Not a single thing in business is ever altruistic, nor should it be. Itbis just business and offering a very specific type of service must not be criminalized. If the issue is the name 'Internet' should not be applied for what Zuckerberg is selling, that I can agree with, but to prevent a company or a person from providing a very specific type of service because you disagree with the features of the service... I do not believe that any government has any real authority to prevent people from using drugs. They oppress people, the collectivists take people's rights away, that is true. But to prohibit distribution of a product or a service based on the so called 'morals' of what, of the collective? Prostitution, drugs AND this network must be legal to offer and to use.
Everything in this story and all comments above 3 are nonsense here. Capitalism is private ownership and operation of property. Collectivism (socialism, fascism) is the opposite of that, it is the opposite of self ownership, it is theft and redistributio, it is enslavement of the few by the many. Free market is the protection against collectivism, enforcement of the law onto the government structure to prevent the collectivist oppression.
A free market capitalist society worked well in the States in the second half of the 19th century to produce the wealthiest country on the planet, which became the biggest world creditor nation because it became the supplier of high quality yet inexpensive goods. Collectivism was then born out of the wealth created by free market capitalism and collectivism took 100 years to destroy that economy and society with the policies of theft and redistribution. When I say policies of theft I mean every form of income, wealth and inflation tax (including business regulations, which are also tax). When I say redistribution I mean every form of personal and corporate welfare, from SS, Medicare, minimum wage laws, every department, education, FDA, FHA, energy, to military industrial complex, everything.
Free market capitalism produces cheapest goods, accessible to all already, without theft and redistribution via collectivism.
Collectivism takes a working system and puts it on its knees by stripping private property ownership and self determination.
AFAIC there is no reason to promote intelligent life in this Universe without private ownership rights and without self determination. Slavery (and i consider collectivism to be slavery) is not a choice, it is lack of options. Without the option of being free from slavery I cannot in good conscious see any reason to promote intelligent life in this Universe or even just on this planet.
Ok, I'll explain it to you in a way that makes it easier to understand for somebody who is hang up on the idea that either everything should be provided or nothing at all.
A person can offer you to use his kitchen for free to cook your food if you have no kitchen but in exchange for the free use of his kitchen you have to buy groceries from that person. You could say that the person is running a grocery store and the price of using the 'free' kitchen is included in the price of the groceries.
I can extend this further: you are going to a restaurant and you are not bringing your own food with you, you are getting the nice restaurant experience (the interior, the music, the ambient lighting, the climate, whatever) but you are buying the food from the restaurant, you are not allowed to bring your own with you to eat there.
There is nothing at all wrong with a business model that is offering you a SPECIFIC THING and not other things. Of-course in the so called 'freest country on Earth' this idea is long gone after Obama forced the insurance companies to provide insurance plans that include specific things in them, making it illegal to provide insurance plans without those types of things.
Government interference is bad for the market, not good. If somebody is offering a product, as a potential customer it is your choice to take the product or not to take the product. If the price is 'free' but the government says that this product cannot be provided under those specific conditions, you will not get that product at all.
Is it better for you to get a product with limited functionality than no product at all? You decide, but instead of leaving it up to you, the government says: you cannot decide, you are too stupid to decide, you are too ignorant to decide, you are too childish to decide, et.
There is nothing wrong to "depend on other people's servers" as long as you have a contract, an SLA in place. To depend on other people's servers is perfectly fine as long as there is an understanding on both sides what that means exactly.
To depend on the servers of people who don't owe you anything and to who you don't owe anything either, that's a different story.
'Complain to your government'? How about vote with your money for an idea? Too radical? Government is the wrong answer, the correct answer is to use or to create an alternative.
Well, I am going to throw it out there, I actually came up with this idea years ago but only implemented a version of it for a client of mine, who decided not to use the feature in the forum that we created for their system. However just a thought, maybe it could be done here and maybe it could have a positive result.
The idea is that often the same question is posed or a statement is made across multiple threads and the answer to all of those could be the same exact one, so why repost the same comment over and over?
The design idea that I came up with and we implemented was to mark a number of comments and then write one reply instead of many replies. Then each one of those parent comments would have a reply to it, that would indicate that this is a merged reply.
Leaving more comments on this merged reply actually moves the conversation to the merged thread instead of keeping individual replies to the merged comment in their individual threads.
I think it's useful, others may disagree.
Oh, also metamoderation - it doesn't work here. People really should have to justify 'Troll' or 'Flamebait' or 'Overrated' because it's easy to use those simply to shut down an opinion.
This is about using government oppression (a redundant statement, government is oppression, that's all it is) to prevent people from putting titles on things such as: 'mom reacts to... a spider'.
I mean 'American funniest home videos' can most definitely claim prior art and really anybody who is older than these guys can claim prior act, that's what 1st of April is about - reactions.
But of-course there will be those who will say: banning copyrights, patents, trademarks and really any government protection for things is insane, who would ever create anything if government wouldn't protect them. I will tell you this: you are the scorn of this civilization, brainless zombies. Government is oppression, all it does it steals, it doesn't give you anything because it has nothing to give (at least nothing it didn't steal first). Using government for market protections is using the biggest Mafia guy around for market protection, it is morally wrong and economically stupid at every level and it is counterproductive for the society.
It's not about whether a site is dangerous per se as much as whether a site is as dangerous as a reasonable person would expect when keying in the URL.
- that's complete nonsense. A person 'keying in' (most just click) a URL expects to get to the site. A browser actively trying to prevent a user from getting to that site based on the fact that the certificate for the site is not what the browser company decides is in the best interest of the company (AFAIC) is not an indicator of the site being secure or insecure.
In most cases nobody is hit with MITM attacks, however ALL communications are stolen and recorded by NSA and the like. It is better to be on an https site with a self signed certificate, when a government is listening to all communications to filter it by keywords than to be on http and not be warned by the browser about anything.
I am not advocating treating https with self signed certificate exactly the same as https with a certificate that some 'authority' verifies. I am saying that a browser treating a site with a self signed certificate as if it is a virus while happily letting people navigate the rest of the http web is not for the benefit of a user.
I am not talking about myself, I am talking about every user that gets these errors and decides that the site is somehow dangerous in a way that the user doesn't understand, more dangerous than a http site, while in reality it is not more dangerous. Setting up extensions to fix broken browser problems is all great, whatever. My point on this story here stays: GOOD.
Since FF team can't figure out what to do next without looking at Chrome and other 'amazing' browsers first, this likely means that eventually FF will have the same thing Chrome is about to have in it and it will also put a big red 'birdy' near an http site. At least we are going to start achieving some parity, which was the point of my initial comment.
You are correct, I was wrong, checked it again, I can see https in the URL.
This does not change my point, FF should treat HTTPS that FF doesn't like the same as it treats HTTP with a detailed explanation that you get by clicking on the grey globe or the padlock sign.
'Unsecured' (from the perspective of the browser ) HTTPS or unsecured (because it is) HTTP, treating one as if it is something to be avoided while not even remotely bringing up attention against the other is a political and/or a financial statement, not a technical one.
Of-course it does, it is trying to prevent people from using self signed certificates and pushing them towards CAs. FF today doesn't even display the protocol in the address bar by default, it shows either a grey globe or a green padlock, clicking on these you get 'connection secure' or 'connection is not secure' message. It's that easy to simply check if the certificate is self signed, treat the site as if it was an HTTP site by the browser and provide an appropriate status in the details ( self signed certificate for this connection that claims to be secured but is not verified by a third party authority).
THAT would be meaningful and would help the Internet to switch to https.
In the version of FF I am on right now 41.0.1 on Linux Mint 17 I don't see http or https in the address bar. I see a green padlock for https, you click on it and it gives you some details including saying 'secure connection'.
HTTP is just a grey url, click on it and see 'connection is not secure'.
Go to a site with a self signed certificate and get this crap:
This Connection is Untrusted
You have asked Firefox to connect securely to www.pcwebshop.co.uk, but we can't confirm that your connection is secure.
Normally, when you try to connect securely, sites will present trusted identification to prove that you are going to the right place. However, this site's identity can't be verified. What Should I Do?
If you usually connect to this site without problems, this error could mean that someone is trying to impersonate the site, and you shouldn't continue.
--get me out of here-- (button)
--Technical details-- (link)
--I understand the risks --(link)
Well, shit, I don't think most people actually understand the risks, but given that FF doesn't even show https in the URL any longer WTF is it doing treating a self signed https site worse than an http site that may also have user name / password on it?
If you don't think this is a case of either stupidity or malicious intent, trying to push people towards CAs while in reality preventing tons of people from setting up SSL in the first place, then you don't get people's behaviour.
That's not my point, FF doesn't just warn people that the certificate is self signed, it actively tries to impress upon the user that the https connection with a self signed certificate is worse than a plain text http connection, because THAT is what a user compares his experiences to, not to another https site but to plain http.
My position on this is that FF goes to great length to make it seem that an https connection with a self signed certificate is less secure than http, while that is categorically untrue, it is at least AS secure as http. AFAIC CAs are not trustworthy themselves, https is broken, if you think your https session is really secure because it is signed by some 'authority', that's an interesting mental exercise.
Removing gigantic multi-screen warnings with insane messages about self signed certificates would help to increase overall security on the Internet by making it possible for people to use self signed certificates without making it look like self signed certs are a plague while not making the same types of accusations against plain http (which many sites also use!!! to transfer passwords).
Good, finally some parity compared to the situation where a browser like FF would through huge error messages around self signed certificates but would absolutely not yell or scream about plain text sites.
With so much demand for lego pieces isn't it time to start thinking the right way? Forget a 3D printer, how about building a lego pieces making machine? A cutting machine, a moulding machine for home use as opposed to a 3D printer, which will probably not work well enough to make high quality pieces anyway.
In any case, I think meta moderation has not done anything here to improve moderation. I think a troll moderation has to be justified by the moderator, I know it is self serving but after years of getting 'troll' modes for dissenting opinion gives me this impression.
Correct, trading should be done by robots for the same reasons that factory work is often done by robots, because it is cheaper to run robots than people and thus the efficiencies go up.
Also correct that real wealth is not produced by trading, trading is exchange of wealth. Real wealth is produced by manufacturing, mining, agriculture, things of that nature.
However it is completely incorrect that the economy is not constrained by capital, it is absolutely constrained by lack of capital. The artificially printed currency is not capital though. There are no real savings in the system, the money is created on the whim by the likes of the Federal reserve and fractional reserve systems, the credit is mostly fake and programs like FDIC allow this to go on as long as nobody tests the validity of these assumptions.
The reality is that there is no capital to borrow, the real interest rates by the Federal reserve are negative due to all this inflation but you cannot get any yield out of anywhere, so there is no incentive to save money in the high inflation economy (which is what most of the world is running right now with all the fake low interest rates, fake money being created, various QE and Stimulus programs, bailouts, etc.)
The reality is that there is no real capital, which is why there is so little new business formation. The reality is that the values of the USD and bond are artificially high, driven there by the false belief of the market that the USA Fed can tighten its fiscal policy given their own metrics as to why the interest rates should or should not go up or down.
The reality is that USA economy is in a very deep recession, the employment numbers are fudged, the real economic indicators are all horrible, Fed will groan and moan but will come up with an excuse to push interest rates down into the negative thus finalizing the destruction of the dollar.
The moment that the world was taken off the gold standard (1971, Nixon default on the gold dollar) by proxy of the USD reserve currency being on at least some gold standard, the moment that happened the world's economies were directed on the path towards destruction. Then later, when Greenspan took the short term interest rate to 1 and eventually Bernanke took it to 0 (for 8 years) that was it, that was the final nail in the coffin of the USD and the economy.
Governments should not be allowed to interfere with the actual economies and money of the people but they are and here we are, facing the music.
You can start your own trading business and only let people do trading there. Oh, you think that trading itself is 'parasitic'. Do you realize that you are involved in trading every day yourself? Whatever you are doing at work, somebody is trading the value of that for other people's work. When you visit a store, you are participating in that trade, because the store bought the items you are buying now.
A manufacturer can produce hundreds of tons of hair bands for example, no end customer can or needs to buy that much. Distributors buy tons of the stuff from the manufacturer, allowing the manufacturer to continue producing. Smaller distributors buy hundreds of kilograms from the large distributors, allowing the large distributors to put together enough funding to buy tons of the stuff. Suppliers buy tens of kilograms from the smaller distributors, allowing the smaller distributors to exist.
Stores buy dozens of packages, allowing the smaller distributor to exist and the final client buys one or two packages for his or her use. The prices per package go up as the number of packages that are bought drop. This allows the entire chain to exist, providing enough capital for the manufacturer to keep producing, while without this supply chain the manufacturer would not even exist because he could never sell individual products to enough people without a distribution network.
This is an approximation of what the stock or other markets are. Allowing many deals to take place to provide enough liquidity in the market for investments to finance businesses. Automated trading is no different from automated factory floors.
Actually I think Europe should load all of those refugees onto barges and bring them to the USA because it is America that created this entire mess starting looong loooong time ago, at the very least in 1953 when it deposed a democratically elected president in Iran and replaced him with a fucking religious king.
Then it was Afghanistan and a bunch of other situations where USA meddled with the world by feeding snakes that eventually always got out of control.
When your choice is to go work on some farm, to die from hunger, to beg on the streets or to work at a factory, which may hurt you in the long run and is hard work, choosing factory work is a making a voluntary decision and there is absolutely nothing inhumane about it.
As to the retired individuals choosing to drive instead of sitting home... the idea that this is 'inhumane' is as authoritarian as it gets, since it assumes complete lack of individual responsibility and initiative.
Slashdot Mirror
Not a single thing in business is ever altruistic, nor should it be. Itbis just business and offering a very specific type of service must not be criminalized. If the issue is the name 'Internet' should not be applied for what Zuckerberg is selling, that I can agree with, but to prevent a company or a person from providing a very specific type of service because you disagree with the features of the service... I do not believe that any government has any real authority to prevent people from using drugs. They oppress people, the collectivists take people's rights away, that is true. But to prohibit distribution of a product or a service based on the so called 'morals' of what, of the collective? Prostitution, drugs AND this network must be legal to offer and to use.
Everything in this story and all comments above 3 are nonsense here. Capitalism is private ownership and operation of property. Collectivism (socialism, fascism) is the opposite of that, it is the opposite of self ownership, it is theft and redistributio, it is enslavement of the few by the many. Free market is the protection against collectivism, enforcement of the law onto the government structure to prevent the collectivist oppression.
A free market capitalist society worked well in the States in the second half of the 19th century to produce the wealthiest country on the planet, which became the biggest world creditor nation because it became the supplier of high quality yet inexpensive goods. Collectivism was then born out of the wealth created by free market capitalism and collectivism took 100 years to destroy that economy and society with the policies of theft and redistribution. When I say policies of theft I mean every form of income, wealth and inflation tax (including business regulations, which are also tax). When I say redistribution I mean every form of personal and corporate welfare, from SS, Medicare, minimum wage laws, every department, education, FDA, FHA, energy, to military industrial complex, everything.
Free market capitalism produces cheapest goods, accessible to all already, without theft and redistribution via collectivism.
Collectivism takes a working system and puts it on its knees by stripping private property ownership and self determination.
AFAIC there is no reason to promote intelligent life in this Universe without private ownership rights and without self determination. Slavery (and i consider collectivism to be slavery) is not a choice, it is lack of options. Without the option of being free from slavery I cannot in good conscious see any reason to promote intelligent life in this Universe or even just on this planet.
Ha, did you just say that providing somebody with a free specific service is in the same category as 'theft and murder'? :) ha ha ha ha ha! Oh my
Ok, I'll explain it to you in a way that makes it easier to understand for somebody who is hang up on the idea that either everything should be provided or nothing at all.
A person can offer you to use his kitchen for free to cook your food if you have no kitchen but in exchange for the free use of his kitchen you have to buy groceries from that person. You could say that the person is running a grocery store and the price of using the 'free' kitchen is included in the price of the groceries.
I can extend this further: you are going to a restaurant and you are not bringing your own food with you, you are getting the nice restaurant experience (the interior, the music, the ambient lighting, the climate, whatever) but you are buying the food from the restaurant, you are not allowed to bring your own with you to eat there.
There is nothing at all wrong with a business model that is offering you a SPECIFIC THING and not other things. Of-course in the so called 'freest country on Earth' this idea is long gone after Obama forced the insurance companies to provide insurance plans that include specific things in them, making it illegal to provide insurance plans without those types of things.
Government interference is bad for the market, not good. If somebody is offering a product, as a potential customer it is your choice to take the product or not to take the product. If the price is 'free' but the government says that this product cannot be provided under those specific conditions, you will not get that product at all.
Is it better for you to get a product with limited functionality than no product at all? You decide, but instead of leaving it up to you, the government says: you cannot decide, you are too stupid to decide, you are too ignorant to decide, you are too childish to decide, et.
That's government oppression, not freedom.
There is nothing wrong to "depend on other people's servers" as long as you have a contract, an SLA in place. To depend on other people's servers is perfectly fine as long as there is an understanding on both sides what that means exactly.
To depend on the servers of people who don't owe you anything and to who you don't owe anything either, that's a different story.
'Complain to your government'? How about vote with your money for an idea? Too radical? Government is the wrong answer, the correct answer is to use or to create an alternative.
Well, I am going to throw it out there, I actually came up with this idea years ago but only implemented a version of it for a client of mine, who decided not to use the feature in the forum that we created for their system. However just a thought, maybe it could be done here and maybe it could have a positive result.
The idea is that often the same question is posed or a statement is made across multiple threads and the answer to all of those could be the same exact one, so why repost the same comment over and over?
The design idea that I came up with and we implemented was to mark a number of comments and then write one reply instead of many replies. Then each one of those parent comments would have a reply to it, that would indicate that this is a merged reply.
Leaving more comments on this merged reply actually moves the conversation to the merged thread instead of keeping individual replies to the merged comment in their individual threads.
I think it's useful, others may disagree.
Oh, also metamoderation - it doesn't work here. People really should have to justify 'Troll' or 'Flamebait' or 'Overrated' because it's easy to use those simply to shut down an opinion.
I can guess what the reaction is going to be by an average person and I must say that it is justified to react in a reactive manner.
I used to advocate only for banning of copyrights and patents here (and everywhere I can) but I must admit, this makes me want to include trademarks into that list as well, at least trademarks on common words.
This is about using government oppression (a redundant statement, government is oppression, that's all it is) to prevent people from putting titles on things such as: 'mom reacts to ... a spider'.
I mean 'American funniest home videos' can most definitely claim prior art and really anybody who is older than these guys can claim prior act, that's what 1st of April is about - reactions.
But of-course there will be those who will say: banning copyrights, patents, trademarks and really any government protection for things is insane, who would ever create anything if government wouldn't protect them. I will tell you this: you are the scorn of this civilization, brainless zombies. Government is oppression, all it does it steals, it doesn't give you anything because it has nothing to give (at least nothing it didn't steal first). Using government for market protections is using the biggest Mafia guy around for market protection, it is morally wrong and economically stupid at every level and it is counterproductive for the society.
It's not about whether a site is dangerous per se as much as whether a site is as dangerous as a reasonable person would expect when keying in the URL.
- that's complete nonsense. A person 'keying in' (most just click) a URL expects to get to the site. A browser actively trying to prevent a user from getting to that site based on the fact that the certificate for the site is not what the browser company decides is in the best interest of the company (AFAIC) is not an indicator of the site being secure or insecure.
In most cases nobody is hit with MITM attacks, however ALL communications are stolen and recorded by NSA and the like. It is better to be on an https site with a self signed certificate, when a government is listening to all communications to filter it by keywords than to be on http and not be warned by the browser about anything.
I am not advocating treating https with self signed certificate exactly the same as https with a certificate that some 'authority' verifies. I am saying that a browser treating a site with a self signed certificate as if it is a virus while happily letting people navigate the rest of the http web is not for the benefit of a user.
I am not talking about myself, I am talking about every user that gets these errors and decides that the site is somehow dangerous in a way that the user doesn't understand, more dangerous than a http site, while in reality it is not more dangerous. Setting up extensions to fix broken browser problems is all great, whatever. My point on this story here stays: GOOD.
Since FF team can't figure out what to do next without looking at Chrome and other 'amazing' browsers first, this likely means that eventually FF will have the same thing Chrome is about to have in it and it will also put a big red 'birdy' near an http site. At least we are going to start achieving some parity, which was the point of my initial comment.
You are correct, I was wrong, checked it again, I can see https in the URL.
This does not change my point, FF should treat HTTPS that FF doesn't like the same as it treats HTTP with a detailed explanation that you get by clicking on the grey globe or the padlock sign.
'Unsecured' (from the perspective of the browser ) HTTPS or unsecured (because it is) HTTP, treating one as if it is something to be avoided while not even remotely bringing up attention against the other is a political and/or a financial statement, not a technical one.
Of-course it does, it is trying to prevent people from using self signed certificates and pushing them towards CAs. FF today doesn't even display the protocol in the address bar by default, it shows either a grey globe or a green padlock, clicking on these you get 'connection secure' or 'connection is not secure' message. It's that easy to simply check if the certificate is self signed, treat the site as if it was an HTTP site by the browser and provide an appropriate status in the details ( self signed certificate for this connection that claims to be secured but is not verified by a third party authority).
THAT would be meaningful and would help the Internet to switch to https.
In the version of FF I am on right now 41.0.1 on Linux Mint 17 I don't see http or https in the address bar. I see a green padlock for https, you click on it and it gives you some details including saying 'secure connection'.
HTTP is just a grey url, click on it and see 'connection is not secure'.
Go to a site with a self signed certificate and get this crap:
This Connection is Untrusted
You have asked Firefox to connect securely to www.pcwebshop.co.uk, but we can't confirm that your connection is secure.
Normally, when you try to connect securely, sites will present trusted identification to prove that you are going to the right place. However, this site's identity can't be verified.
What Should I Do?
If you usually connect to this site without problems, this error could mean that someone is trying to impersonate the site, and you shouldn't continue.
--get me out of here-- (button)
--Technical details-- (link)
--I understand the risks --(link)
Well, shit, I don't think most people actually understand the risks, but given that FF doesn't even show https in the URL any longer WTF is it doing treating a self signed https site worse than an http site that may also have user name / password on it?
If you don't think this is a case of either stupidity or malicious intent, trying to push people towards CAs while in reality preventing tons of people from setting up SSL in the first place, then you don't get people's behaviour.
That's not my point, FF doesn't just warn people that the certificate is self signed, it actively tries to impress upon the user that the https connection with a self signed certificate is worse than a plain text http connection, because THAT is what a user compares his experiences to, not to another https site but to plain http.
My position on this is that FF goes to great length to make it seem that an https connection with a self signed certificate is less secure than http, while that is categorically untrue, it is at least AS secure as http. AFAIC CAs are not trustworthy themselves, https is broken, if you think your https session is really secure because it is signed by some 'authority', that's an interesting mental exercise.
Removing gigantic multi-screen warnings with insane messages about self signed certificates would help to increase overall security on the Internet by making it possible for people to use self signed certificates without making it look like self signed certs are a plague while not making the same types of accusations against plain http (which many sites also use!!! to transfer passwords).
Good, finally some parity compared to the situation where a browser like FF would through huge error messages around self signed certificates but would absolutely not yell or scream about plain text sites.
With so much demand for lego pieces isn't it time to start thinking the right way? Forget a 3D printer, how about building a lego pieces making machine? A cutting machine, a moulding machine for home use as opposed to a 3D printer, which will probably not work well enough to make high quality pieces anyway.
Ha ha ha ha ha, Justin Trudeau, the so called 'liberal'. He'll legalise your pot and he will oppress you in every other way imaginable.
I wonder what the business model around /. is?
In any case, I think meta moderation has not done anything here to improve moderation. I think a troll moderation has to be justified by the moderator, I know it is self serving but after years of getting 'troll' modes for dissenting opinion gives me this impression.
I think that USA was actively working with the Nazis, turning them into a much stronger machine than they would be otherwise.
Well, sonny, you just walked right into this one.
This place has a history, you know? This history thing, you are not with it.
Correct, trading should be done by robots for the same reasons that factory work is often done by robots, because it is cheaper to run robots than people and thus the efficiencies go up.
Also correct that real wealth is not produced by trading, trading is exchange of wealth. Real wealth is produced by manufacturing, mining, agriculture, things of that nature.
However it is completely incorrect that the economy is not constrained by capital, it is absolutely constrained by lack of capital. The artificially printed currency is not capital though. There are no real savings in the system, the money is created on the whim by the likes of the Federal reserve and fractional reserve systems, the credit is mostly fake and programs like FDIC allow this to go on as long as nobody tests the validity of these assumptions.
The reality is that there is no capital to borrow, the real interest rates by the Federal reserve are negative due to all this inflation but you cannot get any yield out of anywhere, so there is no incentive to save money in the high inflation economy (which is what most of the world is running right now with all the fake low interest rates, fake money being created, various QE and Stimulus programs, bailouts, etc.)
The reality is that there is no real capital, which is why there is so little new business formation. The reality is that the values of the USD and bond are artificially high, driven there by the false belief of the market that the USA Fed can tighten its fiscal policy given their own metrics as to why the interest rates should or should not go up or down.
The reality is that USA economy is in a very deep recession, the employment numbers are fudged, the real economic indicators are all horrible, Fed will groan and moan but will come up with an excuse to push interest rates down into the negative thus finalizing the destruction of the dollar.
The moment that the world was taken off the gold standard (1971, Nixon default on the gold dollar) by proxy of the USD reserve currency being on at least some gold standard, the moment that happened the world's economies were directed on the path towards destruction. Then later, when Greenspan took the short term interest rate to 1 and eventually Bernanke took it to 0 (for 8 years) that was it, that was the final nail in the coffin of the USD and the economy.
Governments should not be allowed to interfere with the actual economies and money of the people but they are and here we are, facing the music.
You can start your own trading business and only let people do trading there. Oh, you think that trading itself is 'parasitic'. Do you realize that you are involved in trading every day yourself? Whatever you are doing at work, somebody is trading the value of that for other people's work. When you visit a store, you are participating in that trade, because the store bought the items you are buying now.
A manufacturer can produce hundreds of tons of hair bands for example, no end customer can or needs to buy that much. Distributors buy tons of the stuff from the manufacturer, allowing the manufacturer to continue producing. Smaller distributors buy hundreds of kilograms from the large distributors, allowing the large distributors to put together enough funding to buy tons of the stuff. Suppliers buy tens of kilograms from the smaller distributors, allowing the smaller distributors to exist.
Stores buy dozens of packages, allowing the smaller distributor to exist and the final client buys one or two packages for his or her use. The prices per package go up as the number of packages that are bought drop. This allows the entire chain to exist, providing enough capital for the manufacturer to keep producing, while without this supply chain the manufacturer would not even exist because he could never sell individual products to enough people without a distribution network.
This is an approximation of what the stock or other markets are. Allowing many deals to take place to provide enough liquidity in the market for investments to finance businesses. Automated trading is no different from automated factory floors.
Actually I think Europe should load all of those refugees onto barges and bring them to the USA because it is America that created this entire mess starting looong loooong time ago, at the very least in 1953 when it deposed a democratically elected president in Iran and replaced him with a fucking religious king.
Then it was Afghanistan and a bunch of other situations where USA meddled with the world by feeding snakes that eventually always got out of control.
If ever there was a good reason to use distributed blockchain database model, IP address and domain name ownership would be one of them.
When your choice is to go work on some farm, to die from hunger, to beg on the streets or to work at a factory, which may hurt you in the long run and is hard work, choosing factory work is a making a voluntary decision and there is absolutely nothing inhumane about it.
As to the retired individuals choosing to drive instead of sitting home... the idea that this is 'inhumane' is as authoritarian as it gets, since it assumes complete lack of individual responsibility and initiative.