I think my original post was on topic just because the article made a comment about questioning why the application was approved. In my experience with banks (and my friends in the banking industry) I've been told that banks are looking for every application they can approve, even if it means fudging the usual acceptance policy.
If people don't believe me, look at the foreclosure rate lately -- up over 50% from last year in some areas. The reason? Banks over-extending credit to people who shouldn't have credit. Banks can't make money unless they loan out the maximum they can.
Yet the money is never really destroyed -- as you can see with the M3 money supply figure. It just keeps growing and growing. This is also why consumer prices keep going up, why the housing bubble got as big as it did, and also why the dotcom bubble became so big and crashed so strong. Unfortunately, inflation grows faster than the government's CPI figures, so even though you earn more money every year (usually), your actual dollar goes down in value faster than the CPI. This means you actually bump into higher tax brackets before you should, and it also means that even if you earn more every year, you can afford less.
Even worse, such easy money gives people the impression that they can afford more than they can, AND it causes people to make bad purchases on impulse (including houses for "investment" purposes).
Why do banks accept any application, even ones with errors?
Banks want you to have credit -- of course they'll accept any application as long as the name and social security number match their lookups, and your FICO score is reasonably high (although banks are now lowering standards to give out even more credit).
When a bank offers credit, it does so based on money it has (of course). Yet it is very important for the average person to understand where this "money" comes from -- especially digital money such as you'd have when you have an available credit line.
All banks that are part of the central banking system (the Federal Reserve) are required by the Federal Reserve to stick something called a money multiplier. I believe the current money multiplier is 12% or so, but it varies. This basically means that a bank must keep a reserve of that amount versus the actual money is sends out. If a bank loans out $1000, it has to keep $120 in the bank. Even if it loans out the $880 ($120 in reserves) the bank can stil say it has $1000 in demand deposits available -- even though it doesn't.
The collusion comes into place when the first bank is given $1000 by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is allowed to print new money out of thin air by creating loans against government property and future government income. This initial $1000 is placed in Bank A as available cash. Bank A holds $120 but loans the remaining $880 to Bank B which is also part of the Federal Reserve banking system. Bank A still holds a demand deposit value of $1000 which is available to be withdrawn! Bank B also has $880, but has to reserve 12% of it ($105). It then loans the rest ($775) to Bank C, but still lists $880 as its available balance of demand deposits. Bank C reserves its 12% ($93) and loans the rest ($682) to Bank D, while still listing the original $775) as its available balance. This collusion continues to go around until there is no more reserve balance available. In the end, the original $1000 the Federal Reserve created is held as a base reserve for the $9000 or so "new money" that is created.
Banks need people to accept this money in loans or in credit -- this is the way the bank actually makes money. Eventually all the loans are hopefully paid back into the system, so the bank makes a nice interest rate. On the new $1000 created, each bank wants to loan out as much as possible -- and these loans are used to buy goods, which recycles money back into the banks which can be kept as reserves to create even more money! If the bank takes $1000 and loans out $880 but receives $400 of that bank in, it can now loan out a portion of that $400 that it has in reserves.
In the long run, the system wants debt out there because it is created out of fake inter-bank loans anyway. Most of you don't even see your physical money because it doesn't exist -- there are about $600 billion dollars in circulation worldwide, but there are over $10.2 trillion dollars on the books!
This is why I also drop WiFi access points wherever I spend a lot of time -- even at my church (where I run sound, media and communications). All my customers have a private access point of mine (tied to my MAC address and turned off when I'm not there). One of my directories is set to automatically backup when it connects to a certain network, so I don't even think about backing up anymore. Over time I'd like this to be even more automated.
Since I carry my laptop practically everywhere I go, I can dump my digital photos instantly to it (which syncs to the network as needed). I can also access most of my photos fairly quickly via the EDGE connection (~150kbps downloads).
I played D&D when I was young -- it was part of the reason I entered the BBS world. Later, my BBS grew beyond single node and many of my regulars played Tele-Arena, a MUD that could handle dozens of users. When the Internet destroyed most BBSes, I played a few MUDs but it wasn't the same. With the BBS gaming, people all lived fairly close to one another, and many users got together on a regular basis. With the Internet, this "get together" is nearly impossible.
MMOGs don't interest me -- the graphics pretty much ruin in. I've thought about getting together with some other "over the hill" D&D geeks on occasion to try table top gaming again, but there isn't enough time for most people to make it a regular scheduled item.
What are the options? I was thinking of an MMOG with reduced graphics (leading to increased imagination) that maybe segregated players into communities where they'd play against others close to one another. Communities might be tied to one another allowing crossover, but requiring the player to want to take the time to travel to these truly distant lands but requiring them to return home before retiring for the day.
I don't know if this is really an answer, but I'm sure there are others out there that don't get into the graphics, don't have time to find others nearby, but still want the chance to have some virtual face-to-face time.
From what I can tell, there aren't any "locally restricted" options for any MMOG, but I wonder if this is the next step in gaming: offering people the chance to play within their true community, whatever that may be. Beyond that, I'd like to see how more imagination can be part of gaming, like it used to be.
Side note: are there any MMOGs that have a graphic interface that is built around a user's imagination? Maybe in between games (or even during games) the user can go elect to redesign a given monster or land or whatever to more of what they see in their heads? I'd think this would add a uniqueness factor that would make the game more playable -- rather than being stuck with the typical same interface, the player has a lot more control. For example: you're fighting Monster X but the monster isn't really what you see in your head. Hit the + key or something and you can scroll through the various monster designs out there (even third party designed maybe) until you see what you like. Same thing could be true for the various land designs and overall world feel.
I love my T-Mobile EDGE wireless network service (via my phone to my laptop). It doesn't work well for huge files, but I work with mostly small files and if I need to access a large database or app, I just VNC into my office PC.
I see no purpose in my life for huge files anymore -- most everything I do is web oriented. Rather than spend $450 for a gigantic drive, that $450 pays for almost 2 years of service which is always getting faster.
Do other people see the time preference and money savings in slimming down their data and finding better ways to access it on-the-go as needed? There are more open WiFi points and the $40 it costs for me to drop a user WiFi point at my various places of work is still much cheaper than buying a portable drive, let alone the hassles of carrying yet another dongle/fob/accessory.
This is a huge point, huge huge huge! The Tyrant Lincoln's reason for attacking the CSA was not for slavery but in order to gain imperial power for the Executive branch. Lincoln believed and supported his mentor's "American System" of mercantilism: bringing the US government into a drive for empire specifically to take care of cronies and friends of the State.
Lincoln supported 3 huge parts of imperialism:
1. Government controlled banking -- creating the inflationary and devaluing paper currency most believe is money. 2. Government controlled markets -- creating protectionism, favoritism and cronyism. 3. Government expanded lands -- creating wars and enemies that didn't exist beforehand.
Lincoln succeeded, while the entire populace believes he was just and benevolent.
I understand this, but it is the combination of various technologies that the citizens CAN'T own that are part of these Terminators.
So, you talk about future dictators having more tools of torture.
Bingo. The first stage of torture is creating fear of pain or death. You can't create this fear without having a way to back it up that the torturing party is more powerful, and no one will come to the aid of the tortured.
I kind of like this idea but it is not practical in this world. The US is a big target for many reasons. The top guy always is.
I don't think we're the top guy by any means anymore. We were the top guy, and loved around the world, when we were a mere trade partner -- when we offered the world the best quality products at the lowest price. I believe in open trade with everyone (even the Cubans, the Iraqis and the Nigerians) and entangling ourselves as a Nation with no one's problems. If an individual wants to support a coup or a rebellion, they should be free to send their money (or spend their time) to help them. I don't like the idea of using our army to help or hinder any people -- that is what directly causes the hatred against us.
Can a militia get up to arms quickly enough? Can they militia men have the training that regular army can have? No to both. It would put us in a loosing situation against our enemies. This is no longer practical.
Enemies that our regular army has created. Enemies that are becoming more powerful as they learn to defend against our regular army.
The militia is works very well in Switzerland -- as does the free trade idea. Switzerland is "liberal" in the classical liberal way ("libertarian"). Even Hitler stayed out of Switzerland -- and the US should be politically isolationist while financially open to trade with anyone who has the money to buy our products.
I believe a militia is the perfect way to protect the citizens: by integrating the army into local economies and commerce, the militia has a love for freedom and a desire to protect their brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters. Today's army does what it is told not out of love but out of requirement. I would happily defend my community against a direct attack -- we lost in Vietnam because we attempted to fight the same style militia. Anyone who would attack the US militias would never be able to conquer a people with a love for freedom and the desire to protect their homes and their communities.
I am being serious. I firmly believe in the right to bear arms -- all arms. I see nothing wrong with arming myself to protect myself from not only thieves and rapists but from anyone who decides they want to restrain my freedoms on my own land. I also believe the idea of a right to bear arms was protected against tyranny -- all tyranny. The Constitution doesn't guarantee the right, I believe it is a right all humans have from birth. The Constitution merely tells government to stay away from our weapons.
For me, this also means that while government can afford greater weapons, it shouldn't prevent us from obtaining them as well. Look at the Framers hatred of big centralized control of the masses and one would believe they, too, would not want a central army more powerful than the militias that army was supposed to be solely composed of.
We the People are idiots if we believe that the power hungry aren't utilizing fear as a way to control the average citizen. Don't pay your taxes? Don't accept the draft? Do something on your own property that hurts no one but is considered a crime? Think first: who has the biggest gun?
...who fears government having sole access to technology that its own citizens would be jailed for?
Yes, I am likely the biggest anti-State promoter on slashdot, so many will take my opinion with a grain of salt. Yet this is one of those cases where history shows that we the People need to be cautious in giving government weapons that we ourselves can not own or use. Tyrant dictators for thousands of years have used the new weapon of the day to keep not just their enemies under their thumbs, but also their own ruled citizens. From the bow to the gun to the airplane to the nuke, those that govern have always had an edge. Sure, most of us wouldn't trust some big corporate CEO in owning a robot that kills, but what protects us from a coup or a tyrant who finally has the ultimate way to control the citizens?
No tinfoil hat today, just an honest opinion (and fear) that these weapons will make us more hated in the rest of the world, as well as offering future dictators a tool to subjugate the citizens. Rather than helping spread democracy, I fear we'll see how slippery that slope gets when very powerful individuals are given even more power.
I'd rather return to the "No Standing Army" policy of individual state militias that can be called up to defend our borders in the event of a real declared war. We'd have more money to spend on our families and our communities (of people we generally agree with) rather than providing the future authoritarians a tool of continuing control over our descendents. All the tyrants we've fought in the past have been mere mosquito bites at the village pool compared to the shark attack we face today in our own backyard waters.
I can date numerous good looking women, take them out...etc. You just can't do that with 'wealth that is not money'.
This is completely untrue. I'm an average/below-average looking short guy who has always dated very attractive women, including some models. The one I chose for the rest of my life is hot AND intelligent. I never once offered that I had money, and I rarely even paid for their share of the dates. Of course I've been writing about how to date amazing women for 10 years (and now I offer the advice freely).
Also, you don't need to be rich to travel -- I've been traveling internationally on a regular basis for almost 17 years and I earn 40-60% less than the average slashdot IT reader here. You don't need to be rich for a nice home, or to eat well. I firmly believe a single guy can do VERY well on $20,000 a year in 2006.
Today, it is money. Just a fact of nature, and I don't know anyone that doesn't like getting laid by a great looking lady. It sure makes me happy.
This is wrong, completely wrong. Money can be a very big attraction for any gal initially, but the money wears off if the guy isn't able to offer the woman what she really wants -- mystery, intrigue and the chase. This continues through marriage and retirement, women want to chase. If you're rich and you have an attractive girl on your arm for your money, the marriage won't last -- look at Donald Trump for proof there. Yet I believe that a fat, bald and poor geek can still land an amazing girl -- attractive, smart, even one that earns much more than him. All they need to do is ignore what they thought the rules were and start acting like a real man.
It is a very complex mess of government intervention that has caused the problems that the US and many 1st world countries will soon face: someone has to continue robbing from Peter to pay Paul.
First, the inflation of currency is a double edged sword: it kills many at the profit of the few. The Fed prints new money out of thin air in the US, which is the direct cause of price increases -- home values go up, the stock market goes way up, consumer goods go way up, but salaries do not keep up enough. This means that while you earn more, you actually earn less as the dollar does not buy as much.
When you introduce a new supply of an item into any market, the price of the item will generally go down -- it will be worth less. When the Fed prints new currency, it eventually lowers the value of all the other currency out there. This is why home prices tend to go up -- the demand for dollars isn't as great. Pile on top of that the easy credit the Fed enforces (low interest rates), and people tend to buy more of something than they'd otherwise need (note the 4 bedroom, 2.5 bathroom home being the norm).
At some point in time, the creditors who helped create these dollars will demand something in return for the notes they bought (receipts against a loan). If we can't produce anything, and we aren't worth anything, they'll foreclose. I like to think of the Chinese and Indians (who save up to 40% of their disposable income only to loan it to us) coming over to the US and living in our mortgaged houses, driving our leased cars, and watching our bought-on-credit widescreen TVs, while we slave in the factories to pay it all back.
Sorry you can't access blogspot -- I'm moving my blogs to my own domain name ( www.unanimocracy.com ) very soon, hopefully you can join in the "fun" in the future! Drop me an e-mail and I'll let you know when we made the transition.
Some national debt is necessary for manipulating interest rates (Fed) which can be good for lowering interest rates and fighting inflation. Too much debt though...
I completely disagree. Since the dawn of the Federal Reserve (1913) the dollar has lost over 95% of its value. Before this time when we had free market banking, the dollar of 1800 was equal to the dollar of 1912 minus maybe 2-3%. A 100% reserve banking standard is a requirement for a healthy financial review and the Keynesian economists that teach in the colleges and run the market today are wrong 100% that government should have anything to do with money.
Money should be a free market product, not something created on the whim of those in power. I fully believe that our economy is worse today than it was in the 80s, we just haven't realized it yet. I blog about this daily, and I've modified my life to live entirely off the dollar standard and I now live on a hard currency standard.
No, and you're free to "mimic" any music you hear.
I can? Not with copyright. If I see someone shoveling a hole in the ground and I believe I can shovel a hole better, I am free to go and sell my labor (my time, my body, me) to someone else, mimicing the original guy entirely without giving him any compensation. Yet if I want to do the same thing with my voice, mimicing the voice box motions, I have to pay a fee. That isn't freedom.
Now, what is it the Pirate Bay is copying that you own?
The Pirate Bay is not stealing anything from anyone -- all they are doing is sharing the work of others -- others took the time to mimic the data that someone else decided to distribute without protecting it physically. If I want to hide my secret shovel techniques, I should put a box around it and not let anyone see. The same is true with content -- if you don't want it reproduced, don't make it.
The Pirate Bay was never authorized by the artist or anyone else to distribute the music.
And yet they didn't force the artist to lose any labor agaisnt their will -- the Pirate Bay just took the labors of others and found people interested in using that labor of others. The "others" here are labeled pirates, but I see them more as people who are selling themselves too cheaply.
So if I take a camera into a concert and record it and sell copies of the recording for $1 a piece, that's okay? Even though my labor involved recording someone else's labor, that other person is just out of luck?
First of all, when you go to a show, you're usually on someone else's property. The right to property should mean that the property owner can tell the visitor what rules to follow -- no cameras, no drugs, no clothes, no talking, no blacks, no women, no midgets, whatever. It is there property. If they say it is cool to take pictures on their property, go right ahead.
And if someone decided to take your book, print it, and sell it, they should be able to without your permission. If they were to choose to change it a bit, that's up to them. After all, they're "mimicing" it, and mimicry isn't always exact.
I openly allow this, and I actually love it when I find others mimicing my words -- it is a great form of marketing for the original author. In a free market, companies like Google would offer tools to track down who exactly originated a certain creation -- words, lyrics, tunes, whatever. If an artist wanted to make sure the world knew who wrote the song, they could register the song with a variety of Wayback Machine style sites -- archivers, cachers, whatever. When someone wanted to find out who was the first person to write "Happy Birthday" they could go to these archiving sites or companies and find the truth. Anyone else is free to mimic the tune, but they won't get the recognition, and the recognition is a key factor in selling or marketing your labor.
Why should wealth be inheritable any more than any other form of power? Unearned wealth from inheritance should be taxed heavily.
Great question -- the reason is that this gives opportunity to the poor as well as the rich. I have MANY experiences with ultra rich familes and ultra poor families. The rich families often find themselves bankrupt in 3 generations because they just pass on money without teaching responsibility. The poor families who pass on responsibility and some money to their kids often see their kids succeeding because they learned how to work, save and invest in themselves. I believe the cliche is "Blue Collar to Blue Collar in 3 generations" but I could be wrong.
I can buy cheap things and not go into debt or expensive things and go into debt, whether I'm buying from my neighbor or from a guy on the other side of the planet. I don't understand your point here.
By having positive trade balances and not owing anyone anything, you give your own societal group the benefit of maximizing their own skills. When a society can buy something cheaper from another society (as long as its not debt bought), the first society can focus on new skills where they are most productive. In a society of 5 people, it is very hard for everyone to find wealth. But once that society of 5 people mixes with 10000 societies of 5 people, everyone can maximize their wealth by opening up their market to new places to sell to and new places to buy from.
We're talking about a one-time purchase by you, the consumer. You're trying to take that apple and compare it to an orange.
I agree, and I accept the purchase and should be free to do what I want with the item I buy. If I pay someone to have them broom my house, and then go and mimic their performance, should I pay them for that "right" to use my labor as I please?
The 10 hours is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it. If you aren't willing to pay their asking price, don't buy it. But that doesn't entitle you to make copies of their performance without their permission.
Why not? The copying is my time, the CD I buy is my property, the device I use to copy the CD is my property -- why should anyone have the right to prevent me from using my time as I please? For me, I'd rather pay someone else to perform these actions -- and The Pirate Bay is happy to do it for free. Of course, if I like the performance, I will be more than happy to pay the artist to make more performances, but I should not be required by law to do so.
A burger flipper gets paid minimum wage because there are a lot of people who will flip burgers, and the one who will do it for the least money gets the job.
Bingo! And The Pirate Bay is the distributor who charges the least amount of money for distributing a product they created with their own labor: the MP3. The burger is the end result of the purchase, and I shouldn't have to pay the meat people over and over, or the trucking company over and over. I am buying the final product -- the burger. The same is true for the CD, I am buying the final product. No one should be able to tell me how I use my labor beyond that, if I want to use my labor to recreate or mimic an item (burger, CD, whatever).
If those artists can make millions of dollars doing what they do, it's because consumers are willing to pay those millions of dollars for what they percieve to be a quality product.
And I believe this is the case if there was no copyright as well -- consumers will find the quality items they want and be willing to pay for them, regardless of what the law tells them. In fact, I don't think copyright is even working anymore -- people still pay because they know what is "right" not what they're afraid of what will happen to them.
Nothing is physically being taken, yet their ability to produce revenue by performing can be impacted.
So someone decided to sell their labor cheaper than another, and the more expensive laborer loses their job. I think this is what competition is.
A good artist doesn't sit and wait for their old art to continue to be sold -- a good artist keeps creating, giving their fans (their customers) something new to grab first. I do the same thing -- I don't charge for my writings, but people who admire my opinions pay me for access to my newest and latest thoughts. I'm currently working on a Sci-Fi novel which I will freely pass out in e-book format -- but some of the underlying politics and thoughts in the novel will be a great way to market my websites. My websites are a great way to market me. In the long run, the book will take me 300-400 hours to complete. Over my lifetime, the marketing potential is well over $100 per hour of what I'll likely gain, so I feel that the labor spent as a marketing potential is more than well spent.
The people who want to write books or write music must find new ways to market their products. Authors can do public engagements (paid), musicians can do live performances (paid) and painters can do private gallery sales (paid). If the author doesn't want to take the huge risk of his work being "stolen," he can go get a job with a newspaper or a magazine. If the musician doesn't want to take the huge risk of their work being "stolen" they can go work as a studio musician or get a job with a company that needs music (advertising agency). If the painter can't take the risk that their painting will get reproduced cheaper by another, th
My doctor does not accept any public health care payments for any reason -- he's about 80 years ago and a die hard free market supporter. He still makes house calls when I'm sick, he charges less than $35 for a visit, and he helps keep costs down by making sure my health is good before I get sick -- he prescribed me a lower sugar diet which fixed all my health problems (blood pressure, overweight, memory issues, anger issues, allergies and sleep problems). He also makes sure that I stay away from prescriptions as he finds them cures for the lazy man.
Medicine is failed in the US because of government's reach into it -- 40 years ago medicine was much more readily available to the poor and the minority. Today it is destroyed because of trying to fix a problem that never existed.
Yet money was not a creation of government, in fact historically money was created by private citizens looking for a medium of exchange, and then over time government has destroyed money in each and every case where they've gotten involved in.
Here's a great book: free, electronic, and a very quick afternoon read: What Has Government Done To Our Money?" by Murray N. Rothbard. Go grab it, print it or send it to your PDA, and read it. It is an amazing book written decades ago that still holds true today.
Money is the most important item in society since it allows us to store the work we've performed for someone else and redeem that work for the work of another. It is only government's intrusion into money that has destroyed wealth, savings and created the class warfare that exists today.
Actually, that's not true at all -- if you look at the laws covering copyright, it is illegal to perform songs in private for non-commercial purposes. The law is so convoluted that it is hard to actually decipher what is legal and illegal anymore, but from what I've seen, you're stuck because someone else is given a monopoly on words, a beat and some basic notes that we all know.
There is currently an ongoing debate as to whether or not Happy Birthday To You is copywritten or not. This is by far the greatest reason why copyright is a failure: the fact that we need to debate about a stolen song that was rewritten in the 30's and might not still be singable today without a license.
Making a copy of a recording of an artist's performance is NOT the same as mimicing that performance.
Yet it doesn't matter -- it is still me using my own labor, my own money and my own knowledge to perform an act, on my own property. If an architect designs a building, do you pay residuals to the architect for the work they once did? When you pay a check-out line clerk for goods that you'll use, do you pay them residuals for the work they once did?
An artist is not unique, in fact the supply of artists probably outnumbers the supply of workers as I think we all dream of making a hit album or drawing a beautiful painting or whatever. The problem I have with copyright is that it doesn't protect the creator, it protects the distributor. Over time, the distributor becomes the only powerful person in the industry. That is, until the Internet (and mechanisms like BitTorrent etc) came into view.
Now I tell bands, artists, and content creators to find new ways to capitalize on their work. Just like a hamburger flipper has to continue working to earn an income, so should anyone else unless they can find a way to sell their services at a high enough price to give them a life of luxury without work. Why is the 10 hours a band spends recording a song possibly worth millions (only with government force) but the 10 hours a hamburger flipper spends worth $80?
I'm not looking for communism -- I'm looking to level the playing field of opportunity. We all work, and we should all find ways to sell that work. Some of us go and find jobs and put the risk of finding work on the employer, in exchange for us getting a lower salary (reward). This shouldn't be different for artists -- if you like to draw, go get a job in graphic design rather than using government to protect your labor. I have no protection for my labor, and I actually repudiate copyright and patents and use my "art" as a marketing tool for my labor. I write, distribute freely, and don't accept copyright. In the long run, my labor is worth more as my customers know what they're getting, and I can charge more as the demand for my limited supply of labor goes up.
That's the end rule, actually: supply and demand. Now that data is digital, the supply is nearly infinite. When supply goes to infinity, the price drops to zero no matter the demand. Artists need to find new ways to add value to their product -- and the Internet lets us all create new ways to earn a living without government enforcing the rules.
Actually, I believe that being successful at being an open in trade and having a vibrant economy is very important for the social structure of a nation or any group of people. Wealth and being rich are two different things -- and I think the best "rating" for how wealthy a country is can be rated by three items:
1. Passing on no debt to the next generation 2. Giving people the opportunity to pass on their own wealth to their descendents 3. Being able to afford to buy from others outside your country without being in their debt
All it takes is one insider giving out the direct phone number to change that. Even more fun is playing "Find a real extension" on the automated attendent -- I'm surprised how many Presidents of big companies are reachable at extension 101, 1001 or 111.
I believe (and I write often about) that Intellectual Property is nothing more than telling people what they are not allowed to do with their own labor on their own property. Imagine if lawn mowing was protected by copyright or a patent. Crazy? Yet I can't mimic the actions of others on my own property? Try singing Happy Birthday to a group of people -- its illegal.
I don't believe you can criminalize the non-violent actions of consenting adults while on their own property. I don't believe you can criminalize the copying of data as long as you're the one doing the labor.
Labor is only useful and marketable as a NOW situation. When you pay someone for their labor, you either get an immediate product (say a concert or a theater production or a lawn mowed) or you get the knowledge to do the labor yourself.
To use government to stop me or anyone else from mimicing others is criminal, in my mind. I don't believe in the right to force others to pay you residual income on past work.
This is a very important thing you said, moreso than the casual single line post would usually dictate. Protecting rights is the role of government -- doling them out and giving preferential rights is not their job. I think Sweden's view on not just protecting the rights of the minority, but also giving them some subsidy rights, is where they fail overall in having a much more powerful trade position as well as a more vibrant economy. I plan on hitting Sweden this year for visit -- I haven't been there for over 17 years, but I do recall loving the country's people. Except for all the 6'6" women:)
Slashdot Mirror
Although I did dumb it down :)
I think my original post was on topic just because the article made a comment about questioning why the application was approved. In my experience with banks (and my friends in the banking industry) I've been told that banks are looking for every application they can approve, even if it means fudging the usual acceptance policy.
If people don't believe me, look at the foreclosure rate lately -- up over 50% from last year in some areas. The reason? Banks over-extending credit to people who shouldn't have credit. Banks can't make money unless they loan out the maximum they can.
Yet the money is never really destroyed -- as you can see with the M3 money supply figure. It just keeps growing and growing. This is also why consumer prices keep going up, why the housing bubble got as big as it did, and also why the dotcom bubble became so big and crashed so strong. Unfortunately, inflation grows faster than the government's CPI figures, so even though you earn more money every year (usually), your actual dollar goes down in value faster than the CPI. This means you actually bump into higher tax brackets before you should, and it also means that even if you earn more every year, you can afford less.
Even worse, such easy money gives people the impression that they can afford more than they can, AND it causes people to make bad purchases on impulse (including houses for "investment" purposes).
Why do banks accept any application, even ones with errors?
Banks want you to have credit -- of course they'll accept any application as long as the name and social security number match their lookups, and your FICO score is reasonably high (although banks are now lowering standards to give out even more credit).
When a bank offers credit, it does so based on money it has (of course). Yet it is very important for the average person to understand where this "money" comes from -- especially digital money such as you'd have when you have an available credit line.
All banks that are part of the central banking system (the Federal Reserve) are required by the Federal Reserve to stick something called a money multiplier. I believe the current money multiplier is 12% or so, but it varies. This basically means that a bank must keep a reserve of that amount versus the actual money is sends out. If a bank loans out $1000, it has to keep $120 in the bank. Even if it loans out the $880 ($120 in reserves) the bank can stil say it has $1000 in demand deposits available -- even though it doesn't.
The collusion comes into place when the first bank is given $1000 by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is allowed to print new money out of thin air by creating loans against government property and future government income. This initial $1000 is placed in Bank A as available cash. Bank A holds $120 but loans the remaining $880 to Bank B which is also part of the Federal Reserve banking system. Bank A still holds a demand deposit value of $1000 which is available to be withdrawn! Bank B also has $880, but has to reserve 12% of it ($105). It then loans the rest ($775) to Bank C, but still lists $880 as its available balance of demand deposits. Bank C reserves its 12% ($93) and loans the rest ($682) to Bank D, while still listing the original $775) as its available balance. This collusion continues to go around until there is no more reserve balance available. In the end, the original $1000 the Federal Reserve created is held as a base reserve for the $9000 or so "new money" that is created.
Banks need people to accept this money in loans or in credit -- this is the way the bank actually makes money. Eventually all the loans are hopefully paid back into the system, so the bank makes a nice interest rate. On the new $1000 created, each bank wants to loan out as much as possible -- and these loans are used to buy goods, which recycles money back into the banks which can be kept as reserves to create even more money! If the bank takes $1000 and loans out $880 but receives $400 of that bank in, it can now loan out a portion of that $400 that it has in reserves.
In the long run, the system wants debt out there because it is created out of fake inter-bank loans anyway. Most of you don't even see your physical money because it doesn't exist -- there are about $600 billion dollars in circulation worldwide, but there are over $10.2 trillion dollars on the books!
And people have faith in the system.
This is why I also drop WiFi access points wherever I spend a lot of time -- even at my church (where I run sound, media and communications). All my customers have a private access point of mine (tied to my MAC address and turned off when I'm not there). One of my directories is set to automatically backup when it connects to a certain network, so I don't even think about backing up anymore. Over time I'd like this to be even more automated.
Since I carry my laptop practically everywhere I go, I can dump my digital photos instantly to it (which syncs to the network as needed). I can also access most of my photos fairly quickly via the EDGE connection (~150kbps downloads).
I played D&D when I was young -- it was part of the reason I entered the BBS world. Later, my BBS grew beyond single node and many of my regulars played Tele-Arena, a MUD that could handle dozens of users. When the Internet destroyed most BBSes, I played a few MUDs but it wasn't the same. With the BBS gaming, people all lived fairly close to one another, and many users got together on a regular basis. With the Internet, this "get together" is nearly impossible.
MMOGs don't interest me -- the graphics pretty much ruin in. I've thought about getting together with some other "over the hill" D&D geeks on occasion to try table top gaming again, but there isn't enough time for most people to make it a regular scheduled item.
What are the options? I was thinking of an MMOG with reduced graphics (leading to increased imagination) that maybe segregated players into communities where they'd play against others close to one another. Communities might be tied to one another allowing crossover, but requiring the player to want to take the time to travel to these truly distant lands but requiring them to return home before retiring for the day.
I don't know if this is really an answer, but I'm sure there are others out there that don't get into the graphics, don't have time to find others nearby, but still want the chance to have some virtual face-to-face time.
From what I can tell, there aren't any "locally restricted" options for any MMOG, but I wonder if this is the next step in gaming: offering people the chance to play within their true community, whatever that may be. Beyond that, I'd like to see how more imagination can be part of gaming, like it used to be.
Side note: are there any MMOGs that have a graphic interface that is built around a user's imagination? Maybe in between games (or even during games) the user can go elect to redesign a given monster or land or whatever to more of what they see in their heads? I'd think this would add a uniqueness factor that would make the game more playable -- rather than being stuck with the typical same interface, the player has a lot more control. For example: you're fighting Monster X but the monster isn't really what you see in your head. Hit the + key or something and you can scroll through the various monster designs out there (even third party designed maybe) until you see what you like. Same thing could be true for the various land designs and overall world feel.
You've discovered some amazing new way to compress porn?
:)
One of the benefits of having a gorgeous lady of the house is the lack of need for porn
On the other hand, I have heard from many married men that the absolute opposite is true, but I have my own opinions why that's the case.
I love my T-Mobile EDGE wireless network service (via my phone to my laptop). It doesn't work well for huge files, but I work with mostly small files and if I need to access a large database or app, I just VNC into my office PC.
I see no purpose in my life for huge files anymore -- most everything I do is web oriented. Rather than spend $450 for a gigantic drive, that $450 pays for almost 2 years of service which is always getting faster.
Do other people see the time preference and money savings in slimming down their data and finding better ways to access it on-the-go as needed? There are more open WiFi points and the $40 it costs for me to drop a user WiFi point at my various places of work is still much cheaper than buying a portable drive, let alone the hassles of carrying yet another dongle/fob/accessory.
Yes! I wish you weren't AC, though.
This is a huge point, huge huge huge! The Tyrant Lincoln's reason for attacking the CSA was not for slavery but in order to gain imperial power for the Executive branch. Lincoln believed and supported his mentor's "American System" of mercantilism: bringing the US government into a drive for empire specifically to take care of cronies and friends of the State.
Lincoln supported 3 huge parts of imperialism:
1. Government controlled banking -- creating the inflationary and devaluing paper currency most believe is money.
2. Government controlled markets -- creating protectionism, favoritism and cronyism.
3. Government expanded lands -- creating wars and enemies that didn't exist beforehand.
Lincoln succeeded, while the entire populace believes he was just and benevolent.
The autonamous technology is already out there.
I understand this, but it is the combination of various technologies that the citizens CAN'T own that are part of these Terminators.
So, you talk about future dictators having more tools of torture.
Bingo. The first stage of torture is creating fear of pain or death. You can't create this fear without having a way to back it up that the torturing party is more powerful, and no one will come to the aid of the tortured.
I kind of like this idea but it is not practical in this world. The US is a big target for many reasons. The top guy always is.
I don't think we're the top guy by any means anymore. We were the top guy, and loved around the world, when we were a mere trade partner -- when we offered the world the best quality products at the lowest price. I believe in open trade with everyone (even the Cubans, the Iraqis and the Nigerians) and entangling ourselves as a Nation with no one's problems. If an individual wants to support a coup or a rebellion, they should be free to send their money (or spend their time) to help them. I don't like the idea of using our army to help or hinder any people -- that is what directly causes the hatred against us.
Can a militia get up to arms quickly enough? Can they militia men have the training that regular army can have? No to both. It would put us in a loosing situation against our enemies. This is no longer practical.
Enemies that our regular army has created. Enemies that are becoming more powerful as they learn to defend against our regular army.
The militia is works very well in Switzerland -- as does the free trade idea. Switzerland is "liberal" in the classical liberal way ("libertarian"). Even Hitler stayed out of Switzerland -- and the US should be politically isolationist while financially open to trade with anyone who has the money to buy our products.
I believe a militia is the perfect way to protect the citizens: by integrating the army into local economies and commerce, the militia has a love for freedom and a desire to protect their brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters. Today's army does what it is told not out of love but out of requirement. I would happily defend my community against a direct attack -- we lost in Vietnam because we attempted to fight the same style militia. Anyone who would attack the US militias would never be able to conquer a people with a love for freedom and the desire to protect their homes and their communities.
I am being serious. I firmly believe in the right to bear arms -- all arms. I see nothing wrong with arming myself to protect myself from not only thieves and rapists but from anyone who decides they want to restrain my freedoms on my own land. I also believe the idea of a right to bear arms was protected against tyranny -- all tyranny. The Constitution doesn't guarantee the right, I believe it is a right all humans have from birth. The Constitution merely tells government to stay away from our weapons.
For me, this also means that while government can afford greater weapons, it shouldn't prevent us from obtaining them as well. Look at the Framers hatred of big centralized control of the masses and one would believe they, too, would not want a central army more powerful than the militias that army was supposed to be solely composed of.
We the People are idiots if we believe that the power hungry aren't utilizing fear as a way to control the average citizen. Don't pay your taxes? Don't accept the draft? Do something on your own property that hurts no one but is considered a crime? Think first: who has the biggest gun?
...who fears government having sole access to technology that its own citizens would be jailed for?
Yes, I am likely the biggest anti-State promoter on slashdot, so many will take my opinion with a grain of salt. Yet this is one of those cases where history shows that we the People need to be cautious in giving government weapons that we ourselves can not own or use. Tyrant dictators for thousands of years have used the new weapon of the day to keep not just their enemies under their thumbs, but also their own ruled citizens. From the bow to the gun to the airplane to the nuke, those that govern have always had an edge. Sure, most of us wouldn't trust some big corporate CEO in owning a robot that kills, but what protects us from a coup or a tyrant who finally has the ultimate way to control the citizens?
No tinfoil hat today, just an honest opinion (and fear) that these weapons will make us more hated in the rest of the world, as well as offering future dictators a tool to subjugate the citizens. Rather than helping spread democracy, I fear we'll see how slippery that slope gets when very powerful individuals are given even more power.
I'd rather return to the "No Standing Army" policy of individual state militias that can be called up to defend our borders in the event of a real declared war. We'd have more money to spend on our families and our communities (of people we generally agree with) rather than providing the future authoritarians a tool of continuing control over our descendents. All the tyrants we've fought in the past have been mere mosquito bites at the village pool compared to the shark attack we face today in our own backyard waters.
I can date numerous good looking women, take them out...etc. You just can't do that with 'wealth that is not money'.
This is completely untrue. I'm an average/below-average looking short guy who has always dated very attractive women, including some models. The one I chose for the rest of my life is hot AND intelligent. I never once offered that I had money, and I rarely even paid for their share of the dates. Of course I've been writing about how to date amazing women for 10 years (and now I offer the advice freely).
Also, you don't need to be rich to travel -- I've been traveling internationally on a regular basis for almost 17 years and I earn 40-60% less than the average slashdot IT reader here. You don't need to be rich for a nice home, or to eat well. I firmly believe a single guy can do VERY well on $20,000 a year in 2006.
Today, it is money. Just a fact of nature, and I don't know anyone that doesn't like getting laid by a great looking lady. It sure makes me happy.
This is wrong, completely wrong. Money can be a very big attraction for any gal initially, but the money wears off if the guy isn't able to offer the woman what she really wants -- mystery, intrigue and the chase. This continues through marriage and retirement, women want to chase. If you're rich and you have an attractive girl on your arm for your money, the marriage won't last -- look at Donald Trump for proof there. Yet I believe that a fat, bald and poor geek can still land an amazing girl -- attractive, smart, even one that earns much more than him. All they need to do is ignore what they thought the rules were and start acting like a real man.
It is a very complex mess of government intervention that has caused the problems that the US and many 1st world countries will soon face: someone has to continue robbing from Peter to pay Paul.
First, the inflation of currency is a double edged sword: it kills many at the profit of the few. The Fed prints new money out of thin air in the US, which is the direct cause of price increases -- home values go up, the stock market goes way up, consumer goods go way up, but salaries do not keep up enough. This means that while you earn more, you actually earn less as the dollar does not buy as much.
When you introduce a new supply of an item into any market, the price of the item will generally go down -- it will be worth less. When the Fed prints new currency, it eventually lowers the value of all the other currency out there. This is why home prices tend to go up -- the demand for dollars isn't as great. Pile on top of that the easy credit the Fed enforces (low interest rates), and people tend to buy more of something than they'd otherwise need (note the 4 bedroom, 2.5 bathroom home being the norm).
At some point in time, the creditors who helped create these dollars will demand something in return for the notes they bought (receipts against a loan). If we can't produce anything, and we aren't worth anything, they'll foreclose. I like to think of the Chinese and Indians (who save up to 40% of their disposable income only to loan it to us) coming over to the US and living in our mortgaged houses, driving our leased cars, and watching our bought-on-credit widescreen TVs, while we slave in the factories to pay it all back.
Sorry you can't access blogspot -- I'm moving my blogs to my own domain name ( www.unanimocracy.com ) very soon, hopefully you can join in the "fun" in the future! Drop me an e-mail and I'll let you know when we made the transition.
Some national debt is necessary for manipulating interest rates (Fed) which can be good for lowering interest rates and fighting inflation. Too much debt though...
I completely disagree. Since the dawn of the Federal Reserve (1913) the dollar has lost over 95% of its value. Before this time when we had free market banking, the dollar of 1800 was equal to the dollar of 1912 minus maybe 2-3%. A 100% reserve banking standard is a requirement for a healthy financial review and the Keynesian economists that teach in the colleges and run the market today are wrong 100% that government should have anything to do with money.
Money should be a free market product, not something created on the whim of those in power. I fully believe that our economy is worse today than it was in the 80s, we just haven't realized it yet. I blog about this daily, and I've modified my life to live entirely off the dollar standard and I now live on a hard currency standard.
No, and you're free to "mimic" any music you hear.
I can? Not with copyright. If I see someone shoveling a hole in the ground and I believe I can shovel a hole better, I am free to go and sell my labor (my time, my body, me) to someone else, mimicing the original guy entirely without giving him any compensation. Yet if I want to do the same thing with my voice, mimicing the voice box motions, I have to pay a fee. That isn't freedom.
Now, what is it the Pirate Bay is copying that you own?
The Pirate Bay is not stealing anything from anyone -- all they are doing is sharing the work of others -- others took the time to mimic the data that someone else decided to distribute without protecting it physically. If I want to hide my secret shovel techniques, I should put a box around it and not let anyone see. The same is true with content -- if you don't want it reproduced, don't make it.
The Pirate Bay was never authorized by the artist or anyone else to distribute the music.
And yet they didn't force the artist to lose any labor agaisnt their will -- the Pirate Bay just took the labors of others and found people interested in using that labor of others. The "others" here are labeled pirates, but I see them more as people who are selling themselves too cheaply.
So if I take a camera into a concert and record it and sell copies of the recording for $1 a piece, that's okay? Even though my labor involved recording someone else's labor, that other person is just out of luck?
First of all, when you go to a show, you're usually on someone else's property. The right to property should mean that the property owner can tell the visitor what rules to follow -- no cameras, no drugs, no clothes, no talking, no blacks, no women, no midgets, whatever. It is there property. If they say it is cool to take pictures on their property, go right ahead.
And if someone decided to take your book, print it, and sell it, they should be able to without your permission. If they were to choose to change it a bit, that's up to them. After all, they're "mimicing" it, and mimicry isn't always exact.
I openly allow this, and I actually love it when I find others mimicing my words -- it is a great form of marketing for the original author. In a free market, companies like Google would offer tools to track down who exactly originated a certain creation -- words, lyrics, tunes, whatever. If an artist wanted to make sure the world knew who wrote the song, they could register the song with a variety of Wayback Machine style sites -- archivers, cachers, whatever. When someone wanted to find out who was the first person to write "Happy Birthday" they could go to these archiving sites or companies and find the truth. Anyone else is free to mimic the tune, but they won't get the recognition, and the recognition is a key factor in selling or marketing your labor.
Why should wealth be inheritable any more than any other form of power? Unearned wealth from inheritance should be taxed heavily.
Great question -- the reason is that this gives opportunity to the poor as well as the rich. I have MANY experiences with ultra rich familes and ultra poor families. The rich families often find themselves bankrupt in 3 generations because they just pass on money without teaching responsibility. The poor families who pass on responsibility and some money to their kids often see their kids succeeding because they learned how to work, save and invest in themselves. I believe the cliche is "Blue Collar to Blue Collar in 3 generations" but I could be wrong.
I can buy cheap things and not go into debt or expensive things and go into debt, whether I'm buying from my neighbor or from a guy on the other side of the planet. I don't understand your point here.
By having positive trade balances and not owing anyone anything, you give your own societal group the benefit of maximizing their own skills. When a society can buy something cheaper from another society (as long as its not debt bought), the first society can focus on new skills where they are most productive. In a society of 5 people, it is very hard for everyone to find wealth. But once that society of 5 people mixes with 10000 societies of 5 people, everyone can maximize their wealth by opening up their market to new places to sell to and new places to buy from.
We're talking about a one-time purchase by you, the consumer. You're trying to take that apple and compare it to an orange.
I agree, and I accept the purchase and should be free to do what I want with the item I buy. If I pay someone to have them broom my house, and then go and mimic their performance, should I pay them for that "right" to use my labor as I please?
The 10 hours is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it. If you aren't willing to pay their asking price, don't buy it. But that doesn't entitle you to make copies of their performance without their permission.
Why not? The copying is my time, the CD I buy is my property, the device I use to copy the CD is my property -- why should anyone have the right to prevent me from using my time as I please? For me, I'd rather pay someone else to perform these actions -- and The Pirate Bay is happy to do it for free. Of course, if I like the performance, I will be more than happy to pay the artist to make more performances, but I should not be required by law to do so.
A burger flipper gets paid minimum wage because there are a lot of people who will flip burgers, and the one who will do it for the least money gets the job.
Bingo! And The Pirate Bay is the distributor who charges the least amount of money for distributing a product they created with their own labor: the MP3. The burger is the end result of the purchase, and I shouldn't have to pay the meat people over and over, or the trucking company over and over. I am buying the final product -- the burger. The same is true for the CD, I am buying the final product. No one should be able to tell me how I use my labor beyond that, if I want to use my labor to recreate or mimic an item (burger, CD, whatever).
If those artists can make millions of dollars doing what they do, it's because consumers are willing to pay those millions of dollars for what they percieve to be a quality product.
And I believe this is the case if there was no copyright as well -- consumers will find the quality items they want and be willing to pay for them, regardless of what the law tells them. In fact, I don't think copyright is even working anymore -- people still pay because they know what is "right" not what they're afraid of what will happen to them.
Nothing is physically being taken, yet their ability to produce revenue by performing can be impacted.
So someone decided to sell their labor cheaper than another, and the more expensive laborer loses their job. I think this is what competition is.
A good artist doesn't sit and wait for their old art to continue to be sold -- a good artist keeps creating, giving their fans (their customers) something new to grab first. I do the same thing -- I don't charge for my writings, but people who admire my opinions pay me for access to my newest and latest thoughts. I'm currently working on a Sci-Fi novel which I will freely pass out in e-book format -- but some of the underlying politics and thoughts in the novel will be a great way to market my websites. My websites are a great way to market me. In the long run, the book will take me 300-400 hours to complete. Over my lifetime, the marketing potential is well over $100 per hour of what I'll likely gain, so I feel that the labor spent as a marketing potential is more than well spent.
The people who want to write books or write music must find new ways to market their products. Authors can do public engagements (paid), musicians can do live performances (paid) and painters can do private gallery sales (paid). If the author doesn't want to take the huge risk of his work being "stolen," he can go get a job with a newspaper or a magazine. If the musician doesn't want to take the huge risk of their work being "stolen" they can go work as a studio musician or get a job with a company that needs music (advertising agency). If the painter can't take the risk that their painting will get reproduced cheaper by another, th
We had great health care in the US until the Federal government unconstitutionally got involved in it with the HMO Act of 1973:
Congressman Ron Paul on the problems
Congressman Ron Paul again
Dr. Larry Wilson, MD
My doctor does not accept any public health care payments for any reason -- he's about 80 years ago and a die hard free market supporter. He still makes house calls when I'm sick, he charges less than $35 for a visit, and he helps keep costs down by making sure my health is good before I get sick -- he prescribed me a lower sugar diet which fixed all my health problems (blood pressure, overweight, memory issues, anger issues, allergies and sleep problems). He also makes sure that I stay away from prescriptions as he finds them cures for the lazy man.
Medicine is failed in the US because of government's reach into it -- 40 years ago medicine was much more readily available to the poor and the minority. Today it is destroyed because of trying to fix a problem that never existed.
Yet money was not a creation of government, in fact historically money was created by private citizens looking for a medium of exchange, and then over time government has destroyed money in each and every case where they've gotten involved in.
Here's a great book: free, electronic, and a very quick afternoon read: What Has Government Done To Our Money?" by Murray N. Rothbard. Go grab it, print it or send it to your PDA, and read it. It is an amazing book written decades ago that still holds true today.
Money is the most important item in society since it allows us to store the work we've performed for someone else and redeem that work for the work of another. It is only government's intrusion into money that has destroyed wealth, savings and created the class warfare that exists today.
Actually, that's not true at all -- if you look at the laws covering copyright, it is illegal to perform songs in private for non-commercial purposes. The law is so convoluted that it is hard to actually decipher what is legal and illegal anymore, but from what I've seen, you're stuck because someone else is given a monopoly on words, a beat and some basic notes that we all know.
There is currently an ongoing debate as to whether or not Happy Birthday To You is copywritten or not. This is by far the greatest reason why copyright is a failure: the fact that we need to debate about a stolen song that was rewritten in the 30's and might not still be singable today without a license.
Making a copy of a recording of an artist's performance is NOT the same as mimicing that performance.
Yet it doesn't matter -- it is still me using my own labor, my own money and my own knowledge to perform an act, on my own property. If an architect designs a building, do you pay residuals to the architect for the work they once did? When you pay a check-out line clerk for goods that you'll use, do you pay them residuals for the work they once did?
An artist is not unique, in fact the supply of artists probably outnumbers the supply of workers as I think we all dream of making a hit album or drawing a beautiful painting or whatever. The problem I have with copyright is that it doesn't protect the creator, it protects the distributor. Over time, the distributor becomes the only powerful person in the industry. That is, until the Internet (and mechanisms like BitTorrent etc) came into view.
Now I tell bands, artists, and content creators to find new ways to capitalize on their work. Just like a hamburger flipper has to continue working to earn an income, so should anyone else unless they can find a way to sell their services at a high enough price to give them a life of luxury without work. Why is the 10 hours a band spends recording a song possibly worth millions (only with government force) but the 10 hours a hamburger flipper spends worth $80?
I'm not looking for communism -- I'm looking to level the playing field of opportunity. We all work, and we should all find ways to sell that work. Some of us go and find jobs and put the risk of finding work on the employer, in exchange for us getting a lower salary (reward). This shouldn't be different for artists -- if you like to draw, go get a job in graphic design rather than using government to protect your labor. I have no protection for my labor, and I actually repudiate copyright and patents and use my "art" as a marketing tool for my labor. I write, distribute freely, and don't accept copyright. In the long run, my labor is worth more as my customers know what they're getting, and I can charge more as the demand for my limited supply of labor goes up.
That's the end rule, actually: supply and demand. Now that data is digital, the supply is nearly infinite. When supply goes to infinity, the price drops to zero no matter the demand. Artists need to find new ways to add value to their product -- and the Internet lets us all create new ways to earn a living without government enforcing the rules.
Actually, I believe that being successful at being an open in trade and having a vibrant economy is very important for the social structure of a nation or any group of people. Wealth and being rich are two different things -- and I think the best "rating" for how wealthy a country is can be rated by three items:
1. Passing on no debt to the next generation
2. Giving people the opportunity to pass on their own wealth to their descendents
3. Being able to afford to buy from others outside your country without being in their debt
The US fails on all 3 items.
All it takes is one insider giving out the direct phone number to change that. Even more fun is playing "Find a real extension" on the automated attendent -- I'm surprised how many Presidents of big companies are reachable at extension 101, 1001 or 111.
I believe (and I write often about) that Intellectual Property is nothing more than telling people what they are not allowed to do with their own labor on their own property. Imagine if lawn mowing was protected by copyright or a patent. Crazy? Yet I can't mimic the actions of others on my own property? Try singing Happy Birthday to a group of people -- its illegal.
I don't believe you can criminalize the non-violent actions of consenting adults while on their own property. I don't believe you can criminalize the copying of data as long as you're the one doing the labor.
Labor is only useful and marketable as a NOW situation. When you pay someone for their labor, you either get an immediate product (say a concert or a theater production or a lawn mowed) or you get the knowledge to do the labor yourself.
To use government to stop me or anyone else from mimicing others is criminal, in my mind. I don't believe in the right to force others to pay you residual income on past work.
This is a very important thing you said, moreso than the casual single line post would usually dictate. Protecting rights is the role of government -- doling them out and giving preferential rights is not their job. I think Sweden's view on not just protecting the rights of the minority, but also giving them some subsidy rights, is where they fail overall in having a much more powerful trade position as well as a more vibrant economy. I plan on hitting Sweden this year for visit -- I haven't been there for over 17 years, but I do recall loving the country's people. Except for all the 6'6" women :)