So a government monopoly on weather services benefits us how exactly? Whenever taxpayers subsidize a service that could be provided in the marketplace, that subsidy undermines the development of true competition for that service.
Seems to me that even with all the media consolidation that's gone on, no one media company would ever have a monopoly on weather prediction. Perhaps eventually they would all subcontract to the same firm, similar to what is being proposed here (if not already being done in fact).
By the way, the statement "big companies want your money..." is a type of ad hominem attack (their motives are not relevant to the validity of their argument). Not only that, I should think it's obvious that all companies, large and small, are in business to make a profit. Additionally, given how much of my income goes to the government on an annual basis (hint: every eight hour day I put in, the first three hours are spent working to pay the government), I think I'm rightfully more concerned about the size and scope of government than any big business.
And just WHY should CNN, or any other news service, "push" one product over another? What possible interest could they have?
1. News media frequently do things "for the public good"-- insofar as switching browsers is the best protection, they might recommend doing so just to be helpful. 2. The media are alreay, even in the CNN article, pushing one product over another-- they suggest updating virus definitions and stuff, which sounds a lot like a product endorsement for virus protection software to me. 3. Their own company might benefit from a more insightful analysis of the issue, considering that CNN has a web server and is probably staffed by lots of web surfers. If they recommend updating virus definitions, yet their server manages to infect me, because I followed their advice and it was insufficient, can I hold them liable? Also, if their employees are affected because they followed an insufficient plan, could it hurt their bottom line?
By the way, my job is not supplying applications support to Microsoft's customers-- no matter how much I care about those customers personally.
According to the article this does not affect people who sell used books and collectibles? "The court's decision made clear that even private sellers have to stick to the fixed book price if they regularly sell new books."
What this ruling (and the law it's based on) also does is prevent companies like Barnes & Noble from selling at prices below cover, to the detriment of smaller book-sellers who don't get the same volume discounts. Wonder if this applies to the German arm of Amazon, too?
Note: I do not favor of this type of regulation, especially the way it was used, which was to prevent a person (a book reviewer) who was given free copies of the books from reselling those copies at below cover price.
Now that I've thought some more, I do see your point.
Part of the problem with the GPL is the insistence on code sharing (which is ostensibly what prompted RMS to invent the GPL in the first place-- he wasn't motivated so much by a desire to share programs, what he wanted was access to the code in order to change programs).
In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think the GPL, especially when considered alongside the LGPL and the GNU FDL, the code sharing clauses indicate more of an urge to control derivative developers than to preserve freedom-- the LGPL specifically allows for restricted derivatives in some cases and the FDL requires certain invariant sections that prevent full freedom in preparing derivative works. With the GPL the onus on derivative developers is above and beyond that which we would find in a system without copyright. In such a system there would be nothing to compel sharing source code, but there would also be less incentive to hoard it.
The violations of the GPL that we hear about are not cases where the derivative developer is trying to exert control over users to prevent them from using, modifying, or sharing code, but simply where the developer hasn't shared source code with the users. So perhaps it's time for a license that falls somewhere between the public domain and the GPL and simply require that all downstream developers forfeit their right to privatize the software-- no requirement to share code, but no right to restrict use, distribution, or creation of further derivatives.
The point is that we can't ride whatever side of the fence is most convenient. Either copyright should be enforceable and we support others rights to enforce their copyrights or copyright should not be enforceable and we allow GPL violations without restriction.
False dilemma. The two types of infringement are not necessarily synonymous. Copyrights create a monopoly on a work. Copylefts create a non-monopoly on a work. To infringe copyright is to disregard an exclusive right in a work. To infringe copyleft is to (re)create an exclusive right in a work. Copyleft only depends on copyright insofar as Congress has not written provisions into Title 17 that would allow authors to register a copyleft on a work instead of a copyright.
In the absence of copyright (ignoring, for the moment, the possibility of substituting private contracts for copyright), copyleft would not be necessary in order to preserve most of the freedoms which prompted the creation of copyleft: the freedom to use, the freedom to share, the freedom to derive new works. The only issue for software would be availability of source code, but one has to wonder what incentive there would be to conceal source code in a system in which the resulting binaries were commodities that could be freely traded, reverse engineered, etc etc.
I'm confused. If all my money is in the paper bag, do I throw the bag at passers-by or do I use the bag to carry the money until I throw the money at the passers-by?
All I can say is, if Keanu himself is Bob Arctor then we don't need to worry about Winona Ryder making a travesty of the book. And flipping through the copy of Scanner on my shelf (definitely on my top ten list of novels), she is mentioned throughout the story and if I recall correctly is a major influence on the plot. This is the one Dick adaptation I'm looking forward to. I haven't even touched some of the others because they look so schlocky compared to his prose.
I use the GUI and the command line equally-- on both GNU/Linux and MS Windows. However, on MS Windows, it is a much less enjoyable experience. And holy smokes, I just realized that I'm running emacs on Windows and that I need not suffer through that "Command Prompt" monstrosity ever again!
Anyway, I really do about 50/50 GUI/CLI. I like GUIs for graphics, web surfing, and other tasks that are primarily visual or where "random access" is helpful (tabbing through links on a web page gets old fast, imho-- much better to home in quickly via the mouse pointer). But the CLI is great for logging into the mp3 server and starting mpg321, systems administration, running irb (interactive Ruby shell), etc. And never forget that well-designed GUIs are largely keyboard accessible so that the hands can stay where they belong instead of switching between the rolly-thingy and the keyboard.:)
Give Keanu a break. Anyway... the movie's going to have Winona Ryder in it. I'll suffer through a little Reeves to see her in a PKD-inspired film. My prediction: she steals the show.
Speaking as a Gentoo user of over two years now, I hope you'll go for 501(c)(3) then-- it seems to me the benefits to your supporters will outweigh the "costs" of goign that route. It's mainly that Gentoo can't be involved in political lobbying and campaign activities, right? If the FSF can meet the criteria, I should think it would be a slam-dunk for Gentoo, which seems far less political than the FSF.
While I think many of us will be happy to donate whether it's deductible or not, it's a "cherry on top" kind of thing. I'm just glad Gentoo will be officially not-for-profit now. Before, the fact of being a for-profit business always left me wondering why I would just send money if I weren't going to be given shares or something... so I ended up donating to the FSF and GNOME for my Free Software related giving. Now I can add Gentoo to the list.
The real problem with Wikis is that the link will remain there, even after it has been removed from the current page, because most Wikis have a revision history feature. So what's needed is careful set up in the robots.txt file and other HTML clues for the web crawlers to exclude anything but the most current version of a page (and to skip over the other 'action' pages, like edits, etc).
My wiki got hit by this stupid link, but not in the sandbox. Of course, recovering the previous version of the page is easy... it's wiping out any trace of the lameness that gets trickier. I suppose the easiest way to defeat this would be to require simple registration in order to edit Wiki pages.
What else can we do? Alter the names of the submit buttons and some of the other key strings involved in Editing?
Sometimes you shouldn't be serious about taking pictures.
There's also no reason to have a drive full of crummy snapshots if a few minor improvements will make them a lot more fun to look at. That doesn't mean you have to turn every picture into some huge event, of course, but I find it takes just as long to take a good picture as a bad picture once you learn to take a good picture.
Either way, I wish someone would do for Evolution what Phoenix/FireBird/FireFox have done for Mozilla. I don't need all that non-email stuff and I find Evolution's composer interface really annoying. Probably I need to RTFM some more and learn how to tweak it, but it's really as bad as Outlook when it comes to replying, colored formatting, etc.
KMail would be my client of choice except that I'm a hardcore GNOME fan in every other possible respect (especially the part of me that likes the cross-platform GPL-itude of gtk+ and the excellent Ruby-GNOME2 bindings). I'm not loading Qt and KDE just to read email.
Yet again, ACs prove that they have very little to contribute other than ad hominem attacks. First to invent/first to file is essentially the same thing when it comes down to the fact that someone who invented something on his own can be excluded from using it without a license, whether he thought of it first or whether he filed for it first. If you and I both invent something today, who is going to get the patent, the one who did it at 11am or the one who did it at 11pm? My guess: the one who files for the patent first.
That has never been true. Not only is the first inventor safe (assuming he has proof), but the first inventor can file for a patent even after publishing the idea (up to 2 years I think).
According the USPTO web site, "Occasionally two or more applications are filed by different inventors claiming substantially the same patentable invention. The patent can only be granted to one of them, and a proceeding known as an "interference" is instituted by the Office to determine who is the first inventor and entitled to the patent." This means that it's a "first post" system, even if two people working completely independent of each invent the same thing at roughly the same time. They are only going to award one patent for any invention, which means that one or the other party is going to lose the right to use something he thought up on his own.
But I would assume that although timothy may have the problem you mention (not being able to see what true Linux Dummies would miss), I'm pretty sure the publishers of the Dummies series don't. Wiley's Dummies series have always seemed like excellent books to me, whether I knew the topic cold or was a complete newbie. I have read several books from this series and my only complaint is that the books are too short. It would be nice if they would use the same style for an "Advanced Such-and-Such for Dummies" series. Fortunately these books usually set you up with a really good base to where you can pick up some other more complete text and have a fighting chance with it. On that basis, combined with timothy's positive review, I would very much recommend or buy this book for people like your mother.
I know you're joking, but the patent system is based on a "first post" methodology. That is, if you and I both work on an idea at the same time, yet independently and unaware of the other, then I run down to the patent office to get my patent while you are still in the lab, I get the patent and theoretically have the privilege of excluding you from using your own invention.
You ask me, that's problem number one that the patent system needs to solve. In the dot-com age it becomes especially important because the rapid pace of invention holds some real potential for destroying the prior art defense (i.e. if you and I both build a 15-click shopping tool for an online store within a very short time of one another, but one of us patents it first, how will the other successfully argue prior art?)
I'm not saying we need to eliminate Capitalism, just that our present form of Capitalism is full of government interventions that benefit the rich and hurt the lower classes.
You mean like protectionist trade barriers? "Hurt the lower classes"... I guess the lower classes outside the border don't count? I'm not saying that free trade automatically ensures sudden bliss for these folks, but surely they have a right to earn a living, no?
America used to be a place that prided itself on it's small businesses, on the independence of it's craftsmen.
Ah, the good old days. That never happened. Jefferson himself was a plantation owner. That's not exactly a "small" business, especially not in those times-- especially not when you consider the number of people he had enslaved there and the aristocratic atmosphere that dominated in plantation life.
So Europe doesn't have keiretsu--they still manage to make better cell phones and cars than America.
Let me know when "Europe" actually does something consistent and non-imperialist for a whole century, then we'll talk about Europe as a useful example of anything. Certain parts of Europe might make good discussion points, especially Scandinavia, but the rest of it is a mess and has been constantly changing for much of the last century.
As Keynes showed us, in some situations an economy can collapse because it doesn't have ENOUGH wealth redistribution and government spending.
And Keynes solutions never really solved the problems they were intended to solve. The second World War interrupted all that... so we'll never really know. Personally I think the idea that an economy can collapse at all is an absurdity and related to government interference in the currency markets. Wealth doesn't go away. We still have our natural resources, our manpower, our knowledge. The relative value of the dollar does not affect these things. If there is a collapse it is because the perceived value of certain pieces of paper is not well tied to the real world and everyone is simply trying to "game the system".
I used to be a rabid capitalist
I still am. Capitalism is the only system in which the workers can achieve the Marxist ideal of truly owning the means of production. The reason labor unions are losing ground is that they were always fighting the wrong battle. What the workers need is an ownership stake and direct control of their businesses. Stock ownership makes this a real possibility.
Currently the deck is stacked against the workers in terms of control, but imagine a company where a signficant amount of stock is owned by workers, these workers truly get to elect their bosses. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. CEOs get filthy rich off stock options and stock grants. Workers, instead of quibbling over little things, should be looking to emulate the techniques of the rich, not shun them. Why haven't the unions been fighting for stock options for workers and pushing for trickle-in systems like 401k matching in company stock?
Workers further enhance their own plight when they refuse to use their own earnings wisely to help prevent the social problems they perceive. Complaining about low wages and unemployment while shopping at Wal-Mart? Whining about oil prices while driving a pickup on light errands? Carping about how much time is wasted at work, just to sit home in front of the TV for 32 hours a week, on average? The people of America are getting exactly what they're paying for with both their money and their time. If that eventually leaves them unemployed and broke, that's their own problem. The "crony capitalists" have only helped them achieve their goals.
Now go crawl back in your little commie hell hole. Your type isn't welcome in the United States.
Um, yes, they are. This is a free country and they have every right to hold and advocate their political views, especially if they are naturally born citizens of this nation. The rights to believe what one will and to speak one's mind are inalienable human rights.
As to the latter portion of your reactionary rant, I would point out that the U.S. became the nation it was through stealing... stealing land (as well as the attendant natural resources) from the natives and stealing labor from slaves. Whether this prominence/dominance due to past injustices benefits those of us who live here today is debatable, of course. It is also debatable whether the nation has done anything to repay the debts it incurred when it stole land and labor from those people. The problem is that the passage of time obscures both the willingness and the ability to properly set things right.
But FWIW, I agree with most everything else you said, even if I find your tone off-putting and your economics a bit over-the-top on the Randian side of things. Obviously the existing progressive tax system hasn't prevented Bill Gates (your example) from becoming a multi-billionaire (or wanting to become one), so that seems like something of a counter-example to your argument against "progressive" tax systems.
Perhaps you should engage in less "love it or leave it" BS and start to think more critically about the issues. You'll be a lot more convincing if you acknowledge that no system is perfect, including the one you propose.
A most excellent and informative post! Indeed, I was just looking at a chart on roughly this same topic, but for bicycles. It was obvious that at about 25 MPH, you pretty much have reached the limit (on average) for bicycle efficiency-- you could easily see where the slope of the line for total resistance went from less than one to greater than one. I suppose with a motor vehicle it's very easy to measure by tracking gas mileage-- except that you'd really have to take careful notes and be very good at measuring distance, gas, and speed.
Slashdot Mirror
Free? I guess the department is run by volunteers. Good to know.
So a government monopoly on weather services benefits us how exactly? Whenever taxpayers subsidize a service that could be provided in the marketplace, that subsidy undermines the development of true competition for that service.
Seems to me that even with all the media consolidation that's gone on, no one media company would ever have a monopoly on weather prediction. Perhaps eventually they would all subcontract to the same firm, similar to what is being proposed here (if not already being done in fact).
By the way, the statement "big companies want your money..." is a type of ad hominem attack (their motives are not relevant to the validity of their argument). Not only that, I should think it's obvious that all companies, large and small, are in business to make a profit. Additionally, given how much of my income goes to the government on an annual basis (hint: every eight hour day I put in, the first three hours are spent working to pay the government), I think I'm rightfully more concerned about the size and scope of government than any big business.
It's a two-way street. Prima donna programmers and cheap-ass management just don't mix.
And just WHY should CNN, or any other news service, "push" one product over another? What possible interest could they have?
1. News media frequently do things "for the public good"-- insofar as switching browsers is the best protection, they might recommend doing so just to be helpful. 2. The media are alreay, even in the CNN article, pushing one product over another-- they suggest updating virus definitions and stuff, which sounds a lot like a product endorsement for virus protection software to me. 3. Their own company might benefit from a more insightful analysis of the issue, considering that CNN has a web server and is probably staffed by lots of web surfers. If they recommend updating virus definitions, yet their server manages to infect me, because I followed their advice and it was insufficient, can I hold them liable? Also, if their employees are affected because they followed an insufficient plan, could it hurt their bottom line?
By the way, my job is not supplying applications support to Microsoft's customers-- no matter how much I care about those customers personally.
According to the article this does not affect people who sell used books and collectibles? "The court's decision made clear that even private sellers have to stick to the fixed book price if they regularly sell new books."
What this ruling (and the law it's based on) also does is prevent companies like Barnes & Noble from selling at prices below cover, to the detriment of smaller book-sellers who don't get the same volume discounts. Wonder if this applies to the German arm of Amazon, too?
Note: I do not favor of this type of regulation, especially the way it was used, which was to prevent a person (a book reviewer) who was given free copies of the books from reselling those copies at below cover price.
Now that I've thought some more, I do see your point.
Part of the problem with the GPL is the insistence on code sharing (which is ostensibly what prompted RMS to invent the GPL in the first place-- he wasn't motivated so much by a desire to share programs, what he wanted was access to the code in order to change programs).
In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think the GPL, especially when considered alongside the LGPL and the GNU FDL, the code sharing clauses indicate more of an urge to control derivative developers than to preserve freedom-- the LGPL specifically allows for restricted derivatives in some cases and the FDL requires certain invariant sections that prevent full freedom in preparing derivative works. With the GPL the onus on derivative developers is above and beyond that which we would find in a system without copyright. In such a system there would be nothing to compel sharing source code, but there would also be less incentive to hoard it.
The violations of the GPL that we hear about are not cases where the derivative developer is trying to exert control over users to prevent them from using, modifying, or sharing code, but simply where the developer hasn't shared source code with the users. So perhaps it's time for a license that falls somewhere between the public domain and the GPL and simply require that all downstream developers forfeit their right to privatize the software-- no requirement to share code, but no right to restrict use, distribution, or creation of further derivatives.
That's fabulous until you add a second computer to your LAN. But I suppose you would just call that LinuxTwo? ;)
The point is that we can't ride whatever side of the fence is most convenient. Either copyright should be enforceable and we support others rights to enforce their copyrights or copyright should not be enforceable and we allow GPL violations without restriction.
False dilemma. The two types of infringement are not necessarily synonymous. Copyrights create a monopoly on a work. Copylefts create a non-monopoly on a work. To infringe copyright is to disregard an exclusive right in a work. To infringe copyleft is to (re)create an exclusive right in a work. Copyleft only depends on copyright insofar as Congress has not written provisions into Title 17 that would allow authors to register a copyleft on a work instead of a copyright.
In the absence of copyright (ignoring, for the moment, the possibility of substituting private contracts for copyright), copyleft would not be necessary in order to preserve most of the freedoms which prompted the creation of copyleft: the freedom to use, the freedom to share, the freedom to derive new works. The only issue for software would be availability of source code, but one has to wonder what incentive there would be to conceal source code in a system in which the resulting binaries were commodities that could be freely traded, reverse engineered, etc etc.
Are you daft? There is lots of public domain or freely shareable audio and video available, and that's even before we get to any potential grey areas.
I'm confused. If all my money is in the paper bag, do I throw the bag at passers-by or do I use the bag to carry the money until I throw the money at the passers-by?
All I can say is, if Keanu himself is Bob Arctor then we don't need to worry about Winona Ryder making a travesty of the book. And flipping through the copy of Scanner on my shelf (definitely on my top ten list of novels), she is mentioned throughout the story and if I recall correctly is a major influence on the plot. This is the one Dick adaptation I'm looking forward to. I haven't even touched some of the others because they look so schlocky compared to his prose.
I use the GUI and the command line equally-- on both GNU/Linux and MS Windows. However, on MS Windows, it is a much less enjoyable experience. And holy smokes, I just realized that I'm running emacs on Windows and that I need not suffer through that "Command Prompt" monstrosity ever again!
:)
Anyway, I really do about 50/50 GUI/CLI. I like GUIs for graphics, web surfing, and other tasks that are primarily visual or where "random access" is helpful (tabbing through links on a web page gets old fast, imho-- much better to home in quickly via the mouse pointer). But the CLI is great for logging into the mp3 server and starting mpg321, systems administration, running irb (interactive Ruby shell), etc. And never forget that well-designed GUIs are largely keyboard accessible so that the hands can stay where they belong instead of switching between the rolly-thingy and the keyboard.
Give Keanu a break. Anyway... the movie's going to have Winona Ryder in it. I'll suffer through a little Reeves to see her in a PKD-inspired film. My prediction: she steals the show.
Speaking as a Gentoo user of over two years now, I hope you'll go for 501(c)(3) then-- it seems to me the benefits to your supporters will outweigh the "costs" of goign that route. It's mainly that Gentoo can't be involved in political lobbying and campaign activities, right? If the FSF can meet the criteria, I should think it would be a slam-dunk for Gentoo, which seems far less political than the FSF.
While I think many of us will be happy to donate whether it's deductible or not, it's a "cherry on top" kind of thing. I'm just glad Gentoo will be officially not-for-profit now. Before, the fact of being a for-profit business always left me wondering why I would just send money if I weren't going to be given shares or something... so I ended up donating to the FSF and GNOME for my Free Software related giving. Now I can add Gentoo to the list.
The real problem with Wikis is that the link will remain there, even after it has been removed from the current page, because most Wikis have a revision history feature. So what's needed is careful set up in the robots.txt file and other HTML clues for the web crawlers to exclude anything but the most current version of a page (and to skip over the other 'action' pages, like edits, etc).
My wiki got hit by this stupid link, but not in the sandbox. Of course, recovering the previous version of the page is easy... it's wiping out any trace of the lameness that gets trickier. I suppose the easiest way to defeat this would be to require simple registration in order to edit Wiki pages.
What else can we do? Alter the names of the submit buttons and some of the other key strings involved in Editing?
Sometimes you shouldn't be serious about taking pictures.
There's also no reason to have a drive full of crummy snapshots if a few minor improvements will make them a lot more fun to look at. That doesn't mean you have to turn every picture into some huge event, of course, but I find it takes just as long to take a good picture as a bad picture once you learn to take a good picture.
Either way, I wish someone would do for Evolution what Phoenix/FireBird/FireFox have done for Mozilla. I don't need all that non-email stuff and I find Evolution's composer interface really annoying. Probably I need to RTFM some more and learn how to tweak it, but it's really as bad as Outlook when it comes to replying, colored formatting, etc.
KMail would be my client of choice except that I'm a hardcore GNOME fan in every other possible respect (especially the part of me that likes the cross-platform GPL-itude of gtk+ and the excellent Ruby-GNOME2 bindings). I'm not loading Qt and KDE just to read email.
Yet again, ACs prove that they have very little to contribute other than ad hominem attacks. First to invent/first to file is essentially the same thing when it comes down to the fact that someone who invented something on his own can be excluded from using it without a license, whether he thought of it first or whether he filed for it first. If you and I both invent something today, who is going to get the patent, the one who did it at 11am or the one who did it at 11pm? My guess: the one who files for the patent first.
That has never been true. Not only is the first inventor safe (assuming he has proof), but the first inventor can file for a patent even after publishing the idea (up to 2 years I think).
According the USPTO web site, "Occasionally two or more applications are filed by different inventors claiming substantially the same patentable invention. The patent can only be granted to one of them, and a proceeding known as an "interference" is instituted by the Office to determine who is the first inventor and entitled to the patent." This means that it's a "first post" system, even if two people working completely independent of each invent the same thing at roughly the same time. They are only going to award one patent for any invention, which means that one or the other party is going to lose the right to use something he thought up on his own.
But I would assume that although timothy may have the problem you mention (not being able to see what true Linux Dummies would miss), I'm pretty sure the publishers of the Dummies series don't. Wiley's Dummies series have always seemed like excellent books to me, whether I knew the topic cold or was a complete newbie. I have read several books from this series and my only complaint is that the books are too short. It would be nice if they would use the same style for an "Advanced Such-and-Such for Dummies" series. Fortunately these books usually set you up with a really good base to where you can pick up some other more complete text and have a fighting chance with it. On that basis, combined with timothy's positive review, I would very much recommend or buy this book for people like your mother.
I know you're joking, but the patent system is based on a "first post" methodology. That is, if you and I both work on an idea at the same time, yet independently and unaware of the other, then I run down to the patent office to get my patent while you are still in the lab, I get the patent and theoretically have the privilege of excluding you from using your own invention.
You ask me, that's problem number one that the patent system needs to solve. In the dot-com age it becomes especially important because the rapid pace of invention holds some real potential for destroying the prior art defense (i.e. if you and I both build a 15-click shopping tool for an online store within a very short time of one another, but one of us patents it first, how will the other successfully argue prior art?)
I'm not saying we need to eliminate Capitalism, just that our present form of Capitalism is full of government interventions that benefit the rich and hurt the lower classes.
You mean like protectionist trade barriers? "Hurt the lower classes"... I guess the lower classes outside the border don't count? I'm not saying that free trade automatically ensures sudden bliss for these folks, but surely they have a right to earn a living, no?
America used to be a place that prided itself on it's small businesses, on the independence of it's craftsmen.
Ah, the good old days. That never happened. Jefferson himself was a plantation owner. That's not exactly a "small" business, especially not in those times-- especially not when you consider the number of people he had enslaved there and the aristocratic atmosphere that dominated in plantation life.
So Europe doesn't have keiretsu--they still manage to make better cell phones and cars than America.
Let me know when "Europe" actually does something consistent and non-imperialist for a whole century, then we'll talk about Europe as a useful example of anything. Certain parts of Europe might make good discussion points, especially Scandinavia, but the rest of it is a mess and has been constantly changing for much of the last century.
As Keynes showed us, in some situations an economy can collapse because it doesn't have ENOUGH wealth redistribution and government spending.
And Keynes solutions never really solved the problems they were intended to solve. The second World War interrupted all that... so we'll never really know. Personally I think the idea that an economy can collapse at all is an absurdity and related to government interference in the currency markets. Wealth doesn't go away. We still have our natural resources, our manpower, our knowledge. The relative value of the dollar does not affect these things. If there is a collapse it is because the perceived value of certain pieces of paper is not well tied to the real world and everyone is simply trying to "game the system".
I used to be a rabid capitalist
I still am. Capitalism is the only system in which the workers can achieve the Marxist ideal of truly owning the means of production. The reason labor unions are losing ground is that they were always fighting the wrong battle. What the workers need is an ownership stake and direct control of their businesses. Stock ownership makes this a real possibility.
Currently the deck is stacked against the workers in terms of control, but imagine a company where a signficant amount of stock is owned by workers, these workers truly get to elect their bosses. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. CEOs get filthy rich off stock options and stock grants. Workers, instead of quibbling over little things, should be looking to emulate the techniques of the rich, not shun them. Why haven't the unions been fighting for stock options for workers and pushing for trickle-in systems like 401k matching in company stock?
Workers further enhance their own plight when they refuse to use their own earnings wisely to help prevent the social problems they perceive. Complaining about low wages and unemployment while shopping at Wal-Mart? Whining about oil prices while driving a pickup on light errands? Carping about how much time is wasted at work, just to sit home in front of the TV for 32 hours a week, on average? The people of America are getting exactly what they're paying for with both their money and their time. If that eventually leaves them unemployed and broke, that's their own problem. The "crony capitalists" have only helped them achieve their goals.
Now go crawl back in your little commie hell hole. Your type isn't welcome in the United States.
Um, yes, they are. This is a free country and they have every right to hold and advocate their political views, especially if they are naturally born citizens of this nation. The rights to believe what one will and to speak one's mind are inalienable human rights.
As to the latter portion of your reactionary rant, I would point out that the U.S. became the nation it was through stealing... stealing land (as well as the attendant natural resources) from the natives and stealing labor from slaves. Whether this prominence/dominance due to past injustices benefits those of us who live here today is debatable, of course. It is also debatable whether the nation has done anything to repay the debts it incurred when it stole land and labor from those people. The problem is that the passage of time obscures both the willingness and the ability to properly set things right.
But FWIW, I agree with most everything else you said, even if I find your tone off-putting and your economics a bit over-the-top on the Randian side of things. Obviously the existing progressive tax system hasn't prevented Bill Gates (your example) from becoming a multi-billionaire (or wanting to become one), so that seems like something of a counter-example to your argument against "progressive" tax systems.
Perhaps you should engage in less "love it or leave it" BS and start to think more critically about the issues. You'll be a lot more convincing if you acknowledge that no system is perfect, including the one you propose.
You don't mark the original, just the copies. How it works for MDs.
A most excellent and informative post! Indeed, I was just looking at a chart on roughly this same topic, but for bicycles. It was obvious that at about 25 MPH, you pretty much have reached the limit (on average) for bicycle efficiency-- you could easily see where the slope of the line for total resistance went from less than one to greater than one. I suppose with a motor vehicle it's very easy to measure by tracking gas mileage-- except that you'd really have to take careful notes and be very good at measuring distance, gas, and speed.