That a backup has to be present and used says nothing about whether wind power for Texas was a net economic gain or loss... natural gas is not exactly cheap, making those gas plants run less saves money too.
That said Germany doesn't have the natural resources for alternative energy... Europe as a whole doesn't. Wind and hydro makes economic sense in some places, but the only viable alternative energy source which can completely replace coal/nuclear for Europe is across the Mediterranean. They should just get Morocco into the EU, they have enough of the Sahara to supply the entirety of Europe with electricity through solar thermal.
Real time in it's common technical meaning is mostly nonsensical when talking about rendering, it would mean you could guarantee a maximum delivery time... real time rendering most often used as synonymous to interactive rendering (with interactive being a fuzzy concept, but lets say >10 fps in honor of Carmack's famous turtle in Quake).
The data access problem of backward rendering is unsolvable... it will always access data without regard to object coherency. For primary and shadow rays forward renderers will always be able to be more efficient when efficient occlusion culling is possible and subsampling isn't needed.
The video you linked has a realtime preview... in 1/60th second it probably doesn't get that much further than the raycasting solution (primary rays).
Land and income derived from it is taxed at the moment... it obviously wouldn't be in your no tax utopia. I'm not talking about stealing anyone's savings, I'm talking about talking about taxing them for the privilege of claiming natural resources and occupy land to which they have no natural rights.
BTW, they didn't necessarily work from it... it could just be handed down wealth, which I dare say would be even more common in your no tax utopia.
There is quite a lot in your constitution, among which the 16th amendment... when you said taxation was illegal I was assuming you were arguing from a natural rights perspective since from a constitutional perspective you'd have to be a bit obtuse.
"- Which is what the Free Market prevents in the first place"
No it doesn't, in the absence of taxes once you have sufficient ownership of land you can live handsomely on rent ever more... no work required, just rent seeking. To a lesser extent the same goes for sufficient levels of ownership of companies with natural (local) monopolies... but especially land. Neither the free market nor technological advancement will create more land.
The people renting out real estate don't have a natural right to it either, the natural resources business consume in producing products are not property by natural right either... all business is made possible by the privilege of ownership over natural resources, of which land is just the prime example.
Work alone produces nothing when you don't have resources to work with... as wealth equality increases getting access to resources to make your work count gets harder and harder, rent seekers take a larger and larger share of the fruits of your labour by charging for access to "their" resources. Government should be there to grant access to the resources necessary for gainful work to those who seek them, even where that means taking back some gained by people in the past. The aim is not to punish the successful, but to make it impossible to turn past success into a perpetuity of easy living for a dynasty of descendants.
There is no more land to homestead, there is no more cheap oil to build an empire on. Rent seeking is not useful work to society, so the privilege of property ownership can and should be selectively revoked (ie. taxation) to provide a disincentive. Now of course taxation in the US is mostly dysfunctional, but that's a different issue.
"All of those things: tariffs, price, currency, capital controls, they will not achieve any useful goal but one: destruction of economy."
China didn't destroy it's economy, of course they had decent education and low costs as well... but they used regulation where appropriate. China like every other successful economy is centrally guided.
It's not the Tea Party's fault, it's the deteriorating economies fault... the Tea Party just isn't very helpful in that regard (although ultimately it's the oil dependency and lack of commitment in fixing it which is the true problem). As wealth inequality increases while median income decreases the only way to preserve peace and order will have to be to increase policing.
"Transfer of income amounts to illegal seizure of private property without a due process. Anybody has a problem with it? I do. USA wasn't built as a welfare state, people came to it not for welfare but for freedoms"
You made an appeal to history and some kind of inherent illegality of taxation... this implies a rather extreme natural rights argument of which Rothbard is simply one of the more famous proponents, an argument which has some obvious inconsistencies (Locke had some caveats concerning natural resources, a much better thinker... which natural rights proponents either carefully ignore or criticise). I think it's inconsistent and hypocritical, the US was built on appropriation of land used by other people, you might argue it was underused but still, people came to it to profit from that... and now they want to be free from taxation because they term it theft? Fuck that. All wealth is derived from natural resources which belong to no one and everyone, the privilege of living on the land and using it's resources is what the fundamental legality of taxation is derived from.
Moving production and capital is only an option because government allows it to be an option... free trade and movement of capital is hardly a given (for instance China certainly doesn't have them... currency controls, capital controls and tariffs to keep low value added material inside the country abound).
The number of elderly is not at post-WWII average, the number of man hours (directly and indirectly through medical R&D) and other resources spend on keeping a person healthy is not at post-WWII average, the value of uneducated labour in relation to per capita GDP is not at post-WWII average... to expect social spending to remain at a stable percentage of GDP as society is changing is just plain silly.
Redistribution will have to go up as labour becomes less valuable, medical costs increase and society ages if we want to maintain the median standard of living... given increases in productivity from automation this could be perfectly possible, the rich would get richer a little slower is all, if it wasn't for foreign oil dependency.
Foreign oil dependency is the biggest problem, it's the only problem worth talking about... and thus the problem almost completely ignored (a couple 100 million in subsidies is nothing, it requires a moonshot like social investment).
Point 1 seems to come from a Rothbard type argument. Could you explain to me again how land ownership in the USA is not mostly illegal? On one page Rothbard says the Indians didn't use the land enough to be able to claim it as natural rights property, on another he says any first human use at all is enough to make it property... so which is it?
It seems to me that the US is built on theft from a natural rights perspective, seems to be a bit miserly to complain about taxes with claims to it's history given that...
Tax can only be a disincentive when there is an alternative... so income tax might be a disincentive when you're rich enough to be able to retire, but that's not a meaningful part of the working population... there aren't a couple of thousand Randian uber-beings keeping society together... the people at the top are important, but if they said "fuck it, I'm just going to retire" there will be plenty of competent people to take their place... and it will take a while before their income from investment to become large enough for them to do without income, so no harm done.
The problem is that as long as you are in a currency/trade union you need central funding for these programs or all the states get locked into a race to the bottom.
Which is fine if anarcho capitalism is your goal any way, but if you want a welfare society you can't afford to be in a currency/trade union with countries with far lesser standards.
Sweden is doing just fine, with good governance a wellfare society can be maintained... not to many modern examples of a maintainable anarcho capitalist/social darwinist society though, but good luck if that's what you want to try... you will need it. Have fun with rioting on the streets in a country with more guns than people, you don't have the same type of population as in the 30s any more.
America's debt is a combination of foreign oil dependency and simply being backwards hicks who don't want to pay taxes.
Filthy liberal lies... everyone knows all the Founding Fathers were pure free market capitalist Christians believing in the literal truth of the bible.
The gold standard served to keep a lid on the GDP to debt ratios though... which is why Nixon got off it (the oil based trade deficit necessitated an ever increasing debt to GDP ratio to maintain economic growth in the non oil producing countries).
That said, I fail to see a reasonable alternative... if the world is ready to give you oil for IOUs for decades at a time allowing you to maintain a much higher standard of living than otherwise possible, why not take the deal? You can always default on IOUs... of course you do need to have contingencies plans for the inevitable default.
If we had started building trillions worth of nuclear and solar-thermal plants instead of fighting 2 completely fucking useless wars we could have weaned ourselves off our oil dependency... now we're quite simply fucked, there is no solution. Just a great decline (not a depression, a depression suggests a dip... while we are going to experience a great reset, with no accelerated growth at the end).
They are right up to a point... primary professions contribute true currency, to buy imports... so they are more important. Not really relevant in Norway since you are an oil exporter though.
The primary professions insure people can live, secondary professions provide a society worth living in (for more than just the rich minority).
The topic title is peak employment, not peak labour.
He is theorizing that for an environmentally sustainable level of consumption the number of necessary workers per capita could start falling so low there won't be enough jobs to go around... at least not with a 40 hour work week.
Slashdot Mirror
HVDC could transport energy from a pole to the equator with around 25% loss ... most places on earth are far nearer a desert than that.
That's what it's engineered to do since at the moment solar thermal power plants are basically build to run airconditioners.
That a backup has to be present and used says nothing about whether wind power for Texas was a net economic gain or loss ... natural gas is not exactly cheap, making those gas plants run less saves money too.
That said Germany doesn't have the natural resources for alternative energy ... Europe as a whole doesn't. Wind and hydro makes economic sense in some places, but the only viable alternative energy source which can completely replace coal/nuclear for Europe is across the Mediterranean. They should just get Morocco into the EU, they have enough of the Sahara to supply the entirety of Europe with electricity through solar thermal.
I have looked at them when using an anonymous SSL proxy to access a UK restricted webshop, to make sure the proxy wasn't MIM'ing me.
Real time in it's common technical meaning is mostly nonsensical when talking about rendering, it would mean you could guarantee a maximum delivery time ... real time rendering most often used as synonymous to interactive rendering (with interactive being a fuzzy concept, but lets say >10 fps in honor of Carmack's famous turtle in Quake).
The data access problem of backward rendering is unsolvable ... it will always access data without regard to object coherency. For primary and shadow rays forward renderers will always be able to be more efficient when efficient occlusion culling is possible and subsampling isn't needed.
The video you linked has a realtime preview ... in 1/60th second it probably doesn't get that much further than the raycasting solution (primary rays).
I assume you mean the specs are unreadable?
(The fact they are only available under NDA means nothing given the number of companies and people with access to it.)
Land and income derived from it is taxed at the moment ... it obviously wouldn't be in your no tax utopia. I'm not talking about stealing anyone's savings, I'm talking about talking about taxing them for the privilege of claiming natural resources and occupy land to which they have no natural rights.
BTW, they didn't necessarily work from it ... it could just be handed down wealth, which I dare say would be even more common in your no tax utopia.
There is quite a lot in your constitution, among which the 16th amendment ... when you said taxation was illegal I was assuming you were arguing from a natural rights perspective since from a constitutional perspective you'd have to be a bit obtuse.
"- Which is what the Free Market prevents in the first place"
No it doesn't, in the absence of taxes once you have sufficient ownership of land you can live handsomely on rent ever more ... no work required, just rent seeking. To a lesser extent the same goes for sufficient levels of ownership of companies with natural (local) monopolies ... but especially land. Neither the free market nor technological advancement will create more land.
Oops, meant to say "as wealth inequality increases".
The people renting out real estate don't have a natural right to it either, the natural resources business consume in producing products are not property by natural right either ... all business is made possible by the privilege of ownership over natural resources, of which land is just the prime example.
Work alone produces nothing when you don't have resources to work with ... as wealth equality increases getting access to resources to make your work count gets harder and harder, rent seekers take a larger and larger share of the fruits of your labour by charging for access to "their" resources. Government should be there to grant access to the resources necessary for gainful work to those who seek them, even where that means taking back some gained by people in the past. The aim is not to punish the successful, but to make it impossible to turn past success into a perpetuity of easy living for a dynasty of descendants.
There is no more land to homestead, there is no more cheap oil to build an empire on. Rent seeking is not useful work to society, so the privilege of property ownership can and should be selectively revoked (ie. taxation) to provide a disincentive. Now of course taxation in the US is mostly dysfunctional, but that's a different issue.
"All of those things: tariffs, price, currency, capital controls, they will not achieve any useful goal but one: destruction of economy."
China didn't destroy it's economy, of course they had decent education and low costs as well ... but they used regulation where appropriate. China like every other successful economy is centrally guided.
It's not the Tea Party's fault, it's the deteriorating economies fault ... the Tea Party just isn't very helpful in that regard (although ultimately it's the oil dependency and lack of commitment in fixing it which is the true problem). As wealth inequality increases while median income decreases the only way to preserve peace and order will have to be to increase policing.
I was merely addressing your first argument ...
"Transfer of income amounts to illegal seizure of private property without a due process. Anybody has a problem with it? I do. USA wasn't built as a welfare state, people came to it not for welfare but for freedoms"
You made an appeal to history and some kind of inherent illegality of taxation ... this implies a rather extreme natural rights argument of which Rothbard is simply one of the more famous proponents, an argument which has some obvious inconsistencies (Locke had some caveats concerning natural resources, a much better thinker ... which natural rights proponents either carefully ignore or criticise). I think it's inconsistent and hypocritical, the US was built on appropriation of land used by other people, you might argue it was underused but still, people came to it to profit from that ... and now they want to be free from taxation because they term it theft? Fuck that. All wealth is derived from natural resources which belong to no one and everyone, the privilege of living on the land and using it's resources is what the fundamental legality of taxation is derived from.
Moving production and capital is only an option because government allows it to be an option ... free trade and movement of capital is hardly a given (for instance China certainly doesn't have them ... currency controls, capital controls and tariffs to keep low value added material inside the country abound).
The number of elderly is not at post-WWII average, the number of man hours (directly and indirectly through medical R&D) and other resources spend on keeping a person healthy is not at post-WWII average, the value of uneducated labour in relation to per capita GDP is not at post-WWII average ... to expect social spending to remain at a stable percentage of GDP as society is changing is just plain silly.
Redistribution will have to go up as labour becomes less valuable, medical costs increase and society ages if we want to maintain the median standard of living ... given increases in productivity from automation this could be perfectly possible, the rich would get richer a little slower is all, if it wasn't for foreign oil dependency.
Foreign oil dependency is the biggest problem, it's the only problem worth talking about ... and thus the problem almost completely ignored (a couple 100 million in subsidies is nothing, it requires a moonshot like social investment).
Point 1 seems to come from a Rothbard type argument. Could you explain to me again how land ownership in the USA is not mostly illegal? On one page Rothbard says the Indians didn't use the land enough to be able to claim it as natural rights property, on another he says any first human use at all is enough to make it property ... so which is it?
It seems to me that the US is built on theft from a natural rights perspective, seems to be a bit miserly to complain about taxes with claims to it's history given that ...
Tax can only be a disincentive when there is an alternative ... so income tax might be a disincentive when you're rich enough to be able to retire, but that's not a meaningful part of the working population ... there aren't a couple of thousand Randian uber-beings keeping society together ... the people at the top are important, but if they said "fuck it, I'm just going to retire" there will be plenty of competent people to take their place ... and it will take a while before their income from investment to become large enough for them to do without income, so no harm done.
The problem is that as long as you are in a currency/trade union you need central funding for these programs or all the states get locked into a race to the bottom.
Which is fine if anarcho capitalism is your goal any way, but if you want a welfare society you can't afford to be in a currency/trade union with countries with far lesser standards.
Sweden is doing just fine, with good governance a wellfare society can be maintained ... not to many modern examples of a maintainable anarcho capitalist/social darwinist society though, but good luck if that's what you want to try ... you will need it. Have fun with rioting on the streets in a country with more guns than people, you don't have the same type of population as in the 30s any more.
America's debt is a combination of foreign oil dependency and simply being backwards hicks who don't want to pay taxes.
Filthy liberal lies ... everyone knows all the Founding Fathers were pure free market capitalist Christians believing in the literal truth of the bible.
The gold standard served to keep a lid on the GDP to debt ratios though ... which is why Nixon got off it (the oil based trade deficit necessitated an ever increasing debt to GDP ratio to maintain economic growth in the non oil producing countries).
That said, I fail to see a reasonable alternative ... if the world is ready to give you oil for IOUs for decades at a time allowing you to maintain a much higher standard of living than otherwise possible, why not take the deal? You can always default on IOUs ... of course you do need to have contingencies plans for the inevitable default.
If we had started building trillions worth of nuclear and solar-thermal plants instead of fighting 2 completely fucking useless wars we could have weaned ourselves off our oil dependency ... now we're quite simply fucked, there is no solution. Just a great decline (not a depression, a depression suggests a dip ... while we are going to experience a great reset, with no accelerated growth at the end).
With multiple directional receivers you could also do multipath decoding of indirect reflections.
They are right up to a point ... primary professions contribute true currency, to buy imports ... so they are more important. Not really relevant in Norway since you are an oil exporter though.
The primary professions insure people can live, secondary professions provide a society worth living in (for more than just the rich minority).
The problem is we are used to better ... and we know we can get better with a more redistributive society (look at your own country, or Sweden).
If the rich try to force the west into a semi-feudal society they will also have to remove democracy and turn the west into a police state ...
Simple solution, fuck free trade ... it's a trap.
The topic title is peak employment, not peak labour.
He is theorizing that for an environmentally sustainable level of consumption the number of necessary workers per capita could start falling so low there won't be enough jobs to go around ... at least not with a 40 hour work week.
Average wealth is growing ... but median wealth is dropping, the only thing propping up consumption is debt, debt and more debt.