Thank you for an interesting comment. As for the "rearranging" idea, I agree with you. However, this is trivial in the sense that when wealth is defined as stuff that wasn't there before, then of course, you create it by rearranging some other stuff! In this sense, my previous comment should be read "saving, investment, and more capital allow for more stuff to be rearranged that would otherwise be." Since we do not go into precise ways wealth is created in different industries, I just summarized all the creative faculties of man into "wealth creation."
As for spending, normally it is taken care of by the market. As demand drops, prices drop, marginal producers go out of business to invest into some other, now more lucrative areas. However, when political goals come into play (e.g., minority home ownership), as reality diverges from the wishful thinking of politicians, we start hearing that demand for some goods is lower than it should be. Instead of letting the economy shed off the malinvestments that were made in the bubble era, politicians want to preserve status-quo. In other words, when left to the market, the demand for iPads or real estate may in fact drop, and factories will close, and people will lose their jobs, but this is good, as now freed resources will be used more productively in some other industries, where demand will rise.
This is not "Insightful," but rather "I did not study economics."
The economy will continue to be broken until more money moves into the ordinary economy.
One does not create wealth by spending (e.g., buying big houses), it is created by saving and investing. That is, by what you call "moving money up." When money is redistributed towards the poor—the ones who are going to buy hamburgers or big screen TVs, instead of leaving it to the rich—the ones who are going to invest it, the economy ends up with less capital and eventually, less wealth.
So capitalism and freedom might be better than government coercion after all. What a radical idea for Slashdot these days!
You know, i would have no objections to virtually any government policy as long as one can freely leave a country whose government is not to one's liking for another one. You know, just like we do with businesses. As long as this is not the case, I'd rather see less federal-level regulations. Having been born in the Soviet Union, I certainly value my freedom to choose.
Currently, "alternative energy, reducing our energy consumption" is most often opposite to "industrial efficiency." Things are pretty efficient as they are if you measure efficiency in terms of money and not Gaia-worship.
As much as you (and I) want to get paid more by excluding competition, other people want to buy products of your labor for less by respectively encouraging competition. In a world of competition and (relatively) free trade, to demand oneself a unique position that is protected from competition is dishonest, i think. Lest of course you also don't buy any of the cheap products that became available due to international cooperation and competition. This probably includes virtually all consumer products.
If voting on the national browser setting makes you more free, good for you. Just don't get surprised when they put a national OS up for a vote and it turns out not to be Linux. If you are so eager to tell other people what to do with their computers, be prepared to be told as well.
Hopefully, after (if) these get rolled out in India, the other manufacturers will start competing a little harder.
Manufacturers are competing already. It is just that obviously there is more consumer demand for $500-1000 iPhones and Androids. Most people wouldn't by this Indian gadget even for $10, because it is of no use to them. An iPhone, on the contrary, is.
For one thing, here in Germany, the GDP per capita is 30% lower than in US, while prices are 30-50% higher. Not sure how this can translate in a higher standard of living. Germany is also not the poorest EU country, try to go to Slovenia or Poland in search of high standard of living.
Some people oppose socialism even when some of its aspects benefit them because they have principles and because they can see beyond immediate effects of policies. I would have thought, this was an admirable trait. Obviously, not in Obama's America.
Seriously, what's with people railing against one collection of individuals (government), while supplicating at the altar of another (corporations)?
The difference is, that with corporations, you can easily choose not to patronize their business, while with government it's much harder (impossible) to do so. Moreover, government can exercise coercion, while businesses can not.
So, IQ in fact can measure something like social intelligence, the ability to manipulate people.
Therefore, other things being equal, you would want to hire the person with higher IQ.
Academics need to follow very precise formatting guidelines when they submit their papers though. An example for IEEE from the top of my head: http://bme.ee.cuhk.edu.hk/TITB/instr4authors.html. I suppose there is some solution for this with TeX (templates?), but Word worked best for me so far. Another thing is reference management. Word has build-in one, plus integration with EndNote and others. What about TeX?
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for an interesting comment. As for the "rearranging" idea, I agree with you. However, this is trivial in the sense that when wealth is defined as stuff that wasn't there before, then of course, you create it by rearranging some other stuff! In this sense, my previous comment should be read "saving, investment, and more capital allow for more stuff to be rearranged that would otherwise be." Since we do not go into precise ways wealth is created in different industries, I just summarized all the creative faculties of man into "wealth creation."
As for spending, normally it is taken care of by the market. As demand drops, prices drop, marginal producers go out of business to invest into some other, now more lucrative areas. However, when political goals come into play (e.g., minority home ownership), as reality diverges from the wishful thinking of politicians, we start hearing that demand for some goods is lower than it should be. Instead of letting the economy shed off the malinvestments that were made in the bubble era, politicians want to preserve status-quo. In other words, when left to the market, the demand for iPads or real estate may in fact drop, and factories will close, and people will lose their jobs, but this is good, as now freed resources will be used more productively in some other industries, where demand will rise.
The economy will continue to be broken until more money moves into the ordinary economy.
One does not create wealth by spending (e.g., buying big houses), it is created by saving and investing. That is, by what you call "moving money up." When money is redistributed towards the poor—the ones who are going to buy hamburgers or big screen TVs, instead of leaving it to the rich—the ones who are going to invest it, the economy ends up with less capital and eventually, less wealth.
And I would have though it was due to feminism and "Think of the children!"
But I do think that if more manufacturers put them in smart phones the devices would find a market.
Isn't this an oxymoron? If something were to find a market, it would already be here. This certainly works for a century-old technology like radio.
Why do you want to impose your values on others? Why not let the disabled (or their caregivers) decide what to spend their money on?
Where demand exists, web sites were made accessible already. Mandating accessibility is like building bridges to nowhere.
many slashdotters, who are typically Libertarian-leaning
You must be kidding.
Just look at this guy
So capitalism and freedom might be better than government coercion after all. What a radical idea for Slashdot these days!
You know, i would have no objections to virtually any government policy as long as one can freely leave a country whose government is not to one's liking for another one. You know, just like we do with businesses. As long as this is not the case, I'd rather see less federal-level regulations. Having been born in the Soviet Union, I certainly value my freedom to choose.
Currently, "alternative energy, reducing our energy consumption" is most often opposite to "industrial efficiency." Things are pretty efficient as they are if you measure efficiency in terms of money and not Gaia-worship.
As much as you (and I) want to get paid more by excluding competition, other people want to buy products of your labor for less by respectively encouraging competition. In a world of competition and (relatively) free trade, to demand oneself a unique position that is protected from competition is dishonest, i think. Lest of course you also don't buy any of the cheap products that became available due to international cooperation and competition. This probably includes virtually all consumer products.
understand that, or be the enemy of freedom
If voting on the national browser setting makes you more free, good for you. Just don't get surprised when they put a national OS up for a vote and it turns out not to be Linux. If you are so eager to tell other people what to do with their computers, be prepared to be told as well.
You don't have a right to tell a web site owner, whose property you voluntarily "visit", whether to log your activity/set cookie or not.
Please, try harder next time.
In Soviet Russia, a web site visits you!
Q.E.D.
Guess we can all go home now.
This is blatant monopolistic malpractice
Because Freedom of Association is only valuable if you personally benefit from it. Otherwise it is a Monopoly!
Hopefully, after (if) these get rolled out in India, the other manufacturers will start competing a little harder.
Manufacturers are competing already. It is just that obviously there is more consumer demand for $500-1000 iPhones and Androids. Most people wouldn't by this Indian gadget even for $10, because it is of no use to them. An iPhone, on the contrary, is.
For one thing, here in Germany, the GDP per capita is 30% lower than in US, while prices are 30-50% higher. Not sure how this can translate in a higher standard of living. Germany is also not the poorest EU country, try to go to Slovenia or Poland in search of high standard of living.
Some people oppose socialism even when some of its aspects benefit them because they have principles and because they can see beyond immediate effects of policies. I would have thought, this was an admirable trait. Obviously, not in Obama's America.
Seriously, what's with people railing against one collection of individuals (government), while supplicating at the altar of another (corporations)?
The difference is, that with corporations, you can easily choose not to patronize their business, while with government it's much harder (impossible) to do so. Moreover, government can exercise coercion, while businesses can not.
I thought this was obvious.
I would certainly pass for a promotion someone who claims that reality does not exist.
So, IQ in fact can measure something like social intelligence, the ability to manipulate people. Therefore, other things being equal, you would want to hire the person with higher IQ.
Academics need to follow very precise formatting guidelines when they submit their papers though. An example for IEEE from the top of my head: http://bme.ee.cuhk.edu.hk/TITB/instr4authors.html. I suppose there is some solution for this with TeX (templates?), but Word worked best for me so far. Another thing is reference management. Word has build-in one, plus integration with EndNote and others. What about TeX?
You say, students should not be able to buy Office at lower prices? MSDNAA should be forbidden? Why?
Here you go: Blaise Aguera y Arcas demos augmented-reality maps
Frankly, we can't say that these SSD drives will last 5-10 years straight
Frankly, we can't say anything about many things. If the risk of a gadget failing withing 5-10 years is unbearable, buy insurance against it.
Right, because artists are so good at/interested in production, marketing, logistics, customer support, etc. Middlemen exist for a reason.