If there is a contract - then it's up to contract court to decide on all of these things, but that's just a small problem in itself, a symptom of the large problem, which is that government should not be dictating to the market how the pensions must be structured and who is responsible for what.
People shouldn't be forced into pension plans, into insurance plans, into health care plans, etc.etc. A person should be able to buy his own insurance, invest into his own pension all on his own without government standing there with power to corrupt the process and to sell the power and money to the real owners - those who buy that power every day.
If there is fraud in this case (or in any case), it's up to court to decide the details.
But the large problem is not this case or any case, it's the fundamental question - why are people forced into pension plans and why are businesses forced to provide them by government?
AFAIC anything government mandates upon companies is wrong and must be stopped.
I don't think so. There should be no tie between your employer and your retirement plan and between your government and your retirement, that's the only way to have a retirement.
USSR "communism" was largely a capitalist system on top, controlling the bottom attempt of socialism.
- a bunch of nonsense. There was no capitalism anywhere in the system. There was extraction of natural resources and sale of those resources to buy whatever food and some tools and machines that USSR couldn't produce.
What you call capitalism did not exist in USSR. What some understand under the term communism didn't exist in USSR.
But I tell you what - show me a country on this planet that has ever successfully implemented COMMUNISM and I'll be impressed. Communism requires relinquishing of individualism, private property, private liberties and freedoms, freedom of CHOICE NOT to be in that system.
So you think you 'studied' that subject and I didn't for some reason. It's a pretty emotional topic in terms that over 15 people were killed in the family from all sides because of it, yes. But you don't hold the 'truth' on this topic.
USSR was not a communist country of-course, but it was on a 'the course', as I said, we had a slogan: "socialism to communism in 5 years" or "socialism to communism in 10 years", depending on the moment in time.
There was never any capitalism in the SYSTEM, it does not mean that SOME PEOPLE could not gather quite a nice capital for themselves, those who were on top of the system.
But you are confused. You think that the reason that there was no production capacity and no resource in the system BECAUSE some people on top 'ate' it all. Yes, the military and space spending was insane and unsustainable. Hell, even the Olympic games held in USSR couldn't be paid for. But that was not the reason that the country was poor.
The REASON that the country was poor was much more fundamental than just some people amassing more money than others.
And this is the problem with the OWS and any communist movement in the first place - they believe that the problem is that some rich are stealing from some poor.
That's NOT the issue, they do not understand the issue.
The issue is that people are made into SLAVES by the political system, by the government, and slaves cannot be entrepreneurs. Slaves do not innovate. Slaves do not try to do anything better. Slaves have no profit motive, because all of the fruits of their labor are stolen from them by the political system in form of taxes/subsidies/regulations and competition is prevented (like in USA) but in a 'communist' country like USSR the ownership of property and establishing of a business to make PROFIT is not allowed fundamentally.
The fundamental problem with communism is that it is IMPOSED WITH FORCE upon people who do not want it, and they are made into slaves, and that is the reason that economy cannot be sustainable.
You can't have a population of slaves who don't want to work, who are not allowed to make a profit by doing anything innovative that the market would want to buy.
And worse thing yet - the government specifically prohibits and punishes any attempt at this and it severely punishes any attempt at deviating from the system and from the monetary system.
That's right - any purchases gold or any foreign currency purchases were specifically prohibited under the criminal law and I personally knew a number of people who spent 20 years in prison for this. And what those people were trying to do? They were TRYING to make a profit by providing some willing participants with some products.
So the market was NEEDED, and that's how I know that free market capitalism is the best and most efficient system - it is the NATURAL system that works if there are no government structures standing in the way and specifically punishing people for it.
Holy shit. Capitalism is "the most efficient system"?
- yes, out of all the systems we have tried so far nothing beats the free market capitalism, which allows the most competition and very importantly allows the ideas to die if they don't take off, and it has a feedback mechanism from the sales to the manufacturing showing whether there is real demand and more space for innovation/competition or the investment should be moved elsewhere.
Communism is "slavery"?
- yes, of-course, I don't just talk about it in abstract, I was born in USSR and even though we always had a theme there, that went like this: "from socialism to communism in the next 5 or 10 years", whatever, that was as close to communism as a LARGE society ever got. Of-course communism, or working as a commune is fine for FREE individuals. But that only applies to small communes, where one is FREE to leave.
NOBODY was free to leave USSR or Communist China or Cuba or Somalia or North Korea. Everybody was forced to stay there, even though the majority of people weren't productive even a little bit, but they constituted the 'mass' - political capital to threaten other nations in case a war would erupt.
Nobody was free to leave. Nobody was free to do anything, any business, own anything that was not trivial and was not mandated by the Party.
Yes, people were slaves, doing what they were told. Couldn't even move from their place of residency, at least not without a lot of bureaucracy getting in the way (which was set up on purpose to get in the way, because it was thought that people would move in droves from villages and collective farms to the cities of-course), but also they had a program in USSR - they wanted to spread the population across the country.
In Canada for example the climate is similar to Russia in terms of how harsh it is, and so most people live on the Southern border with USA. In USSR people were artificially spread around by force and they couldn't just leave (of-course there was a way to do it, if you knew the right people and could put together some bribes.)
Yes, people were slaves of the system. Unfortunately in today's Russia people still are under a dictatorship, but at least they are free to MOVE around and away. That is not the case with a system that is artificially imposed upon a large non-consenting population.
One thing is a kibbutz in Israel - it's voluntary.
Another thing altogether is being born into slavery and not having a way to escape it.
There is "nothing to tax in communism"?
- of-course there isn't. The taxes there were built into the standard salaries. There were standard levels of salaries: 40, 60, 80, 100, 120 rubbles for the lowest classes - this meant one is not a Party member and is working some generic job, even a dentist or a surgeon was making that much. 140, 160, 180, 200, 220 rubbles - these were for places that were more climatically challenged or for higher up positions of store directors and small time government workers. Anything above up to a couple of thousand was already very high up jobs.
But those were the standard salaries, all the taxes were built into the structure and the main tax was inflation, because USSR was printing trillions of rubbles a year. They still could not feed the population, couldn't produce, couldn't distributed, couldn't store, couldn't preserve stuff.
It's because SLAVES do not work as efficiently as free people. They don't care. They steal. They don't care to try and come up with innovation in most cases. They don't care and they can't be blamed for it. You can't put a population into a prison and make most of the people there innovative and enterprising.
What you DO achieve is mass alcoholism and theft and jealousy and hate. That you do achieve.
"Communist system is a result of slavery"?
- of-course, you have to enslave the entire population, majority of whic
THAT is what capitalism is about - competition used to turn savings capital into more capital by investing strategically in attempt to find a better solution to existing ones and to be competitive. They have Canadians flying to their medical center, and that's not a surprise. When I lived in Canada I went to US a number of times to avoid waiting in lines to see professionals.
What you are talking about is not capitalism.
There is no capitalism when governments are involved, because governments made sure to control the money supply, and so they PRINT the money in communist systems, because they can't really tax anybody in communist systems, because nobody is productive enough to be taxed, nobody is really producing anything.
So they print the money, which is the opposite of producing and saving the capital and applying it as an investment to grow more capital.
You are putting sign of equivalence between completely disparate systems. Capitalism is about people SAVING what they don't consume. So they have to overproduce first, so that they don't consume the entire wealth they have worked for and then they use the savings to invest into more business opportunities (whatever they are).
Governments cannot produce. They can't produce anything that the markets need. Sure - they can do stuff. They can FORCE entire populations to do some form of activity that is work intensive. They can send a person to space. They can fight wars and they can build roads.
There is no VALUE to any of that, the market didn't require that, there was no price discovery, there was no value created, nobody wanted to pay for it, nobody wanted it. So all of that stuff that governments do in communist systems are a result of SLAVERY.
Now, can capitalism and slavery coexist? Sure. Slavery can coexist with anything it seems. But slavery is NOT a good model for increasing efficiency and productive capacity. The slave owners in the South of US were not pushing forward the industrial revolution, it was North that was becoming more efficient with more productive capacity.
Slavery is a bad model, it's not scalable and it's not efficient. It doesn't allow good allocation of resources, it's expensive to run, because slaves cost too much to maintain. You can't make a slave more productive, he has no incentive to be more productive. He will be only as productive as it takes not to be beaten or killed.
Owning a slave's body - yeah sure. But you can't own their minds. So you can't have slaves that are inventive and innovative, that care about your product. And again - they cost much more to maintain than free workers.
Communism is slavery.
Capitalism itself is not a political system, but if mixed with free market, it is the most efficient system to allocate resources and price products/goods/labor and allow feedback mechanism to work to tell us what is needed and what is not.
Here is capitalism in action, in fact this is a good example of how a private enterprise is being proactive trying to get more market share when faced with the crazy government ran programs of 'health insurance' (which is no insurance at all, but is a welfare system), and health care, with the ever rising costs due to government money in it.
THAT is what capitalism is about - competition used to turn savings capital into more capital by investing strategically in attempt to find a better solution to existing ones and to be competitive. They have Canadians flying to their medical center, and that's not a surprise. When I lived in Canada I went to US a number of times to avoid waiting in lines to see professionals.
What you are talking about is not capitalism.
There is no capitalism when governments are involved, because governments made sure to control the money supply, and so they PRINT the money in communist systems, because they can't really tax anybody in communist systems, because nobody is productive enough to be taxed, nobody is really producing anything.
So they print the money, which is the opposite of producing and saving the capital and applying it as an investment to grow more capital.
You are putting sign of equivalence between completely disparate systems. Capitalism is about people SAVING what they don't consume. So they have to overproduce first, so that they don't consume the entire wealth they have worked for and then they use the savings to invest into more business opportunities (whatever they are).
Governments cannot produce. They can't produce anything that the markets need. Sure - they can do stuff. They can FORCE entire populations to do some form of activity that is work intensive. They can send a person to space. They can fight wars and they can build roads.
There is no VALUE to any of that, the market didn't require that, there was no price discovery, there was no value created, nobody wanted to pay for it, nobody wanted it. So all of that stuff that governments do in communist systems are a result of SLAVERY.
Now, can capitalism and slavery coexist? Sure. Slavery can coexist with anything it seems. But slavery is NOT a good model for increasing efficiency and productive capacity. The slave owners in the South of US were not pushing forward the industrial revolution, it was North that was becoming more efficient with more productive capacity.
Slavery is a bad model, it's not scalable and it's not efficient. It doesn't allow good allocation of resources, it's expensive to run, because slaves cost too much to maintain. You can't make a slave more productive, he has no incentive to be more productive. He will be only as productive as it takes not to be beaten or killed.
Owning a slave's body - yeah sure. But you can't own their minds. So you can't have slaves that are inventive and innovative, that care about your product. And again - they cost much more to maintain than free workers.
Communism is slavery.
Capitalism itself is not a political system, but if mixed with free market, it is the most efficient system to allocate resources and price products/goods/labor and allow feedback mechanism to work to tell us what is needed and what is not.
And USSR industry, while deeply socialist on personal level, was also deeply capitalist on organisational levels. Competition between companies for government contracts has been bloody - just look at their Mikoyan&Gurjevich vs Sukhoi competition on the market of fighter jets. It makes Lockheed Martin VS Boeing look communist (as in real meaning of the word, "let's share the wealth") in comparison.
See?
This was not a struggle for capital, it was a struggle for political power (which was more important than money in a country that was printing trillions of rubbles a year and couldn't produce enough wheat to feed its population and enough toilet paper to let it have clean behinds).
In a capitalist system you have Steve Jobs, who becomes rich by building products and investing the money to build more products.
In a 'communist' system you have a power struggle in government, and all production facilities were government, especially military.
No, capitalist system is not about competition. Competition enters equation when there is a market, free market allows and requires most competition.
Capitalist system is an economic system that uses savings to multiply capital by investing it into new enterprise, whatever it may be.
Communist system is not capitalist, that's just you mixing up all kinds of terms into one large blob of nonsense. Power struggle in government does not turn a system into capitalist one.
Capitalism is an economy, where savings are used to increase wealth by investing the savings in order to create more capital.
China has 'communist' political structure, but it is a mixed economy, which allows more private enterprise than almost any other nation in the world. China has capitalism for economy and it has a communist political structure. These things are incompatible, just like science is basically incompatible with religion, and so eventually the capitalist economy will create enough wealth that people will no longer want to maintain the top heavy communist political system.
But you cannot say that USSR had capitalism just because there was a power struggle in government, that's nonsense.
Yes, power is capital, it doesn't make the system capitalist just because there are people high up in government who fight for power. That does not make a capitalist system, and it's a command economy, which is always doomed to failure.
Nonsense. Just because there was competition it doesn't make that competition capitalistic.
The competition was for favors and power in government. This wasn't about multiplying the capital, the wealth, this wasn't about a return on investment. This was about struggle for power within government structures.
No, it's your comparison that makes no sense. You are assuming that designing and building a language is a similar experience to designing and building some business specific application.
I will not argue on a point that a person who is experienced and smart enough to design and build a language is likely a person who can build a business app, however this is not a person who has experience building business apps, and while he has experience building a language, this is not the experience that is required.
Constructing a hammer (digging your own iron ore, smelting it, forming it, doing whatever a black smith would have to do, then making a wooden handle, etc.), this does not give an experience of using a hammer to build a house.
Those are different things - a tool and some specific use of that tool, and building a lathe and a turbofan engine is a good enough comparison, because just as using a lathe while building an engine is required, it's not the only experience that is required.
Designing an turbofan engine and making all parts fit and having the correct approach to that design and testing and installation procedures and whatever it takes to build a turbofan engine, is not the same requirement that goes into building a lathe.
Same with a computer language and some use of a computer language.
which makes perfect sense. Just because you can make a lathe doesn't mean you have the necessary experience to build, say, an airplane turbofan engine, and if the company is looking for somebody who has turbofan experience, why would they rather hire the guy who built a lathe?
The system doesn't even have to be pure to allow failing companies to fail.
Since when do you need pure free market to allow the fuckers go bankrupt? I am 100% for free market, but why do you need 100% free market to allow stupid fucks to go bankrupt (and throw whoever committed FRAUD to jail)?
What makes a man turn neutral... Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?
Of-course there shouldn't be any legislation to regulate any business, federal government is NOT authorized for any of this by the Constitution.
But once you start killing people based on a hunch, go to wars without declaration and 'forgive' trillion of dollars by abusing the executive order.... what difference does it make then?
Of-course this is a veto of legislation, so I am for it.
and it's quite weird that these so called UI design 'experts' in software apps don't bother looking at the real world outside of computers.
You don't see an attempt to make interfaces of tea pots and of chairs to be the same.
I mean when was the last time somebody tried to fit the interface of a cupboard into a pillow?
Does this sound weird? It should sound weird and it is weird but in software people don't consider the weirdness of trying to make all applications for all purposes look and behave in the same manner.
There are fads though, so you end up with everything copying each other at all times.
Designers should consider the fact that different applications actually do different things and their interfaces need to cooperate with the USER, not with a fad.
Many cars, airplanes, kitchen appliances, hardware tools - that's where REAL UI designers work.
based on: Fast / Cheap / Good - pick 2 and the argument that people most of the time go for Fast and Cheap combination, you won't find enough profit motive for the companies to hire real UI designers and then to listen to them.
As to why - they are inconsistent. They are change for the sake of change and so they get in the way of productivity. They are not well integrated, the apps within them are not well integrated at all. They are mostly ugly too.
They suck and yet we are stuck using them because to make it really better will take a paradigm shift that would be just massive, because it's about uniformity among visual components and layout implementation. It's about ease of use, ease of moving data between applications. It's about good use of space, not wasting space. It's about the interface actually trying to be good without forcing the user to have to adjust it.
As I said before - Windows 2000 and XP had this right. I just tried Windows 8, it blew my mind how horrendous it is. Good thing it wasn't on my computer, otherwise I would have thrown the whole thing into the garbage bin.
CIA is part of the problem, always has been. Bin Laden was helped by US gov't and CIA. CIA was involved in all sorts of coups, overthrowing democratically elected leaders, like that of Iran about 60 years back now.
CIA is the ENEMY not a friend. Illegally killing people, meddling in affairs of other countries, actually creating international terrorists.
FBI is a domestic ENEMY who is attacking the people at home, illegally tracking and searching them, illegally detaining them, creating domestic terrorists.
Slashdot Mirror
Therefore you are voting for Ron Paul, yes?
and many other things take on thing too
If there is a contract - then it's up to contract court to decide on all of these things, but that's just a small problem in itself, a symptom of the large problem, which is that government should not be dictating to the market how the pensions must be structured and who is responsible for what.
People shouldn't be forced into pension plans, into insurance plans, into health care plans, etc.etc. A person should be able to buy his own insurance, invest into his own pension all on his own without government standing there with power to corrupt the process and to sell the power and money to the real owners - those who buy that power every day.
If there is fraud in this case (or in any case), it's up to court to decide the details.
But the large problem is not this case or any case, it's the fundamental question - why are people forced into pension plans and why are businesses forced to provide them by government?
AFAIC anything government mandates upon companies is wrong and must be stopped.
I don't think so. There should be no tie between your employer and your retirement plan and between your government and your retirement, that's the only way to have a retirement.
USSR "communism" was largely a capitalist system on top, controlling the bottom attempt of socialism.
- a bunch of nonsense. There was no capitalism anywhere in the system. There was extraction of natural resources and sale of those resources to buy whatever food and some tools and machines that USSR couldn't produce.
What you call capitalism did not exist in USSR. What some understand under the term communism didn't exist in USSR.
But I tell you what - show me a country on this planet that has ever successfully implemented COMMUNISM and I'll be impressed. Communism requires relinquishing of individualism, private property, private liberties and freedoms, freedom of CHOICE NOT to be in that system.
So you think you 'studied' that subject and I didn't for some reason. It's a pretty emotional topic in terms that over 15 people were killed in the family from all sides because of it, yes. But you don't hold the 'truth' on this topic.
USSR was not a communist country of-course, but it was on a 'the course', as I said, we had a slogan: "socialism to communism in 5 years" or "socialism to communism in 10 years", depending on the moment in time.
There was never any capitalism in the SYSTEM, it does not mean that SOME PEOPLE could not gather quite a nice capital for themselves, those who were on top of the system.
But you are confused. You think that the reason that there was no production capacity and no resource in the system BECAUSE some people on top 'ate' it all. Yes, the military and space spending was insane and unsustainable. Hell, even the Olympic games held in USSR couldn't be paid for. But that was not the reason that the country was poor.
The REASON that the country was poor was much more fundamental than just some people amassing more money than others.
And this is the problem with the OWS and any communist movement in the first place - they believe that the problem is that some rich are stealing from some poor.
That's NOT the issue, they do not understand the issue.
The issue is that people are made into SLAVES by the political system, by the government, and slaves cannot be entrepreneurs. Slaves do not innovate. Slaves do not try to do anything better. Slaves have no profit motive, because all of the fruits of their labor are stolen from them by the political system in form of taxes/subsidies/regulations and competition is prevented (like in USA) but in a 'communist' country like USSR the ownership of property and establishing of a business to make PROFIT is not allowed fundamentally.
The fundamental problem with communism is that it is IMPOSED WITH FORCE upon people who do not want it, and they are made into slaves, and that is the reason that economy cannot be sustainable.
You can't have a population of slaves who don't want to work, who are not allowed to make a profit by doing anything innovative that the market would want to buy.
And worse thing yet - the government specifically prohibits and punishes any attempt at this and it severely punishes any attempt at deviating from the system and from the monetary system.
That's right - any purchases gold or any foreign currency purchases were specifically prohibited under the criminal law and I personally knew a number of people who spent 20 years in prison for this. And what those people were trying to do? They were TRYING to make a profit by providing some willing participants with some products.
So the market was NEEDED, and that's how I know that free market capitalism is the best and most efficient system - it is the NATURAL system that works if there are no government structures standing in the way and specifically punishing people for it.
Holy shit. Capitalism is "the most efficient system"?
- yes, out of all the systems we have tried so far nothing beats the free market capitalism, which allows the most competition and very importantly allows the ideas to die if they don't take off, and it has a feedback mechanism from the sales to the manufacturing showing whether there is real demand and more space for innovation/competition or the investment should be moved elsewhere.
Communism is "slavery"?
- yes, of-course, I don't just talk about it in abstract, I was born in USSR and even though we always had a theme there, that went like this: "from socialism to communism in the next 5 or 10 years", whatever, that was as close to communism as a LARGE society ever got. Of-course communism, or working as a commune is fine for FREE individuals. But that only applies to small communes, where one is FREE to leave.
NOBODY was free to leave USSR or Communist China or Cuba or Somalia or North Korea. Everybody was forced to stay there, even though the majority of people weren't productive even a little bit, but they constituted the 'mass' - political capital to threaten other nations in case a war would erupt.
Nobody was free to leave. Nobody was free to do anything, any business, own anything that was not trivial and was not mandated by the Party.
Yes, people were slaves, doing what they were told. Couldn't even move from their place of residency, at least not without a lot of bureaucracy getting in the way (which was set up on purpose to get in the way, because it was thought that people would move in droves from villages and collective farms to the cities of-course), but also they had a program in USSR - they wanted to spread the population across the country.
In Canada for example the climate is similar to Russia in terms of how harsh it is, and so most people live on the Southern border with USA. In USSR people were artificially spread around by force and they couldn't just leave (of-course there was a way to do it, if you knew the right people and could put together some bribes.)
Yes, people were slaves of the system. Unfortunately in today's Russia people still are under a dictatorship, but at least they are free to MOVE around and away. That is not the case with a system that is artificially imposed upon a large non-consenting population.
One thing is a kibbutz in Israel - it's voluntary.
Another thing altogether is being born into slavery and not having a way to escape it.
There is "nothing to tax in communism"?
- of-course there isn't. The taxes there were built into the standard salaries. There were standard levels of salaries: 40, 60, 80, 100, 120 rubbles for the lowest classes - this meant one is not a Party member and is working some generic job, even a dentist or a surgeon was making that much. 140, 160, 180, 200, 220 rubbles - these were for places that were more climatically challenged or for higher up positions of store directors and small time government workers. Anything above up to a couple of thousand was already very high up jobs.
But those were the standard salaries, all the taxes were built into the structure and the main tax was inflation, because USSR was printing trillions of rubbles a year. They still could not feed the population, couldn't produce, couldn't distributed, couldn't store, couldn't preserve stuff.
It's because SLAVES do not work as efficiently as free people. They don't care. They steal. They don't care to try and come up with innovation in most cases. They don't care and they can't be blamed for it. You can't put a population into a prison and make most of the people there innovative and enterprising.
What you DO achieve is mass alcoholism and theft and jealousy and hate. That you do achieve.
"Communist system is a result of slavery"?
- of-course, you have to enslave the entire population, majority of whic
The Internet monster ate the reference - the link in my original post, so here it is again with the link in it.
---
I don't know WTF you are talking about.
Here is capitalism in action, in fact this is a good example of how a private enterprise is being proactive trying to get more market share when faced with the crazy government ran programs of 'health insurance' (which is no insurance at all, but is a welfare system), and health care, with the ever rising costs due to government money in it.
THAT is what capitalism is about - competition used to turn savings capital into more capital by investing strategically in attempt to find a better solution to existing ones and to be competitive. They have Canadians flying to their medical center, and that's not a surprise. When I lived in Canada I went to US a number of times to avoid waiting in lines to see professionals.
What you are talking about is not capitalism.
There is no capitalism when governments are involved, because governments made sure to control the money supply, and so they PRINT the money in communist systems, because they can't really tax anybody in communist systems, because nobody is productive enough to be taxed, nobody is really producing anything.
So they print the money, which is the opposite of producing and saving the capital and applying it as an investment to grow more capital.
You are putting sign of equivalence between completely disparate systems. Capitalism is about people SAVING what they don't consume. So they have to overproduce first, so that they don't consume the entire wealth they have worked for and then they use the savings to invest into more business opportunities (whatever they are).
Governments cannot produce. They can't produce anything that the markets need. Sure - they can do stuff. They can FORCE entire populations to do some form of activity that is work intensive. They can send a person to space. They can fight wars and they can build roads.
There is no VALUE to any of that, the market didn't require that, there was no price discovery, there was no value created, nobody wanted to pay for it, nobody wanted it. So all of that stuff that governments do in communist systems are a result of SLAVERY.
Now, can capitalism and slavery coexist? Sure. Slavery can coexist with anything it seems. But slavery is NOT a good model for increasing efficiency and productive capacity. The slave owners in the South of US were not pushing forward the industrial revolution, it was North that was becoming more efficient with more productive capacity.
Slavery is a bad model, it's not scalable and it's not efficient. It doesn't allow good allocation of resources, it's expensive to run, because slaves cost too much to maintain. You can't make a slave more productive, he has no incentive to be more productive. He will be only as productive as it takes not to be beaten or killed.
Owning a slave's body - yeah sure. But you can't own their minds. So you can't have slaves that are inventive and innovative, that care about your product. And again - they cost much more to maintain than free workers.
Communism is slavery.
Capitalism itself is not a political system, but if mixed with free market, it is the most efficient system to allocate resources and price products/goods/labor and allow feedback mechanism to work to tell us what is needed and what is not.
Anyway, enjoy your weird fantasy.
I don't know WTF you are talking about.
Here is capitalism in action, in fact this is a good example of how a private enterprise is being proactive trying to get more market share when faced with the crazy government ran programs of 'health insurance' (which is no insurance at all, but is a welfare system), and health care, with the ever rising costs due to government money in it.
THAT is what capitalism is about - competition used to turn savings capital into more capital by investing strategically in attempt to find a better solution to existing ones and to be competitive. They have Canadians flying to their medical center, and that's not a surprise. When I lived in Canada I went to US a number of times to avoid waiting in lines to see professionals.
What you are talking about is not capitalism.
There is no capitalism when governments are involved, because governments made sure to control the money supply, and so they PRINT the money in communist systems, because they can't really tax anybody in communist systems, because nobody is productive enough to be taxed, nobody is really producing anything.
So they print the money, which is the opposite of producing and saving the capital and applying it as an investment to grow more capital.
You are putting sign of equivalence between completely disparate systems. Capitalism is about people SAVING what they don't consume. So they have to overproduce first, so that they don't consume the entire wealth they have worked for and then they use the savings to invest into more business opportunities (whatever they are).
Governments cannot produce. They can't produce anything that the markets need. Sure - they can do stuff. They can FORCE entire populations to do some form of activity that is work intensive. They can send a person to space. They can fight wars and they can build roads.
There is no VALUE to any of that, the market didn't require that, there was no price discovery, there was no value created, nobody wanted to pay for it, nobody wanted it. So all of that stuff that governments do in communist systems are a result of SLAVERY.
Now, can capitalism and slavery coexist? Sure. Slavery can coexist with anything it seems. But slavery is NOT a good model for increasing efficiency and productive capacity. The slave owners in the South of US were not pushing forward the industrial revolution, it was North that was becoming more efficient with more productive capacity.
Slavery is a bad model, it's not scalable and it's not efficient. It doesn't allow good allocation of resources, it's expensive to run, because slaves cost too much to maintain. You can't make a slave more productive, he has no incentive to be more productive. He will be only as productive as it takes not to be beaten or killed.
Owning a slave's body - yeah sure. But you can't own their minds. So you can't have slaves that are inventive and innovative, that care about your product. And again - they cost much more to maintain than free workers.
Communism is slavery.
Capitalism itself is not a political system, but if mixed with free market, it is the most efficient system to allocate resources and price products/goods/labor and allow feedback mechanism to work to tell us what is needed and what is not.
Anyway, enjoy your weird fantasy.
this guy, some dude with nick 'Lucky o' it seems.
And USSR industry, while deeply socialist on personal level, was also deeply capitalist on organisational levels. Competition between companies for government contracts has been bloody - just look at their Mikoyan&Gurjevich vs Sukhoi competition on the market of fighter jets. It makes Lockheed Martin VS Boeing look communist (as in real meaning of the word, "let's share the wealth") in comparison.
See?
This was not a struggle for capital, it was a struggle for political power (which was more important than money in a country that was printing trillions of rubbles a year and couldn't produce enough wheat to feed its population and enough toilet paper to let it have clean behinds).
In a capitalist system you have Steve Jobs, who becomes rich by building products and investing the money to build more products.
In a 'communist' system you have a power struggle in government, and all production facilities were government, especially military.
No, capitalist system is not about competition. Competition enters equation when there is a market, free market allows and requires most competition.
Capitalist system is an economic system that uses savings to multiply capital by investing it into new enterprise, whatever it may be.
Communist system is not capitalist, that's just you mixing up all kinds of terms into one large blob of nonsense. Power struggle in government does not turn a system into capitalist one.
Capitalism is an economy, where savings are used to increase wealth by investing the savings in order to create more capital.
China has 'communist' political structure, but it is a mixed economy, which allows more private enterprise than almost any other nation in the world. China has capitalism for economy and it has a communist political structure. These things are incompatible, just like science is basically incompatible with religion, and so eventually the capitalist economy will create enough wealth that people will no longer want to maintain the top heavy communist political system.
But you cannot say that USSR had capitalism just because there was a power struggle in government, that's nonsense.
Yes, power is capital, it doesn't make the system capitalist just because there are people high up in government who fight for power. That does not make a capitalist system, and it's a command economy, which is always doomed to failure.
Nonsense. Just because there was competition it doesn't make that competition capitalistic.
The competition was for favors and power in government. This wasn't about multiplying the capital, the wealth, this wasn't about a return on investment. This was about struggle for power within government structures.
No, it's your comparison that makes no sense. You are assuming that designing and building a language is a similar experience to designing and building some business specific application.
I will not argue on a point that a person who is experienced and smart enough to design and build a language is likely a person who can build a business app, however this is not a person who has experience building business apps, and while he has experience building a language, this is not the experience that is required.
Constructing a hammer (digging your own iron ore, smelting it, forming it, doing whatever a black smith would have to do, then making a wooden handle, etc.), this does not give an experience of using a hammer to build a house.
Those are different things - a tool and some specific use of that tool, and building a lathe and a turbofan engine is a good enough comparison, because just as using a lathe while building an engine is required, it's not the only experience that is required.
Designing an turbofan engine and making all parts fit and having the correct approach to that design and testing and installation procedures and whatever it takes to build a turbofan engine, is not the same requirement that goes into building a lathe.
Same with a computer language and some use of a computer language.
which makes perfect sense. Just because you can make a lathe doesn't mean you have the necessary experience to build, say, an airplane turbofan engine, and if the company is looking for somebody who has turbofan experience, why would they rather hire the guy who built a lathe?
chicks?
I've been moderated 'troll' enough times here for saying that exact thing.
But here is a congressional hearing on restoring sound money, and the entire thing is very educational, but your question is again addressed starting from about minute 50 or 53
The system doesn't even have to be pure to allow failing companies to fail.
Since when do you need pure free market to allow the fuckers go bankrupt? I am 100% for free market, but why do you need 100% free market to allow stupid fucks to go bankrupt (and throw whoever committed FRAUD to jail)?
I think you need to take care of the reason for that depression before you start looking at symptoms that it causes.
What makes a man turn neutral ... Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?
Of-course there shouldn't be any legislation to regulate any business, federal government is NOT authorized for any of this by the Constitution.
But once you start killing people based on a hunch, go to wars without declaration and 'forgive' trillion of dollars by abusing the executive order.... what difference does it make then?
Of-course this is a veto of legislation, so I am for it.
and it's quite weird that these so called UI design 'experts' in software apps don't bother looking at the real world outside of computers.
You don't see an attempt to make interfaces of tea pots and of chairs to be the same.
I mean when was the last time somebody tried to fit the interface of a cupboard into a pillow?
Does this sound weird? It should sound weird and it is weird but in software people don't consider the weirdness of trying to make all applications for all purposes look and behave in the same manner.
There are fads though, so you end up with everything copying each other at all times.
Designers should consider the fact that different applications actually do different things and their interfaces need to cooperate with the USER, not with a fad.
non-computer stuff.
Many cars, airplanes, kitchen appliances, hardware tools - that's where REAL UI designers work.
based on: Fast / Cheap / Good - pick 2 and the argument that people most of the time go for Fast and Cheap combination, you won't find enough profit motive for the companies to hire real UI designers and then to listen to them.
It's just not in the cards yet.
YES
As to why - they are inconsistent. They are change for the sake of change and so they get in the way of productivity. They are not well integrated, the apps within them are not well integrated at all. They are mostly ugly too.
They suck and yet we are stuck using them because to make it really better will take a paradigm shift that would be just massive, because it's about uniformity among visual components and layout implementation. It's about ease of use, ease of moving data between applications. It's about good use of space, not wasting space. It's about the interface actually trying to be good without forcing the user to have to adjust it.
As I said before - Windows 2000 and XP had this right. I just tried Windows 8, it blew my mind how horrendous it is. Good thing it wasn't on my computer, otherwise I would have thrown the whole thing into the garbage bin.
CIA is part of the problem, always has been. Bin Laden was helped by US gov't and CIA. CIA was involved in all sorts of coups, overthrowing democratically elected leaders, like that of Iran about 60 years back now.
CIA is the ENEMY not a friend. Illegally killing people, meddling in affairs of other countries, actually creating international terrorists.
FBI is a domestic ENEMY who is attacking the people at home, illegally tracking and searching them, illegally detaining them, creating domestic terrorists.
So I take it you like me, going over all of my comments and all? Why don't you also read all of my journal entries while you are at it.