You are crazily misguided. You said that if in a free market you could sell a kg of food for $0.07 this would be not enough to satisfy the demands of the poor and the government would have to step in? Your brains are mush, edible mush ar about $0.07.
It is a modern version of communism and it is doomed to fail for the same reasons as any attempt at communism that has ever been attempted or will ever be attempted. Human nature is to work when there is real motivation and not to work when the motivation is not there. Communism fails to give motivation to work and gives all the motivation not to work.
It is not sensible, it is irrational, it is illogical and extremely expensive, and yes, it does allow the voters to vote themselves more for nothing, that's why it can never work for too long.
All of this is wrong of course, everything should be funded by service fees collected for profit by private people/companies that decide that a service is worth providing because there is a possibility of a return on the investment. Nothing should ever be funded by any taxes, there shouldn't be any taxes at all. I include the military into this as well, not only cops, hospitals, schools, firefighters, utilities and roads.
Needs of the many must not be allowed to destroy the rights of the few. AFAIC even one (1) person must not be sacrificed supposedly to save all (100%).
Your (and your ilk's) communist propaganda worked its magic, there are more poor people today, who are equal in their poverty than before, there aren't enough 'rich people' to cover all of your wishes and desires and the fewer wealthy people there are per a unit of people who are voting to get taxes of the wealthy, the more incentive there is to push towards reducing of the actual taxes.
Nobody should be forced by any government's violence to support anybody's lifestyle, education, food, shelter, medical treatment costs.
You don't understand the economy, nobody can depress wages by lying in a competitive environment. If I pay too little for a given resource in a given location this resource will be sold to a higher bidder. That's the only thing that is relevant.
I always leased or financed cars and not because of living paycheck to paycheck, it just doesn't make sense to pay cash for a depreciating asset instead of using the savings to invest into a growing one.
He is overpaying, my devs do the job starting at $2 for the first 2 months, then it is $3 for the first year, I do give $1 increases yearly though. Now, my team is small compared to what he is doing and I am hands on, it is a product we are building, not doing outsourcing for other companies (yet, I am going to start that also next year, it is worth it). Looks like he is overpaying and also he only hired people with at least 5 years of experience with those rates. I don't monitor people with software yet either and I do rent offices, but I already started hiring people who work from home as well, seems to make sense, not all of the people with the needed skills are in the same city. If you need to start churning out code you have to be flexible.
In the UK the GMB Union is calling on Amazon to recognize its representation of workers, and has attacked the company for what it dubs âoeVictorian working practicesâ.
- policies that demand efficiency.
Earlier this month the Union also revealed a total of 602 reports have been made from Amazon warehouses to the Health and Safety Executive since 2015/16 â" with workers reported to have suffered fractures, head injuries, contusions and collisions with heavy equipment.
- it is a warehouse, open your eyes.
It added that one report detailed a forklift truck crash caused by a âlapse of concentration possibly due to long working hoursâ(TM).
- or being a worthles employee who should be replaced by a robot... or sabotage.
In a statement on Wednesday announcing the Black Friday protest, Tim Roache, the GMBâ(TM)s general secretary, said: âoeThe conditions our members at Amazon are working under are frankly inhuman. They are breaking bones, being knocked unconscious and being taken away in ambulances. Weâ(TM)re standing up and saying enough is enough, these are people making Amazon its money. People with kids, homes, bills to pay â" theyâ(TM)re not robots.â
- wonderful reason to replace as many warehouse employees as possible by actual robots who would actually do their jobs properly and not stumble upon each other and would open their eyes and ears instead of listening to music.
It can be either valuable or stable but not both. If it is valuable, it will not be stable, if it is stable it will not be valuable. It is valuable as long as the instability allows for wild price swings.
Whatever you believe 'data suggests' the correct thing to do is to prevent destruction and self destruction, thus to avoid socialism and to rely on individual capitalism.
Once again, for the especially gifted, politicians win elections on the promise of something for nothing. Those who vote for them understand that they will not be the ones paying the taxes, it's always someone else who pays the taxes so that the voters can get their free stuff.
By very definition, if people just paid for what they use, they wouldn't need to create a system of taxes in the first place, they would pay for goods and services out of pocket instead.
The entire concept of taxes is the concept of taking away from the minority so that the voting majority can have their free stuff.
I disagree. The thieves are people who are voting for government officials that promise them these things "for free", or rather at the expense of others, who are in fact forced to give up part of their income/wealth.
I grew up in the north, we had 6 months of night in the winter there and it was always dark in the morning and in the evening and during the day too. But this does not matter, however here is what I think of your arguments and of all similar arguments: they are complete horse manure. If an institution or an organization wants to, it can, all by itself decide to switch its operating hours in any direction it wants at any time it wants. If a school wants to be accommodating all it has to do is start the classes at 9 instead of 8. It can even start the classes at 10 or 11, whatever. But of course it wouldn't do it because parents wouldn't like it, right? So the parents can petition their businesses to start later.
Basically we are using the government in the wrong way, as always, and we are getting a shitty result, as always.
First of all you are proposing theft, of-course that's normal for a collectivist but secondly you are also proposing turning some wealthy people into basically poor people, so ridding the economy of wealthy people but what is the effect that the wealth taken away will have on the rest of the society? From point of view of the society the effect will be negligible. Take away 150 billion from Bezos (if you can liquidate his Amazon holdings for that much) and divide that across just the 330 million Americans and you can give about 455 dollars or so to eache one of those 330. So then what happens? The 455 dollars per person is certainly nice and all, it buys a month of grocerries for some or a new TV for others or a couple of hours of fun with a call girl for a few but the end result is always the same: the money is squandered, spent away and there is no longer a capital left, no capital investments, nobody will start another SpaceX or another Tesla, etc., because there is no money for it. The purpose of having wealth is to create more wealth by using the original wealth, this purpose provides the society with economic improvements, as new products and services are created, new investment opportunities are presented, new jobs are created, etc.
Spread the accumulated wealth for consumption and there will be no investment, what you are proposing is not only morally bankrupt (as are all collectivists schemes) but it is also economically stupid.
It is always safe to assume that socialists, communists, fascists and other types of collectivists hate individuals as they espouse their love to humanity as a whole.
AFAIC individuals matter while the collective does not. I am all for infinite life and completely against aging and dying from so called 'natural causes'. However anybody is and should be free to terminate their own existence if they so choose. It would be interesting to see how many collectivists would off themselves for the sake of their vision of 'progress'.
Slashdot Mirror
You are crazily misguided. You said that if in a free market you could sell a kg of food for $0.07 this would be not enough to satisfy the demands of the poor and the government would have to step in? Your brains are mush, edible mush ar about $0.07.
It is a modern version of communism and it is doomed to fail for the same reasons as any attempt at communism that has ever been attempted or will ever be attempted. Human nature is to work when there is real motivation and not to work when the motivation is not there. Communism fails to give motivation to work and gives all the motivation not to work.
It is not sensible, it is irrational, it is illogical and extremely expensive, and yes, it does allow the voters to vote themselves more for nothing, that's why it can never work for too long.
All of this is wrong of course, everything should be funded by service fees collected for profit by private people/companies that decide that a service is worth providing because there is a possibility of a return on the investment. Nothing should ever be funded by any taxes, there shouldn't be any taxes at all. I include the military into this as well, not only cops, hospitals, schools, firefighters, utilities and roads.
Needs of the many must not be allowed to destroy the rights of the few. AFAIC even one (1) person must not be sacrificed supposedly to save all (100%).
The rich are also people and they don't like it when their money is stolen and given to everyman.
Your (and your ilk's) communist propaganda worked its magic, there are more poor people today, who are equal in their poverty than before, there aren't enough 'rich people' to cover all of your wishes and desires and the fewer wealthy people there are per a unit of people who are voting to get taxes of the wealthy, the more incentive there is to push towards reducing of the actual taxes.
Nobody should be forced by any government's violence to support anybody's lifestyle, education, food, shelter, medical treatment costs.
You don't understand the economy, nobody can depress wages by lying in a competitive environment. If I pay too little for a given resource in a given location this resource will be sold to a higher bidder. That's the only thing that is relevant.
I always leased or financed cars and not because of living paycheck to paycheck, it just doesn't make sense to pay cash for a depreciating asset instead of using the savings to invest into a growing one.
He is overpaying, my devs do the job starting at $2 for the first 2 months, then it is $3 for the first year, I do give $1 increases yearly though. Now, my team is small compared to what he is doing and I am hands on, it is a product we are building, not doing outsourcing for other companies (yet, I am going to start that also next year, it is worth it). Looks like he is overpaying and also he only hired people with at least 5 years of experience with those rates. I don't monitor people with software yet either and I do rent offices, but I already started hiring people who work from home as well, seems to make sense, not all of the people with the needed skills are in the same city. If you need to start churning out code you have to be flexible.
In the UK the GMB Union is calling on Amazon to recognize its representation of workers, and has attacked the company for what it dubs âoeVictorian working practicesâ.
- policies that demand efficiency.
Earlier this month the Union also revealed a total of 602 reports have been made from Amazon warehouses to the Health and Safety Executive since 2015/16 â" with workers reported to have suffered fractures, head injuries, contusions and collisions with heavy equipment.
- it is a warehouse, open your eyes.
It added that one report detailed a forklift truck crash caused by a âlapse of concentration possibly due to long working hoursâ(TM).
- or being a worthles employee who should be replaced by a robot... or sabotage.
In a statement on Wednesday announcing the Black Friday protest, Tim Roache, the GMBâ(TM)s general secretary, said: âoeThe conditions our members at Amazon are working under are frankly inhuman. They are breaking bones, being knocked unconscious and being taken away in ambulances. Weâ(TM)re standing up and saying enough is enough, these are people making Amazon its money. People with kids, homes, bills to pay â" theyâ(TM)re not robots.â
- wonderful reason to replace as many warehouse employees as possible by actual robots who would actually do their jobs properly and not stumble upon each other and would open their eyes and ears instead of listening to music.
Memories, memories As I said there:
It can be either valuable or stable but not both. If it is valuable, it will not be stable, if it is stable it will not be valuable. It is valuable as long as the instability allows for wild price swings.
Whatever you believe 'data suggests' the correct thing to do is to prevent destruction and self destruction, thus to avoid socialism and to rely on individual capitalism.
I have been talking about it for over a decade probably, if you want real security (anonimity) on the web you have to stop treating self signed certificates worse than plain HTTP. The amount of hate (follow the links and read the threads) was through the rough, but it only takes what, about a decade for something 'radical' to become mainstream?
American cops are crazy, no question about it, but how is a 25 year old a kid?
Once again, for the especially gifted, politicians win elections on the promise of something for nothing. Those who vote for them understand that they will not be the ones paying the taxes, it's always someone else who pays the taxes so that the voters can get their free stuff.
By very definition, if people just paid for what they use, they wouldn't need to create a system of taxes in the first place, they would pay for goods and services out of pocket instead.
The entire concept of taxes is the concept of taking away from the minority so that the voting majority can have their free stuff.
It means anything at all, including feces, so sure, why not, AI can create 'true' art once it cans some shit.
I disagree. The thieves are people who are voting for government officials that promise them these things "for free", or rather at the expense of others, who are in fact forced to give up part of their income/wealth.
I explicitely agree that taxing any income from anybody is the wrong call, morally wrong, economically wrong, universally wrong.
I explicitely agree that taxing any savings/wealth from anybody is the wrong call, morally wrong, economically wrong, universally wrong.
I explicitely agree that there cannot be and must not be any sacrifice, that sacrifice is morally, economically and universally wrong.
I explicitely agree that government must not exist in the first place, that existance of government is morally, economically and universally wrong.
The dream of freedom is the real dream.
Why was Willie Sutton ever sent to prison? He should have been given a government office in America.
When asked why did he rob the banks, he answered: it's because where the money is.
San Francisco government learns from the best.
I grew up in the north, we had 6 months of night in the winter there and it was always dark in the morning and in the evening and during the day too. But this does not matter, however here is what I think of your arguments and of all similar arguments: they are complete horse manure. If an institution or an organization wants to, it can, all by itself decide to switch its operating hours in any direction it wants at any time it wants. If a school wants to be accommodating all it has to do is start the classes at 9 instead of 8. It can even start the classes at 10 or 11, whatever. But of course it wouldn't do it because parents wouldn't like it, right? So the parents can petition their businesses to start later.
Basically we are using the government in the wrong way, as always, and we are getting a shitty result, as always.
First of all you are proposing theft, of-course that's normal for a collectivist but secondly you are also proposing turning some wealthy people into basically poor people, so ridding the economy of wealthy people but what is the effect that the wealth taken away will have on the rest of the society? From point of view of the society the effect will be negligible. Take away 150 billion from Bezos (if you can liquidate his Amazon holdings for that much) and divide that across just the 330 million Americans and you can give about 455 dollars or so to eache one of those 330. So then what happens? The 455 dollars per person is certainly nice and all, it buys a month of grocerries for some or a new TV for others or a couple of hours of fun with a call girl for a few but the end result is always the same: the money is squandered, spent away and there is no longer a capital left, no capital investments, nobody will start another SpaceX or another Tesla, etc., because there is no money for it. The purpose of having wealth is to create more wealth by using the original wealth, this purpose provides the society with economic improvements, as new products and services are created, new investment opportunities are presented, new jobs are created, etc.
Spread the accumulated wealth for consumption and there will be no investment, what you are proposing is not only morally bankrupt (as are all collectivists schemes) but it is also economically stupid.
Mm, no. Sociopaths steal and oppress. Sociopaths create and promote governments and taxation.
Have... have you ever heard of the concept of *not* stealing? Taxes are theft.
Number of people given free /affordable homes
- that's a great idea. You should set an example and give your house to somebody else.
It is always safe to assume that socialists, communists, fascists and other types of collectivists hate individuals as they espouse their love to humanity as a whole.
AFAIC individuals matter while the collective does not. I am all for infinite life and completely against aging and dying from so called 'natural causes'. However anybody is and should be free to terminate their own existence if they so choose. It would be interesting to see how many collectivists would off themselves for the sake of their vision of 'progress'.