No one with a net worth of less than $100M allowed on the property.
You also see this same divide at more normal levels of income; the people in coastal cities who are wealthy and success versus those who live elsewhere. These two groups increasingly only communicate within their groups and share views on politics, environment, health, etc. This trend seems likely to continue (particularly with automation) and be the great story of our time.
Round up the 5 or 10 % wealthiest people on the planet and their families.
Always a good start.
People will deliberately aim to avoid being in that top range by cutting their production; those who are selected will be those unfortunate enough to be producing too much.
Do you honestly think this will make things better, or do you just want to indulge in a bit of jealous violence/genocide?
Economic success is predicated first and foremost on who your parents are. It determines much of your opportunity in all areas; education, connections, geographical location.
It seems like you've associated a lot of stuff with 'who your parents are', but I basically agree.
My question is what your ideal solution would be? In any real world scenario some individuals will do better and others will do worse based on the arbitrary conditions that affect them (i.e. genetics + environment). They have no 'control' since they themselves are fully determined by these conditions. Which people do you want to succeed? And who should fail?
You denigrate and dismiss the work and effort made individuals and reduce them to a group.
Indeed.
I think the purpose of this kind of argument is to add others, who didn't contribute, into the 'group' and therefore deserving of part of the output of the 'group'. The truth, however, is that the people who contribute are already compensated by nature of the trades they perform. Those who don't, are not.
Now it's true that government contributes to people's wealth by enforcing the law, building roads, etc., however the most wealthy tend to pay disproportionately into these systems and hence government workers are compensated for this contribution.
Interesting to note that wind power seems more competitive than I had thought - all the estimates seem to show onshore wind is cheaper than, or as cheap as, nuclear power. However, solar appears to be considerably more expensive than wind or nuclear.
Surely if this was a good idea, individuals and companies would create it and administer it on their own. Do we really need the government to tell us how to implement our systems?...could tax money not be better spent on other things?
Well almost everyone is getting richer (adjusted for inflation), with the richest making the greatest gains. More importantly though, more and more people all over the world are moving out of poverty. Add to that the increasing social freedoms around the world.
Many problems, including excessive inequality in wealth (or power/influence), are solvable. It's overly pessimistic to simply resign ourselves to a "bleak, dystopian police state" considering things are (in general) better than they've ever been. Personally, I think our main concern should be climate change.
It looks like the smart guys at NASA agree with many of us 'dotters that the future is going to be a bleak, dystopian police state where the richer get richer and the poor eat noodles off the street.
Really? Despite all the long-term shifts up to this point that have been in the opposite direction? It seems you've succumbed to pessimism rather too easily.
'Flamebait' != 'Disagree'. The parent makes a valid point. There's no reason for people living in towns/cities to subsidise those who choose to live in rural areas, by monopoly, taxes or otherwise. Also, encouraging people to live in larger settlements is both an economically and environmentally sound suggestion.
I agree with the concept, but how exactly do you compete with another company offering unlimited downloads? Much like web hosting, there's the small print agreement that says you can only download/host a 'reasonable' amount, but most consumers are going to go for the unlimited package.
Slashdot Mirror
No one with a net worth of less than $100M allowed on the property.
You also see this same divide at more normal levels of income; the people in coastal cities who are wealthy and success versus those who live elsewhere. These two groups increasingly only communicate within their groups and share views on politics, environment, health, etc. This trend seems likely to continue (particularly with automation) and be the great story of our time.
Round up the 5 or 10 % wealthiest people on the planet and their families.
Always a good start.
People will deliberately aim to avoid being in that top range by cutting their production; those who are selected will be those unfortunate enough to be producing too much.
Do you honestly think this will make things better, or do you just want to indulge in a bit of jealous violence/genocide?
Economic success is predicated first and foremost on who your parents are. It determines much of your opportunity in all areas; education, connections, geographical location.
It seems like you've associated a lot of stuff with 'who your parents are', but I basically agree.
My question is what your ideal solution would be? In any real world scenario some individuals will do better and others will do worse based on the arbitrary conditions that affect them (i.e. genetics + environment). They have no 'control' since they themselves are fully determined by these conditions. Which people do you want to succeed? And who should fail?
You denigrate and dismiss the work and effort made individuals and reduce them to a group.
Indeed.
I think the purpose of this kind of argument is to add others, who didn't contribute, into the 'group' and therefore deserving of part of the output of the 'group'. The truth, however, is that the people who contribute are already compensated by nature of the trades they perform. Those who don't, are not.
Now it's true that government contributes to people's wealth by enforcing the law, building roads, etc., however the most wealthy tend to pay disproportionately into these systems and hence government workers are compensated for this contribution.
For those seeking some figures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
Interesting to note that wind power seems more competitive than I had thought - all the estimates seem to show onshore wind is cheaper than, or as cheap as, nuclear power. However, solar appears to be considerably more expensive than wind or nuclear.
Surely if this was a good idea, individuals and companies would create it and administer it on their own. Do we really need the government to tell us how to implement our systems? ...could tax money not be better spent on other things?
Well almost everyone is getting richer (adjusted for inflation), with the richest making the greatest gains. More importantly though, more and more people all over the world are moving out of poverty. Add to that the increasing social freedoms around the world. Many problems, including excessive inequality in wealth (or power/influence), are solvable. It's overly pessimistic to simply resign ourselves to a "bleak, dystopian police state" considering things are (in general) better than they've ever been. Personally, I think our main concern should be climate change.
It looks like the smart guys at NASA agree with many of us 'dotters that the future is going to be a bleak, dystopian police state where the richer get richer and the poor eat noodles off the street.
Really? Despite all the long-term shifts up to this point that have been in the opposite direction? It seems you've succumbed to pessimism rather too easily.
'Flamebait' != 'Disagree'. The parent makes a valid point. There's no reason for people living in towns/cities to subsidise those who choose to live in rural areas, by monopoly, taxes or otherwise. Also, encouraging people to live in larger settlements is both an economically and environmentally sound suggestion.
I agree with the concept, but how exactly do you compete with another company offering unlimited downloads? Much like web hosting, there's the small print agreement that says you can only download/host a 'reasonable' amount, but most consumers are going to go for the unlimited package.
The article says it was "Posted on 3 Sep 2010 at 15:47". Unless I've missed something, we're still in March 2010...
I bet there's someone in a lecture reading this right now.
Yes, exactly. Seems like child-driven learning is very effective: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awOAmTaZ4XI