They will do everything you say, and nothing bad will occur as long as the money supply follows adequately. There are liquidity crisis in Capitalism that is a documented and known phenomena, and the solution is also well known, and was well known even at that time. No matter how much you try to spin it, the one at fault there was the government, and the government alone.
You, as all totalitarian friendly people, think that taking the control from people who can make bad decisions and placing it in the hands of a few enlightened people is the magical solution to avoid crisis. Well, my friend, it is everything but this. The millions that died from starvation in famine crisis in USSR, China, North Korea, and every single totalitarian regimen that has existed in the face of this planet show this very well. The 1929 recession was paradise next to these.
No, my friend, it was the governments fault for not doing what only it could do, because it forbids everyone else to do it. If you take a given responsibility for yourself, under the threat of force, the blame is on you when you don't do what needs to be done to fulfill it. Controlling the amount of real currency available in the market is the responsibility of those who have the power to print it.
People with lots of money are not infallible, but governments aren't either, and unlike people with lots of money, governments can take your money by force and do a whole lot more damage in the process.
Not even remotely close to it. Private Banks can't go as far because they have to respond to laws and to the government. Bad governments can go as far as they wish especially after the point they become authoritarian.
The Great Depression as basically a liquidity crisis and was a direct consequence of the incompetence of the government in doing the only thing nobody else could do at the time, and the very thing it is very fond to do nowadays in excess: print money. It was nobody else's fault.
The government obviously put the blame for the crisis on the bankers and used the opportunity to grab more power, as usually. In the Words of Harry Browne:
"Government is good at one thing: It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, 'See, if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk.' "
Seems like this economist is too fond of governments to be really objective. The last quote in the summary was specially awful. No bank or financial institution will ever be able to do as much harm to a population as a bad government.
That said he has a point regarding government interests in taking virtual currencies down or controlling them. The thing is, technologies evolve, and albeit bitcoin may find its end in government interventions, sooner or later other alternatives that are even harder for governments to control will appear. It was the same with file sharing and it will be always like this. People resent control and given the means to avoid it most will.
If you still think males are privileged after this I would suggest "The Myth of Male Power", by Warren Farrell, which was based on real data, unlike the "sociological texts" you mention.
If after all this you still stubbornly insist in keeping to your prejudices I advise you, as a chock treatment, to try and go see all those privileged men working in manual labor, in mines and other dangerous situations. After that go also to any war field and count female bodies against male bodies to see how privileged males are. Then go check how many men live on the streets and compare to the similar women population.
I could go on and on, but I think by now you either got the point or you never will.
Ok, I understand and mostly agree with you, but I think that there is already plenty of support for girls to develop the choices and interests that most of them are not inclined to do. For guys there is almost none, and what is worse there are increasing incentives for them to drop studies in order to make the average more adequate to some warped visions of "equality".
The point is that it seems that it just doesn't get much better than what we have in STEM fields and specially in CS. A few decades ago, all professions were male dominant, and all women that decided to go into Law, Medicine or any other profession faced the problem of being vastly outnumbered by males in their professions. Regardless of any inhibition they may have had to enter male dominated fields, the truth is that today we have pretty much equal distributions in these fields (or at least close enough to it).
In short my point is, if a field is attractive women will eventually become more representative there regardless of any initial inhibitions.
Regarding your last lines I apologize for misunderstanding you. It is indeed hard to properly identify sarcasm in written remarks. Poe's law is there to remind us of this fact.
Please, my friend, are you implying that women have no access to libraries, computers or the Internet?
And girls are very encouraged and pampered to go to STEM fields. The governments spends billions, punish teachers are schools and does everything to "encourage" them. And you know what is the funny thing? No matter how much you "encourage" them, most of them just don't want to go there, and this amount is almost exactly the same in countries that encourage more and in countries that don't give a damn. Funny, isn't it?
If you watched the video you will see that although nurture do have some effect in the behavior of adults, all the pointed studies concluded that it has very little effect in career choice. Some women do have predisposition to this kind of task, as I am sure it is your case, but most simply do not and do not want to have anything to do with it, which is perfectly fine, in a free society they are free to do whatever pleases them more.
A Chick whose favorite class is CS will have all the opportunities in the world to go this way. She does not need draconian policies that do not help her at all and hinder her male counterparts and the institutions that can properly train her. If she is good enough she will have a bright future ahead, if she is not she better find something else in the very same way that happens to guys.
You do your gender no favor by preaching that you must be pampered and given special attention to be able to do anything, and even less favor to yourself by saying things like "testosterone induced opinions" when you dislike some guy's opinion. It makes your environment, that otherwise would be very friendly, instantly hostile.
Oh, and applying those incentives will matter, because our society is based in titles. By taking the opportunity of better qualified people, and who are actually willing to go to a certain area, in name of an arbitrary notion of "equality", you are doing nobody a favor.
This "stuff" is indeed genetic as much of the skills from humankind. You can ignore it and try to force people to do what you think they should be doing forever and the results will be the same, most of them will keep drifting towards the areas where they are most gifted. That is what happens in all cultures, and the freer and richer a country is the greater these differences become, because the more people can actually choose to do whatever they want the more the won`t conform to your preconceived ideas of "equality". That is why you have more female engineers in India than you have in Norway or Sweden, for example. In India they need to take whatever gives them money to survive, in Norway they can choose and despite all attempts of gender "equality" people keep choosing against the wishes of people like you.
More than that, why don't we accept that genders may have different interests and live with that? As long as any person of each gender has the freedom to do whatever he or she pleases with their professional lives, which is already guaranteed by law, I don't see a problem in having 90% males in Engineering and 90% females in Nursing.
You don't know a single competent programmer who just started programming just because they wanted to. They started programming because they had the opportunity to, and the support.
Bullshit, I self taught myself. I had no teacher and my parents were computer illiterate, and many of the greatest programmers I know followed the exact same pattern.
And keep in mind that there wasn't the internet then, I had to learn from the few books on the subject I could acquire or borrow in the public library. Today all you need is access to a computer and to an Internet connection.
probably unconscious, but nevertheless well-researched and documented
Sorry to pop your bubble, but the only documented bias that exist these days is against male students, and in every field of knowledge, not only in CS, and it is a bias reinforced by initiatives like this.
A country that follows social democratic policies. Read about social democracy and you may understand. And yes there are many social democratic countries in Europe, despite which party governs them at the moment. The most famous being the Nordic countries.
And you are horribly mistaken if you think Venezuela and Bolivia are not socialist, my friend, but to each his own. Keep believing in your fairy tales.
We see MANY cases where CEOs wreck company after company and yet always seem to land in a high paying position.
Even if you were right, it is the company's problem. If they want to throw their money away into someone that is not returning their investment is well within their right to do. You or the government has no business telling them what to do, and no way to enforce your way anyway.
The CEO are not "just a COG in the machine", otherwise at least some of the most successful companies would have very low paid CEOs, which is not the case. Against facts there are no arguments, my friend.
But it is easy to make any group the 'other'. Everybody is always eager to hate, as you are my friend.
And in Egypt the chain of command was not broken. People at the top were divided and one faction won. Additionally they ended considerably worse than they were before the first "revolution". Wait a little bit more and you may yet see another coup there.
You should study it, my friend. Bourgeoisie is a term that means commoners who were business owners, and many of them were much richer than the nobles. As a group, att that time they held the economic power and the nobles held the political power.
Because military personel seldom revolt. They are trained to follow the chain of command and that is exactly what most of them will do. Otherwise we would not have the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Nazi German, etc.
Not at all. My answer is to let the market deal with problems it can deal with much more efficiently than any government, as have been proven time and again. Your "solutions", on the other hand do not solve anything and actually make things worse, if history serves.
There are at least two socialist countries in South America at the moment, and considerably more if you consider social democracy as socialism, which I personally do not. There are no socialist countries in Western Europe, but there are plenty of Social-Democratic countries there, and none of them is more advanced than USA.
Some may have better welfare, at least as long as their money lasts, but all of them are considerably behind in technological and scientific advancement, in economic power and military power, and in industrial production, and therefore are quite less advanced.
Slashdot Mirror
They will do everything you say, and nothing bad will occur as long as the money supply follows adequately. There are liquidity crisis in Capitalism that is a documented and known phenomena, and the solution is also well known, and was well known even at that time. No matter how much you try to spin it, the one at fault there was the government, and the government alone.
You, as all totalitarian friendly people, think that taking the control from people who can make bad decisions and placing it in the hands of a few enlightened people is the magical solution to avoid crisis. Well, my friend, it is everything but this. The millions that died from starvation in famine crisis in USSR, China, North Korea, and every single totalitarian regimen that has existed in the face of this planet show this very well. The 1929 recession was paradise next to these.
No, my friend, it was the governments fault for not doing what only it could do, because it forbids everyone else to do it. If you take a given responsibility for yourself, under the threat of force, the blame is on you when you don't do what needs to be done to fulfill it. Controlling the amount of real currency available in the market is the responsibility of those who have the power to print it.
People with lots of money are not infallible, but governments aren't either, and unlike people with lots of money, governments can take your money by force and do a whole lot more damage in the process.
Not even remotely close to it. Private Banks can't go as far because they have to respond to laws and to the government. Bad governments can go as far as they wish especially after the point they become authoritarian.
The Great Depression as basically a liquidity crisis and was a direct consequence of the incompetence of the government in doing the only thing nobody else could do at the time, and the very thing it is very fond to do nowadays in excess: print money. It was nobody else's fault.
The government obviously put the blame for the crisis on the bankers and used the opportunity to grab more power, as usually. In the Words of Harry Browne:
"Government is good at one thing: It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, 'See, if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk.' "
Seems like this economist is too fond of governments to be really objective. The last quote in the summary was specially awful. No bank or financial institution will ever be able to do as much harm to a population as a bad government.
That said he has a point regarding government interests in taking virtual currencies down or controlling them. The thing is, technologies evolve, and albeit bitcoin may find its end in government interventions, sooner or later other alternatives that are even harder for governments to control will appear. It was the same with file sharing and it will be always like this. People resent control and given the means to avoid it most will.
I suggest you start peeling your ignorance by reading "The War Against Boys", from Christina Hoff Sommers.
Than you can proceed by watching this video, which will enlighten you about the causes of your gender gap:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70
If you still think males are privileged after this I would suggest "The Myth of Male Power", by Warren Farrell, which was based on real data, unlike the "sociological texts" you mention.
If after all this you still stubbornly insist in keeping to your prejudices I advise you, as a chock treatment, to try and go see all those privileged men working in manual labor, in mines and other dangerous situations. After that go also to any war field and count female bodies against male bodies to see how privileged males are. Then go check how many men live on the streets and compare to the similar women population.
I could go on and on, but I think by now you either got the point or you never will.
Ok, I understand and mostly agree with you, but I think that there is already plenty of support for girls to develop the choices and interests that most of them are not inclined to do. For guys there is almost none, and what is worse there are increasing incentives for them to drop studies in order to make the average more adequate to some warped visions of "equality".
The point is that it seems that it just doesn't get much better than what we have in STEM fields and specially in CS. A few decades ago, all professions were male dominant, and all women that decided to go into Law, Medicine or any other profession faced the problem of being vastly outnumbered by males in their professions. Regardless of any inhibition they may have had to enter male dominated fields, the truth is that today we have pretty much equal distributions in these fields (or at least close enough to it).
In short my point is, if a field is attractive women will eventually become more representative there regardless of any initial inhibitions.
Regarding your last lines I apologize for misunderstanding you. It is indeed hard to properly identify sarcasm in written remarks. Poe's law is there to remind us of this fact.
Please, my friend, are you implying that women have no access to libraries, computers or the Internet?
And girls are very encouraged and pampered to go to STEM fields. The governments spends billions, punish teachers are schools and does everything to "encourage" them. And you know what is the funny thing? No matter how much you "encourage" them, most of them just don't want to go there, and this amount is almost exactly the same in countries that encourage more and in countries that don't give a damn. Funny, isn't it?
If you watched the video you will see that although nurture do have some effect in the behavior of adults, all the pointed studies concluded that it has very little effect in career choice. Some women do have predisposition to this kind of task, as I am sure it is your case, but most simply do not and do not want to have anything to do with it, which is perfectly fine, in a free society they are free to do whatever pleases them more.
A Chick whose favorite class is CS will have all the opportunities in the world to go this way. She does not need draconian policies that do not help her at all and hinder her male counterparts and the institutions that can properly train her. If she is good enough she will have a bright future ahead, if she is not she better find something else in the very same way that happens to guys.
You do your gender no favor by preaching that you must be pampered and given special attention to be able to do anything, and even less favor to yourself by saying things like "testosterone induced opinions" when you dislike some guy's opinion. It makes your environment, that otherwise would be very friendly, instantly hostile.
Oh, and applying those incentives will matter, because our society is based in titles. By taking the opportunity of better qualified people, and who are actually willing to go to a certain area, in name of an arbitrary notion of "equality", you are doing nobody a favor.
This "stuff" is indeed genetic as much of the skills from humankind. You can ignore it and try to force people to do what you think they should be doing forever and the results will be the same, most of them will keep drifting towards the areas where they are most gifted. That is what happens in all cultures, and the freer and richer a country is the greater these differences become, because the more people can actually choose to do whatever they want the more the won`t conform to your preconceived ideas of "equality". That is why you have more female engineers in India than you have in Norway or Sweden, for example. In India they need to take whatever gives them money to survive, in Norway they can choose and despite all attempts of gender "equality" people keep choosing against the wishes of people like you.
I call bullshit again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70
More than that, why don't we accept that genders may have different interests and live with that? As long as any person of each gender has the freedom to do whatever he or she pleases with their professional lives, which is already guaranteed by law, I don't see a problem in having 90% males in Engineering and 90% females in Nursing.
You don't know a single competent programmer who just started programming just because they wanted to. They started programming because they had the opportunity to, and the support.
Bullshit, I self taught myself. I had no teacher and my parents were computer illiterate, and many of the greatest programmers I know followed the exact same pattern.
And keep in mind that there wasn't the internet then, I had to learn from the few books on the subject I could acquire or borrow in the public library. Today all you need is access to a computer and to an Internet connection.
probably unconscious, but nevertheless well-researched and documented
Sorry to pop your bubble, but the only documented bias that exist these days is against male students, and in every field of knowledge, not only in CS, and it is a bias reinforced by initiatives like this.
What is a social democratic country for you?
A country that follows social democratic policies. Read about social democracy and you may understand. And yes there are many social democratic countries in Europe, despite which party governs them at the moment. The most famous being the Nordic countries.
And you are horribly mistaken if you think Venezuela and Bolivia are not socialist, my friend, but to each his own. Keep believing in your fairy tales.
We see MANY cases where CEOs wreck company after company and yet always seem to land in a high paying position.
Even if you were right, it is the company's problem. If they want to throw their money away into someone that is not returning their investment is well within their right to do. You or the government has no business telling them what to do, and no way to enforce your way anyway.
The CEO are not "just a COG in the machine", otherwise at least some of the most successful companies would have very low paid CEOs, which is not the case. Against facts there are no arguments, my friend.
No, my friend, the government did, there is always the government in the beginning of any economical mess.
But it is easy to make any group the 'other'. Everybody is always eager to hate, as you are my friend.
And in Egypt the chain of command was not broken. People at the top were divided and one faction won. Additionally they ended considerably worse than they were before the first "revolution". Wait a little bit more and you may yet see another coup there.
LOL. I see you have very weird theories, my friend. Were aliens involved? Or the Illuminati?
You should study it, my friend. Bourgeoisie is a term that means commoners who were business owners, and many of them were much richer than the nobles. As a group, att that time they held the economic power and the nobles held the political power.
Because military personel seldom revolt. They are trained to follow the chain of command and that is exactly what most of them will do. Otherwise we would not have the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Nazi German, etc.
Not at all. It is at worst a temporary inconvenient to corporations, and often an opportunity for profit. ;)
Not at all. My answer is to let the market deal with problems it can deal with much more efficiently than any government, as have been proven time and again. Your "solutions", on the other hand do not solve anything and actually make things worse, if history serves.
There are at least two socialist countries in South America at the moment, and considerably more if you consider social democracy as socialism, which I personally do not. There are no socialist countries in Western Europe, but there are plenty of Social-Democratic countries there, and none of them is more advanced than USA.
Some may have better welfare, at least as long as their money lasts, but all of them are considerably behind in technological and scientific advancement, in economic power and military power, and in industrial production, and therefore are quite less advanced.
I have been in all of them, and I live in one of them. You should take your advice and go see for yourself, though.