If the parents gets to decide with no further input then half the kids in Kansas will be doomed to flipping hamburgers and praising the lord for the rest of their lives.
Another factor during this time was paternalism on the side of the slave owners. They felt they were doing the slaves a favor by providing them with a home, clothing and food when all they want in return is some labor. They thought that without the owners, slaves would not be able to care for themselves and so by looking after the slaves, the owners were being kind.
I guess it's a good thing the Kansas folks have you to make their decisions for them.
I'm getting disgusted with these people whose minds are so narrow that they are oblivious to the world around them. I am a Christian myself and people making comments like the ones in the article only make all of us look ridiculous.
And that's exactly why this article is posted on Slashdot. Slashdot is a leftist web site. Hatred of Christians is one of the left's platform planks. This article was posted to feed that hatred. And so you see it here.
And that's undoubtedly also why the article appeared in the Seattle newspaper.
I think the education system could be improved greatly
Improve it for who? The education system is about one thing above all others: payroll. Every decision made regarding the education system is made to maximize payroll.
Vouchers don't increase payroll. Therefore, the education establishment is against vouchers.
Without getting into the details, if you inflate everyone's income, then prices will reflect (oversimplified, but not incorrect).
Might I suggest not "inflating everyone's income" then? CEOs and the amount they are paid don't inflate. The government increasing the money supply inflates. They've done a good job of keeping inflation low for more than 20 years now, at least in the US.
It's not really an important factor in the income inequality discussion. Income is income in a year, not income over the course of time.
There is a term, "inflation." You should learn about it.
Inflation is very low in the US economy. It's not a significant factor.
When the total amount of money in a system increases (everyone gets raises) then the cost of goods increase. It ends up being a zero sum game for small closed systems, like the example here.
We're in luck then. The US economy and the world economy aren't a small closed system.
And my example was of a company with a CEO and an employee. Clearly, that's not a closed system. It's really just a company and an employee.
Is inflation the only card in the deck for you guys? Joe six-pack knows he has more money than he used to, we'll tell him he actually has less because of inflation. But he also knows he can buy more and better things than he could before, so it'll be a hard sell.
Until you have read Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, Fredrick Hayek, etc., you cannot expect to take serious part in an adult discussion of economics.
You don't actually have to read that stuff. I haven't, though I've listened to people who have and read columns and blogs and such.
Economics is actually quite simple. If this stuff weren't so simple, a lot of background like that would be necessary. Maybe they help people who have preconceived biases or something. They'd probably help Mr. Zero Sum Game because he'd go through the books looking for why they're wrong and not find anything.
It's a lot of "they are making too much money and I think it's wrong because....because....because it's just too much." "Buzzword, buzzword, they are out to get you, buzzword." "Carefully chosen extreme example followed by argument that extreme example is the norm." Etc, etc, etc. That's just a paraphrase though.
Believe it or not if you want to engage in a coherent debate with someone you do in fact have to read and understand what the other person said, respond coherently to what was actually said and not just start spewing random garbage out of your own head or maybe pulling stuff out of your ass.
Yeah maybe. But you went on and on and then didn't make discrete points other than "CEOs make too much". There was no "here's what we should do about it".
What are the debate points? Whether they make too much money? I don't think I have the right to judge what's "too much" money unless I'm involved in the transaction somehow. In these cases, I'm not.
I know a lot of people motivated by envy and hate and greed want to take some money from people who have a lot of it. Some other people who are motivated by their own high opinion of themselves think they know how much money everyone should have and think they're smart enough to make it work out that way -- by taking money from people and, if it's convenient, giving part of it to some other people.
You don't indicate if you're one of these two, just that you're complaining about how much money some CEOs (not Steve Jobs) make.
Since you apparently have no clue what I actually said, it just makes you look stupid.
I hope this post doesn't do that. Because that's not the objective at all.
There was just soooo much of it. All the arguments are always the same.
"Gimme, gimme, gimme" "Envy is good" "Being motivated by hate and greed and envy is morally right, we're calling it social justice now." "What about the children?" "Unfair, unfair, unfair. Boo hoo." "THEY are out to get you." "Be afraid and let fear motivate your decisions."
Can't you just pick one or two from the list and leave out the paragraphs and paragraphs of fluff, justifications, sob stories, and equivocations?
I suppose I will have to go back and read the rest of your post now -- lest I be unfair.
Also, no one has mentioned that in 2004 they changed the way they do CPI calculations, so the Real rate of inflation is closer to 12% but no one knows it.
Oh yeah, the "REAL RATE". There's always a secret REAL NUMBER of something when the commonly understood numbers don't support your arguments. It's just that THEY (the hated people who conspire against US) secretly manipulate things to hide the REAL NUMBERS. Watch out for THEM! THEY are coming for you. And don't believe anything that doesn't support your preconceived bias, that's just THEM trying to trick you.
WE know the truth. NO ONE ELSE does. WE are smarter and more discerning and care more than everyone else. Oh yes! WE are not conspiracy nuts at all. That's just what THEY want you to think. NO ONE listens to US.
If productivity increases (and thus net wealth, but this was immaterial to my earlier points) is it acceptable when one portion of the population reaps the benefits while another does not?
Yes. It's also inevitable. People have differing levels of productivity increase, so they'll get differing benefits. It's impossible to make the benefit equal without eliminating the productivity increase. And even then, the results of those actions won't be equal either.
Is it acceptable that the sun rises and sets?
This is not trivial, for the large majority of people in the US, their inflation-adjusted income has decreased over the past couple decades -- and the rate of decrease is increasing.
This is simply not the case.
...the net result of this (as can be seen in almost all societies with inequitable distribution) is social unrest and decreased productivity, which is good for no one.
And yet we have hugely increased productivity in the US "over the past couple of decades". And there's little sign of widespread social unrest. Hmmmm.
Why should a select few reap the benefits of the increased productivity of the many?
They don't. Almost everyone benefits. Just not the same amount.
It's not just about people being poor, it's about them being poorer than they could be.
Everyone is always "poorer than they could be". It's an imperfect world.
Why set the bar so low as to say that as long as people are a tiny bit more comfortable, that should be enough? Why not raise the standard of living higher across the board?
It's happening. The standard of living is improving. The US is a wealthy nation and things continue to get better for ordinary people.
Why? I said roads are self-funding. Does it really change the point significantly if it's discovered that they're only 93% self-funding? (They're not. The US Federal government has a huge gas tax that collects a lot more than the Feds spend on roads.)
Do you understand the concept of monetary supply and inflation?
Yes.
More cash does NOT buy more in our system...
Yes it does.
more cash merely dilutes the value of cash.
Only if the government increases the money supply. If a company pays their employees more, it doesn't. This is regardless of who in the company get how much of the increase.
The only way to get more purchasing power (which is a real term, and doesn't need quotes) is to have proportionately more cash in relation to everyone else.
No. If productivity increases, total wealth increases without the cost of goods increasing. Everyone can buy more in the aggregate. The proportionality doesn't change that.
No, not good for everyone. It is a zero-sum game.
Free economic systems are a positive sum game. When free people trade, each party in the trade is better off than they were before the trade. Were that not so, one party or the other would decline to complete the trade. Total wealth is created in each trade.
What happens if everyone gets a raise in the system? Goods get more expensive, and that raise is wiped out. If your raise was smaller than the average, it means that you, net, lost income.
Inflation is like 3 percent. Why are you pretending it's a huge factor in the economy? In theory, inflation can be a big problem. But it isn't in the US economy (with all our huge income disparities) so stop trying to tell people it is.
I'm not trying to trick people.
Clearly you are. If you weren't, then there's no reason to bring up inflation. We have very low inflation despite our "potentially catastrophic inequitable system".
You're trying to trick people into thinking they're poorer when they're better off.
The groupthink is: - Hate corporations - Hate DRM - Download all your media for free on the internet. A reasonable price is $0.
So the answer is yes. All DRM is bad unless RMS writes it and it allows us to get all our entertainment media for free on the internet. If people from corporations are maimed or killed by this DRM somehow, then Slashdot might be OK with it. As long as it runs on Linux and there's source code available.
I'm sure you'll change your opinion when your neighbor's house is burning and the fly embers will ignite your house if the fire is not properly contained.
They show up to the fire. If I paid the fee, they protect my house. If I didn't, they don't.
Because when the top officers of the company are getting these ridiculous compensation packages, salaries, staggering option grants, pension and golden parachutes, they are draining a finite pool for either the other shareholders, customers or workers. They are either diluting the value of the stock...
Yeah, Steve Jobs is really diluting the value of that Apple stock with his huge compensation package. I wonder why the shareholders don't just get rid of him?
See what happened? The increased inequity resulted in each workig having a smaller proportion of purchasing power. This effect is magnified when the ratio of CEOs to workers decreases... see why the income disparity can be a problem?
No. I don't pay my bills with a "proportion of purchasing power". I use cash. More cash buys more in our system, regardless of what proportion it is of the total amount of "purchasing power".
In your example, everyone gets a raise. The company must be doing fairly well. Good for everyone.
Stop trying to trick people. Economics is simple and logical unless you're trying to warp the arguments to support a non-free economic system.
It's none of your business what he does with his money.
If he doesn't need $50 of it, and puts it away somewhere, it doesn't flow back into the economy, causing problems.
Yeah. In your world, a lot of CEOs have big rooms in their houses filled with huge stacks of $100 bills. In the real world, they invest their money or put it in the bank. Either way, it's used in the economy.
If instead, the CEO gets $80 and the employee gets $21, the CEO is still well off (having the ability to invest the $30 after his original $50 in expenses), and the employee is much better off (with $20 more), and more of it flows back into the economy.
Investment is as important or more important than consumption to the economy.
Besides, don't you mean "the CEO gets $100, then the government takes $60 of it, uses $55 to pay government overhead, and gives the employee $5. And then the government takes away $3 of that the following year."?
Isn't that how it's supposed to work?
No. There is no "supposed to work". People are free. They're not "supposed" to do anything based on your wishes for the outcome.
Slashdot Mirror
The rest of the world have made up their minds and are doing it without the US...
That's all the US wants. You people do your own thing and stop trying to steal money from us with your greenhouse gas emissions credits scam.
Thanks in advance,
USA
And then poor you - you have to listen to a rational minority *complain* about you...
Not complaining. Just pointing it out and hoping people will think twice about being associated with hate-based ideologies.
Go ahead though. Hatred is free speech too.
I am reminded of something...
Quote from a web site:
I guess it's a good thing the Kansas folks have you to make their decisions for them.
I just want to say sorry from all us normal Christians.
Why?
You know you're talking to folks who hate you right? It's a matter of their political and social identity for them to hate Christians.
Why apologize to such people? Maybe the black folks should apologize to the KKK too?
I'm getting disgusted with these people whose minds are so narrow that they are oblivious to the world around them. I am a Christian myself and people making comments like the ones in the article only make all of us look ridiculous.
And that's exactly why this article is posted on Slashdot. Slashdot is a leftist web site. Hatred of Christians is one of the left's platform planks. This article was posted to feed that hatred. And so you see it here.
And that's undoubtedly also why the article appeared in the Seattle newspaper.
Get used to it.
I think the education system could be improved greatly
Improve it for who? The education system is about one thing above all others: payroll. Every decision made regarding the education system is made to maximize payroll.
Vouchers don't increase payroll. Therefore, the education establishment is against vouchers.
Who sets those standards?
The person with the voucher: the parent.
What do you propose be done about this bad thing that, if we agree with you and feel bad about it, makes us so unhappy? Spread the unhappy word?
your head must hurt from all that forelock tugging
?
Without getting into the details, if you inflate everyone's income, then prices will reflect (oversimplified, but not incorrect).
Might I suggest not "inflating everyone's income" then? CEOs and the amount they are paid don't inflate. The government increasing the money supply inflates. They've done a good job of keeping inflation low for more than 20 years now, at least in the US.
It's not really an important factor in the income inequality discussion. Income is income in a year, not income over the course of time.
There is a term, "inflation." You should learn about it.
Inflation is very low in the US economy. It's not a significant factor.
When the total amount of money in a system increases (everyone gets raises) then the cost of goods increase. It ends up being a zero sum game for small closed systems, like the example here.
We're in luck then. The US economy and the world economy aren't a small closed system.
And my example was of a company with a CEO and an employee. Clearly, that's not a closed system. It's really just a company and an employee.
Is inflation the only card in the deck for you guys? Joe six-pack knows he has more money than he used to, we'll tell him he actually has less because of inflation. But he also knows he can buy more and better things than he could before, so it'll be a hard sell.
Until you have read Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, Fredrick Hayek, etc., you cannot expect to take serious part in an adult discussion of economics.
You don't actually have to read that stuff. I haven't, though I've listened to people who have and read columns and blogs and such.
Economics is actually quite simple. If this stuff weren't so simple, a lot of background like that would be necessary. Maybe they help people who have preconceived biases or something. They'd probably help Mr. Zero Sum Game because he'd go through the books looking for why they're wrong and not find anything.
Ok, I read it.
It's a lot of "they are making too much money and I think it's wrong because....because....because it's just too much." "Buzzword, buzzword, they are out to get you, buzzword." "Carefully chosen extreme example followed by argument that extreme example is the norm." Etc, etc, etc. That's just a paraphrase though.
Believe it or not if you want to engage in a coherent debate with someone you do in fact have to read and understand what the other person said, respond coherently to what was actually said and not just start spewing random garbage out of your own head or maybe pulling stuff out of your ass.
Yeah maybe. But you went on and on and then didn't make discrete points other than "CEOs make too much". There was no "here's what we should do about it".
What are the debate points? Whether they make too much money? I don't think I have the right to judge what's "too much" money unless I'm involved in the transaction somehow. In these cases, I'm not.
I know a lot of people motivated by envy and hate and greed want to take some money from people who have a lot of it. Some other people who are motivated by their own high opinion of themselves think they know how much money everyone should have and think they're smart enough to make it work out that way -- by taking money from people and, if it's convenient, giving part of it to some other people.
You don't indicate if you're one of these two, just that you're complaining about how much money some CEOs (not Steve Jobs) make.
Since you apparently have no clue what I actually said, it just makes you look stupid.
I hope this post doesn't do that. Because that's not the objective at all.
Try reading my whole post smart ass
There was just soooo much of it. All the arguments are always the same.
"Gimme, gimme, gimme"
"Envy is good"
"Being motivated by hate and greed and envy is morally right, we're calling it social justice now."
"What about the children?"
"Unfair, unfair, unfair. Boo hoo."
"THEY are out to get you."
"Be afraid and let fear motivate your decisions."
Can't you just pick one or two from the list and leave out the paragraphs and paragraphs of fluff, justifications, sob stories, and equivocations?
I suppose I will have to go back and read the rest of your post now -- lest I be unfair.
Also, no one has mentioned that in 2004 they changed the way they do CPI calculations, so the Real rate of inflation is closer to 12% but no one knows it.
Oh yeah, the "REAL RATE". There's always a secret REAL NUMBER of something when the commonly understood numbers don't support your arguments. It's just that THEY (the hated people who conspire against US) secretly manipulate things to hide the REAL NUMBERS. Watch out for THEM! THEY are coming for you. And don't believe anything that doesn't support your preconceived bias, that's just THEM trying to trick you.
WE know the truth. NO ONE ELSE does. WE are smarter and more discerning and care more than everyone else. Oh yes! WE are not conspiracy nuts at all. That's just what THEY want you to think. NO ONE listens to US.
Yes. It's also inevitable. People have differing levels of productivity increase, so they'll get differing benefits. It's impossible to make the benefit equal without eliminating the productivity increase. And even then, the results of those actions won't be equal either.
Is it acceptable that the sun rises and sets?
This is not trivial, for the large majority of people in the US, their inflation-adjusted income has decreased over the past couple decades -- and the rate of decrease is increasing.
This is simply not the case.
And yet we have hugely increased productivity in the US "over the past couple of decades". And there's little sign of widespread social unrest. Hmmmm.
Why should a select few reap the benefits of the increased productivity of the many?
They don't. Almost everyone benefits. Just not the same amount.
It's not just about people being poor, it's about them being poorer than they could be.
Everyone is always "poorer than they could be". It's an imperfect world.
Why set the bar so low as to say that as long as people are a tiny bit more comfortable, that should be enough? Why not raise the standard of living higher across the board?
It's happening. The standard of living is improving. The US is a wealthy nation and things continue to get better for ordinary people.
I understand your question. Google it yourself. It's not significant to the underlying argument, so I don't care to look it up right now.
Why? I said roads are self-funding. Does it really change the point significantly if it's discovered that they're only 93% self-funding? (They're not. The US Federal government has a huge gas tax that collects a lot more than the Feds spend on roads.)
Do you understand the concept of monetary supply and inflation?
Yes.
More cash does NOT buy more in our system...
Yes it does.
more cash merely dilutes the value of cash.
Only if the government increases the money supply. If a company pays their employees more, it doesn't. This is regardless of who in the company get how much of the increase.
The only way to get more purchasing power (which is a real term, and doesn't need quotes) is to have proportionately more cash in relation to everyone else.
No. If productivity increases, total wealth increases without the cost of goods increasing. Everyone can buy more in the aggregate. The proportionality doesn't change that.
No, not good for everyone. It is a zero-sum game.
Free economic systems are a positive sum game. When free people trade, each party in the trade is better off than they were before the trade. Were that not so, one party or the other would decline to complete the trade. Total wealth is created in each trade.
What happens if everyone gets a raise in the system? Goods get more expensive, and that raise is wiped out. If your raise was smaller than the average, it means that you, net, lost income.
Inflation is like 3 percent. Why are you pretending it's a huge factor in the economy? In theory, inflation can be a big problem. But it isn't in the US economy (with all our huge income disparities) so stop trying to tell people it is.
I'm not trying to trick people.
Clearly you are. If you weren't, then there's no reason to bring up inflation. We have very low inflation despite our "potentially catastrophic inequitable system".
You're trying to trick people into thinking they're poorer when they're better off.
You don't understand the motivation.
The groupthink is:
- Hate corporations
- Hate DRM
- Download all your media for free on the internet. A reasonable price is $0.
So the answer is yes. All DRM is bad unless RMS writes it and it allows us to get all our entertainment media for free on the internet. If people from corporations are maimed or killed by this DRM somehow, then Slashdot might be OK with it. As long as it runs on Linux and there's source code available.
In the US at least, fuel taxes are not sufficient to cover road building expenses. Roads are therefore not self-funding.
That is incorrect. Fuel taxes more than pay for the road construction.
I'm sure you'll change your opinion when your neighbor's house is burning and the fly embers will ignite your house if the fire is not properly contained.
They show up to the fire. If I paid the fee, they protect my house. If I didn't, they don't.
Because when the top officers of the company are getting these ridiculous compensation packages, salaries, staggering option grants, pension and golden parachutes, they are draining a finite pool for either the other shareholders, customers or workers. They are either diluting the value of the stock...
Yeah, Steve Jobs is really diluting the value of that Apple stock with his huge compensation package. I wonder why the shareholders don't just get rid of him?
See what happened? The increased inequity resulted in each workig having a smaller proportion of purchasing power. This effect is magnified when the ratio of CEOs to workers decreases... see why the income disparity can be a problem?
No. I don't pay my bills with a "proportion of purchasing power". I use cash. More cash buys more in our system, regardless of what proportion it is of the total amount of "purchasing power".
In your example, everyone gets a raise. The company must be doing fairly well. Good for everyone.
Stop trying to trick people. Economics is simple and logical unless you're trying to warp the arguments to support a non-free economic system.
It depends on what the CEO does with that money.
It's none of your business what he does with his money.
If he doesn't need $50 of it, and puts it away somewhere, it doesn't flow back into the economy, causing problems.
Yeah. In your world, a lot of CEOs have big rooms in their houses filled with huge stacks of $100 bills. In the real world, they invest their money or put it in the bank. Either way, it's used in the economy.
If instead, the CEO gets $80 and the employee gets $21, the CEO is still well off (having the ability to invest the $30 after his original $50 in expenses), and the employee is much better off (with $20 more), and more of it flows back into the economy.
Investment is as important or more important than consumption to the economy.
Besides, don't you mean "the CEO gets $100, then the government takes $60 of it, uses $55 to pay government overhead, and gives the employee $5. And then the government takes away $3 of that the following year."?
Isn't that how it's supposed to work?
No. There is no "supposed to work". People are free. They're not "supposed" to do anything based on your wishes for the outcome.