The USA economy in 1995 was much more sound than the economy today or what will be in 2020. It was not an economy that lived in permanent state of constant inflation (0% interest rates and money printing out of the government wazoo). The degeneration of the economy over that time period (actually since 1913, when the IRS and Fed were created, 1917, when the Fed was allowed to monetize government debt, 1971, when Nixon defaulted on the dollar and inflation totally took off) caused mass migration of productivity from the USA to other parts of the world. The service sector jobs that we are talking about here (and make no mistake, minimum wage jobs are service sector jobs, jobs that do not directly produce economic output that can be exported to pay for the imported produced goods from other countries) are not paying as much as they paid in 1995 because these service sector jobs cannot afford to pay that.
In USA there should be a REDUCTION of minimum wage, not increase of minimum wage, but more importantly there should be reduction in government spending altogether, reduction in government, reduction of taxes collected from any work done by anybody, reduction of any payouts to anybody on any government promises. Basically USA government needs to let go of its death grip on the economy and let it restructure. This includes abolition of government services, removal of government participation in business and labour altogether and this means no more minimum wage. What USA government is doing is the exact opposite of what the USA economy needs. This is what I mean when I say 'economic illiteracy', it's prevalent, it's all permeating, it's devastating and there is no easy fix.
Aah, no, as a producer I disagree that customer generates the market for a new product. We are building a number of new products here today and some of what we are building does not have a market, we are hoping to create the market for it, just like iPads created a market that did not exist, just like production of kerosene created market for lighting with kerosene that did not exist, just like cars and trucks created market where before the role of the vehicles was carried out by horses and other forms of transport. Somebody steps in with their investment to create the market that did not exist because the item that is being created does not exist.
There is currently no gigantic market for yachts because they are very expensive. IF you can create a yacht and sell it at 10,000USD you will create a gigantic market for yachts that did not exist because the product was not in existence.
If you come up with a way to build a personal space vehicle and make it only as expensive as a car or so you will create a gigantic market that did not exist.
Of-course for all of this there have to be savings taken out of somebody's bank account first, spent to produce thing thing, which means hiring people (creating jobs, not because you want to create jobs, because you want to make money on selling into your new market), buying stuff from suppliers, renting some space, managing everything, marketing, advertising, selling, even going through the regulatory labyrinth and making sure you can actually offer your product to any potential customers, that's what investment is, that's what 'trickle down' economics actually are - using savings to produce and then allowing more economy to be generated around your production.
I run a business (more than one), I woke up one day and said: I have some savings, why don't I build a system and try and sell it. I built my first system all by myself, found a client, didn't sell it but offered it to them for free, getting support money from that still and used that to advertise my services. Found another client and managed to secure a contract for building another system, hired some people, trained them and worked on that system. While I was working on that system I was making enough money to pay off some debts and get some more people, who I then put to work on my own products before I had a single client for those products at all.
I will never do anything 'benevolently', that makes 0 sense to me, I am in this to build my own stuff the way I want to and to make money off of it, if I am not making money off of it it is my problem, since I am spending money on building it, which is mostly salaries, rent, utilities and taxes. I don't need lectures on why people do what they do in business and I know precisely why I hire people.
I would prefer to hire NOBODY at all, that's my preference because I don't need the expense and the drama. However to be more productive I have to add more hands and heads to myself, I see employees as tools that I use to bring my vision to life. I have 0 customers for some of my systems and I must advertise to find those clients, but the money is already spent, the employees already got their salaries, the money came out of my own pocket - my savings.
'Trickle down' has nothing to do with 'giving rich people more money', that's socialist baloney, it has to do precisely with gathering capital and using the capital to invest into more production. Talking about 'trickle down' and 'giving rich money' is the exact economic illiteracy that I was talking about.
Poverty happens due to lack of production. I am not a robot in your replicator dream, I produce the way I do it because I want to get more money than when I was working as a contractor. I spend my time and my savings to produce, I see profits as way to increase production, not as a way to eat more expensive chocolate and drive a bigger car. Poverty happens due to poverty in thinking, which is what leads to overall poverty in society. Poverty in thinking is the way of thinking that includes 'stealing from the rich to give to the poor' - THAT is poverty of thinking.
Forget tax breaks, there shouldn't be any tax on work and on production at all. You tax something, you get less of it. Inflation is a tax on work. Business regulations are tax on work. Income, payroll, dividend, capital gains and other wealth taxes are taxes on work. None of them should exist, the government structured around taxing work will destroy the economy as has happened time and again, not just over decades, but over the entire existence of human life on this planet.
The rich stay rich by letting their money work for them. As to the USA economy right now it has nothing to do with production at all, it is all inflation based and it is mostly fake, it doesn't exist. USA is an unproductive economy, that cannot pay for the imports that it consumes with its own export of productive output, instead it exports inflation (money printing) and war. Disparity between the rich and the poor exists and will exist always and in the times of Rockefeller it was much more pronounced than anything we can see today.
Compared to Rockefeller the wealthy of today are paupers. By the time he died he was worth over 600,000,000,000 dollars in modern money, nobody is worth that much today at all and yet the economy was growing, the unemployment was minimal and the productive output was staggering, allowing the USA to become the economic powerhouse of the world over the 19th century after being an afterthought to Europe for centuries.
'Trickle down economics' is economics of savings and reinvestment and not of consumption at all, so yes, all of those people who use it are economic illiterates, they think in terms of spending money on the consumables instead of spending money on investment to grow money, which is what grows the economy *in normal free market economy*, which is what is happening in China today, not in the USA. You think there is no income disparity in China? Ha! Yet that economy is hot and growing and will keep growing, this century is Chinese and that is that and not American at all, this century is the century of free markets disguised as 'communism' and this is also the century of central planning failure disguised as 'American capitalism'.
Minimum wage does not protect the most vulnerable, it hurts the most vulnerable, minimum wage is minimum ability, it will displace the most vulnerable from the work force entirely.
If the government is in business of stealing and subsidising then businesses will be getting in on that game. In the USA government shouldn't be in that business, it shouldn't be stealing from anybody and subsidising anybody, it is government power that people want to use for their own reasons. If I had strong connection to a government that steals and subsidises I would absolutely pull the blanket my way, it's the most rational thing ever. The point is that there shouldn't be a blanket if it is made out of theft and it is.
'Trickle down' economics means that as a person gathers capital by being more productive by building a business the effect of his savings and re-investment creates more prosperity, which it obviously does, that's how new businesses built cities around themselves, that's how fundamental and infrastructural businesses allowed satellite businesses to be created (case in point AWS or Google API allows tons of companies to exist by giving them tools that were produced with the investment of those giants, same is true of every major industry which caused explosion of business around themselves, from food and energy to transportation and healthcare).
What you don't understand is that in order for 'the bone' to exist somebody has to produce it and by implying that the 'bone is given' you completely side step the fact that it had to be produced to exist. No, no bone should be 'given' to anybody, no, that's not a problem of any particular business, but it is a much broader economic and societal problem of theft and redistribution based on violent force of the State.
What takes time? When was the last time a politician failed to do something for the sake of expediency if they thought it would increase their ratings/power? It's not a conspiracy at all when it is this obviously true.
Yeah, it's just if the stupid business owners simply understood that if they paid their employees more right now they would be making so much more money from their business, if only they could do a simple business optimisation as well as Los Angeles politicians, who are after all politicians, so they must know a thing or two about running a successful business.
Those stupid fucking idiots, running their stupid fucking businesses, all business should be public property anyway, it all should be centrally ran by the government in the most efficient manner that would totally eliminate the wasteful competition and totally reduce all prices like all publicly provided services do. Public work at public prices and public quality, that should be the slogan. Those fucking morons trying to run their stupid fucking businesses should be thrown to jail for all this abuse that they are dishing out by daring to hire people and pay them the so called fucking 'market rate'.
The only unfortunate thing here is that the $15 minimum wage is not in effect right away, like tomorrow. Instead it is stretched in time over 5 years making it very very hard to connect the dots and see the obviously impending improvements in the economy right away. Why do these politicians not want to reap the reward of producing a much better economic outcome while they are still in the office? Hmm, they must really feel magnanimous, letting the ones who will come after them to enjoy the fruits of this particular labour.
Absolutely, and the very reason this law stretches the increase over 5 years is specifically so that the voters will blame something and somebody else for the worsening economic conditions, because for the mostly economically illiterate people (vast majority of the population) it is much easier to connect dots if they happen close in time from each other than if they stretch over a longer time period.
Poverty cannot be legislated away. Poverty can only be produced away. Did anybody here ask themselves a simple question, why is the government raising minimum wage to 15USD/hour BY 2020 AND NOT TOMORROW?
Because they KNOW it will hurt the economy, but it is a populous move (designed specifically for the economically illiterates, just like you), to make it look like the government does something, while the horrible economic effects of the actual increase will be disguised by being stretched in time over the next 5 years.
"Trickle down" economics means economics of savings and investment and "job creator theory" means that investments and businesses create jobs. That is how money is made, by creating it by production and production is business. Consumption is a trivial consequence of production, nothing else and without something being produced first it can never be consumed at all.
- the part where you are incapable of admitting of simply being wrong.
Corporations hire people, it doesn't matter in what 'role'. They purchase labour and thus they create jobs.
Corporations are customers of labour, but that's not what I am arguing about, I am very specifically pointing at your inability to follow your own logic.
When you said: corporations are not creating jobs and have never created jobs, you did not put any caveats there, saying that corporations actually always create jobs when they hire people because they are customers to labour.
I KNOW corporations create jobs, I run a corporation and I know what it means to buy labour thus creating jobs. You, on the other hand, talk out of both sides of your mouth.
select sum(*), c.name from student s, course c, student_course sc where s.id=sc.student_id and c.id=sc.course_id group by c.name;
can provide perspective to math, to data, to understanding of the world. Learning to break down the world into concepts that can be named, expressed, related to each other, totalled, averaged, grouped. Showing a bit of set theory, joins, unions, etc.
But students lack much more than that, they lack understanding of real economics, real history, real politics and much more.
Individual freedom has never been as important as it is now and is needed more than ever. Individual freedom is exactly is what is missing and the 'libertarian song' as you derisively called it is exactly the idea of individual freedom.
Unions don't help people by the way, people outside of the unions cannot compete for those jobs since union is a labour monopoly. More to the point a union is not just about united individuals it is about special government protections that unions get, so it is about government oppression of individual freedoms.
Lastly you cannot force somebody give you a job. It is just not possible to do legitimately and if it were it would be completely immoral and against individual freedoms. Without freedoms an individual is nothing. Life without individual freedom is not worth anything.
If your ideological position allows you to divide people into groups in the first place (men, women, straight, gay, white, black, rich, poor, etc.), then the people who find themselves attacked as a group in the contemporary space based on that ideology will suffer from discrimination and it shows in courts, in laws that are passed, etc. If a group of people is attacked there will be a counter movement created by that attack, why do you find that surprising or even wrong?
Yes, there are men who have genuinely suffered bad consequences of this ideology where they themselves are in no way proponents of any type of oppression towards any group.
As to the movie itself, well the media is the message, I can see how some people can take any media and message and put theirbown perspective on it. But calling for a boycott is not the same as calling for discrimination or violence.
My point is that the advertiser can sell an ad but he cannot make the movie director or producer buy the ad and do something stupid with it. If you are shooting a movie you can decide to take the money and put an ad into the flick the wrong way, but how is it the advertiser's fault or problem if you make that decision?
Sure, no disagreement, but that is not the advertiser who put that coke bottle into a 14th century person's hand, and unless the movie is of quality and type of National Lampoons the movie will pay with horrible reviews. Seriously, if the ad is out of place that is on the director and the movie production company. Considering what people watch today, the Marvell universe, seeing a bottle of coke in the hands of an alien somewhere off this planet and even in a different timezone would be a curiosity more than anything, probably generating hot topics and discussions around the plot twists and gotchas. But Citizen Kane remake with Samsung Android in it would be met with derision. Context and common sense still matter even today, no?
Billboards are immoral? Products in movies? What is the difference what beverage an actor is holding in his hand? It could be anything at all, or it could be somebody paying him for it. Movies are not reality. Commercials between songs? Do you mean on the radio? And how will a radio station stay open if not for commercials? I think using the word 'immoral' in this context is way overreaching. I see immorality in using force and violence of let's say the State to oppress a group of people. But to advertise a brand of jeans in a movie? To put out a billboard? That is a sound practice to let people know you exist and by the way it is not free, the advertiser is supporting something. A radio station a movie, a website. Now blocking ads is in no way shape or form immoral either, just to make sure you don't misunderstand my position. I block advertising. But I don't see either advertising or blocking it as immoral. Annoying is the word.
You are now just stuck to a completely losing position, after being shown that you walked into it yourself by both proposing that A is true and that NOT A is true.
Too bad for you, math is so simple in that case. Corporations create jobs and you said they are not and have never been creating jobs.
You said corporations can buy labour, they are customers of labour and as customers they create jobs.
Too bad for you that you were taught never to admit that you are simply wrong. Simply wrong and shown to be wrong in your own words but the system of so called 'education' that you were put through did not intersect you with the concepts of logic and reasoning, instead it instilled the religious ideology into you.
Only religious ideology will never accept that it is wrong under any circumstances, scientific reasoning, logic, math, these principles understand what a mistake is and people exercising these principles can admit to being wrong and they can adjust their own understanding by admitting being wrong and learn from it not to be wrong again. Too bad this is not something you understand.
At some point you want to buy something from outside of your town or towns and you have to pay a manufacturer or a distributor or a retailer in some form of currency, where are you going to get it if all that your towns' economies are based upon is barter with each other for 'mowing lawns' and other services that are absolutely local and cannot be exported?
The point of trade is to exchange exportable goods (and services if they can be exported), not to move paper around (as many so called 'economists' today believe).
If you want to buy a tractor from a Swiss manufacturer you will have to pay him in some form of money and it's likely that you cannot barter with him and it's likely that you cannot export your lawn mowing services to him either. You will need money and you will need money that somebody will accept, and even more so where it concerns crossing borders.
It's not meaningless if your goal is to steal and that's what that 'article' proposes - theft.
1. Government steals by forcing people to declare all of their cash savings and to justify them to transfer them into the electronic form.
2. Government steals by creating inflation electronically, so it's cheaper and faster for the government to create vast amounts of virtual money and dilute existing savings, thus stealing (creating inflation).
3. Government can steal everything at any time by simply emptying your bank account and leaving you with nothing.
4. Government will steal by setting stupid exchange rates that are absolutely fake, like pegging the exchange say 1USD to 10Pesos while on the 'black market' you would get many times more pesos, for example 100 for 1.
5. Government can control you if you do not have access to your own money, and it can prevent you from doing anything they don't like and punish you for doing anything they don't approve of.
It's a gigantic con, don't fall for it, it doesn't matter what the name of the currency is if you are not even able to have it in your own hands.
Basically if you cannot hold your own money in your own hands but government holds it for you (directly or through proxy banks) you are fucked, you have nothing.
If you try to switch to gold and other currencies of your choice, you will be labeled a 'speculator' and 'enemy of the working class' etc., and you can be dealt with criminally.
Slashdot Mirror
He couldn't fit a square peg into a cillround hole.
Pffft. I would answer like so: I am standing on a cone located exactly on top of North pole. The cone is 1 mile tall.
The USA economy in 1995 was much more sound than the economy today or what will be in 2020. It was not an economy that lived in permanent state of constant inflation (0% interest rates and money printing out of the government wazoo). The degeneration of the economy over that time period (actually since 1913, when the IRS and Fed were created, 1917, when the Fed was allowed to monetize government debt, 1971, when Nixon defaulted on the dollar and inflation totally took off) caused mass migration of productivity from the USA to other parts of the world. The service sector jobs that we are talking about here (and make no mistake, minimum wage jobs are service sector jobs, jobs that do not directly produce economic output that can be exported to pay for the imported produced goods from other countries) are not paying as much as they paid in 1995 because these service sector jobs cannot afford to pay that.
In USA there should be a REDUCTION of minimum wage, not increase of minimum wage, but more importantly there should be reduction in government spending altogether, reduction in government, reduction of taxes collected from any work done by anybody, reduction of any payouts to anybody on any government promises. Basically USA government needs to let go of its death grip on the economy and let it restructure. This includes abolition of government services, removal of government participation in business and labour altogether and this means no more minimum wage. What USA government is doing is the exact opposite of what the USA economy needs. This is what I mean when I say 'economic illiteracy', it's prevalent, it's all permeating, it's devastating and there is no easy fix.
Aah, no, as a producer I disagree that customer generates the market for a new product. We are building a number of new products here today and some of what we are building does not have a market, we are hoping to create the market for it, just like iPads created a market that did not exist, just like production of kerosene created market for lighting with kerosene that did not exist, just like cars and trucks created market where before the role of the vehicles was carried out by horses and other forms of transport. Somebody steps in with their investment to create the market that did not exist because the item that is being created does not exist.
There is currently no gigantic market for yachts because they are very expensive. IF you can create a yacht and sell it at 10,000USD you will create a gigantic market for yachts that did not exist because the product was not in existence.
If you come up with a way to build a personal space vehicle and make it only as expensive as a car or so you will create a gigantic market that did not exist.
Of-course for all of this there have to be savings taken out of somebody's bank account first, spent to produce thing thing, which means hiring people (creating jobs, not because you want to create jobs, because you want to make money on selling into your new market), buying stuff from suppliers, renting some space, managing everything, marketing, advertising, selling, even going through the regulatory labyrinth and making sure you can actually offer your product to any potential customers, that's what investment is, that's what 'trickle down' economics actually are - using savings to produce and then allowing more economy to be generated around your production.
I run a business (more than one), I woke up one day and said: I have some savings, why don't I build a system and try and sell it. I built my first system all by myself, found a client, didn't sell it but offered it to them for free, getting support money from that still and used that to advertise my services. Found another client and managed to secure a contract for building another system, hired some people, trained them and worked on that system. While I was working on that system I was making enough money to pay off some debts and get some more people, who I then put to work on my own products before I had a single client for those products at all.
I will never do anything 'benevolently', that makes 0 sense to me, I am in this to build my own stuff the way I want to and to make money off of it, if I am not making money off of it it is my problem, since I am spending money on building it, which is mostly salaries, rent, utilities and taxes. I don't need lectures on why people do what they do in business and I know precisely why I hire people.
I would prefer to hire NOBODY at all, that's my preference because I don't need the expense and the drama. However to be more productive I have to add more hands and heads to myself, I see employees as tools that I use to bring my vision to life. I have 0 customers for some of my systems and I must advertise to find those clients, but the money is already spent, the employees already got their salaries, the money came out of my own pocket - my savings.
'Trickle down' has nothing to do with 'giving rich people more money', that's socialist baloney, it has to do precisely with gathering capital and using the capital to invest into more production. Talking about 'trickle down' and 'giving rich money' is the exact economic illiteracy that I was talking about.
Poverty happens due to lack of production. I am not a robot in your replicator dream, I produce the way I do it because I want to get more money than when I was working as a contractor. I spend my time and my savings to produce, I see profits as way to increase production, not as a way to eat more expensive chocolate and drive a bigger car. Poverty happens due to poverty in thinking, which is what leads to overall poverty in society. Poverty in thinking is the way of thinking that includes 'stealing from the rich to give to the poor' - THAT is poverty of thinking.
Forget tax breaks, there shouldn't be any tax on work and on production at all. You tax something, you get less of it. Inflation is a tax on work. Business regulations are tax on work. Income, payroll, dividend, capital gains and other wealth taxes are taxes on work. None of them should exist, the government structured around taxing work will destroy the economy as has happened time and again, not just over decades, but over the entire existence of human life on this planet.
The rich stay rich by letting their money work for them. As to the USA economy right now it has nothing to do with production at all, it is all inflation based and it is mostly fake, it doesn't exist. USA is an unproductive economy, that cannot pay for the imports that it consumes with its own export of productive output, instead it exports inflation (money printing) and war. Disparity between the rich and the poor exists and will exist always and in the times of Rockefeller it was much more pronounced than anything we can see today.
Compared to Rockefeller the wealthy of today are paupers. By the time he died he was worth over 600,000,000,000 dollars in modern money, nobody is worth that much today at all and yet the economy was growing, the unemployment was minimal and the productive output was staggering, allowing the USA to become the economic powerhouse of the world over the 19th century after being an afterthought to Europe for centuries.
'Trickle down economics' is economics of savings and reinvestment and not of consumption at all, so yes, all of those people who use it are economic illiterates, they think in terms of spending money on the consumables instead of spending money on investment to grow money, which is what grows the economy *in normal free market economy*, which is what is happening in China today, not in the USA. You think there is no income disparity in China? Ha! Yet that economy is hot and growing and will keep growing, this century is Chinese and that is that and not American at all, this century is the century of free markets disguised as 'communism' and this is also the century of central planning failure disguised as 'American capitalism'.
Minimum wage does not protect the most vulnerable, it hurts the most vulnerable, minimum wage is minimum ability, it will displace the most vulnerable from the work force entirely.
If the government is in business of stealing and subsidising then businesses will be getting in on that game. In the USA government shouldn't be in that business, it shouldn't be stealing from anybody and subsidising anybody, it is government power that people want to use for their own reasons. If I had strong connection to a government that steals and subsidises I would absolutely pull the blanket my way, it's the most rational thing ever. The point is that there shouldn't be a blanket if it is made out of theft and it is.
'Trickle down' economics means that as a person gathers capital by being more productive by building a business the effect of his savings and re-investment creates more prosperity, which it obviously does, that's how new businesses built cities around themselves, that's how fundamental and infrastructural businesses allowed satellite businesses to be created (case in point AWS or Google API allows tons of companies to exist by giving them tools that were produced with the investment of those giants, same is true of every major industry which caused explosion of business around themselves, from food and energy to transportation and healthcare).
What you don't understand is that in order for 'the bone' to exist somebody has to produce it and by implying that the 'bone is given' you completely side step the fact that it had to be produced to exist. No, no bone should be 'given' to anybody, no, that's not a problem of any particular business, but it is a much broader economic and societal problem of theft and redistribution based on violent force of the State.
What takes time? When was the last time a politician failed to do something for the sake of expediency if they thought it would increase their ratings/power? It's not a conspiracy at all when it is this obviously true.
Preach it, brother! MARX, LENIN and CHE will live forever!
Yeah, it's just if the stupid business owners simply understood that if they paid their employees more right now they would be making so much more money from their business, if only they could do a simple business optimisation as well as Los Angeles politicians, who are after all politicians, so they must know a thing or two about running a successful business.
Those stupid fucking idiots, running their stupid fucking businesses, all business should be public property anyway, it all should be centrally ran by the government in the most efficient manner that would totally eliminate the wasteful competition and totally reduce all prices like all publicly provided services do. Public work at public prices and public quality, that should be the slogan. Those fucking morons trying to run their stupid fucking businesses should be thrown to jail for all this abuse that they are dishing out by daring to hire people and pay them the so called fucking 'market rate'.
The only unfortunate thing here is that the $15 minimum wage is not in effect right away, like tomorrow. Instead it is stretched in time over 5 years making it very very hard to connect the dots and see the obviously impending improvements in the economy right away. Why do these politicians not want to reap the reward of producing a much better economic outcome while they are still in the office? Hmm, they must really feel magnanimous, letting the ones who will come after them to enjoy the fruits of this particular labour.
Absolutely, and the very reason this law stretches the increase over 5 years is specifically so that the voters will blame something and somebody else for the worsening economic conditions, because for the mostly economically illiterate people (vast majority of the population) it is much easier to connect dots if they happen close in time from each other than if they stretch over a longer time period.
Poverty cannot be legislated away. Poverty can only be produced away. Did anybody here ask themselves a simple question, why is the government raising minimum wage to 15USD/hour BY 2020 AND NOT TOMORROW?
Because they KNOW it will hurt the economy, but it is a populous move (designed specifically for the economically illiterates, just like you), to make it look like the government does something, while the horrible economic effects of the actual increase will be disguised by being stretched in time over the next 5 years.
"Trickle down" economics means economics of savings and investment and "job creator theory" means that investments and businesses create jobs. That is how money is made, by creating it by production and production is business. Consumption is a trivial consequence of production, nothing else and without something being produced first it can never be consumed at all.
What part of that don't you get?
- the part where you are incapable of admitting of simply being wrong.
Corporations hire people, it doesn't matter in what 'role'. They purchase labour and thus they create jobs.
Corporations are customers of labour, but that's not what I am arguing about, I am very specifically pointing at your inability to follow your own logic.
When you said: corporations are not creating jobs and have never created jobs, you did not put any caveats there, saying that corporations actually always create jobs when they hire people because they are customers to labour.
I KNOW corporations create jobs, I run a corporation and I know what it means to buy labour thus creating jobs. You, on the other hand, talk out of both sides of your mouth.
I think organizing data and basic practical SQL should be now taught right after reading, writing and arithmetic.
something as simple as this:
table: student (id, name)
table: course(id, name)
table: student_course(student_id, course_id)
select sum(*), c.name from student s, course c, student_course sc where s.id=sc.student_id and c.id=sc.course_id group by c.name;
can provide perspective to math, to data, to understanding of the world. Learning to break down the world into concepts that can be named, expressed, related to each other, totalled, averaged, grouped. Showing a bit of set theory, joins, unions, etc.
But students lack much more than that, they lack understanding of real economics, real history, real politics and much more.
Math or no math, it's simple in this case. You specified: corporations never create jobs.
Then you specified: corporations create jobs.
Too bad I guess that you are missing the most important part of this conversation, your complete inability to admit and learn from your own mistakes.
Individual freedom has never been as important as it is now and is needed more than ever. Individual freedom is exactly is what is missing and the 'libertarian song' as you derisively called it is exactly the idea of individual freedom.
Unions don't help people by the way, people outside of the unions cannot compete for those jobs since union is a labour monopoly. More to the point a union is not just about united individuals it is about special government protections that unions get, so it is about government oppression of individual freedoms.
Lastly you cannot force somebody give you a job. It is just not possible to do legitimately and if it were it would be completely immoral and against individual freedoms. Without freedoms an individual is nothing. Life without individual freedom is not worth anything.
If your ideological position allows you to divide people into groups in the first place (men, women, straight, gay, white, black, rich, poor, etc.), then the people who find themselves attacked as a group in the contemporary space based on that ideology will suffer from discrimination and it shows in courts, in laws that are passed, etc. If a group of people is attacked there will be a counter movement created by that attack, why do you find that surprising or even wrong?
Yes, there are men who have genuinely suffered bad consequences of this ideology where they themselves are in no way proponents of any type of oppression towards any group.
As to the movie itself, well the media is the message, I can see how some people can take any media and message and put theirbown perspective on it. But calling for a boycott is not the same as calling for discrimination or violence.
Calling for a boycott is speech. By the way governments hate speech. Canadian government wants to prosecute a group of people calling for a boycott of Israel because Israeli forces are given orders to target civilians on purpose. Canadian government wants to use so called 'hate speech' laws to prosecute those people criminally.
So AFAIC whether there is something or not behind this call for a boycott, it does not make the claims behind the calls into bad faith claims.
My point is that the advertiser can sell an ad but he cannot make the movie director or producer buy the ad and do something stupid with it. If you are shooting a movie you can decide to take the money and put an ad into the flick the wrong way, but how is it the advertiser's fault or problem if you make that decision?
Sure, no disagreement, but that is not the advertiser who put that coke bottle into a 14th century person's hand, and unless the movie is of quality and type of National Lampoons the movie will pay with horrible reviews. Seriously, if the ad is out of place that is on the director and the movie production company. Considering what people watch today, the Marvell universe, seeing a bottle of coke in the hands of an alien somewhere off this planet and even in a different timezone would be a curiosity more than anything, probably generating hot topics and discussions around the plot twists and gotchas. But Citizen Kane remake with Samsung Android in it would be met with derision. Context and common sense still matter even today, no?
Billboards are immoral? Products in movies? What is the difference what beverage an actor is holding in his hand? It could be anything at all, or it could be somebody paying him for it. Movies are not reality. Commercials between songs? Do you mean on the radio? And how will a radio station stay open if not for commercials? I think using the word 'immoral' in this context is way overreaching. I see immorality in using force and violence of let's say the State to oppress a group of people. But to advertise a brand of jeans in a movie? To put out a billboard? That is a sound practice to let people know you exist and by the way it is not free, the advertiser is supporting something. A radio station a movie, a website.
Now blocking ads is in no way shape or form immoral either, just to make sure you don't misunderstand my position.
I block advertising. But I don't see either advertising or blocking it as immoral. Annoying is the word.
and in your estimation what is the problem with that type of meritocracy?
You are now just stuck to a completely losing position, after being shown that you walked into it yourself by both proposing that A is true and that NOT A is true.
Too bad for you, math is so simple in that case. Corporations create jobs and you said they are not and have never been creating jobs.
You said corporations can buy labour, they are customers of labour and as customers they create jobs.
Too bad for you that you were taught never to admit that you are simply wrong. Simply wrong and shown to be wrong in your own words but the system of so called 'education' that you were put through did not intersect you with the concepts of logic and reasoning, instead it instilled the religious ideology into you.
Only religious ideology will never accept that it is wrong under any circumstances, scientific reasoning, logic, math, these principles understand what a mistake is and people exercising these principles can admit to being wrong and they can adjust their own understanding by admitting being wrong and learn from it not to be wrong again. Too bad this is not something you understand.
At some point you want to buy something from outside of your town or towns and you have to pay a manufacturer or a distributor or a retailer in some form of currency, where are you going to get it if all that your towns' economies are based upon is barter with each other for 'mowing lawns' and other services that are absolutely local and cannot be exported?
The point of trade is to exchange exportable goods (and services if they can be exported), not to move paper around (as many so called 'economists' today believe).
If you want to buy a tractor from a Swiss manufacturer you will have to pay him in some form of money and it's likely that you cannot barter with him and it's likely that you cannot export your lawn mowing services to him either. You will need money and you will need money that somebody will accept, and even more so where it concerns crossing borders.
It's not meaningless if your goal is to steal and that's what that 'article' proposes - theft.
1. Government steals by forcing people to declare all of their cash savings and to justify them to transfer them into the electronic form.
2. Government steals by creating inflation electronically, so it's cheaper and faster for the government to create vast amounts of virtual money and dilute existing savings, thus stealing (creating inflation).
3. Government can steal everything at any time by simply emptying your bank account and leaving you with nothing.
4. Government will steal by setting stupid exchange rates that are absolutely fake, like pegging the exchange say 1USD to 10Pesos while on the 'black market' you would get many times more pesos, for example 100 for 1.
5. Government can control you if you do not have access to your own money, and it can prevent you from doing anything they don't like and punish you for doing anything they don't approve of.
It's a gigantic con, don't fall for it, it doesn't matter what the name of the currency is if you are not even able to have it in your own hands.
Basically if you cannot hold your own money in your own hands but government holds it for you (directly or through proxy banks) you are fucked, you have nothing.
If you try to switch to gold and other currencies of your choice, you will be labeled a 'speculator' and 'enemy of the working class' etc., and you can be dealt with criminally.
I don't get it, is this entire post advertising to sell nolink.com?