While it is true that every dollar spent by government equates to a dollar from the free market, but that doesn't mean that the ROI on the money is less in all government spending programs than the money would have been in the free market. More specifically government spending is used for positive externalities, where the aggregate ROI exceeds the individual ROI (like firefighting, roads, education). Part of the reason why we have higher unemployment, is that the work itself is becoming automated and less necessary. As total factor productivity rises and resources become more expensive, there will become many more unemployed and poor people, and it will have nothing to do with obama or FDR or even bush.
My understanding was that there was a low production state, partly driven by the protestant work ethic, to under consume and over save. Our economy wasn't designed around that paradigm, and people suffered as a result of the collapse of the economic system, as it created a negative feedback loop in the debt/interest based economic system. Of course the whole idea of compound interest in a financial system, which is tied to a physical world of finite limitations is absurd, but their solution was to tie individual psycho-social needs to consumer goods. Of course its easy to criticize in hindsight and harder to actually solve, but this is one of many examples of how greed has hindered social progress, stemming back to the founding fathers who also had to capitulate to private interests over the public good.
if war > destruction and destruction > loss of capital and loss of capital > lower productivity if war > non productive labor and non productive labor > lower productivity therefore war > lower productivity
we can say that war created technological advances, but its not only war that create technological advances, but capital expenditures themselves that do. I could write a logic calculus expression for it, but I'm too lazy to.
Yes I believe that he did have a counter-cyclical argument, but trading business cycles for monetary cycles doesn't reduce volatility, which is in general worse than the constant inflation.
More precisely you can afford to go into debt, if the assets(public or private) created by the debt over time, creates a sufficiently low debt/asset ratio.
Technically speaking all money is now a form of debt, and what governments tend to do anymore is issue debt in their currency, and then inflate the currency to keep the debt/gdp level low enough to prevent default.
Its mathematically impossible for everyone to pay off all debt in the system that we currently have now, the inflation is what makes the active pursuit of money (and therefore production) obligatory.
I believe that government has a role to play in the economy, but not one that is in bed with the private sector, which is where most of the waste is derived from. However if your talking about it from a liberty perspective, there is essentially two forms of liberty (actually a plurality), the government and private sector both advocate differing varieties.
This is called "The Broken Window Fallacy", but is essentially a cornerstone of alot of economic policy, because rebuilding things (that were destroyed) creates jobs. In fact I hear alot about 'creating jobs', for example recent talks in my state for a casino, even though its a negative sum game. Even part of our throw away culture is defined by the measurement of GDP for economic success, since the sale of a single part contributes less than the sale of a whole new device. Now its no surprise that warfare, exploitation of and shipping resources around the world, may have not been the most efficient use of our time. But I have a belief that had the greedy capitalist pigs, not gone to war to protect their 'private property' from the 'communist looters', we would have ended up with a more 'free market' than we have now. Furthermore the more homogeneous development and lower diminished returns on both natural and human capital, would have increased aggregate human development and economic productivity, and probably have reduced the population and factored resource inefficiencies.
America has a god given right to demand a bigger piece of the pie, even if that means destroying some of it in the process, because were exceptional and gods chosen people. Which is essentially our 19th and early 20th century intellectual rhetoric, we found what was essentially virgin land that we exploited, in order to create our version of order in the world.
Keynesian economics did increase the total workforce participation, but your right about the destroyed industrialized countries being a part of it, so did the neo-colonialism of the late 19th and early 20th century. Now that we can no longer access such cheap resources, and don't have a significant advantage in manufacturing, we (and also Europe) are left with an inflated economic bubble that's collapsing. Simply put is that our total factor productivity is too low and resources too high, to be able to demand the amount of money that we expect from our labor. And though Keynesian economics might help by being able to tax unproductive consumption, it also hinges on the ability to target more productive investments, which is essentially trading consumer spending for capital expenditures. But even if you completely automate production of a thing, say for instance the mining of copper which now requires demolishing entire mountains, its not going to lower the price enough to make it as affordable as it used to be.
Just because the government was able to implement a Keynesian solution to that economic problem, does not mean that it holds the solution to every economic problem, for instance one that involves post - peak natural resource production.
I think that your comparing the weight of the capsule to the weight of the entire space shuttle (not just the orbiter). And the space shuttle (orbiter) could (unmanned) be sent to mars to assemble a space station, and then return to earth and be use for another mission, something that the dragon capsule could not do.
To get into LEO the space shuttle requires 500,000 gallons of liquid propellant and 1 million pounds of solid propellant. How does he propose that he is going to go to mars an back while carrying supplies for the whole trip?
my father and my uncle all think as you do, and what is common between you, is that you are anti-social. So it comes as to no surprise that you dislike social systems, and want to be a rugged and free individual, and believe that every man is an island. The issue is that economics along with politics, are treated like a sort of religion, one that should conform to a persons pre-conceived perceptions (and thus avoid cognitive dissonance).
I don't presume why you would presume to know better about politics or economics, when its clear that some of the most dedicated and brilliant minds contradict you, even a simple google search would reveal empirical evidence to contradict your statements. Do you also disagree with climate scientists over global warming, or with biologists over how/if abiogenesis occurred, what qualifications do you offer above the consensus of economists?
I posted some very specific criticisms that directly contradict your statements, many of which are easily disproven by anyone willing to question their own rhetoric. you addressed none of them whatsoever, and instead took offense when i criticized you qualifications, which are apparent from your lack of knowledge in that domain. But seeing as how your such an asshole, i hope that you eventually learn what its like, to have a bleeding stomach full of digestive fluids
your so completely full of shit, you should go to school and learn something about economics, instead of spouting off that laissez faire nonsense. It's kind of your fault that you listen to such rhetoric, which often appeals to idealistic notions, but lacks the rigor of a proper education.
more specifically look up "externalities", or "hoover dam".
"he who has the gold makes the rules", power creates money money creates power. money can even create governments, like the late 19th century mining towns or saudi royal family.
capitalism runs off of a positive feedback loops, until the feedback loop destroys itself, which is why regulation is required.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw
if you have a EDU account, look up some agent based computational economics, (agents with resource mobility and foresight win) (distributed networks less efficient at the calculation problem than centralized systems)
anyways, im up late because im in pain, from having had an ulcer today, otherwise i would go into more depth. But please stop pretending your an expert on this , until you've decided to spend a few years learning and practicing it.
While general motors did have a large amount of union pension bills to pay, which eventually was one of the reasons they went bankrupt, it was not because of the unions. General motors was using its workforce less effectively than others for decades, and took nearly twice as much labor to produce cars than the asian competitors. This was because they did not adequately invest in flexible manufacturing and lean manufacturing systems, as what they did invest into robotics initially was poorly implemented for decades. Thats not to say that their unions didn't play hardball, but GM also failed to see them as legitimate stakeholders, and didn't cooperate until shit hit the fan.
Generally speaking general motors was mismanaged since the sixties, an icon of this era was a book by nader called "unsafe at any speed". The issue was that general motors wanted the biggest piece of the pie, so they created different lines for different demographics, and did this by going on an acquisition spree across the world. However their position as dominant leader in the in the world didn't protect them from market dynamics. When the asian tigers emerged, they focused on only a few lines, that they marketed around the world. Meanwhile GM was producing dozens of different models of vehicles, and they had higher fixed costs and weren't able to innovate as quickly. Moreover they didn't want to move into the small vehicle market, because it had lower margins and thought that it was a fad during the 70's. And when faced with these problems, they chose to try to amortize their costs over higher volumes, and made more acquisitions. Finally they nearly became brankrupt in 92, and was forced to sell the parts of the companies that they could sell, which were the valueable parts of the company poste haste. which then led them to be dependant upon other companies like lotus and its part division.
Lets not forget that when they did invest in innovation they utterly failed, they used to be the largest robotics purchaser in the world, but they couldn't automate so many types of automobiles. They also invested in a modular frame system, that would have automated well, but also failed miserably. And they created saturn as a test bed of innovation, but infighting led to it being neglected, after they changed CEO's. And they made designs that nobody else liked (pontiac aztek), but appealed to the management (Olds), or looked good on paper.
I bet he is working on a way to transfer his conciousness to the cloud, so he can continue leadership of apple, until the end of the world as we know it. They will release a DRM'ed version of the i-ego software, that will only interface with other apple products, and will require that you use I tunes.
I've used arvixe http://www.arvixe.com for our clients hosting packages. They offer free domain name for life, and charge $4/mo for the basic linux hosting plan. Which includes backups and lots of other goodies, Most of the sites aren't traffic or resource heavy, but they offer higher tiered plans for those who need it. When I needed tier II support, I've gotten to the owner of the company!
As someone who went to college at 16, I agree with this approach. When I was a child, we had a pilot program where students could complete their highschool education, paid for at the community college. The socialization that someone receives from older peers is often better than what one would receive in highschool. due in part, because your peers and professors treat you as an adult, so you start acting like one. And for someone who can rely on self-directed learning, they have the freedom to excel in their field of study.
The structure of education previous to this, should be focused on developing critical skills. basic things that one will need to live their lives, psychology, sociology, basic mathematics, reading, basic science, critical thinking, etc. electives like shop, band, home economics, art, etc should be handled after 10th grade, in a trade school type manner, and 10th-12th should be college prep.
The fact of life is that people aren't equal, and some people have the right to discriminate between choices, and so does our society. This is not to say that we shouldn't provide opportunities to everyone, but that many people are not responsible with them. Another good example of this is unemployment and welfare, if you want it and need it, you should prove that your actually responsible with it.
Freedom to succeed, and freedom to fail, its your choice.
a) Leave gifts with his name, that will repel her from her man. Break up letters, and dirty pictures of the him and the ex will do fine.
b) Leave really nice gifts that her man would never give her himself. Like a oil on canvas portrait of her, preserving her beauty for eternity.
c) Add some Rohypnol to those valentines chocolates that your anonymously send her. Then show up with your dick in a box, and ask her to open it for you.
d) wait in the alleyway for the said guy to show up at said girlfriends house. Beat him up, and surgically remove his face aka face off with travolta
e) rent a u-haul van, and buy a velvet bag with a drawstring, and a santa costume. Trust me nobody will know the difference.
HAH, I'm a Portland State student, and a medical marijuana patient. Let me fill you in on something, you can cure phantom limb by looking at your REAL hand while stoned, and placing it in the mirror while pretending its your phantom limb.
Slashdot Mirror
While it is true that every dollar spent by government equates to a dollar from the free market, but that doesn't mean that the ROI on the money is less in all government spending programs than the money would have been in the free market. More specifically government spending is used for positive externalities, where the aggregate ROI exceeds the individual ROI (like firefighting, roads, education). Part of the reason why we have higher unemployment, is that the work itself is becoming automated and less necessary. As total factor productivity rises and resources become more expensive, there will become many more unemployed and poor people, and it will have nothing to do with obama or FDR or even bush.
My understanding was that there was a low production state, partly driven by the protestant work ethic, to under consume and over save. Our economy wasn't designed around that paradigm, and people suffered as a result of the collapse of the economic system, as it created a negative feedback loop in the debt/interest based economic system. Of course the whole idea of compound interest in a financial system, which is tied to a physical world of finite limitations is absurd, but their solution was to tie individual psycho-social needs to consumer goods. Of course its easy to criticize in hindsight and harder to actually solve, but this is one of many examples of how greed has hindered social progress, stemming back to the founding fathers who also had to capitulate to private interests over the public good.
Sounds like your the one who doesn't know what they're talking about, it doesn't make sense to you because you haven't learned it yet.
if war > destruction
and destruction > loss of capital
and loss of capital > lower productivity
if war > non productive labor
and non productive labor > lower productivity
therefore war > lower productivity
we can say that war created technological advances, but its not only war that create technological advances, but capital expenditures themselves that do. I could write a logic calculus expression for it, but I'm too lazy to.
Yes I believe that he did have a counter-cyclical argument, but trading business cycles for monetary cycles doesn't reduce volatility, which is in general worse than the constant inflation.
More precisely you can afford to go into debt, if the assets(public or private) created by the debt over time, creates a sufficiently low debt/asset ratio.
Technically speaking all money is now a form of debt, and what governments tend to do anymore is issue debt in their currency, and then inflate the currency to keep the debt/gdp level low enough to prevent default.
Its mathematically impossible for everyone to pay off all debt in the system that we currently have now, the inflation is what makes the active pursuit of money (and therefore production) obligatory.
I believe that government has a role to play in the economy, but not one that is in bed with the private sector, which is where most of the waste is derived from. However if your talking about it from a liberty perspective, there is essentially two forms of liberty (actually a plurality), the government and private sector both advocate differing varieties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty#Freedom_as_a_triadic_relation
This is called "The Broken Window Fallacy", but is essentially a cornerstone of alot of economic policy, because rebuilding things (that were destroyed) creates jobs. In fact I hear alot about 'creating jobs', for example recent talks in my state for a casino, even though its a negative sum game. Even part of our throw away culture is defined by the measurement of GDP for economic success, since the sale of a single part contributes less than the sale of a whole new device. Now its no surprise that warfare, exploitation of and shipping resources around the world, may have not been the most efficient use of our time. But I have a belief that had the greedy capitalist pigs, not gone to war to protect their 'private property' from the 'communist looters', we would have ended up with a more 'free market' than we have now. Furthermore the more homogeneous development and lower diminished returns on both natural and human capital, would have increased aggregate human development and economic productivity, and probably have reduced the population and factored resource inefficiencies.
America has a god given right to demand a bigger piece of the pie, even if that means destroying some of it in the process, because were exceptional and gods chosen people. Which is essentially our 19th and early 20th century intellectual rhetoric, we found what was essentially virgin land that we exploited, in order to create our version of order in the world.
Keynesian economics did increase the total workforce participation, but your right about the destroyed industrialized countries being a part of it, so did the neo-colonialism of the late 19th and early 20th century. Now that we can no longer access such cheap resources, and don't have a significant advantage in manufacturing, we (and also Europe) are left with an inflated economic bubble that's collapsing. Simply put is that our total factor productivity is too low and resources too high, to be able to demand the amount of money that we expect from our labor. And though Keynesian economics might help by being able to tax unproductive consumption, it also hinges on the ability to target more productive investments, which is essentially trading consumer spending for capital expenditures. But even if you completely automate production of a thing, say for instance the mining of copper which now requires demolishing entire mountains, its not going to lower the price enough to make it as affordable as it used to be.
Just because the government was able to implement a Keynesian solution to that economic problem, does not mean that it holds the solution to every economic problem, for instance one that involves post - peak natural resource production.
I think, therefore I spam
I think that your comparing the weight of the capsule to the weight of the entire space shuttle (not just the orbiter). And the space shuttle (orbiter) could (unmanned) be sent to mars to assemble a space station, and then return to earth and be use for another mission, something that the dragon capsule could not do.
To get into LEO the space shuttle requires 500,000 gallons of liquid propellant and 1 million pounds of solid propellant. How does he propose that he is going to go to mars an back while carrying supplies for the whole trip?
bullshit
my father and my uncle all think as you do, and what is common between you, is that you are anti-social. So it comes as to no surprise that you dislike social systems, and want to be a rugged and free individual, and believe that every man is an island. The issue is that economics along with politics, are treated like a sort of religion, one that should conform to a persons pre-conceived perceptions (and thus avoid cognitive dissonance).
I don't presume why you would presume to know better about politics or economics, when its clear that some of the most dedicated and brilliant minds contradict you, even a simple google search would reveal empirical evidence to contradict your statements. Do you also disagree with climate scientists over global warming, or with biologists over how/if abiogenesis occurred, what qualifications do you offer above the consensus of economists?
I posted some very specific criticisms that directly contradict your statements, many of which are easily disproven by anyone willing to question their own rhetoric. you addressed none of them whatsoever, and instead took offense when i criticized you qualifications, which are apparent from your lack of knowledge in that domain. But seeing as how your such an asshole, i hope that you eventually learn what its like, to have a bleeding stomach full of digestive fluids
your so completely full of shit, you should go to school and learn something about economics, instead of spouting off that laissez faire nonsense. It's kind of your fault that you listen to such rhetoric, which often appeals to idealistic notions, but lacks the rigor of a proper education.
more specifically look up "externalities", or "hoover dam".
"he who has the gold makes the rules", power creates money money creates power. money can even create governments, like the late 19th century mining towns or saudi royal family.
capitalism runs off of a positive feedback loops, until the feedback loop destroys itself, which is why regulation is required.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw
if you have a EDU account, look up some agent based computational economics, (agents with resource mobility and foresight win) (distributed networks less efficient at the calculation problem than centralized systems)
anyways, im up late because im in pain, from having had an ulcer today, otherwise i would go into more depth. But please stop pretending your an expert on this , until you've decided to spend a few years learning and practicing it.
While general motors did have a large amount of union pension bills to pay, which eventually was one of the reasons they went bankrupt, it was not because of the unions. General motors was using its workforce less effectively than others for decades, and took nearly twice as much labor to produce cars than the asian competitors. This was because they did not adequately invest in flexible manufacturing and lean manufacturing systems, as what they did invest into robotics initially was poorly implemented for decades. Thats not to say that their unions didn't play hardball, but GM also failed to see them as legitimate stakeholders, and didn't cooperate until shit hit the fan.
Generally speaking general motors was mismanaged since the sixties, an icon of this era was a book by nader called "unsafe at any speed". The issue was that general motors wanted the biggest piece of the pie, so they created different lines for different demographics, and did this by going on an acquisition spree across the world. However their position as dominant leader in the in the world didn't protect them from market dynamics. When the asian tigers emerged, they focused on only a few lines, that they marketed around the world. Meanwhile GM was producing dozens of different models of vehicles, and they had higher fixed costs and weren't able to innovate as quickly. Moreover they didn't want to move into the small vehicle market, because it had lower margins and thought that it was a fad during the 70's. And when faced with these problems, they chose to try to amortize their costs over higher volumes, and made more acquisitions. Finally they nearly became brankrupt in 92, and was forced to sell the parts of the companies that they could sell, which were the valueable parts of the company poste haste. which then led them to be dependant upon other companies like lotus and its part division.
Lets not forget that when they did invest in innovation they utterly failed, they used to be the largest robotics purchaser in the world, but they couldn't automate so many types of automobiles. They also invested in a modular frame system, that would have automated well, but also failed miserably. And they created saturn as a test bed of innovation, but infighting led to it being neglected, after they changed CEO's. And they made designs that nobody else liked (pontiac aztek), but appealed to the management (Olds), or looked good on paper.
But you still wont get an SD card on an Ipad, or be able to recover your data for less than $1000
I bet he is working on a way to transfer his conciousness to the cloud, so he can continue leadership of apple, until the end of the world as we know it. They will release a DRM'ed version of the i-ego software, that will only interface with other apple products, and will require that you use I tunes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y27MfF-n_Y
I've used arvixe http://www.arvixe.com for our clients hosting packages. They offer free domain name for life, and charge $4/mo for the basic linux hosting plan. Which includes backups and lots of other goodies, Most of the sites aren't traffic or resource heavy, but they offer higher tiered plans for those who need it. When I needed tier II support, I've gotten to the owner of the company!
As someone who went to college at 16, I agree with this approach. When I was a child, we had a pilot program where students could complete their highschool education, paid for at the community college. The socialization that someone receives from older peers is often better than what one would receive in highschool. due in part, because your peers and professors treat you as an adult, so you start acting like one. And for someone who can rely on self-directed learning, they have the freedom to excel in their field of study.
The structure of education previous to this, should be focused on developing critical skills. basic things that one will need to live their lives, psychology, sociology, basic mathematics, reading, basic science, critical thinking, etc. electives like shop, band, home economics, art, etc should be handled after 10th grade, in a trade school type manner, and 10th-12th should be college prep.
The fact of life is that people aren't equal, and some people have the right to discriminate between choices, and so does our society. This is not to say that we shouldn't provide opportunities to everyone, but that many people are not responsible with them. Another good example of this is unemployment and welfare, if you want it and need it, you should prove that your actually responsible with it.
Freedom to succeed, and freedom to fail, its your choice.
This takes a clever feat of engineering.
a) Leave gifts with his name, that will repel her from her man. Break up letters, and dirty pictures of the him and the ex will do fine.
b) Leave really nice gifts that her man would never give her himself. Like a oil on canvas portrait of her, preserving her beauty for eternity.
c) Add some Rohypnol to those valentines chocolates that your anonymously send her. Then show up with your dick in a box, and ask her to open it for you.
d) wait in the alleyway for the said guy to show up at said girlfriends house. Beat him up, and surgically remove his face aka face off with travolta
e) rent a u-haul van, and buy a velvet bag with a drawstring, and a santa costume. Trust me nobody will know the difference.
HAH, I'm a Portland State student, and a medical marijuana patient. Let me fill you in on something, you can cure phantom limb by looking at your REAL hand while stoned, and placing it in the mirror while pretending its your phantom limb.
Seriously,
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/vilayanur_ramachandran_on_your_mind.html
I must say for the record, 'all hail marijuana science'.