You are the one searching out my posts and leaving your worthless commentary, so clearly, you are the one who is interested in anything like that. I don't care for your comments, they are empty noise to me. But the moderators are showing their true colors here.
I'd argue that people do not save money because there is no point in saving something that is constantly being debased and inflated and devalued.
Definition of money is store of value, unit of account and medium of exchange. They removed one important aspect of it: store of value with fiat that is backed by nothing, thus people do not save.
I know I don't save fiat, I spend it immediately and to store value I buy metals and mining stocks, which from my POV counts as savings (for metals) and investment (for stocks).
People do have savings when money is not being destroyed by the government. Savings are what makes credit possible.
Credit is not supposed to come out of thin air and printing presses. Eventually somebody must produce something and have the value of that production stored and not spent, which then makes this value transferable and available as credit for for investment.
So from my POV, having a product that is of low cost or even, as in case with free/Free software can be had without cost of any license is a good thing, as it allows building up more savings, which can be used for investment, which is the only legitimate way to improve the economy.
Some localities may choose to have enforcement that is funded locally from say property taxes, others may come up with mandatory insurance based system and others can have completely private and completely voluntary participation and payments into such insurance, and have competing private security forces. This means private jail courts, private jails, private cops for some localities and not for others, but at least this would provide a way for people to choose and vote with their feet.
For my part, I would prefer to have completely privatized courts and cops and voluntary insurance for covering such costs.
It's not about what I want, it shouldn't be about what a collective wants, it's about what every individual decides for himself, and this makes the market.
As far as we have observed, every individual wants more products and services at lower cost, thus this is what market optimizes itself for - creation of more products and services at lower costs. Government interference brakes this and causes inefficiencies, which bring the costs up and reduce choices, while creating monopolies and concentrating wealth inefficiently in monopolies.
As to "accumulation of wealth being socially valuable to a certain point" - I don't know what this means at all.
AFAIC desire to accumulate wealth is the only real mover of the market, this is what every individual wants - more wealth, or more products and services at lower costs. Thus those who figure out how to satisfy the demand of the individuals in the market best, get more affluent by creating this wealth and acquiring more savings of their own, which they then reinvest to make even more money, which is what I suppose you find repulsive for some unfathomable reason. I personally find it extremely reassuring, that regardless of what moral activists may wish or desire, the human ingenuity will not stop just because they personally are repulsed by its action.
Court system that is not government based can only exist if it accrues certain amount of credibility. I don't believe in laws passed by government in my view credibility has to be earned. As to one not liking a judgment - that should be up to a contract. You choose a court a stick to it, any attempt to deny the court's finding simply because you don't like the ruling would immediately mean you are in violation of contract.
Whether the court system is private or public is really secondary to the fact that there must be more than one court system. Competition is paramount, as the rulings by the SCOTUS have shown over the past 100 years, no one monopoly can be trusted, and SCOTUS is a monopoly and they have proven it over and over.
Products are services are wealth, not money. As to 'greedy pig wanting more' - those are people who start businesses and create products and services, well, outside of Free software, if they are looking for profit.
Search for profit is by far the biggest motivator that increased the wealth of people on this planet most when compare to any other motivator, and 'greedy pigs' are the people who are looking for profit.
The goal is not to move money. The goals is to create wealth. Wealth is products and services. If the same product or service can be received with less movement of money and even without any money movement, then the market has provided the product very efficiently and anybody can have it.
Think about it this way: if there was free bread given out to everybody, would you be complaining that people need to make money so that they can eat and that's why bread should not be free?
Aaaaaah, beautiful. The above comment certainly deserves the "+4 Interesting" moderation that it has because it is a fine tuned demonstration of absurdity, to which economic illiteracy takes a Keynesian follower, and the above comment is definitely Keynesian in nature, even if the commenter himself doesn't immediately recognize it as one.
Think about this, just like the worthless, completely worthless Krugman, who says that people need to be hired by government, who must create worthless jobs just to cause this 'velocity' of money, the above commenter puts the money above the product. Worthless paper above an existing product.
The reasoning about economic wealth is transformed from: people need things, and that's why they work in the market. To: people need to work, no matter what the work is, even if it is worthless, as long as there is this 'velocity' of money.
Any product that already exists increases economic wealth. If the product is sold at a price, which is efficient to the market participants, then it's a good deal. The Free Software qualifies perfectly. It is given away, the part of the deal is that the code becomes Free and cannot be locked and stolen from the public domain basically. So it's a product, upon a company can rely and spend nothing for the licenses - that is extremely efficient. If more products were like this, the economy would be much more efficient.
The goal of the free market is lowering of the prices, not hiking of the prices, as the Fed wants you all to believe, so that the Fed can justify printing the money and causing inflation, which is what governments want. Governments are huge debtors, especially governments of the West today, especially USA. So governments want inflation, and that's what they create with money printing.
Effect of inflation is rising prices, which is the opposite of what free market provides - lowering of the prices and increase in choices and efficiencies. The goal of an economy is to provide the required choice of products and services at most efficient prices/costs.
The goal is not full employment of-course, that's a side note, it's a side issue. The goal is to provide everything that the market wants at the prices that the market prefers.
So going back to the economic disaster that USA and the rest of the Western socialized societies are facing. The reason why the economies are in such huge trouble is the mis-allocation of resources - human and capital resources, that is created by the government. The fix to it is more free market, not less free market and more government.
If the free market provides one product/service at very low costs, that's not a failure of market, that's a success of the market, as it obviously created an environment in which this product is possible at that price.
Any spending that can be reduced on any product is a good thing. The increase in spending is a bad thing. The increase in debt ceiling was not the crisis that the politicians want you to believe it was. It would have been a self-imposed austerity measure, that would have started the US economy on the road to recovery.
The actual CRISIS is the DEBT.
Because of that any reduction in spending needs to be understood to be a good thing, this applies to Free/free software as much as it applies to any other spending.
Competing markets for court systems have always existed around the world, it's not a bizarre concept, what's bizarre is to believe that gov't has your best interests in mind with their monopoly on law and enforcement.
Obviously there need to be private competing systems for enforcement of rulings, just like there need to be competing systems for passing the judgments, and people would have to choose their preferred court system. Clearly to pay for this you'd have to either have the cash or buy insurance.
Small claims are already enforced with private collections agencies and private security is not unheard of, this is not a foreign concept even in US.
What do you mean 'if they know'? How would you not know?
In any case, I am not proposing hanging people on the trees, I am talking about court system, and hopefully one that is not government provided, because nobody can believe that system is unbiased in any way at all.
Well obviously, god forbid you'd have a choice between more than one electrical provider, with more than one electrical line, that'd be just awful. Imagine all that insanity of cables, as some guys figure out how to sell you cheaper electrical power than the other guys. Never mind they can figure out how to place cables so that you don't see them instead of hanging them above your head.
It's a crazy idea that should one electrical grid go off line you should be able to use a competing one. It's a crazy idea that more than one water pipe should exist and that you should have a choice which one to use.
It's total insanity if some company figured out how to build a sewer line that would compete with an existing, it's just completely wrong thing to do it.
You can't have choices you see, because the parent comment over there says that it is a bad thing if you have them.
a pretty good read. Government creates monopolies out of thin air, justifying them by saying they are natural, while there is absolutely nothing natural about them, they are all government established, subsidized, taxed for, regulated and protected, especially any type of infrastructure.
and that's one way government destroys economy, by preventing people from experimenting with their ideas and possibly finding better and cheaper solutions to energy needs. I am not saying this guy would find a better and cheaper solution necessarily, but what we have here, is government that interferes and definitely this prevents many more people from trying and finding something.
No, the market is providing a solution, which makes sense. Governments do not do this. By the time Standard Oil was broken up it wasn't a monopoly. There are no monopolies in free market anyway, there is no such thing as a natural monopoly. It's a ruse by the government and gov't hired charlatans that people think are economists to justify gov't interference with the market.
Whenever gov't participates in any sort of 'breaking of a monopoly', you know it's lobbied by other businesses who cannot effectively compete on price and/or quality against a company that provides the solution that market prefers at that point in time.
Slashdot Mirror
what? suffering? you appreciate? what are you talking about, empty noise?
I, suppress you?!
You are the one searching out my posts and leaving your worthless commentary, so clearly, you are the one who is interested in anything like that. I don't care for your comments, they are empty noise to me. But the moderators are showing their true colors here.
aren't you trolling, being off-topic and flamebaiting all in one?
Your nick name serves you well.
I'd argue that people do not save money because there is no point in saving something that is constantly being debased and inflated and devalued.
Definition of money is store of value, unit of account and medium of exchange. They removed one important aspect of it: store of value with fiat that is backed by nothing, thus people do not save.
I know I don't save fiat, I spend it immediately and to store value I buy metals and mining stocks, which from my POV counts as savings (for metals) and investment (for stocks).
People do have savings when money is not being destroyed by the government. Savings are what makes credit possible.
Credit is not supposed to come out of thin air and printing presses. Eventually somebody must produce something and have the value of that production stored and not spent, which then makes this value transferable and available as credit for for investment.
So from my POV, having a product that is of low cost or even, as in case with free/Free software can be had without cost of any license is a good thing, as it allows building up more savings, which can be used for investment, which is the only legitimate way to improve the economy.
Some localities may choose to have enforcement that is funded locally from say property taxes, others may come up with mandatory insurance based system and others can have completely private and completely voluntary participation and payments into such insurance, and have competing private security forces. This means private jail courts, private jails, private cops for some localities and not for others, but at least this would provide a way for people to choose and vote with their feet.
For my part, I would prefer to have completely privatized courts and cops and voluntary insurance for covering such costs.
It's not about what I want, it shouldn't be about what a collective wants, it's about what every individual decides for himself, and this makes the market.
As far as we have observed, every individual wants more products and services at lower cost, thus this is what market optimizes itself for - creation of more products and services at lower costs. Government interference brakes this and causes inefficiencies, which bring the costs up and reduce choices, while creating monopolies and concentrating wealth inefficiently in monopolies.
As to "accumulation of wealth being socially valuable to a certain point" - I don't know what this means at all.
AFAIC desire to accumulate wealth is the only real mover of the market, this is what every individual wants - more wealth, or more products and services at lower costs. Thus those who figure out how to satisfy the demand of the individuals in the market best, get more affluent by creating this wealth and acquiring more savings of their own, which they then reinvest to make even more money, which is what I suppose you find repulsive for some unfathomable reason. I personally find it extremely reassuring, that regardless of what moral activists may wish or desire, the human ingenuity will not stop just because they personally are repulsed by its action.
sorry, everybody, I left it there, I'll be removing it shortly.
Court system that is not government based can only exist if it accrues certain amount of credibility. I don't believe in laws passed by government in my view credibility has to be earned. As to one not liking a judgment - that should be up to a contract. You choose a court a stick to it, any attempt to deny the court's finding simply because you don't like the ruling would immediately mean you are in violation of contract.
Whether the court system is private or public is really secondary to the fact that there must be more than one court system. Competition is paramount, as the rulings by the SCOTUS have shown over the past 100 years, no one monopoly can be trusted, and SCOTUS is a monopoly and they have proven it over and over.
Products are services are wealth, not money. As to 'greedy pig wanting more' - those are people who start businesses and create products and services, well, outside of Free software, if they are looking for profit.
Search for profit is by far the biggest motivator that increased the wealth of people on this planet most when compare to any other motivator, and 'greedy pigs' are the people who are looking for profit.
The goal is not to move money. The goals is to create wealth. Wealth is products and services. If the same product or service can be received with less movement of money and even without any money movement, then the market has provided the product very efficiently and anybody can have it.
Think about it this way: if there was free bread given out to everybody, would you be complaining that people need to make money so that they can eat and that's why bread should not be free?
Aaaaaah, beautiful. The above comment certainly deserves the "+4 Interesting" moderation that it has because it is a fine tuned demonstration of absurdity, to which economic illiteracy takes a Keynesian follower, and the above comment is definitely Keynesian in nature, even if the commenter himself doesn't immediately recognize it as one.
Think about this, just like the worthless, completely worthless Krugman, who says that people need to be hired by government, who must create worthless jobs just to cause this 'velocity' of money, the above commenter puts the money above the product. Worthless paper above an existing product.
The reasoning about economic wealth is transformed from: people need things, and that's why they work in the market. To: people need to work, no matter what the work is, even if it is worthless, as long as there is this 'velocity' of money.
Any product that already exists increases economic wealth. If the product is sold at a price, which is efficient to the market participants, then it's a good deal. The Free Software qualifies perfectly. It is given away, the part of the deal is that the code becomes Free and cannot be locked and stolen from the public domain basically. So it's a product, upon a company can rely and spend nothing for the licenses - that is extremely efficient. If more products were like this, the economy would be much more efficient.
The goal of the free market is lowering of the prices, not hiking of the prices, as the Fed wants you all to believe, so that the Fed can justify printing the money and causing inflation, which is what governments want. Governments are huge debtors, especially governments of the West today, especially USA. So governments want inflation, and that's what they create with money printing.
Effect of inflation is rising prices, which is the opposite of what free market provides - lowering of the prices and increase in choices and efficiencies. The goal of an economy is to provide the required choice of products and services at most efficient prices/costs.
The goal is not full employment of-course, that's a side note, it's a side issue. The goal is to provide everything that the market wants at the prices that the market prefers.
So going back to the economic disaster that USA and the rest of the Western socialized societies are facing. The reason why the economies are in such huge trouble is the mis-allocation of resources - human and capital resources, that is created by the government. The fix to it is more free market, not less free market and more government.
If the free market provides one product/service at very low costs, that's not a failure of market, that's a success of the market, as it obviously created an environment in which this product is possible at that price.
Any spending that can be reduced on any product is a good thing. The increase in spending is a bad thing. The increase in debt ceiling was not the crisis that the politicians want you to believe it was. It would have been a self-imposed austerity measure, that would have started the US economy on the road to recovery.
The actual CRISIS is the DEBT.
Because of that any reduction in spending needs to be understood to be a good thing, this applies to Free/free software as much as it applies to any other spending.
Competing markets for court systems have always existed around the world, it's not a bizarre concept, what's bizarre is to believe that gov't has your best interests in mind with their monopoly on law and enforcement.
Obviously there need to be private competing systems for enforcement of rulings, just like there need to be competing systems for passing the judgments, and people would have to choose their preferred court system. Clearly to pay for this you'd have to either have the cash or buy insurance.
Small claims are already enforced with private collections agencies and private security is not unheard of, this is not a foreign concept even in US.
What do you mean 'if they know'? How would you not know?
In any case, I am not proposing hanging people on the trees, I am talking about court system, and hopefully one that is not government provided, because nobody can believe that system is unbiased in any way at all.
Can't have it. Government will not allow you to try and do something that goes anywhere beyond what they want you to do - be a good consumer.
I do. There are 2 counters actually, not one.
Well obviously, god forbid you'd have a choice between more than one electrical provider, with more than one electrical line, that'd be just awful. Imagine all that insanity of cables, as some guys figure out how to sell you cheaper electrical power than the other guys. Never mind they can figure out how to place cables so that you don't see them instead of hanging them above your head.
It's a crazy idea that should one electrical grid go off line you should be able to use a competing one. It's a crazy idea that more than one water pipe should exist and that you should have a choice which one to use.
It's total insanity if some company figured out how to build a sewer line that would compete with an existing, it's just completely wrong thing to do it.
You can't have choices you see, because the parent comment over there says that it is a bad thing if you have them.
a pretty good read. Government creates monopolies out of thin air, justifying them by saying they are natural, while there is absolutely nothing natural about them, they are all government established, subsidized, taxed for, regulated and protected, especially any type of infrastructure.
Again it's not government's business. If the neighbors don't like what he is doing, it's between them and this guy.
My first reading of your comment confused the hell out of me, because I read it as parents, not patents.
But after the second reading I see what you are saying, I've been saying the same thing as well.
But governments prevents market from working, be it patents or just preventing people from tinkering.
and that's one way government destroys economy, by preventing people from experimenting with their ideas and possibly finding better and cheaper solutions to energy needs. I am not saying this guy would find a better and cheaper solution necessarily, but what we have here, is government that interferes and definitely this prevents many more people from trying and finding something.
No, the market is providing a solution, which makes sense. Governments do not do this. By the time Standard Oil was broken up it wasn't a monopoly. There are no monopolies in free market anyway, there is no such thing as a natural monopoly. It's a ruse by the government and gov't hired charlatans that people think are economists to justify gov't interference with the market.
Whenever gov't participates in any sort of 'breaking of a monopoly', you know it's lobbied by other businesses who cannot effectively compete on price and/or quality against a company that provides the solution that market prefers at that point in time.
no, you fail. The question is possibility of reversal of entropy.
you are a troll, so behave like one.
all while the a self signed certificate for HTTPS is treated like a security hole and at the same time plain text over HTTP gets no fuss.