- definitely. What do you do to help a small business in a small town like that? Advertising? I don't think so, everybody already knows you there.
I spent a few years building software to run retail chains, manage the supply chain, collect all the data, allow quick good analytics, manage a single store with part of the system, manage cash register, price checkers, etc.etc. It's all tied together, gives suppliers access to their sale data (this depends on their contract with the chain). At the end it's about the price, it's about really really low price. Beyond that it should be simple enough to use, versatile enough to handle whatever, it should prove its usefulness in business, allow managing many more products with the software with only a few people, allowing the same few people expand their product catalogue, centrally control prices everywhere, discounts, whatever.
The really hard part is getting the foot in the door in any small business, they really don't have the money most of the time so you have to be creative, very creative and persistent and not get discouraged easily.
Offering advertising to tiny businesses in tiny places? Wrong product. Even offering supply chain management may not be the right product everywhere, question is: what can you really offer and what can you offer in terms of price and support and price of support?
Those are very hard, small business is not like the giant business where players like Oracle, SAP, etc. dominate everything at very high prices.
The reality is most of what Oracle and SAP do for huge businesses can be done much cheaper but that doesn't matter to those businesses much, however in small businesses it is pretty much the only thing that matters.
there you go, you believe that it is OK to discriminate against people, to discriminate in the application of laws against people based on their circumstances, and you believe that it is even necessary in order to achieve your technocratic goals of 'social justice' and basically trying to even out outcomes.
Your sarcastic remark is simply the proof positive of the idea in my comments that it is what the mob is about, not about laws, not about individual freedoms, it's about theft because there are more people within that mob that has a common theme, which is to 'fix the injustice' (which is where the idea of 'social justice' comes from), they see it as injustice that they do not have something that somebody else has, they want force of government to take it and give it to them.
Actually based on some comments on/. I have proof positive that some in the mob don't even care if they get the proceeds of the theft, they just want to use the threat of government violence to steal from those who have more, they don't even particularly care if they themselves are going to benefit from that theft (most likely not).
It's pure jealousy, greed, stupidity, mobocracy and total lawlessness, discrimination, theft and at some point it turns to murder.
So don't continue the conversation, I am not forcing you to.
There is only one freedom, which is individual freedom. There are no other freedoms. There are no group freedoms, there are no gay freedoms, no racial freedoms, no gender freedoms, etc.etc. There is only individual freedom and government steals that freedom whenever it passes another law, regulation or a tax.
here is less real regulation on business today than there was >30 years ago, and the economy is much less healthy.
- wrong, completely factually misguided. There are more regulations today than any other day before today. There are more laws today than any other day before today. The effective taxes today are higher than any other day before today.
Sure, there are people who are impervious to regulations and taxes, banks seem to be absolutely above any of it, clearly they can deal with drug cartels and even Al Qaeda and not even worry about the governments, but that's because the governments and the largest banks are one and the same. When I say JPMorgan IS US Treasury it means something. US Treasury has no treasure, it's dep't of debt, not dep't of Treasure, but who benefits from it? JPMorgan.
However in terms of regulations on individuals, in terms of regulations on businesses that do not have this type of a relationship with the government, their regulations and taxes have never been higher than now. The nonsense about the high marginal rate of tax in the forties through the fifties is great, until you realise that nobody paid any of that because entire industries were developed to ensure nobody paid it (and that's a huge part of the reason that there was so little investment done in real terms, people were and are searching for ways to minimise taxes, not for ways to grow business, and those goals are not the same).
What do you think a regulation is? Patriot Act is a regulation. Every law is a regulation. Every new office, every new executive position is a regulation. You clearly are in a bubble where you don't have to deal with regulations, with lawsuits, with hiring and firing, with tracking customer data because the gov't forces you to, and all of this increases the cost of doing business and perverts incentives.
What if the "healthy economy" actually requires stiffer regulation on business? Are businesses people, my friend?
- the only regulations that actually work and are VERY STIFF are free market regulations.
Under free market regulations there is no Fed, there is no FDIC, there is no moral hazard of so called 'insurance' of any kind, be it bank loan (or deposit as you know them), be it health care moral hazard (Medicare as you know it), be it pension moral hazard (SS as you know it), be it housing moral hazard (F&F and FHA as you know it), of course half of all transactions: the money moral hazard (the Fed as you know it).
The only stiff, only true regulations come from failure, and government deciding who will be spared from failure is a moral hazard, not a 'stiff regulation' at all.
We deregulated airlines,
-:) Wow, really, you 'deregulated' airlines.
The same way you 'deregulated' banks? The same way you 'deregulated' finance? The same way you 'deregulated' insurance? What is it about people who say things as if there is a meaning in those words, but they are absolutely vacuous.
Let's see, the top 5 world airlines include these: Asiana Airlines - Korean, 100% private. Singapore Airlines - Singapore sovereign wealth fund owns 55% of the business, however it's 100% privately run (operated). Private airports. Qatar Airlines - I don't know about this one, never flew on their planes. Cathay Pacific - Hong Kong, 100% private. Air New Zealand - the majority of this is owned by NZ gov't, because the gov't bailed them out after 9/11, yet it is a privately run company. Private airports.
USA doesn't have a deregulated market, they did a little, but never actually deregulated the entire thing, so just like the case was with Enron, you can't do that and expect viable results. There is too much imbalance. The huge problem is that almost all airports in USA are owned and operated by various governments.
Also obviously the routes are regulated by the government, which destroys competition completely and se
Must suck to live in such constant fear all your life.
- it must, but what does that have to do with myself? I am quite certain that there are targets that US military is interested in, I am certainly not one of them yet.
Oh, I don't have to influence anybody, my position is self-sufficient and it will become the reality that all will have to face simply via the market economic mechanism of interest rates. It's the failure of the currency that will dumper the growth of government (and indeed will reverse it), it's like taking a beach ball and trying to push it underwater, deeper and deeper, eventually it will fly out and the deeper you push it the faster it will come out and the higher it will jump up.
This idea that government is there to regulate individuals to 'preserve air' is complete nonsense, it is not the job of any government to do any such thing, it's the job of the free market to take care of air if that becomes a problem.
But I am also happy that I don't have to influence anybody "who matters" for my points to become reality, it's just going to happen without any influence on anybody.
âoeBoth the structural layer of the sensors and the integrated package are made of silica,â said Andrei Shkel, DARPA program manager. âoeThe hardness and the high-performance material properties of silica make it the material of choice for integrating all of these devices into a miniature package. The resulting TIMU is small enough and should be robust enough for applications (when GPS is unavailable or limited for a short period of time) such as personnel tracking, handheld navigation, small diameter munitions and small airborne platforms.â
- well, now they will have their self aiming bullets and self propelling, self aiming, manoeuvring grenades.
I say bullets and grenades, because why else would you care to track indoors, it's not a missile or a big bomb that will go there, a big bomb will just take your entire 'indoors' and make it 'outdoors'. Bullets and self propelled grenades on the other hand...
At least it's nice to know that at some point some of this may end up in civilian robotics, otherwise it's just terrible. You thought you could hide in your house from a drone machine gun? No, now we'll have crazy smart bullets to take care of the terrorists, that's right, the terrorists in their caves.
Drone planes, drone bombs, drone missiles, soon drone bullets, drone knives. They really don't like having to give orders to actual people, do they, knowing that people may not always take the orders if they disagree with them.
But there is something in there about "common welfare," isn't there? Idiot.
Is 'idiot' your handle? Because common welfare has nothing to do with soot or air, obviously that's the kind of stretch that gives unlimited power to the government, which was and never the intent. If government's powers were to be unlimited, then why bother with Senate, Congress, SCOTUS, elections in general, why not just have a King or any other type of a dictator?
No, general welfare only means promotion of more freedoms, not less, not fewer freedoms, more. Which means having a say in how the States try to take freedoms away, being able to prevent one State from discriminating against others by creating artificial barriers to entry to people moving between states. Preventing States for example from imposing State level licensing for anything (so your driver license is valid in all states, so should be your doctor's license as an example).
You are the idiot, you clearly don't understand the basic principles of what a Constitutional Republic is.
We're getting somewhere:). The mythical free market with all its magic properties doesn't exist. That's basically one point I was trying to make.
- free market is the opposite of the non-free market, and what the world consists of today is most non-free market, that's why so much capital flows into a very limited space today, that's why the productive output comes from very few countries today.
Saying that free market doesn't exist is pretty meaningless when we know that some markets are freer than others and we know which way to move to make a market more or less free.
Computer hardware industry is freer than insurance industry for example and software industry is freer than hardware industry.
The reason for it is relative difficulty of government control over such things. It's more difficult to regulate hardware industry than it is to regulate insurance industry and it is even more difficult to regulate software industry than it is to regulate hardware industry.
It does not mean that we should be content with the insurance industry being so regulated, we want all industries to be free of regulations.
Oh, and by the way, I don't know but I assume that your politics are democratic or liberal (in the modern American sense, as in more government) or 'progressive', whatever that is, am I right?
Here is a comment I left related to slavery and I give examples there of just one of the modern socialist states and how the entire population there was enslaved. I was born there long ago, it just so happens. I could talk about all these other socialist or communist states that did the same thing to their people as USSR and even worse.
I can talk about the democratised slavery of the modern society, where the voting majority votes to enslave a voting minority and this ability to discriminate is used to steal productive output of people (income taxes) and even have a scale of theft graduation ('progressive' income tax), so that's the modern 'civilised' version of slavery.
I see projection on your part when you say that I like slavery, what you mean is that you like slavery, you like your version of slavery.
AFAIC individuals must be free from the oppression of the state, if while being free from oppression of the state an individual signs a contract promising to be a 'slave' of some kind to somebody, that's between them.
They can't sign away their inalienable rights, so you can't actually physically harm and murder them, you can't even own them, but they can be your personal 'slave' when it comes to the output of their labour if you both shake on that, I don't care what you do in private.
However you want a very specific, government enforced type of slavery, not anything voluntary, something coercive and oppressive. Examine your motives, I don't think they are pure.
Owned it? What you mean to say that USSR owned a bunch of slaves and forced them to work as an entire country towards basically 1 goal: militarisation and space program was just the culmination of that goal.
Sure, let's have 250,000,000 people enslaved by a system and forced by the government to do what a technocrat dictator wants, this way you can probably even build a Moon colony, why not? Especially if you don't care how many people will die doing it.
Not like it's something USSR had a problem with, death and suffering of hundreds of thousands of people for some meaningless technocratic goals (and dictator dick swinging, really). Of-course USSR knew a thing or two about achieving technocratic goals on the backs of millions, whose deaths were dismissed as cost of doing business by the socialists.
The "free" market before the civil war, where all the work was done by slaves?
- do you care at all about the words that come out of you? Like do you ever stop for a moment and think: maybe I do not actually know, maybe everything that I heard is garbage?
The industrial revolution in USA in 19th century was not done in the South, it was in the North. This fact alone dismisses your entire argument.
Secondly: slavery is a terrible idea economically, slaves are much more expensive than hired labour. Slaves can only serve as unskilled labour, they require a large upfront capital investment (you have to buy them), they are maintenance heavy, after all, you have to look after your investment. So you have to feed, cloth, shelter them, you have to take care of ALL of their needs, you have to provide medical care, everything (or you lose your money, it's not like sick and dying slaves will do hell of a job).
You can only force a slave to do bare minimum not to be punished, slaves are not good for factory work clearly.
Civil war was unnecessary to free the slaves, it was going to happen regardless like in all other countries, it was uneconomical to use slave labour rather than innovate. Of-course Civil war was about control, central authority, keeping the power in the hands of the federal government, but it's OK, it helped to remove slavery faster.... at the cost of 600,000 lives. Much more than Americans have lost in ANY other conflict. I would say it was a bad idea to have civil war in any case, and it hurt economically speaking, never mind all the human lives lost.
Even with that setback US economy grew more than any other economy in the history of the world until China, but of-course China enjoyed a start with a much greater access to capital, tools, machinery, industrial knowledge that was brought there by capitalists.
comprises almost 99% of total organized labour.
- impressive. Until you realise that in Singapore only about 600,000 people are labour union members.
There are over 5,000,000 people living there, so that's a considerable chunk of people, so that's pretty large, about 12% of population. Do you know that their laws are very strict in terms of how they can use the labour union power? The last strike was in.... 1986. There are no significant labour laws, minimum wage is non-existent, yet per capita earnings are highest in the world. Health care spending is mostly private and it's very cheap because it's mostly private and it's free market.
You seem to be a big fan of slavery.
- more nonsense. Slavery in Ancient Rome had nothing to do with their wealth, it was free trade, the open routes to many other parts of the world that allowed build up of wealth. Slavery existed throughout the world pretty much everywhere, yet slavery does NOT lead to wealth generation, freedom does. Ancient Rome a degree of trade freedom that was previously unknown in the world.
Stop lying. I asked for an example. I didn't claim there are none. I do not understand what it is.
- so you are just ignorant then. Freedom is relative. The freer ONE country is compared to another, the more wealth will flow to THAT country. This is what you clearly don't understand. There is a reason Gresham's law works.
If somebody forces labour unions upon employers and somewhere else this is not a law, then the other place is freer and that's where business will be done. Contract laws are necessary, crime laws are necessary, sure. Private property must be protected.
But that's all that a market needs: protection of individual rights and enforcement of contract law.
A union is a method to monopolies the labour market, that's all it is. It's a way to create a single chocking point, barrier to entry to other potential employees, specifically when unions get to enjoy special government provided privileges, that prevent employers just dismissing negotiations with unions leadership.
Employers 'hate' unions for the same reason you would hate a monopoly on bread: it makes the product you want to buy more expensive not for the market reasons but because of collusion.
Union is collusion that makes labour more expensive that it is in the free market, that's all it is.
A company is a consumer of labour, wages are price of labour, the more expensive you make labour the less of it will be consumed by the companies and thus you create unemployment.
So in reality employees should hate unions, because unions prevent them from having equal access to the employers.
Side note, 1980s was the time of high inflation brought about by the 1970s, when the last remnants of sound currency were destroyed, as Nixon defaulted on the dollar.
Simultaneously the market finally got access to all the undervalued labour found in countries like China, where their big governments prevented the their people from exercising any type of freedom, which is why their labour had very little purchasing power - it had not capital, no experience, no skills, nothing.
At this point in time China has done more to pull people out of poverty by allowing more individual freedom than is available to many others around the world in the so called 'first world nations', the freedom to keep fruits of your labour.
It was done not because of any unions, it was done because of free market capitalism, capital has moved to China and gave the workers ability to become productive, which is what makes workers more affluent and wealthy as opposed to what you believe (monopolization of the labour market by unions).
No, I want a healthy economy as a consequence, what I actually want is government out of individual lives. Healthy economy is the carrot that I am talking about to make it easier for the others to understand my position, however it is not the object in itself, the object in itself is the internal satisfaction of knowing that there is no government that can trump my individual rights (and in reality the healthy economy is mostly inconsequential to me, I can do well in any type of economy).
Obviously you don't understand what free market is and you don't know history.
USA had free market (mostly, as free as it got) in 19th century. No gov't intervention in business, no regulating individuals and businesses, no income related taxes, no wealth taxes, no money printing (except for a short period of time in USA when the Continentals were in existence and then failed spectacularly).
There was no EPA, FDA, SS, Medicare, minimum wage, dep't of education, energy, commerce, interior, agriculture, HUD, F&F, FHA, FDIC, Fed, IRS, FBI, etc.etc. There was no standing army mostly.
That's what a free market is - ABSENCE of all of those things, so when you say: "I have never heard", I say, well, ignorance is bliss.
Today the freest markets are found in Southeast Asia, in Switzerland to a degree. Look at Singapore, no minimum wage, very little regulations, no unemployment (1.8%, what's that, people in vacations and in transit between jobs). There are no gov't guarantees for anything, housing, banking, there is no gov't deposit insurance, there is no universal health care, it's done mostly privately, the pensions are a private matter.
China is remarkably free in terms of commerce, maybe not politics, but definitely it provides a very liberal approach to business investments.
So when you say: there is or there was no free market, you are not understanding what it is. Actually ancient Rome had a relatively free trade market before it turned into an empire. The free trade market gave it the power that allowed Rome to rise above others, then the mob saw it and wanted to get a huge piece of it without actually earning it, they wanted a subsidy and they got a number of dictators, one after the other, until the empire fell. They also devalued their money by coin clipping, same as almost all governments are doing today.
For personal reasons, I do not browse the web from my computer. (I also have not net connection much of the time.) To look at page I send mail to a demon which runs wget and mails the page back to me. It is very efficient use of my time, but it is slow in real time.
Wait, so you know what is in my best interest based on what I say, however your words are:
people voting against their best interests distributed evenly across the political spectrum (including so-called libertarian). And not just voting against their best interests, but even voting against their own firmly held beliefs.
- so how do you figure this out?
Explain how do you know that people are voting against their own self interest?
My self interest is a thriving economy, AFAIC an economy thrives when the individuals in it are free from government intervention in business, money, where people are not regulated in business by government but by the market. People are not free when gov't takes away the fruits of their labour, their productivity based on the work they do, so income taxes steal property and steal individual freedoms. Graduated ("progressive") income taxes discriminate against some people for the benefit of others, thus laws are not equal for people, so again, that means the people are not free.
So when I say I want a sound economy, you may tell me that I would be voting against my 'self interest' if I don't vote the way YOU think promotes sound economy. I do not know what you think promotes sound economy, but based on your statement I assume you want more government rather than more individual freedom.
From your perspective when I vote for sound economy (individual freedom) I am voting against your version of my self interest (government intervention).
So again, how do you figure that people are voting against their self interest if they are NOT telling you that they are doing that? How do you come up with a sentence like that?
Good - you finally admitted not all government is evil
- certainly I never said that all governments are evil, I said that almost every government that exists today is evil, certainly where that guy is the government is evil and he is part of it, he is part of the colony of a parasitic bacterial infection the face of that nation.
Without gov't protections to copyright holders and without laws that make it illegal to circumvent DMR schemes, I am FOR the free market figuring out all of this on its own. People will figure it out, however once the gov't is thrown into the mix, that's where the problems start.
Another lie, since you are pushing the "all government is evil" line above.
- again with more nonsense, not all gov't is 'evil', but today there is mostly evil government. Obviously you can understand the difference, but you will pretend not to, a man knows which way the bread is buttered.
Sorry, you petty little Stalinist
- you are in France, right? I am very near by right now, would like to have a face to face discussion on this subject?
Go try to overthrow democracy somewhere else.
- the great thing is that I don't have to do anything. I didn't have to do anything for USSR to fall, for Greeks to default, for USA to go bankrupt, for most of Europe to go bankrupt. I don't have to do anything, I can simply enjoy the observation of the inevitable consequence of all of this.
Obviously you want something that enough people do not, so no. Obviously you want to create an artificial monopoly on labour, so no. Obviously you want special gov't entitlements and obligations to be placed on employers to deal with you even if the employer doesn't want to, so no.
Wow, what a classic case of class-warfare mentality, just wonderful to watch in action.
A union is simply a way monopolise the market, I wonder what happens to 'liberals' once they have to rationalise that away? I mean they don't like monopolies supposedly, but they surely don't mind that type of a monopoly, where they want gov't protection of their special union status and they want special obligations to be placed upon employers to force employers to deal with them (and sometimes exclusively with them).
I just wanted you to know that there will be plenty of non-union developers out there, regardless of what you believe people should do, and given that developers don't really have to 'break the line' to get to work, they can work from home, it will be much easier for strikebrekers as well to take your position.
Any type of income or wealth tax is theft of property but the graduated tax (the so called 'progressive' tax) is just pure discrimination.
It's all immoral and unconstitutional, it's all theft of property and treatment of people differently under law based on their specific circumstances, so it's discrimination.
Slashdot Mirror
population 4,354
- definitely. What do you do to help a small business in a small town like that? Advertising? I don't think so, everybody already knows you there.
I spent a few years building software to run retail chains, manage the supply chain, collect all the data, allow quick good analytics, manage a single store with part of the system, manage cash register, price checkers, etc.etc. It's all tied together, gives suppliers access to their sale data (this depends on their contract with the chain). At the end it's about the price, it's about really really low price. Beyond that it should be simple enough to use, versatile enough to handle whatever, it should prove its usefulness in business, allow managing many more products with the software with only a few people, allowing the same few people expand their product catalogue, centrally control prices everywhere, discounts, whatever.
The really hard part is getting the foot in the door in any small business, they really don't have the money most of the time so you have to be creative, very creative and persistent and not get discouraged easily.
Offering advertising to tiny businesses in tiny places? Wrong product. Even offering supply chain management may not be the right product everywhere, question is: what can you really offer and what can you offer in terms of price and support and price of support?
Those are very hard, small business is not like the giant business where players like Oracle, SAP, etc. dominate everything at very high prices.
The reality is most of what Oracle and SAP do for huge businesses can be done much cheaper but that doesn't matter to those businesses much, however in small businesses it is pretty much the only thing that matters.
there you go, you believe that it is OK to discriminate against people, to discriminate in the application of laws against people based on their circumstances, and you believe that it is even necessary in order to achieve your technocratic goals of 'social justice' and basically trying to even out outcomes.
Your sarcastic remark is simply the proof positive of the idea in my comments that it is what the mob is about, not about laws, not about individual freedoms, it's about theft because there are more people within that mob that has a common theme, which is to 'fix the injustice' (which is where the idea of 'social justice' comes from), they see it as injustice that they do not have something that somebody else has, they want force of government to take it and give it to them.
Actually based on some comments on /. I have proof positive that some in the mob don't even care if they get the proceeds of the theft, they just want to use the threat of government violence to steal from those who have more, they don't even particularly care if they themselves are going to benefit from that theft (most likely not).
It's pure jealousy, greed, stupidity, mobocracy and total lawlessness, discrimination, theft and at some point it turns to murder.
So don't continue the conversation, I am not forcing you to.
There is only one freedom, which is individual freedom. There are no other freedoms. There are no group freedoms, there are no gay freedoms, no racial freedoms, no gender freedoms, etc.etc. There is only individual freedom and government steals that freedom whenever it passes another law, regulation or a tax.
here is less real regulation on business today than there was >30 years ago, and the economy is much less healthy.
- wrong, completely factually misguided. There are more regulations today than any other day before today. There are more laws today than any other day before today. The effective taxes today are higher than any other day before today.
Sure, there are people who are impervious to regulations and taxes, banks seem to be absolutely above any of it, clearly they can deal with drug cartels and even Al Qaeda and not even worry about the governments, but that's because the governments and the largest banks are one and the same. When I say JPMorgan IS US Treasury it means something. US Treasury has no treasure, it's dep't of debt, not dep't of Treasure, but who benefits from it? JPMorgan.
However in terms of regulations on individuals, in terms of regulations on businesses that do not have this type of a relationship with the government, their regulations and taxes have never been higher than now. The nonsense about the high marginal rate of tax in the forties through the fifties is great, until you realise that nobody paid any of that because entire industries were developed to ensure nobody paid it (and that's a huge part of the reason that there was so little investment done in real terms, people were and are searching for ways to minimise taxes, not for ways to grow business, and those goals are not the same).
What do you think a regulation is? Patriot Act is a regulation. Every law is a regulation. Every new office, every new executive position is a regulation. You clearly are in a bubble where you don't have to deal with regulations, with lawsuits, with hiring and firing, with tracking customer data because the gov't forces you to, and all of this increases the cost of doing business and perverts incentives.
What if the "healthy economy" actually requires stiffer regulation on business? Are businesses people, my friend?
- the only regulations that actually work and are VERY STIFF are free market regulations.
Under free market regulations there is no Fed, there is no FDIC, there is no moral hazard of so called 'insurance' of any kind, be it bank loan (or deposit as you know them), be it health care moral hazard (Medicare as you know it), be it pension moral hazard (SS as you know it), be it housing moral hazard (F&F and FHA as you know it), of course half of all transactions: the money moral hazard (the Fed as you know it).
The only stiff, only true regulations come from failure, and government deciding who will be spared from failure is a moral hazard, not a 'stiff regulation' at all.
We deregulated airlines,
- :) Wow, really, you 'deregulated' airlines.
The same way you 'deregulated' banks? The same way you 'deregulated' finance? The same way you 'deregulated' insurance? What is it about people who say things as if there is a meaning in those words, but they are absolutely vacuous.
Let's see, the top 5 world airlines include these:
Asiana Airlines - Korean, 100% private.
Singapore Airlines - Singapore sovereign wealth fund owns 55% of the business, however it's 100% privately run (operated). Private airports.
Qatar Airlines - I don't know about this one, never flew on their planes.
Cathay Pacific - Hong Kong, 100% private.
Air New Zealand - the majority of this is owned by NZ gov't, because the gov't bailed them out after 9/11, yet it is a privately run company. Private airports.
USA doesn't have a deregulated market, they did a little, but never actually deregulated the entire thing, so just like the case was with Enron, you can't do that and expect viable results. There is too much imbalance. The huge problem is that almost all airports in USA are owned and operated by various governments.
Also obviously the routes are regulated by the government, which destroys competition completely and se
Must suck to live in such constant fear all your life.
- it must, but what does that have to do with myself? I am quite certain that there are targets that US military is interested in, I am certainly not one of them yet.
Oh, I don't have to influence anybody, my position is self-sufficient and it will become the reality that all will have to face simply via the market economic mechanism of interest rates. It's the failure of the currency that will dumper the growth of government (and indeed will reverse it), it's like taking a beach ball and trying to push it underwater, deeper and deeper, eventually it will fly out and the deeper you push it the faster it will come out and the higher it will jump up.
This idea that government is there to regulate individuals to 'preserve air' is complete nonsense, it is not the job of any government to do any such thing, it's the job of the free market to take care of air if that becomes a problem.
But I am also happy that I don't have to influence anybody "who matters" for my points to become reality, it's just going to happen without any influence on anybody.
âoeBoth the structural layer of the sensors and the integrated package are made of silica,â said Andrei Shkel, DARPA program manager. âoeThe hardness and the high-performance material properties of silica make it the material of choice for integrating all of these devices into a miniature package. The resulting TIMU is small enough and should be robust enough for applications (when GPS is unavailable or limited for a short period of time) such as personnel tracking, handheld navigation, small diameter munitions and small airborne platforms.â
-
well, now they will have their self aiming bullets and self propelling, self aiming, manoeuvring grenades.
I say bullets and grenades, because why else would you care to track indoors, it's not a missile or a big bomb that will go there, a big bomb will just take your entire 'indoors' and make it 'outdoors'. Bullets and self propelled grenades on the other hand...
At least it's nice to know that at some point some of this may end up in civilian robotics, otherwise it's just terrible. You thought you could hide in your house from a drone machine gun? No, now we'll have crazy smart bullets to take care of the terrorists, that's right, the terrorists in their caves.
Drone planes, drone bombs, drone missiles, soon drone bullets, drone knives. They really don't like having to give orders to actual people, do they, knowing that people may not always take the orders if they disagree with them.
You might like Somalia this time of year, then.
- I do actually.
But there is something in there about "common welfare," isn't there? Idiot.
Is 'idiot' your handle? Because common welfare has nothing to do with soot or air, obviously that's the kind of stretch that gives unlimited power to the government, which was and never the intent. If government's powers were to be unlimited, then why bother with Senate, Congress, SCOTUS, elections in general, why not just have a King or any other type of a dictator?
No, general welfare only means promotion of more freedoms, not less, not fewer freedoms, more. Which means having a say in how the States try to take freedoms away, being able to prevent one State from discriminating against others by creating artificial barriers to entry to people moving between states. Preventing States for example from imposing State level licensing for anything (so your driver license is valid in all states, so should be your doctor's license as an example).
You are the idiot, you clearly don't understand the basic principles of what a Constitutional Republic is.
We're getting somewhere :). The mythical free market with all its magic properties doesn't exist. That's basically one point I was trying to make.
- free market is the opposite of the non-free market, and what the world consists of today is most non-free market, that's why so much capital flows into a very limited space today, that's why the productive output comes from very few countries today.
Saying that free market doesn't exist is pretty meaningless when we know that some markets are freer than others and we know which way to move to make a market more or less free.
Computer hardware industry is freer than insurance industry for example and software industry is freer than hardware industry.
The reason for it is relative difficulty of government control over such things. It's more difficult to regulate hardware industry than it is to regulate insurance industry and it is even more difficult to regulate software industry than it is to regulate hardware industry.
It does not mean that we should be content with the insurance industry being so regulated, we want all industries to be free of regulations.
I have already forgotten more about the world that you will ever know, so imagine if my knowledge is little, how insignificant your is.
Oh, and by the way, I don't know but I assume that your politics are democratic or liberal (in the modern American sense, as in more government) or 'progressive', whatever that is, am I right?
Here is a comment I left related to slavery and I give examples there of just one of the modern socialist states and how the entire population there was enslaved. I was born there long ago, it just so happens. I could talk about all these other socialist or communist states that did the same thing to their people as USSR and even worse.
I can talk about the democratised slavery of the modern society, where the voting majority votes to enslave a voting minority and this ability to discriminate is used to steal productive output of people (income taxes) and even have a scale of theft graduation ('progressive' income tax), so that's the modern 'civilised' version of slavery.
I see projection on your part when you say that I like slavery, what you mean is that you like slavery, you like your version of slavery.
AFAIC individuals must be free from the oppression of the state, if while being free from oppression of the state an individual signs a contract promising to be a 'slave' of some kind to somebody, that's between them.
They can't sign away their inalienable rights, so you can't actually physically harm and murder them, you can't even own them, but they can be your personal 'slave' when it comes to the output of their labour if you both shake on that, I don't care what you do in private.
However you want a very specific, government enforced type of slavery, not anything voluntary, something coercive and oppressive. Examine your motives, I don't think they are pure.
Owned it? What you mean to say that USSR owned a bunch of slaves and forced them to work as an entire country towards basically 1 goal: militarisation and space program was just the culmination of that goal.
Sure, let's have 250,000,000 people enslaved by a system and forced by the government to do what a technocrat dictator wants, this way you can probably even build a Moon colony, why not? Especially if you don't care how many people will die doing it.
Not like it's something USSR had a problem with, death and suffering of hundreds of thousands of people for some meaningless technocratic goals (and dictator dick swinging, really). Of-course USSR knew a thing or two about achieving technocratic goals on the backs of millions, whose deaths were dismissed as cost of doing business by the socialists.
The "free" market before the civil war, where all the work was done by slaves?
- do you care at all about the words that come out of you? Like do you ever stop for a moment and think: maybe I do not actually know, maybe everything that I heard is garbage?
The industrial revolution in USA in 19th century was not done in the South, it was in the North. This fact alone dismisses your entire argument.
Secondly: slavery is a terrible idea economically, slaves are much more expensive than hired labour. Slaves can only serve as unskilled labour, they require a large upfront capital investment (you have to buy them), they are maintenance heavy, after all, you have to look after your investment. So you have to feed, cloth, shelter them, you have to take care of ALL of their needs, you have to provide medical care, everything (or you lose your money, it's not like sick and dying slaves will do hell of a job).
You can only force a slave to do bare minimum not to be punished, slaves are not good for factory work clearly.
Civil war was unnecessary to free the slaves, it was going to happen regardless like in all other countries, it was uneconomical to use slave labour rather than innovate. Of-course Civil war was about control, central authority, keeping the power in the hands of the federal government, but it's OK, it helped to remove slavery faster.... at the cost of 600,000 lives. Much more than Americans have lost in ANY other conflict. I would say it was a bad idea to have civil war in any case, and it hurt economically speaking, never mind all the human lives lost.
Even with that setback US economy grew more than any other economy in the history of the world until China, but of-course China enjoyed a start with a much greater access to capital, tools, machinery, industrial knowledge that was brought there by capitalists.
comprises almost 99% of total organized labour.
- impressive. Until you realise that in Singapore only about 600,000 people are labour union members.
There are over 5,000,000 people living there, so that's a considerable chunk of people, so that's pretty large, about 12% of population. Do you know that their laws are very strict in terms of how they can use the labour union power? The last strike was in .... 1986. There are no significant labour laws, minimum wage is non-existent, yet per capita earnings are highest in the world. Health care spending is mostly private and it's very cheap because it's mostly private and it's free market.
You seem to be a big fan of slavery.
- more nonsense. Slavery in Ancient Rome had nothing to do with their wealth, it was free trade, the open routes to many other parts of the world that allowed build up of wealth. Slavery existed throughout the world pretty much everywhere, yet slavery does NOT lead to wealth generation, freedom does. Ancient Rome a degree of trade freedom that was previously unknown in the world.
Stop lying. I asked for an example. I didn't claim there are none. I do not understand what it is.
- so you are just ignorant then. Freedom is relative. The freer ONE country is compared to another, the more wealth will flow to THAT country. This is what you clearly don't understand. There is a reason Gresham's law works.
If somebody forces labour unions upon employers and somewhere else this is not a law, then the other place is freer and that's where business will be done. Contract laws are necessary, crime laws are necessary, sure. Private property must be protected.
But that's all that a market needs: protection of individual rights and enforcement of contract law.
A union is a method to monopolies the labour market, that's all it is. It's a way to create a single chocking point, barrier to entry to other potential employees, specifically when unions get to enjoy special government provided privileges, that prevent employers just dismissing negotiations with unions leadership.
Employers 'hate' unions for the same reason you would hate a monopoly on bread: it makes the product you want to buy more expensive not for the market reasons but because of collusion.
Union is collusion that makes labour more expensive that it is in the free market, that's all it is.
A company is a consumer of labour, wages are price of labour, the more expensive you make labour the less of it will be consumed by the companies and thus you create unemployment.
So in reality employees should hate unions, because unions prevent them from having equal access to the employers.
Side note, 1980s was the time of high inflation brought about by the 1970s, when the last remnants of sound currency were destroyed, as Nixon defaulted on the dollar.
Simultaneously the market finally got access to all the undervalued labour found in countries like China, where their big governments prevented the their people from exercising any type of freedom, which is why their labour had very little purchasing power - it had not capital, no experience, no skills, nothing.
At this point in time China has done more to pull people out of poverty by allowing more individual freedom than is available to many others around the world in the so called 'first world nations', the freedom to keep fruits of your labour.
It was done not because of any unions, it was done because of free market capitalism, capital has moved to China and gave the workers ability to become productive, which is what makes workers more affluent and wealthy as opposed to what you believe (monopolization of the labour market by unions).
No, I want a healthy economy as a consequence, what I actually want is government out of individual lives. Healthy economy is the carrot that I am talking about to make it easier for the others to understand my position, however it is not the object in itself, the object in itself is the internal satisfaction of knowing that there is no government that can trump my individual rights (and in reality the healthy economy is mostly inconsequential to me, I can do well in any type of economy).
Yeah, why don't you take it upon yourself to tell me what I want, dumbass.
Obviously you don't understand what free market is and you don't know history.
USA had free market (mostly, as free as it got) in 19th century. No gov't intervention in business, no regulating individuals and businesses, no income related taxes, no wealth taxes, no money printing (except for a short period of time in USA when the Continentals were in existence and then failed spectacularly).
There was no EPA, FDA, SS, Medicare, minimum wage, dep't of education, energy, commerce, interior, agriculture, HUD, F&F, FHA, FDIC, Fed, IRS, FBI, etc.etc. There was no standing army mostly.
That's what a free market is - ABSENCE of all of those things, so when you say: "I have never heard", I say, well, ignorance is bliss.
Today the freest markets are found in Southeast Asia, in Switzerland to a degree. Look at Singapore, no minimum wage, very little regulations, no unemployment (1.8%, what's that, people in vacations and in transit between jobs). There are no gov't guarantees for anything, housing, banking, there is no gov't deposit insurance, there is no universal health care, it's done mostly privately, the pensions are a private matter.
China is remarkably free in terms of commerce, maybe not politics, but definitely it provides a very liberal approach to business investments.
So when you say: there is or there was no free market, you are not understanding what it is. Actually ancient Rome had a relatively free trade market before it turned into an empire. The free trade market gave it the power that allowed Rome to rise above others, then the mob saw it and wanted to get a huge piece of it without actually earning it, they wanted a subsidy and they got a number of dictators, one after the other, until the empire fell. They also devalued their money by coin clipping, same as almost all governments are doing today.
Ha, beat this:
For personal reasons, I do not browse the web from my computer. (I also have not net connection much of the time.) To look at page I send mail to a demon which runs wget and mails the page back to me. It is very efficient use of my time, but it is slow in real time.
Wait, so you know what is in my best interest based on what I say, however your words are:
people voting against their best interests distributed evenly across the political spectrum (including so-called libertarian). And not just voting against their best interests, but even voting against their own firmly held beliefs.
- so how do you figure this out?
Explain how do you know that people are voting against their own self interest?
My self interest is a thriving economy, AFAIC an economy thrives when the individuals in it are free from government intervention in business, money, where people are not regulated in business by government but by the market. People are not free when gov't takes away the fruits of their labour, their productivity based on the work they do, so income taxes steal property and steal individual freedoms. Graduated ("progressive") income taxes discriminate against some people for the benefit of others, thus laws are not equal for people, so again, that means the people are not free.
So when I say I want a sound economy, you may tell me that I would be voting against my 'self interest' if I don't vote the way YOU think promotes sound economy. I do not know what you think promotes sound economy, but based on your statement I assume you want more government rather than more individual freedom.
From your perspective when I vote for sound economy (individual freedom) I am voting against your version of my self interest (government intervention).
So again, how do you figure that people are voting against their self interest if they are NOT telling you that they are doing that? How do you come up with a sentence like that?
Good - you finally admitted not all government is evil
- certainly I never said that all governments are evil, I said that almost every government that exists today is evil, certainly where that guy is the government is evil and he is part of it, he is part of the colony of a parasitic bacterial infection the face of that nation.
I don't know what your last sentence is about.
As long as it's not government enforced, but IT IS, isn't it?
Ever heard of DMCA?
Without gov't protections to copyright holders and without laws that make it illegal to circumvent DMR schemes, I am FOR the free market figuring out all of this on its own. People will figure it out, however once the gov't is thrown into the mix, that's where the problems start.
Another lie, since you are pushing the "all government is evil" line above.
- again with more nonsense, not all gov't is 'evil', but today there is mostly evil government. Obviously you can understand the difference, but you will pretend not to, a man knows which way the bread is buttered.
Sorry, you petty little Stalinist
- you are in France, right? I am very near by right now, would like to have a face to face discussion on this subject?
Go try to overthrow democracy somewhere else.
- the great thing is that I don't have to do anything. I didn't have to do anything for USSR to fall, for Greeks to default, for USA to go bankrupt, for most of Europe to go bankrupt. I don't have to do anything, I can simply enjoy the observation of the inevitable consequence of all of this.
No.
Obviously you want something that enough people do not, so no. Obviously you want to create an artificial monopoly on labour, so no. Obviously you want special gov't entitlements and obligations to be placed on employers to deal with you even if the employer doesn't want to, so no.
Wow, what a classic case of class-warfare mentality, just wonderful to watch in action.
A union is simply a way monopolise the market, I wonder what happens to 'liberals' once they have to rationalise that away? I mean they don't like monopolies supposedly, but they surely don't mind that type of a monopoly, where they want gov't protection of their special union status and they want special obligations to be placed upon employers to force employers to deal with them (and sometimes exclusively with them).
I just wanted you to know that there will be plenty of non-union developers out there, regardless of what you believe people should do, and given that developers don't really have to 'break the line' to get to work, they can work from home, it will be much easier for strikebrekers as well to take your position.
Any type of income or wealth tax is theft of property but the graduated tax (the so called 'progressive' tax) is just pure discrimination.
It's all immoral and unconstitutional, it's all theft of property and treatment of people differently under law based on their specific circumstances, so it's discrimination.