how many people on the left are calling for increased government surveillance?
Depends on what you call surveillance. I see both (D) and (R) increasing government access to personal information, usually under the guise of "children" or "free" (as in beer) or some other scam.
Have you seen what rights you give up if you want to be a truck driver? It is insane! but "Safety!"
Capitalism is reactionary, but it isn't without planning. Nobody plans for the demise of horse drawn transportation, and its affects upon related industries. However it takes planning (estimating) to justify spending now, to have savings, produce more units, increase quality later.
Saying capitalism is completely reactionary is simply binary logic. Socialism is completely planned, and when buggy whip makers are left behind by cars, socialism keeps them alive and functioning long after their usefulness. Those lags in reactions are one of the reasons central planning fails. And why businesses that fail to react die off, and are replaced by new companies that are more agile.
I think you're in binary logic mode, thinking about one group of people, thinking it is the whole of all the people. I can assure you that these people you're thinking of, are outnumbered by the people who couldn't be bothered to even try. And that is where the problem is.
They are famous because of OJ Simpson murder trial (father was attorney) and Bruce Jenner (before Caitlin). The daughters were supposedly kind of "hot" or something, and then one of them married a Rap star (if you can call it that).
So, they are famous, mostly for being relatives of semi-famous and famous relatives.
Why should we listen to Chicken Shit Anonymous Cowards who are the trolls of the internet? You're the same guy who picks on little girls and calls it "fun" from what I can tell.
Capitalism does require planning. Just not centralized bureaucratic planning.
In Capitalism, if you're failing, you plan and execute a change or fail. In Central Planning, you fail, you simply raise taxes to make it seem like you didn't fail.
In Capitalism, as markets change, businesses plan and change to accommodate those changes. In Central Planning, change is a sign of weakness, we need to raise taxes to support industries no longer needed.
If you view Centralized Planning as successful, you're ignoring all the failures that are still ongoing.
Yeah, because random thoughts should become laws, because you think they ought to.
How about government stop trying to fix businesses making stupid marketing decisions? You, as a customer, can take this information (its free) and use it to find a better alternative. If you can't find a better alternative, then Xerox (in this case) has proven its case and gained a customer.
Thing of value aren't free. Someone is paying for that bill. Free things have very little value, because they are free. Things that are hard, have the most value, because they are hard. This is something that liberal economics rarely considers.
The rich will move. The rich will pay people to figure out how to avoid taxes, and take that advice. Middle class gets stuck with taxes, not the rich. All taxes are regressive.
How many professorships are offered at that university? Do they get tenure or can they be fired?
Reality is, Football coaches are fairly rare(compared to professors), and can be fired for non-performance. I'll pay a professor very well if they are 1) rare and 2) can be fired for a bad year in the classroom.
That' not the question. The question is, who is paying for them. How many of these Philosophers and Art History majors do we need, and how do you justify 200 - 300 percent more than we need? Life is not binary choices, stop presenting them as such.
I'll repeat it. Life is not binary choices. Quit dismissing alternative views with your bipolar view of life.
Here's the problem, which you exposed, but didn't quite get to.
spending an amount that equates to $60k per household in poverty
and
shrink 90+ government programs into just a few
Yes, spending is likely to be in the area of $60K a year, but how much of that is actually spent on administration of the 90+ Government programs? I don't have the faintest idea what the percentage is, but I'll be willing to bet that it is more than 50% and probably closer to 75% (or even more), as the layers and layers of bureaucracy each have to take a piece out of it.
And the current benefits afforded to welfare, when maxed out, does equal to more than $50K worth of salary / benefits for not working. We have long since passed the idea of a "safety net" approach and gone full into socialism mode with "comfortable". Meanwhile my taxes keep increasing to pay for people who feel entitled to the sweat of my labor.
Looks good on paper. But when enough people stop working and still expect a "basic income" check every month, it will quickly collapse. Further, the definition of "basic income" will suddenly include High Speed Internet, a car payment, a house payment, water, electicity....
And as taxes rise on those still working, to pay for those that refuse to work, and they start to charge more, creating runaway inflation the cries for increases to "basic income" not being enough to live.... the death spiral of socialism will quickly prove that the idea looks good on paper, but doesn't function in reality.
Or, as my daddy used to say, "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not"
It only seems like a win, until more people quit their jobs and take the "free money". Pretty soon, all that free money is useless as nobody is working, and everyone is expecting a check every month. This is nothing short of foolishness dreamed up by people who love socialism. It won't work out at all like they expect.
It looks good on paper. Until the working folk stop working, and nobody is left to pay for the bill. The number of people who flat out quit, will skyrocket, leaving the few that have ambition left holding the tax bag as the nation collapses under its own foolishness. Socialism never works out quite the way the designers think, because human nature isn't what they believe it to be.
The civilian aircraft control system has been chronically underfunded for decades, since Reagan fired PATCO. One of the things they were on strike for was for better equipment to do their jobs better, easier...
So, the problem existed before Reagan, and after Reagan, being "chronic" but we only name Reagan because.... ???
And while Excel works for those areas which you explain, it is hardly the right tool for that job either, just convenient. Get a real SQL reporting tool
humans make mistakes. Get over it. Even when we try not to, we still make mistakes. And also, when shit goes horribly wrong, humans make incredible decisions that are crazy insane that defy logic, that allow people to live when nobody should, even when no human mistake actually occurred.
Sully Landing the plane on the Hudson is a great example. Probably the only way that scenario works is to land the plane there. Right guy, in the right place, thinking crazy thoughts in an emergency.
So, when Obama and the Dems controlled everything, when Clinton and the Dems controlled everything, and neither of them fixed the problem you describe as being "Reagan fired PATCO" (which has little or nothing to do with the code and systems today, being 30+ years ago), you still chose to blame something that can only be described as tangential to the current problem.
The problem for Bill, was that he built his OS bounded on two sides. Bottom was 0, and the top was hard bounded to 640k, because that is where they put the Video (IIRC) and Bios Memory. Had they put that memory next to 0, and freed up 384 to 1 MB, then we wouldn't have a lot of the problems we have today.
I think Bill thought that the computer would be designed for a short period, and replaced with a new kind. The problem was the new kind came, and it was still hard bounded by 640k limit (with some fancy hacking to get around it). Anyone running a memory manager at that time knows what a cluster it all was, as we couldn't use more than 640k.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure Bernie Sanders being called "middle right" would cringe over that label. He is an open socialist.
The left ignores privacy infractions when it suits them. They just hide it better.
how many people on the left are calling for increased government surveillance?
Depends on what you call surveillance. I see both (D) and (R) increasing government access to personal information, usually under the guise of "children" or "free" (as in beer) or some other scam.
Have you seen what rights you give up if you want to be a truck driver? It is insane! but "Safety!"
Capitalism is reactionary, but it isn't without planning. Nobody plans for the demise of horse drawn transportation, and its affects upon related industries. However it takes planning (estimating) to justify spending now, to have savings, produce more units, increase quality later.
Saying capitalism is completely reactionary is simply binary logic. Socialism is completely planned, and when buggy whip makers are left behind by cars, socialism keeps them alive and functioning long after their usefulness. Those lags in reactions are one of the reasons central planning fails. And why businesses that fail to react die off, and are replaced by new companies that are more agile.
I think you're in binary logic mode, thinking about one group of people, thinking it is the whole of all the people. I can assure you that these people you're thinking of, are outnumbered by the people who couldn't be bothered to even try. And that is where the problem is.
No, government should get rid of all laws governing specific industries.
Don't forget, the entire EU is smaller (in size) than the whole of continental US (without Alaska, Hawaii).
They are famous because of OJ Simpson murder trial (father was attorney) and Bruce Jenner (before Caitlin). The daughters were supposedly kind of "hot" or something, and then one of them married a Rap star (if you can call it that).
So, they are famous, mostly for being relatives of semi-famous and famous relatives.
Why should we listen to Chicken Shit Anonymous Cowards who are the trolls of the internet? You're the same guy who picks on little girls and calls it "fun" from what I can tell.
Capitalism does require planning. Just not centralized bureaucratic planning.
In Capitalism, if you're failing, you plan and execute a change or fail. In Central Planning, you fail, you simply raise taxes to make it seem like you didn't fail.
In Capitalism, as markets change, businesses plan and change to accommodate those changes. In Central Planning, change is a sign of weakness, we need to raise taxes to support industries no longer needed.
If you view Centralized Planning as successful, you're ignoring all the failures that are still ongoing.
I think it should be unlawful
Yeah, because random thoughts should become laws, because you think they ought to.
How about government stop trying to fix businesses making stupid marketing decisions? You, as a customer, can take this information (its free) and use it to find a better alternative. If you can't find a better alternative, then Xerox (in this case) has proven its case and gained a customer.
Thing of value aren't free. Someone is paying for that bill. Free things have very little value, because they are free. Things that are hard, have the most value, because they are hard. This is something that liberal economics rarely considers.
The rich will move. The rich will pay people to figure out how to avoid taxes, and take that advice. Middle class gets stuck with taxes, not the rich. All taxes are regressive.
How many professorships are offered at that university? Do they get tenure or can they be fired?
Reality is, Football coaches are fairly rare(compared to professors), and can be fired for non-performance. I'll pay a professor very well if they are 1) rare and 2) can be fired for a bad year in the classroom.
Do I see societal value in those things? Yeah.
That' not the question. The question is, who is paying for them. How many of these Philosophers and Art History majors do we need, and how do you justify 200 - 300 percent more than we need? Life is not binary choices, stop presenting them as such.
I'll repeat it. Life is not binary choices. Quit dismissing alternative views with your bipolar view of life.
Here's the problem, which you exposed, but didn't quite get to.
spending an amount that equates to $60k per household in poverty
and
shrink 90+ government programs into just a few
Yes, spending is likely to be in the area of $60K a year, but how much of that is actually spent on administration of the 90+ Government programs? I don't have the faintest idea what the percentage is, but I'll be willing to bet that it is more than 50% and probably closer to 75% (or even more), as the layers and layers of bureaucracy each have to take a piece out of it.
And the current benefits afforded to welfare, when maxed out, does equal to more than $50K worth of salary / benefits for not working. We have long since passed the idea of a "safety net" approach and gone full into socialism mode with "comfortable". Meanwhile my taxes keep increasing to pay for people who feel entitled to the sweat of my labor.
Looks good on paper. But when enough people stop working and still expect a "basic income" check every month, it will quickly collapse. Further, the definition of "basic income" will suddenly include High Speed Internet, a car payment, a house payment, water, electicity ....
And as taxes rise on those still working, to pay for those that refuse to work, and they start to charge more, creating runaway inflation the cries for increases to "basic income" not being enough to live .... the death spiral of socialism will quickly prove that the idea looks good on paper, but doesn't function in reality.
Or, as my daddy used to say, "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not"
It only seems like a win, until more people quit their jobs and take the "free money". Pretty soon, all that free money is useless as nobody is working, and everyone is expecting a check every month. This is nothing short of foolishness dreamed up by people who love socialism. It won't work out at all like they expect.
It looks good on paper. Until the working folk stop working, and nobody is left to pay for the bill. The number of people who flat out quit, will skyrocket, leaving the few that have ambition left holding the tax bag as the nation collapses under its own foolishness. Socialism never works out quite the way the designers think, because human nature isn't what they believe it to be.
The civilian aircraft control system has been chronically underfunded for decades, since Reagan fired PATCO. One of the things they were on strike for was for better equipment to do their jobs better, easier ...
So, the problem existed before Reagan, and after Reagan, being "chronic" but we only name Reagan because .... ???
+1 Fucking Insightful
FTFY
And while Excel works for those areas which you explain, it is hardly the right tool for that job either, just convenient. Get a real SQL reporting tool
humans make mistakes. Get over it. Even when we try not to, we still make mistakes. And also, when shit goes horribly wrong, humans make incredible decisions that are crazy insane that defy logic, that allow people to live when nobody should, even when no human mistake actually occurred.
Sully Landing the plane on the Hudson is a great example. Probably the only way that scenario works is to land the plane there. Right guy, in the right place, thinking crazy thoughts in an emergency.
So, when Obama and the Dems controlled everything, when Clinton and the Dems controlled everything, and neither of them fixed the problem you describe as being "Reagan fired PATCO" (which has little or nothing to do with the code and systems today, being 30+ years ago), you still chose to blame something that can only be described as tangential to the current problem.
Good Job Leftwing nut job!
The problem for Bill, was that he built his OS bounded on two sides. Bottom was 0, and the top was hard bounded to 640k, because that is where they put the Video (IIRC) and Bios Memory. Had they put that memory next to 0, and freed up 384 to 1 MB, then we wouldn't have a lot of the problems we have today.
I think Bill thought that the computer would be designed for a short period, and replaced with a new kind. The problem was the new kind came, and it was still hard bounded by 640k limit (with some fancy hacking to get around it). Anyone running a memory manager at that time knows what a cluster it all was, as we couldn't use more than 640k.
Short sighted people make short sighted errors.