Putin is a protectionist...
Trump is a protectionist...
Clinton is a protectionist...
People! What is going on?? Why do we have to pay more for locally created products? That's a large part of why we overthrew the British government in the first place.
Since Yahoo! didn't build that, Elizabeth Warren and the other advanced senators should just whip up their version of Yahoo!.
Also, they will be able to use the diversity of Senator Warren's rich and VERY REAL ancestry to make it happen. Harvard understood this and so should everyone else.
People will be jumping over each other to use gov Yahoo! just like healthcare.gov.
Facebook is going to cure all disease in a matter of X years, so now Microsoft has to at least claim it will solve something comparable in comparable time.
Just like the Enlightenment promised to perfect society, and Obama promised the sea levels would begin to decline.
Conservative rulers of Seattle? Is that like Seattle, WY or Seattle, AL?
I always thought Washington (Patty Murray, etc) was a pretty blue state. When was the last time they sent their electorals to a GOP candidate? Isn't Seattle the bluest part of WA?
Once you take the profit motive out and allow centrally planned offices to remove the research redundancy and the creativity of committees to combine in these controlled ways... there is no limit to the disasters you can accomplish.
Don't forget the importance of having everyone on the engineering team educated in public institutions.
Since the government is also monitoring our emails, maybe we could send robots out to help people write their emails? Help them know what is okay and what isn't, etc.
And since DHS wants to control all the voting machines, maybe we can send the robots to help that get going and stop people from voting for opposition candidates.
And since the IRS is charging taxes based on political views, maybe we could send robots out to vote on behalf of other people or take the guns away from people who don't have the correct political views?
And maybe the robots can help the EPA "crucify" people?
And maybe the robots can help NASA with their muslim outreach?
Maybe we could use the robots to help the NEA popularize the Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare)?
Human life is too precious to be doing these things (like making choices, etc). Robots should be doing those things. Government and robots can work together to protect us!
AC's comment could be taken in 2 very different ways:
Supply side: If a company is taxed more it just raises its prices. Customers are really paying the tax.
Progressive: a bunch of lobbyists run around and get special tax shelters and loopholes. (Although the companies that do this the most donate to progressive causes, e.g. Google, General Electric, Apple, etc).
Frankly both of those are true to some extent.
By Econ 101 he was saying you fundamentally understand nothing about economics if you don't know that.
I'm a little surprised to see liberal slashdot job raise on their shoulders the post of someone who claims job losses are good.
I doubt Hillary would make that claim in the debates, because I think that would be a tough sell. As much as I would never vote for her, I give her points for being shrewd as I aspire to be.
Luddites and Marxists have traditionally tried to sell us on how income equality will somehow create jobs. Perhaps this is a Millennial adaptation to a generation that has lost interest in working. I see the same posture in the White House's response to the ACA job losses as a benefit because people are being "liberated" from the hardship of working. It sort of puts the abortion argument (that it dignifies people with the ability to work) on its head, not that that was really ever a genuine intention.
Setting aside my personal reluctance to get fired, a big problem is the task of sustaining all this. What if everyone stops working? Great that we are all more fit (not quite convinced on that, but stranger things have happened), but who is going to make the stuff we want and provide the stuff we need?
To answer this question with the news has anyone seen the cost for a dozen eggs in Venezuela is now $150?
Right, I know it's the right wing rag, the LA Times.
Eggs cost that much there because people can now just live off the government and no one wants to be bothered with the trouble of keeping chickens and harvesting their eggs. Keep in mind Chavez died with $2 billion -so much for the desire to redistribute money to other people (unless you are describing a way for the government to redistribute to themselves).
So I am going to go out on a limb and say unless the job is thievery or prostitution (portrayed as pioneers of sharing), the government shouldn't be trying to stop it.
Slashdot Mirror
In the future a GOP president will try to fire these corrupt turkeys, but then the media will tell us they are "politically motivated firings".
And can't disobey the media, right?
"You really need to understand the market before you start operating there."
... piece of cake !!
Directly observing the invisible hand
Typical view that in order to succeed you have to hurt people.
So why was the Soviet Union such a spectacular failure?
Let their competitors sink a lot of money into expensive technology people don't have the money for.
Putin is a protectionist ...
Trump is a protectionist ...
Clinton is a protectionist ...
People! What is going on?? Why do we have to pay more for locally created products? That's a large part of why we overthrew the British government in the first place.
What about when the earth was so warm the Vikings moved into Greenland, Iceland, Newfoundland, etc. ?
That claim sounds a little far fetched.
Like something that got blurbed out at the debate last night.
Since Yahoo! didn't build that, Elizabeth Warren and the other advanced senators should just whip up their version of Yahoo!.
Also, they will be able to use the diversity of Senator Warren's rich and VERY REAL ancestry to make it happen. Harvard understood this and so should everyone else.
People will be jumping over each other to use gov Yahoo! just like healthcare.gov.
Easily followed, sure ... you just hand it over.
Reasonable in that the government has a reason to enrich itself.
Foreign companies are essentially bottomless piggy banks, right?
We're just helping ourselves to our fair share.
Reminds me of how the Soviets kept tabs on Chernobyl, cheaped out submarines, and imposed starvations.
In glorious Soviet Union less than 60% of deaths are directly from the hands of the government.
Whether or not people prefer to live in this glorious land is arbitrary, subjective, capitalist pig, counter-revolutionary drivel.
Cool! Is it cheaper than diesel?
Facebook is going to cure all disease in a matter of X years, so now Microsoft has to at least claim it will solve something comparable in comparable time.
Just like the Enlightenment promised to perfect society, and Obama promised the sea levels would begin to decline.
Poof!
*Cough* *Cough*
The article said this was well below the reputation of other space programs.
NASA is probably the largest space program and arguably owned by the most free market oriented nation in the world.
Scary. Hard to wrap my brain around.
I'm not an anarchist, but sometimes I strongly feel a state of nature would be better than this kind of enforced abuse.
Conservative rulers of Seattle? Is that like Seattle, WY or Seattle, AL?
I always thought Washington (Patty Murray, etc) was a pretty blue state. When was the last time they sent their electorals to a GOP candidate? Isn't Seattle the bluest part of WA?
Once you take the profit motive out and allow centrally planned offices to remove the research redundancy and the creativity of committees to combine in these controlled ways ... there is no limit to the disasters you can accomplish.
Don't forget the importance of having everyone on the engineering team educated in public institutions.
Since the government is also monitoring our emails, maybe we could send robots out to help people write their emails? Help them know what is okay and what isn't, etc.
And since DHS wants to control all the voting machines, maybe we can send the robots to help that get going and stop people from voting for opposition candidates.
And since the IRS is charging taxes based on political views, maybe we could send robots out to vote on behalf of other people or take the guns away from people who don't have the correct political views?
And maybe the robots can help the EPA "crucify" people?
And maybe the robots can help NASA with their muslim outreach?
Maybe we could use the robots to help the NEA popularize the Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare)?
Human life is too precious to be doing these things (like making choices, etc). Robots should be doing those things. Government and robots can work together to protect us!
Agreed.
AC's comment could be taken in 2 very different ways:
Supply side: If a company is taxed more it just raises its prices. Customers are really paying the tax.
Progressive: a bunch of lobbyists run around and get special tax shelters and loopholes. (Although the companies that do this the most donate to progressive causes, e.g. Google, General Electric, Apple, etc).
Frankly both of those are true to some extent.
By Econ 101 he was saying you fundamentally understand nothing about economics if you don't know that.
That's because of the Bill of Rights:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
America takes a lot of derision from other countries because we tend to focus on individual freedom/responsibility.
... that was ultimately her decision alone. If someone "forces" you to commit suicide, it's not really a suicide.
At least compared to other places.
The suicide part
I worked at a credit union in NC. They have 20% less overhead because they don't pay taxes.
So everyone works 20% less hard because of an unfair exemption they have. Rewarding their laziness.
Just a part of the crony capitalism narrative as far as I can tell.
I'm a little surprised to see liberal slashdot job raise on their shoulders the post of someone who claims job losses are good.
I doubt Hillary would make that claim in the debates, because I think that would be a tough sell. As much as I would never vote for her, I give her points for being shrewd as I aspire to be.
Luddites and Marxists have traditionally tried to sell us on how income equality will somehow create jobs. Perhaps this is a Millennial adaptation to a generation that has lost interest in working. I see the same posture in the White House's response to the ACA job losses as a benefit because people are being "liberated" from the hardship of working. It sort of puts the abortion argument (that it dignifies people with the ability to work) on its head, not that that was really ever a genuine intention.
Setting aside my personal reluctance to get fired, a big problem is the task of sustaining all this. What if everyone stops working? Great that we are all more fit (not quite convinced on that, but stranger things have happened), but who is going to make the stuff we want and provide the stuff we need?
To answer this question with the news has anyone seen the cost for a dozen eggs in Venezuela is now $150?
http://www.latimes.com/world/m...
Right, I know it's the right wing rag, the LA Times.
Eggs cost that much there because people can now just live off the government and no one wants to be bothered with the trouble of keeping chickens and harvesting their eggs. Keep in mind Chavez died with $2 billion -so much for the desire to redistribute money to other people (unless you are describing a way for the government to redistribute to themselves).
So I am going to go out on a limb and say unless the job is thievery or prostitution (portrayed as pioneers of sharing), the government shouldn't be trying to stop it.
I don't mind being scared.
I do mind paying taxes.
Now they limit your messages based on politics and not on length.