1. Any number of trillions is just a measure of price valuation, it doesn't say anything about the actual productive output. What we know about prices in USA is that they are high.
2. In USA the manufacturing is under 7%, probably under 6%. The total reported GDP is under 16 Trillion. 1% of 16 Trillion 160 Billion. 7% is 1.12 Trillion, not even your number.
3. The trade deficit in USA is very high and has been for years. It's normally over 52 Billion per month but for June it was over 42 billion, that's because of changes in the price of oil. Now, oil prices are going up and will keep going up at this point, so the trade deficit is going to grow again. My point is that USA doesn't produce much of what the rest of the world can actually buy, so while USA does produce plenty of bullets, missiles and some heavy equipment, it's nowhere near to keep the trade balanced, so its obviously very poor at producing normal goods.
Only as long as the Chinese keep financing it. China and the rest of the morons out there who buy US debt obligations are financing US war machine and US consumption of goods made by those very morons.
1. There shouldn't be any government undercover cops working against organised crime.
2. There shouldn't be people working covertly in places like North Korea and Yemen.
3. People should know precisely everything about every nuclear load that various agencies, including government move around them.
AFAIC all the things you mentioned shouldn't even happen, and if they do happen and somebody leaks this information - good. Everybody must know what governments do.
This should not be a surprise that the emissions are lowest in 20 years, that's because so many manufacturing jobs have been moved out of USA.
The reality is that the wealthier economy can allow the luxury of decreasing its pollution, but not a poorer economy. Poor people don't care about the environment. Huge governments also don't care about the environment, see USSR for reference.
That's not a market failure, that's the moral hazard provided by the government.
Moral hazard is the various subsidies, for example the government built roads, which are paid for with taxes, inflation and borrowing, but which are not productive, instead they are the moral hazard that causes huge suburban sprawl and prevents viable private sector solutions to the mass transit question.
You are wrong, there is no amount of demanding that can move hours to anything, wages to anything, without production there is no change.
The kids don't stop working their parents becoming more productive.
People don't stop being subsistence farmers, hunters and gatherers without becoming more productive.
Being more productive means being able to produce more than for yourself, being able to produce enough that you can satisfy some demand on the market by selling some of what you produce, so you can feed yourself as a farmer and sell something on the market as a farmer - you are now more productive than just feeding yourself, you can trade.
To be more productive it takes capital investment, which comes out of savings. 7 people today can run a farm that produces 12,000 hogs a year and also they have a few fields with corn and some other crops to feed the hogs and they can even sell some of their corn in good years.
7 people can do that today, because they have the machines, which are the result of capital investment, savings. That's how productivity is increased - a guy with a shovel is much less productive than a guy with an excavator.
Now, productivity is increased with capital investment that comes out of savings, so this is capitalism. Once the people are made more productive by the investment capital, they don't have to work as hard to do much more, they can afford not to have their kids working, they can afford to work much fewer hours even at higher wages.
This has nothing to do with government, this has nothing to do with unions, no amount of decrees and unions requests can actually change the unproductive people into productive. Once the capitalist savings and investment allow people to be more productive, it is the capitalist that allows people to work less.
Henry Ford didn't allow any unions in his factories, he had high turnover and he wanted to retain talent. So he doubled the wages, cut the working hours to 8 a day and days to 5 a week. The wage that his employees were making was HIGHER than Ford employees are making today as measured in gold.
In gold employees of Ford were making back then 1.25 ounces of gold per week (an ounce of gold was 19 dollars).
At over 1600 USD per ounce today, the employees at Ford today have to make 2000 USD per week, or over 100,000 per year.
However that's not even going to cut it, because Henry Ford's employees 100 years back didn't pay ANY income taxes.
They saved their own money, they pay any income or payroll taxes on any level (federal or state) they bought things out of pocket, like health care, they put their children through school without gov't loans.
Of-course today the Ford's employees are probably more productive because of more technology, but they are not nearly getting enough productivity benefit because of the government meddling with the economy - taxes, inflation, regulations.
So Ford employees, while maybe more productive at work, they are also much more expensive to employ, Ford the car company has to pay enormous taxes, not just on its own profits, but also other types of taxes that come out of hiring people because the gov't dictates how people must be hired.
You see, if the free market was allowed to operate, by today the working week might have been 4 or even 3 days, with 3 or 4 days of weekends. Maybe people would only work 4-5 hours a day too.
But because of the destructive force that the government is, that benefit did not occur.
I believe a majority of people would do it. Thus, there would be a majority of strong, intelligent and powerful beings
- well good, let's hope so.
Let us hope that majority of people will actually be able to use this to become strong, intelligent and powerful and rich.
I disagree with the assertion that the majority of the strong, intelligent, powerful and rich will be somehow against the minority of naturals.
Let's hope that more people are intelligent, that more people are rich, it actually is a very good outcome, if THIS is what it takes, then the dream of beating poverty is going to be realised.
Having a majority of intelligent people? We should be so lucky.
'Powerful beings', so you are scared that the future humans will be more powerful than the humans of the past, OK, understandable.
Realise that humans of today are much more powerful than humans of 100,000 years ago. We are even genetically somewhat different, what we want to do is to speed up the process, I don't see a problem with people in 100 years being more genetically advanced (whatever that means).
What is your real fear, that there will be 2 or more 'classes' of people? How is that different from any other time in human history?
Hitler didn't need any more advanced humans than the rest to claim that the Aryan race was superior, he just claimed it. People are divided across the ethnic lines today, even within the same nation in India people are divided by cast. This will be nothing new at all and there is no more ethical problem with it in the future than today.
What is a human? Isn't it just a featherless biped with opposable thumbs?
How do you genetically define what a human and a non human is, the people that would be the product of this unnatural selection, would still be products of selection, it's just the selection would be done by the humans themselves. Isn't it the exact opposite of what you are claiming, these people will be more human, because they will be the implementation of desires that humans have for themselves at this moment?
Thatâ(TM)s a reality Michael Mansh, president of a small apparel factory in Olive Hill, Ky., faces every day, according to CNNMoney. In February, Mansh reportedly learned that his 100-person factory, Ashland Sales and Service, risked losing a contract to make windbreakers for the U.S. Air Force. The main competitor was Unicor, a government-run enterprise that employs 13,000 inmates at wages as low as 23 cents an hour......
That mission hasnâ(TM)t changed much since the government created Unicor in 1934. Advocates for the program point to the fact that inmates employed by the corporation, who earn between 12 cents and 40 cents per hour, are less likely to reoffend after being released.
You see, now that is the true evil - an incentive for the government to have more and more prisoners and this is cheered by the stupid population.
-
As to your question, a society with private law enforcement, private courts and private prisons is a society with competition in the justice system, competition in the law enforcement and prison system. Without government setting the absolute laws there is nothing that cannot be attempted by the free market. Yes, you are right, there will be abuse, I am certain of it.
But what I am also certain of is that having abuse in a free market system is much less detrimental than having abuse the way it is done right now - with a central authority creating the incentives, providing the power, the legislation, providing the money for this abuse.
It's called secession and States should do it, the federal government is completely illegal at this point, now that it does not follow the law, the contract actually, which is the Constitution.
There is a huge divide about the government's treatment of this punk band, Pussy Riots. They are now sentenced to 2 years in prison, which almost certainly means they are not getting out, but even if they do, they'll be broken and sick people after what they are going to be dragged through.
Unfortunately there is a huge chunk of the population that is cheerleading this injustice by the Russian 'courts', in reality by the Russian government. This is a political hack job, this has nothing to do with justice.
Supposedly there is separation of church and state in Russia, but I guess Putin is a shrewd politician, who figures he will play on the worst of the worst sentiments and feelings of the crowd.
Think about the crowds that gather to throw stones at the heads of poor women somewhere in Arab countries, where a woman was raped and then stoned for that 'crime'.
Now, the Pussy Riots weren't raped (yet, they will be now by the prison guards and prisoners), what they did was they offended some people's sensibilities.
It is TRUE, they did offend a lot of people's feelings, all that, but the criminal law that is used to throw people in jail shouldn't have provisions to throw people to jail for offending anybody or even groups of people. Should the law have those provisions?
I am thinking about Canada right now and the 'hate speech' laws, that can be used to throw people to jail for SPEECH.
Now, these girls went into a church and did something silly that they consider to be art, but AFAIC the more important part of what they did was political speech, because they spoke against Putin in the church. They specifically spoke against Putin and his rule.
They are being thrown into jail not based on any law, it's not even because they offended the church, they are thrown into jail for attacking Putin.
As to separation of church and state, these must be separate. If they are not separate, it means the law is not based on any logic, it's not based on reason, it's not based on anything that is rational. It's based on whatever the religions wants, and religion is not a rational, logical system.
ALL religions are irrational and illogical, they all have magic in them, they all require people to suspend the disbelief, to not think about the facts, to dismiss rationality and facts. Religions also have a very nasty tendency to punish the people who are 'heathens' (non-believers), religions have a very nasty tendency to use extreme forms of punishment. Stoning? That's nothing compared to what religions can do. Think - the Spanish Inquisition and worse. Religions are based on fear and punishment and suspension of rationality. Do you want your laws to be based on that?
But I am telling you, the forums, the blogosphere are full of people who are looking for blood, saying that 2 years in prison and rape and murder of these girls is not enough.
Do you think maybe religion and other types of tribalism appeal to the worst of the worst in people? I think so.
Oh yeah? The free market capitalism actually allowed the people to cut down on the amount of time they had to spend working, that's what allowed the people to work 5 days a week and 8 hours a day, you can look up Henry Ford as an example of how that was done, while people were paid more and more because of how productive they became.
The gov't stepped in with all the money printing and all the SS and Medicare schemes, and instead of getting the benefit of the higher productivity and working fewer hours and a shorter week (why not 4 or 3 days a week a this point?) the people are again forced to work 60 or more hours a week to survive and now they'll have to do it for more years again, instead of having to work for fewer years by just being more productive and gaining more purchasing power.
The government programs, gov't spending, gov't system has destroyed the benefit of the productivity that the free market capitalism provided.
I would love to take all the Socialists, Marxists, Communists and simply put them together on the other side of the planet from myself, while the people who value individual liberties and freedoms could be free from these parasites, destroyers of life, the anti-life forms on the other side of the planet.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Any number of trillions is just a measure of price valuation, it doesn't say anything about the actual productive output. What we know about prices in USA is that they are high.
2. In USA the manufacturing is under 7%, probably under 6%. The total reported GDP is under 16 Trillion. 1% of 16 Trillion 160 Billion. 7% is 1.12 Trillion, not even your number.
3. The trade deficit in USA is very high and has been for years. It's normally over 52 Billion per month but for June it was over 42 billion, that's because of changes in the price of oil. Now, oil prices are going up and will keep going up at this point, so the trade deficit is going to grow again. My point is that USA doesn't produce much of what the rest of the world can actually buy, so while USA does produce plenty of bullets, missiles and some heavy equipment, it's nowhere near to keep the trade balanced, so its obviously very poor at producing normal goods.
Only as long as the Chinese keep financing it. China and the rest of the morons out there who buy US debt obligations are financing US war machine and US consumption of goods made by those very morons.
Sorry, morons, it is what it is.
I imagine the ultimate solution would be to literally transform part of the human population into vegetables
This would be exciting for me, as a vegetarian I fully support this motion to transform the rest of the population into carrots.
Here is the raw footage, watch and decide for yourself.
Johny 5 is ALIVE!!!!!
1. There shouldn't be any government undercover cops working against organised crime.
2. There shouldn't be people working covertly in places like North Korea and Yemen.
3. People should know precisely everything about every nuclear load that various agencies, including government move around them.
AFAIC all the things you mentioned shouldn't even happen, and if they do happen and somebody leaks this information - good. Everybody must know what governments do.
This.
as always it is with violence and alcohol, if it doesn't solve the problem, you aren't applying enough of it.
I don't know what you are talking about, I wasn't listening.
Oh, and to achieve the maximum result repeat as often as it takes.
But researchers now report a new way to make male mice temporarily infertile.
- it's called a swift kick in the balls. It works by blocking the ability to fuck for a little while.
Metallic Hydrogen.
This should not be a surprise that the emissions are lowest in 20 years, that's because so many manufacturing jobs have been moved out of USA.
The reality is that the wealthier economy can allow the luxury of decreasing its pollution, but not a poorer economy. Poor people don't care about the environment. Huge governments also don't care about the environment, see USSR for reference.
That's not a market failure, that's the moral hazard provided by the government.
Moral hazard is the various subsidies, for example the government built roads, which are paid for with taxes, inflation and borrowing, but which are not productive, instead they are the moral hazard that causes huge suburban sprawl and prevents viable private sector solutions to the mass transit question.
You are wrong, there is no amount of demanding that can move hours to anything, wages to anything, without production there is no change.
The kids don't stop working their parents becoming more productive.
People don't stop being subsistence farmers, hunters and gatherers without becoming more productive.
Being more productive means being able to produce more than for yourself, being able to produce enough that you can satisfy some demand on the market by selling some of what you produce, so you can feed yourself as a farmer and sell something on the market as a farmer - you are now more productive than just feeding yourself, you can trade.
To be more productive it takes capital investment, which comes out of savings. 7 people today can run a farm that produces 12,000 hogs a year and also they have a few fields with corn and some other crops to feed the hogs and they can even sell some of their corn in good years.
7 people can do that today, because they have the machines, which are the result of capital investment, savings. That's how productivity is increased - a guy with a shovel is much less productive than a guy with an excavator.
Now, productivity is increased with capital investment that comes out of savings, so this is capitalism. Once the people are made more productive by the investment capital, they don't have to work as hard to do much more, they can afford not to have their kids working, they can afford to work much fewer hours even at higher wages.
This has nothing to do with government, this has nothing to do with unions, no amount of decrees and unions requests can actually change the unproductive people into productive. Once the capitalist savings and investment allow people to be more productive, it is the capitalist that allows people to work less.
Henry Ford didn't allow any unions in his factories, he had high turnover and he wanted to retain talent. So he doubled the wages, cut the working hours to 8 a day and days to 5 a week. The wage that his employees were making was HIGHER than Ford employees are making today as measured in gold.
In gold employees of Ford were making back then 1.25 ounces of gold per week (an ounce of gold was 19 dollars).
At over 1600 USD per ounce today, the employees at Ford today have to make 2000 USD per week, or over 100,000 per year.
However that's not even going to cut it, because Henry Ford's employees 100 years back didn't pay ANY income taxes.
They saved their own money, they pay any income or payroll taxes on any level (federal or state) they bought things out of pocket, like health care, they put their children through school without gov't loans.
Of-course today the Ford's employees are probably more productive because of more technology, but they are not nearly getting enough productivity benefit because of the government meddling with the economy - taxes, inflation, regulations.
So Ford employees, while maybe more productive at work, they are also much more expensive to employ, Ford the car company has to pay enormous taxes, not just on its own profits, but also other types of taxes that come out of hiring people because the gov't dictates how people must be hired.
You see, if the free market was allowed to operate, by today the working week might have been 4 or even 3 days, with 3 or 4 days of weekends. Maybe people would only work 4-5 hours a day too.
But because of the destructive force that the government is, that benefit did not occur.
I believe a majority of people would do it. Thus, there would be a majority of strong, intelligent and powerful beings
- well good, let's hope so.
Let us hope that majority of people will actually be able to use this to become strong, intelligent and powerful and rich.
I disagree with the assertion that the majority of the strong, intelligent, powerful and rich will be somehow against the minority of naturals.
Let's hope that more people are intelligent, that more people are rich, it actually is a very good outcome, if THIS is what it takes, then the dream of beating poverty is going to be realised.
Having a majority of intelligent people? We should be so lucky.
'Powerful beings', so you are scared that the future humans will be more powerful than the humans of the past, OK, understandable.
Realise that humans of today are much more powerful than humans of 100,000 years ago. We are even genetically somewhat different, what we want to do is to speed up the process, I don't see a problem with people in 100 years being more genetically advanced (whatever that means).
What is your real fear, that there will be 2 or more 'classes' of people? How is that different from any other time in human history?
Hitler didn't need any more advanced humans than the rest to claim that the Aryan race was superior, he just claimed it. People are divided across the ethnic lines today, even within the same nation in India people are divided by cast. This will be nothing new at all and there is no more ethical problem with it in the future than today.
What is a human? Isn't it just a featherless biped with opposable thumbs?
How do you genetically define what a human and a non human is, the people that would be the product of this unnatural selection, would still be products of selection, it's just the selection would be done by the humans themselves. Isn't it the exact opposite of what you are claiming, these people will be more human, because they will be the implementation of desires that humans have for themselves at this moment?
By the way, here is the government turning the prison population into slaves and having the public support in this by promising cheaper goods, while creating slave labour competition to the still existing real private businesses in USA.
Thatâ(TM)s a reality Michael Mansh, president of a small apparel factory in Olive Hill, Ky., faces every day, according to CNNMoney. In February, Mansh reportedly learned that his 100-person factory, Ashland Sales and Service, risked losing a contract to make windbreakers for the U.S. Air Force. The main competitor was Unicor, a government-run enterprise that employs 13,000 inmates at wages as low as 23 cents an hour. .....
That mission hasnâ(TM)t changed much since the government created Unicor in 1934. Advocates for the program point to the fact that inmates employed by the corporation, who earn between 12 cents and 40 cents per hour, are less likely to reoffend after being released.
You see, now that is the true evil - an incentive for the government to have more and more prisoners and this is cheered by the stupid population.
-
As to your question, a society with private law enforcement, private courts and private prisons is a society with competition in the justice system, competition in the law enforcement and prison system. Without government setting the absolute laws there is nothing that cannot be attempted by the free market. Yes, you are right, there will be abuse, I am certain of it.
But what I am also certain of is that having abuse in a free market system is much less detrimental than having abuse the way it is done right now - with a central authority creating the incentives, providing the power, the legislation, providing the money for this abuse.
Best defence is good offence,
and this clearly makes sense.
Patents, copyrights, government protection of all of these things, what can possibly go wrong?
China is one of the very few actual capitalist countries in the world today.
They are as 'communist' as USA is 'free market'.
It's called secession and States should do it, the federal government is completely illegal at this point, now that it does not follow the law, the contract actually, which is the Constitution.
There is a huge divide about the government's treatment of this punk band, Pussy Riots. They are now sentenced to 2 years in prison, which almost certainly means they are not getting out, but even if they do, they'll be broken and sick people after what they are going to be dragged through.
Unfortunately there is a huge chunk of the population that is cheerleading this injustice by the Russian 'courts', in reality by the Russian government. This is a political hack job, this has nothing to do with justice.
Supposedly there is separation of church and state in Russia, but I guess Putin is a shrewd politician, who figures he will play on the worst of the worst sentiments and feelings of the crowd.
Think about the crowds that gather to throw stones at the heads of poor women somewhere in Arab countries, where a woman was raped and then stoned for that 'crime'.
Now, the Pussy Riots weren't raped (yet, they will be now by the prison guards and prisoners), what they did was they offended some people's sensibilities.
It is TRUE, they did offend a lot of people's feelings, all that, but the criminal law that is used to throw people in jail shouldn't have provisions to throw people to jail for offending anybody or even groups of people. Should the law have those provisions?
I am thinking about Canada right now and the 'hate speech' laws, that can be used to throw people to jail for SPEECH.
Now, these girls went into a church and did something silly that they consider to be art, but AFAIC the more important part of what they did was political speech, because they spoke against Putin in the church. They specifically spoke against Putin and his rule.
They are being thrown into jail not based on any law, it's not even because they offended the church, they are thrown into jail for attacking Putin.
As to separation of church and state, these must be separate. If they are not separate, it means the law is not based on any logic, it's not based on reason, it's not based on anything that is rational. It's based on whatever the religions wants, and religion is not a rational, logical system.
ALL religions are irrational and illogical, they all have magic in them, they all require people to suspend the disbelief, to not think about the facts, to dismiss rationality and facts. Religions also have a very nasty tendency to punish the people who are 'heathens' (non-believers), religions have a very nasty tendency to use extreme forms of punishment. Stoning? That's nothing compared to what religions can do. Think - the Spanish Inquisition and worse. Religions are based on fear and punishment and suspension of rationality. Do you want your laws to be based on that?
But I am telling you, the forums, the blogosphere are full of people who are looking for blood, saying that 2 years in prison and rape and murder of these girls is not enough.
Do you think maybe religion and other types of tribalism appeal to the worst of the worst in people? I think so.
The bond holders and basically the productive part of the society, which will end this nonsense by stopping the subsidy.
Oh yeah? The free market capitalism actually allowed the people to cut down on the amount of time they had to spend working, that's what allowed the people to work 5 days a week and 8 hours a day, you can look up Henry Ford as an example of how that was done, while people were paid more and more because of how productive they became.
The gov't stepped in with all the money printing and all the SS and Medicare schemes, and instead of getting the benefit of the higher productivity and working fewer hours and a shorter week (why not 4 or 3 days a week a this point?) the people are again forced to work 60 or more hours a week to survive and now they'll have to do it for more years again, instead of having to work for fewer years by just being more productive and gaining more purchasing power.
The government programs, gov't spending, gov't system has destroyed the benefit of the productivity that the free market capitalism provided.
I would love to take all the Socialists, Marxists, Communists and simply put them together on the other side of the planet from myself, while the people who value individual liberties and freedoms could be free from these parasites, destroyers of life, the anti-life forms on the other side of the planet.