpeddling.
The book "Invisible Man" is a success story, by a black author. Read it as literature, instead of putting your own perceptions on it, before having read it.
Invisible Man deals with blacks being racist. Ras the Exhorter is a great character. Also the Dean of the (black) college tells the protagonist (quoting from memory so may be inaccurate): "Don't you have any mother-wit, boy? Didn't your mother teach you never trust the white man?" There are depictions of a black family that practices incest, too. It has a wide spectrum of behavior in it, good and bad, black and white, all mixed up.
All that stuff about whites being inherently evil is in you, not in the book.
"Said every person in jail and every kid in detention."
Example of a false positive error. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positive_paradox. When your justice system pursues a high conviction rate rather than truth, there are likely more innocent people in jail than guilty.
Slashdot Mirror
What if the government guaranteed a basic income, and people could work on creating infrastructure to benefit others without having to worry about "making a living"? They would still be free to make a profit of course; but if they were more interested in just building things and didn't care about finance, they wouldn't have to worry about paying their rent or whatever.
Let Wall Street play their game, but provide a Public Option in the form of a Basic Income so that we have the choice of not playing Wall Street's game.
The basic idea is that "Return on Investment" is not a factor when the government runs the utilities. The government is not a business. The government does not have to make a profit. The government can be funded by created money; the Fed loans it money and refunds the interest and keeps the loan rolling over forever. The Fed does this for banks.
Utilities and other commodities such as food should be guaranteed by the government, because it is in the General Welfare. They should be provided at below-market cost, or free. There should be no profit motive involved, just providing basic services to people.
Utilities should be public, and not operated for profit. Since they're in the public good, money can be created (by the Fed, say, which then gives it to the government at no interest and keeps the loan rolling over forever, or forgives it) to make infrastructure safe. The free market has failed to provide secure infrastructure, because the free market does not care about the General Welfare; but the government is mandated to by the Constitution.
The Constitution says there must be due process.
The problem is that when physicists present the analogy, they act like the equations for the marble's motions agree with the observations of planetary motion. They make no caveats. They basically ram the analogy down our throats without explaining the shortcomings. Maybe they should start.
"If you had a "sticky marble" and took the rubber sheet into orbit and deformed it, the marble would still curve toward the divot. Not because gravity pulls it there but because the sheet is curved. That's the whole point of the analogy."
What's the "stickiness"? You've simply introduced another mysterious force to replace the gravity pulling the marble down towards the curve. Why should there be a "stickiness"? What is the stickiness? Where does it come from? Did someone apply glue to the marble, or the sheet? You aren't answering the fundamental questions any better by using a "sticky marble".
So physicists should come up with a better analogy, and stop using one with obvious flaws.
Taxes aren't needed to fund the government. The lesson of QE is that the Fed can create money to buy bonds and keep the loans rolling over forever without consequence.
What would start the marble moving?
"It's not a model, it's not a representation, it's a visual aid used to help get the general idea across to people with limited technical understanding of what's actually going on."
You're still left with trying to explain why the earth moves at all. In the ant analogy, it's because the ant walks, in other words exerts its will. In the rubber sheet analogy, the earth's gravity makes the ball move; if (as one post said) the earth's gravity represents time, then you still face the question of what makes the ball move from one moment to the next? Why can't it stay in the same place on the curved rubber sheet?
Then there's dark matter and how that apparently warps the sheet without being detectable.
So when you glibly imply that you know "what's actually going on", I think you're blowing smoke. Maybe you know what's actually going on in the model, but I doubt you can say you know what's actually going on, because the model didn't predict the gravity rotation curve of galaxies.
Kim Stanley Robinson's Fifty Degrees Below.
http://vhemt.org/
"Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth’s biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense."
27 + 68 = 95. Our physical laws don't predict about 95% of the universe.
If it even exists. What evidence are you going on again? Some vague memory?
Abolitionists did try to make whites feel guilty; but they had a point, because slavery was ongoing and whites were tacitly supporting it (unless they were Abolitionists). What if the teacher is teaching about Abolitionists? One technique is to put yourself into the time; so in that case the teacher could be defended in trying to make whites in the class feel guilty, because they were exploring the attitudes and techniques of Abolitionists and immersing themselves in the period.
The point is, the material is not the issue. The poster apparently has some story about how one teacher somewhere said something that made whites in the class squirm, and that is such a huge deal that he goes on to defend banning books that the teacher might have used. It's silly. The books don't say what he wants this mythical teacher to have said. He's invented some fable and used it to respond to a story about banning books, then claims that he isn't against banning books. But it's backpeddling.
Old fogey has alzheimer's, news at 11!
Nah let's forget it and go into space.
Okay but banning books isn't addressing the problem you're upset about.
Ban "Lolita" ... again!
So schools should ban teaching about the original language of the Constitution with its "three fifths" language, in Article 1 Section 2 Paragraph 3?
The book "Invisible Man" is a success story, by a black author. Read it as literature, instead of putting your own perceptions on it, before having read it.
Let's concentrate on the things you do have control over.
Are the textile workers in Bangladesh who make your clothes oppressed?
Invisible Man deals with blacks being racist. Ras the Exhorter is a great character. Also the Dean of the (black) college tells the protagonist (quoting from memory so may be inaccurate): "Don't you have any mother-wit, boy? Didn't your mother teach you never trust the white man?" There are depictions of a black family that practices incest, too. It has a wide spectrum of behavior in it, good and bad, black and white, all mixed up.
All that stuff about whites being inherently evil is in you, not in the book.
Yep it's in the constitution, prison should be "cruel and unusual".
"Said every person in jail and every kid in detention."
Example of a false positive error. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positive_paradox. When your justice system pursues a high conviction rate rather than truth, there are likely more innocent people in jail than guilty.