No, copyright was a guild monopoly so the crown could control printing presses. The nonsense about incentivizing creative works didn't come until the 1710 Statute of Anne.
Yes, because the Stationer's Company in 1701 was full of upstanding, principled and honest individuals who wouldn't dare appropriate a scary word for their own purposes. It's not as if their monopoly existed explicitly for the purposes of censorship and spreading propaganda. Oh wait, yes it did, and since it predates the 1710 Statute of Anne, which at least nominally claimed to be for "the advancement of learning," there's not even the slightest hint that they were above propaganda.
Parent's point isn't wrong just because it was misappropriated 300 years ago instead of more recently.
No, he had an insanely high turnover rate, and that was cutting into his profits. Paying his workers a higher wage made it easier to keep them long enough to be more useful.
Unless, you know, you are prioritize liquidity over interest. I can pull out $1000 in the bank whenever I want without any fees. If I pull from my 401k, I have to pay a penalty.
No, it just means that we can create (or destroy) value at all. Zero-sum is a very specific claim. If cooperation changes the yield 0.0000000001%, it's not a zero-sum game.Zero sum games specifically undermine cooperation. Certain elements of the economy may be nearly a zero-sum gain, but not the entirety.
No, the economy not being a zero sum game is a key component to functioning markets. We trade and specialize because utilizing comparative advantages results in a higher yield.
Zero-sum doesn't mean that everybody benefits. It just means that gains for one party don't perfectly correspond with losses for other parties.
Land ownership is practically a zero sum game, at least in terms of area. We can't create new land (with a few specific exceptions), so in order for you to have more land, someone else has to have less. But if I build my cars on a moving assembly line, then the efficiency gains can mean that I can sell the car for less, make more profit, and pay my workers more.
I'm not saying that nobody should work. Just that ideally, nobody should HAVE to work. Everyone gets to be the 'idle rich' if they want to but ennui would probably lead most of the population to pick up other productive pursuits. Having the option to not work is always preferably to being forced to work.
I think it was more about turnover than raw talent. People who were making a decent living could continue to work, and thus he didn't have to hire 4 workers to keep 1 long-term.
No, I'm saying the ideal is no labor needed. That doesn't mean that we can attain that ideal any time soon, but that should be the goal we approach, even if we will never fully reach it. The less we NEED to work, the more freedom we have, and the less stressful our lives are.
From the point of view of someone living 300 years ago, we already live in "post labor territory": all the needs an average person could possibly want fulfilled 300 years ago are fulfilled today on no work at all. But today, people aren't satisfied with what would have been a royal standard of living back then.
You could argue that we are post-agrarian, but most people still need to work. And no, it wouldn't be a royal standard of living overall. We have faster transportation and communication than any king had, but we don't have better clothes than royalty did, and we are certainly eating far fewer peacocks than kings of the past. If we get a UBI, you might have a point, but we aren't there yet. It's in the foreseeable future, and it would radically change how we live, but we don't have that yet, so we have to work, even if our jobs are effectively doing nothing.
And 300 years from now, people will want their personal matter synthesizers, their rejuvenated clone bodies, their megawatt home power stations, and their personal spacecraft. And that will still require massive amounts of labor to invent, create, and supply.
Yeah, all human progress is due to people being unhappy with the status quo. However, I would avoid making generalizations centuries ahead. They tend to be way off even in the best estimations.
Yes, I think it's better for working class people to eat actual food instead of instant ramen noodles than for Bill Gates to hide his money in a tax haven.
That cheap labor is largely supplied by illegal immigration. Meaning, if you don't want so much cheap labor and more automation, just deport illegal immigrants.
Or, jail employers that hire illegal immigrants, and provide protections for illegal immigrants so that they can't be exploited. Much more effective, and it stops much of the animosity between domestic labor and immigrants.
It's the same with money. Redistributing money to increase consumption does not help the economy in the long run, it just creates a short term "stimulus". For long term growth, you need less consumption and more investment.
I'm talking about velocity of money, which has stagnated as post-Reagan America has redistributed money towards people who aren't useful. Also, rich people hide their money in overseas tax havens. We've got more than enough investment going on already.
If you set the minimum wage to $30 and then redistribute income via a UBI, the effect will be (roughly) that everybody will be living at about a $15/h wage, with only half the people working.
Your math is assuming that everybody makes roughly minimum wage, but yeah, the ideal is ZERO people needing to work. So, that would get us halfway there.
Regarding consumption, high wages move the market away from inferior goods. That's the poor allocation of resources. If people can afford to buy things that aren't crap, they'll have things that actually last, and their standard of living can continue to rise until we're in Jetsons/Star Trek post-labor territory.
Wages should be considerably outpacing inflation, and that improves the economy, since the working class actually spends their income. However, we should be automating more, but aren't, because of the cheap labor he's complaining isn't cheap enough. Make the minimum wage $30 an hour, and anything that can be done by a robot will be soon. Paired with appropriate socioeconomic reforms, eventually landing on a UBI, and then things are better for everyone.
But to act like the winner of the plurality of votes out of the majority of people who voted isn't in any way significant, particularly toward assessing what the public wanted.
It's significant in undermining Trump;s legitimacy and claims of anything resembling a mandate. It's not significant in validating Clinton. She won the popular vote, but not because she was popular. Both of them had an enormous chunk of their votes coming from people who wanted to keep what they perceived as the "lesser evil" out. Both of them were at record levels of unfavorable views from the public, and we had record numbers of people leaving the presidential candidate blank on their ballots. So, the thing to take away is that Trump did not win. Clinton lost.
If you want to talk in terms of what the American people actually wanted, it could be basically surmised as taking a rocket, putting Clinton and Trump on it, sending said rocket in to the sun, and starting over with a new presidential election.
Regardless you are behaving toward USA as a useful idiot
I'm a useful idiot for wanting candidates that will handily beat Trump and Trumpites? For not wanting to act on questionable intelligence? I wanted Trump AND Clinton shot into the sun, not sitting in the Oval Office.
For the topical matter, it was not 2%-3% as Macron had 30%+ lead since first round of voting in April.
That was exactly my point. Had the Dems nominated someone, such as Bernie Sanders, that would have had a double digit lead over Trump, then 'Russian hacking' couldn't affect the election. And that's assuming that the Russian agenda was pro-Trump, when it was more likely anti-Clinton. Hell, releasing the DNC emails would have been a boost to Sander's image as an underdog.
It is accurate, but it also doesn't preclude Clinton having run a horrible campaign, which was the main point. Both Trump and Clinton were unpopular at record levels, and had Clinton not been so deeply unpopular, the potential effects of Comey would not have been able to swing the election, let alone running a candidate that wasn't under FBI investigation.
Well, if you want to undermine me, comrade, then get some more conclusive evidence. And maybe it's YOU that's the useful idiot to hawks like McCain. Don't call me a useful idiot, I was the one opposed to the alleged Russian 'Manchurian candidate' and the dumb bitch that thought the media should take the alleged Manchurian candidate seriously. Acts attributed to Russia are a hell of a lot less effective if you have a candidate that people don't already deeply despise en masse. Marcon got 2/3% of the vote against French Trump.
Slashdot Mirror
No, copyright was a guild monopoly so the crown could control printing presses. The nonsense about incentivizing creative works didn't come until the 1710 Statute of Anne.
Yes, because the Stationer's Company in 1701 was full of upstanding, principled and honest individuals who wouldn't dare appropriate a scary word for their own purposes. It's not as if their monopoly existed explicitly for the purposes of censorship and spreading propaganda. Oh wait, yes it did, and since it predates the 1710 Statute of Anne, which at least nominally claimed to be for "the advancement of learning," there's not even the slightest hint that they were above propaganda.
Parent's point isn't wrong just because it was misappropriated 300 years ago instead of more recently.
I'm not saying that there isn't a maximum output. Zero-sum means that no matter what you do, there will be the exact same amount to go around.
No, he had an insanely high turnover rate, and that was cutting into his profits. Paying his workers a higher wage made it easier to keep them long enough to be more useful.
Unless, you know, you are prioritize liquidity over interest. I can pull out $1000 in the bank whenever I want without any fees. If I pull from my 401k, I have to pay a penalty.
No, it just means that we can create (or destroy) value at all. Zero-sum is a very specific claim. If cooperation changes the yield 0.0000000001%, it's not a zero-sum game.Zero sum games specifically undermine cooperation. Certain elements of the economy may be nearly a zero-sum gain, but not the entirety.
Yeah, editing fail. It's not zero sum because they don't perfectly balance.
Why is it different in any important way? If we can all live like kings without having to work, why shouldn't we have such a society?
So, if I could offer you a billion dollars with no strings attached, you wouldn't accept?
No, the economy not being a zero sum game is a key component to functioning markets. We trade and specialize because utilizing comparative advantages results in a higher yield.
Zero-sum doesn't mean that everybody benefits. It just means that gains for one party don't perfectly correspond with losses for other parties.
Land ownership is practically a zero sum game, at least in terms of area. We can't create new land (with a few specific exceptions), so in order for you to have more land, someone else has to have less. But if I build my cars on a moving assembly line, then the efficiency gains can mean that I can sell the car for less, make more profit, and pay my workers more.
I'm not saying that nobody should work. Just that ideally, nobody should HAVE to work. Everyone gets to be the 'idle rich' if they want to but ennui would probably lead most of the population to pick up other productive pursuits. Having the option to not work is always preferably to being forced to work.
I think it was more about turnover than raw talent. People who were making a decent living could continue to work, and thus he didn't have to hire 4 workers to keep 1 long-term.
No, I'm saying the ideal is no labor needed. That doesn't mean that we can attain that ideal any time soon, but that should be the goal we approach, even if we will never fully reach it. The less we NEED to work, the more freedom we have, and the less stressful our lives are.
You could argue that we are post-agrarian, but most people still need to work. And no, it wouldn't be a royal standard of living overall. We have faster transportation and communication than any king had, but we don't have better clothes than royalty did, and we are certainly eating far fewer peacocks than kings of the past. If we get a UBI, you might have a point, but we aren't there yet. It's in the foreseeable future, and it would radically change how we live, but we don't have that yet, so we have to work, even if our jobs are effectively doing nothing.
Yeah, all human progress is due to people being unhappy with the status quo. However, I would avoid making generalizations centuries ahead. They tend to be way off even in the best estimations.
UBI would be the answer, but I doubt this guy supports it.
Yes, I think it's better for working class people to eat actual food instead of instant ramen noodles than for Bill Gates to hide his money in a tax haven.
Or, jail employers that hire illegal immigrants, and provide protections for illegal immigrants so that they can't be exploited. Much more effective, and it stops much of the animosity between domestic labor and immigrants.
I'm talking about velocity of money, which has stagnated as post-Reagan America has redistributed money towards people who aren't useful. Also, rich people hide their money in overseas tax havens. We've got more than enough investment going on already.
Your math is assuming that everybody makes roughly minimum wage, but yeah, the ideal is ZERO people needing to work. So, that would get us halfway there.
Regarding consumption, high wages move the market away from inferior goods. That's the poor allocation of resources. If people can afford to buy things that aren't crap, they'll have things that actually last, and their standard of living can continue to rise until we're in Jetsons/Star Trek post-labor territory.
Wages should be considerably outpacing inflation, and that improves the economy, since the working class actually spends their income. However, we should be automating more, but aren't, because of the cheap labor he's complaining isn't cheap enough. Make the minimum wage $30 an hour, and anything that can be done by a robot will be soon. Paired with appropriate socioeconomic reforms, eventually landing on a UBI, and then things are better for everyone.
Because you need 'enterprise' and 'synergy' to win at Corporate Buzzword Bingo.
Or, some towns and cities have poor planning, and there are multiple places to turn within a few car lengths of each other.
More likely, they just aren't using email.
Trump making bullshit claims without evidence doesn't magically prevent the NSA from making bullshit claims without evidence.
It's significant in undermining Trump;s legitimacy and claims of anything resembling a mandate. It's not significant in validating Clinton. She won the popular vote, but not because she was popular. Both of them had an enormous chunk of their votes coming from people who wanted to keep what they perceived as the "lesser evil" out. Both of them were at record levels of unfavorable views from the public, and we had record numbers of people leaving the presidential candidate blank on their ballots. So, the thing to take away is that Trump did not win. Clinton lost.
If you want to talk in terms of what the American people actually wanted, it could be basically surmised as taking a rocket, putting Clinton and Trump on it, sending said rocket in to the sun, and starting over with a new presidential election.
I'm a useful idiot for wanting candidates that will handily beat Trump and Trumpites? For not wanting to act on questionable intelligence? I wanted Trump AND Clinton shot into the sun, not sitting in the Oval Office.
That was exactly my point. Had the Dems nominated someone, such as Bernie Sanders, that would have had a double digit lead over Trump, then 'Russian hacking' couldn't affect the election. And that's assuming that the Russian agenda was pro-Trump, when it was more likely anti-Clinton. Hell, releasing the DNC emails would have been a boost to Sander's image as an underdog.
It is accurate, but it also doesn't preclude Clinton having run a horrible campaign, which was the main point. Both Trump and Clinton were unpopular at record levels, and had Clinton not been so deeply unpopular, the potential effects of Comey would not have been able to swing the election, let alone running a candidate that wasn't under FBI investigation.
Well, if you want to undermine me, comrade, then get some more conclusive evidence. And maybe it's YOU that's the useful idiot to hawks like McCain. Don't call me a useful idiot, I was the one opposed to the alleged Russian 'Manchurian candidate' and the dumb bitch that thought the media should take the alleged Manchurian candidate seriously. Acts attributed to Russia are a hell of a lot less effective if you have a candidate that people don't already deeply despise en masse. Marcon got 2/3% of the vote against French Trump.