How many billions of people should shiver in the dark this winter to prevent a few thousand tropical islanders from having to worry about the water? What's the scientific consensus on that?
Let's just say the one side is completely correct. So what? Do you think everyone will say "I want to help -- please let me shiver in the dark every winter and bake in the heat every summer until I die"?
You want to take "agressive action" to "fight climate change". Ok. What if people refuse to be subjected to your aggression and decide to defend themselves and their way of life? What's your plan for that?
I guess every country the the world except the US could have chosen the wrong tax rules, but there's no data or reasoning to support that conclusion. Some countries had business taxes more like ours for a long time, but every country eventually changed and the US is the only one stuck doing it the old way.
No one should expect a miraculous difference from changing the rules to match the rest of the world. But a little economic growth and a modest increase in jobs and wages is really good for the people who get those jobs and see those wage increases. It would help the US be more competitive, which is what this topic is about.
Additionally, it's morally the right thing to do. Taxing companies on money they earned outside the US, from selling non-US-made goods to non-US residents, is unjustifiable.
So you have zero ideas on improving US competitiveness then?
If the tax is really just the same as other countries, then you'd presumably have no problem changing our rules to be just like other countries' rules.
The topic is US competiveness. Maybe you don't have any ideas for improving that. But are you really saying that giving companies billions of dollars in financial incentives to do business in any country except the US is irrelevant to US competitiveness?
Reforming business taxes is something that could actually be done. All it would take is government people deciding to be less greedy.
Do you have any ideas that could actually be done? Please post them.
The topic is competitiveness of US companies. I understand that you want to take or spend money you didn't earn. How does that help US companies compete with companies in countries where the governments are less greedy?
The biggest issue affecting US competitiveness is business taxes. That's why Qualcomm bought NXP instead of expanding organically or buying a US company. If Qualcomm brought their cash back to the US, the US government would steal (confiscate, loot, grab, appropriate, or otherwise take) billions of dollars of it. So companies like Qualcomm do what they can to avoid ever bringing money to the US. In this case Qualcomm bought an overseas company with overseas money instead, getting something of value in return for their money instead of wasting it on government.
If Obama or anyone in his party cared about US industries succeeding, they'd reform corporate taxes. But they won't do that unless they can find other pockets to pick.
I understand why people are worried about the future. People have always been worried about the future. Why not be a little intelligent about it though? Anyone can make up any story about the future. But why believe a made-up story?
And people don't "obey" patterns. They do what they want. It's predictable because the patterns repeat. It's understandable because there are specific incentives and peoples' response to those incentives tend to get people more of what they want than random behavior would get them.
Are you really arguing that making up stories about the future is a better predictive methodology than studying what people do in analogous situations?
You're right! Making up scary stories about the future is clearly a better predictive methodology than studying behavior and understanding why people do things! Why doesn't everyone understand this?
That's wonderful advice, given that the field of economics is pure bullshit.
Economics is simply the study of human behavior in commercial situations. Saying it's "pure bullshit" is the same as saying human behavior doesn't follow any sorts of discernible patterns and is effectively random. Clearly that's false, but if you're determined to maintain your ignorance, no one will be able to talk you out of it.
People with a very basic understanding of Economics knew that the Y2k scare was wrong -- because people who use software for important things have an obvious incentive to make sure it keeps working. And the "Peak Oil" scare was wrong -- because prices rise and producers have an increased incentive to find a way to sell fuel at those higher prices. And before that there was "The Population Bomb". Now it's the AI automation scare. But go ahead and keep believing scary-future stories, even though over and over and over they turn out to be wrong -- for clearly understandable reasons that we already know.
Now it threatens almost every job in existence, other than "wealthy heir".
Only if "now" means sometime in the next 50-100 years.
Exponential increases in the complexity and capability of the automated machinery will make the old argument of "people have always found new jobs when they are replaced" moot.
False. People will be able to do the jobs. The problem is guys (like you ?) who will claim that everyone needs a Master's degree to do any meaningful work. Complicated-to-use machinery tends to be very unreliable. Machinery that actually gets widely used can usually be operated by a regular person with a modest amount of training.
To be employable, you have to be better than machines at doing something of value, as well as be competitive with other people who can do those tasks. Already, some people don't match those requirements
Which is why we need a flexible society with a low cost of living. So someone who can't do extremely valuable work can still do enough to get by and live an OK life.
This is why people like me tend to argue against adding extra tax costs, environmental costs, legal costs, licensing and permit costs, benefit costs, union costs, and regulatory and compliance costs to everything people buy. This is why we argue against excluding people who can't do $15 an hour worth of work from the labor force.
You're talking to people who think mining is "dig a hole, find easy money, get instantly rich". So what do you need "efficiency" for?
The point is that there's money and they think they'd like some of it, and they don't understand why the guy who actually knows how a mining business works gets the money instead of them.
The problem is that stories about the distant future are, by definition, "made up" stories. Some of them are "true", like the story about a young generation of people eventually turning into an old generation of people. But most are speculative, including this one.
Why should anyone want to worry about something that might be a problem for a completely unknown number of people at a vaguely-defined time more than 10 years from now?
Anyone who took an Economics class understands how people react to automation. People get displaced. It's happened in a hundred industries, it'll happen in a hundred more. The answer is to have a flexible society with a low basic cost of living that provides opportunities for people to move to new places and get new jobs.
Automation has been "cheaper than people" since the invention of the water wheel. That's why people use it. Those people at the time who were grinding grain between two rocks had to find other things to do.
Something that's happening might happen more in the long term. If it does then it might mean something.
Don't you people ever get tired of worrying about stuff that might someday happen, maybe in 10 or 20 years? Don't you have problems now, or something next month or next year to worry about instead?
It's a government bureau. What do you think happens when a government bureau is found to have poor data security? Do you think anyone gets fired? Do you think they'll be regulated? Do you think they'll be sued?
So what's their incentive to have good data security? What real incentive does anyone have to pressure any government agencies to do anything responsibly?
It will leave from a terminal, not from where you are. It will arrive at a terminal, not your destination. It will go on a schedule, not when you're ready. It will be a lot more expensive than a bus ticket. It won't work in bad weather. There will be TSA (unless we come to our senses before 2026).
It's not an inherently bad idea, but who is it for? Who'll be willing to pay the fare? Who has a 2 hour commute?
Are they going to swap out the battery with a charged one for the return trip? And why are they saying it will be quiet? Are helicopters loud because of combustion, or because the blades disturb the air?
People don't "need" better internet because the ISPs strangle out the competition. Netflix v Comcast was well documented. AT&T meters all of it's traffic, while zero-rating their own individually purchasable items. The current ISPs are doing everything they can to prevent people from moving into the 21st century of connectivity.
Yes, that's why almost no one uses Netflix and Netflix is going out of business.
And that's just talking about today, right now. Give it another 5-10 years, when people are streaming 4k movies in 3D, or whatever the "next big thing" is. Should we wait till then to upgrade our infrastructure? Or just let the ISPs keep running through the same 30 year old lines?
If everyone pre-pays for their next 10 years of broadband bills, I'm sure the ISPs will install the next 10 years of equipment. Other than that, why should they setup anything they don't intend to use in the next year or two?
Slashdot Mirror
Hurting people without "criminal prosecution" is always ok? Or is it only ok to hurt people when they have bad politics?
He claims he got death threats and received white powder in the mail, therefore his climate models are accurate.
How many billions of people should shiver in the dark this winter to prevent a few thousand tropical islanders from having to worry about the water? What's the scientific consensus on that?
Let's just say the one side is completely correct. So what? Do you think everyone will say "I want to help -- please let me shiver in the dark every winter and bake in the heat every summer until I die"?
You want to take "agressive action" to "fight climate change". Ok. What if people refuse to be subjected to your aggression and decide to defend themselves and their way of life? What's your plan for that?
I guess every country the the world except the US could have chosen the wrong tax rules, but there's no data or reasoning to support that conclusion. Some countries had business taxes more like ours for a long time, but every country eventually changed and the US is the only one stuck doing it the old way.
No one should expect a miraculous difference from changing the rules to match the rest of the world. But a little economic growth and a modest increase in jobs and wages is really good for the people who get those jobs and see those wage increases. It would help the US be more competitive, which is what this topic is about.
Additionally, it's morally the right thing to do. Taxing companies on money they earned outside the US, from selling non-US-made goods to non-US residents, is unjustifiable.
So you have zero ideas on improving US competitiveness then?
If the tax is really just the same as other countries, then you'd presumably have no problem changing our rules to be just like other countries' rules.
The topic is US competiveness. Maybe you don't have any ideas for improving that. But are you really saying that giving companies billions of dollars in financial incentives to do business in any country except the US is irrelevant to US competitiveness?
Reforming business taxes is something that could actually be done. All it would take is government people deciding to be less greedy.
Do you have any ideas that could actually be done? Please post them.
You mean like income and capital gains and estate and gift taxes already do?
The topic is competitiveness of US companies. I understand that you want to take or spend money you didn't earn. How does that help US companies compete with companies in countries where the governments are less greedy?
The biggest issue affecting US competitiveness is business taxes. That's why Qualcomm bought NXP instead of expanding organically or buying a US company. If Qualcomm brought their cash back to the US, the US government would steal (confiscate, loot, grab, appropriate, or otherwise take) billions of dollars of it. So companies like Qualcomm do what they can to avoid ever bringing money to the US. In this case Qualcomm bought an overseas company with overseas money instead, getting something of value in return for their money instead of wasting it on government.
If Obama or anyone in his party cared about US industries succeeding, they'd reform corporate taxes. But they won't do that unless they can find other pockets to pick.
That offends people, but I don't understand why.
Because being offended is self-empowering and acting offended sends a social signal that affirms your class/tribal identity.
I understand why people are worried about the future. People have always been worried about the future. Why not be a little intelligent about it though? Anyone can make up any story about the future. But why believe a made-up story?
And people don't "obey" patterns. They do what they want. It's predictable because the patterns repeat. It's understandable because there are specific incentives and peoples' response to those incentives tend to get people more of what they want than random behavior would get them.
Are you really arguing that making up stories about the future is a better predictive methodology than studying what people do in analogous situations?
You're right! Making up scary stories about the future is clearly a better predictive methodology than studying behavior and understanding why people do things! Why doesn't everyone understand this?
Very few people use Twitter.
That's wonderful advice, given that the field of economics is pure bullshit.
Economics is simply the study of human behavior in commercial situations. Saying it's "pure bullshit" is the same as saying human behavior doesn't follow any sorts of discernible patterns and is effectively random. Clearly that's false, but if you're determined to maintain your ignorance, no one will be able to talk you out of it.
People with a very basic understanding of Economics knew that the Y2k scare was wrong -- because people who use software for important things have an obvious incentive to make sure it keeps working. And the "Peak Oil" scare was wrong -- because prices rise and producers have an increased incentive to find a way to sell fuel at those higher prices. And before that there was "The Population Bomb". Now it's the AI automation scare. But go ahead and keep believing scary-future stories, even though over and over and over they turn out to be wrong -- for clearly understandable reasons that we already know.
You should stop making up science fiction stories and take an economics class or read an economics book.
Sitting at home collecting a benefit check, with no hope for ever having anything better, is also bad for people.
Now it threatens almost every job in existence, other than "wealthy heir".
Only if "now" means sometime in the next 50-100 years.
Exponential increases in the complexity and capability of the automated machinery will make the old argument of "people have always found new jobs when they are replaced" moot.
False. People will be able to do the jobs. The problem is guys (like you ?) who will claim that everyone needs a Master's degree to do any meaningful work. Complicated-to-use machinery tends to be very unreliable. Machinery that actually gets widely used can usually be operated by a regular person with a modest amount of training.
To be employable, you have to be better than machines at doing something of value, as well as be competitive with other people who can do those tasks. Already, some people don't match those requirements
Which is why we need a flexible society with a low cost of living. So someone who can't do extremely valuable work can still do enough to get by and live an OK life.
This is why people like me tend to argue against adding extra tax costs, environmental costs, legal costs, licensing and permit costs, benefit costs, union costs, and regulatory and compliance costs to everything people buy. This is why we argue against excluding people who can't do $15 an hour worth of work from the labor force.
You're talking to people who think mining is "dig a hole, find easy money, get instantly rich". So what do you need "efficiency" for?
The point is that there's money and they think they'd like some of it, and they don't understand why the guy who actually knows how a mining business works gets the money instead of them.
The problem is that stories about the distant future are, by definition, "made up" stories. Some of them are "true", like the story about a young generation of people eventually turning into an old generation of people. But most are speculative, including this one.
Why should anyone want to worry about something that might be a problem for a completely unknown number of people at a vaguely-defined time more than 10 years from now?
Anyone who took an Economics class understands how people react to automation. People get displaced. It's happened in a hundred industries, it'll happen in a hundred more. The answer is to have a flexible society with a low basic cost of living that provides opportunities for people to move to new places and get new jobs.
Automation has been "cheaper than people" since the invention of the water wheel. That's why people use it. Those people at the time who were grinding grain between two rocks had to find other things to do.
Something that's happening might happen more in the long term. If it does then it might mean something.
Don't you people ever get tired of worrying about stuff that might someday happen, maybe in 10 or 20 years? Don't you have problems now, or something next month or next year to worry about instead?
It's a government bureau. What do you think happens when a government bureau is found to have poor data security? Do you think anyone gets fired? Do you think they'll be regulated? Do you think they'll be sued?
So what's their incentive to have good data security? What real incentive does anyone have to pressure any government agencies to do anything responsibly?
Elect that employee President of the United States.
It will leave from a terminal, not from where you are. It will arrive at a terminal, not your destination. It will go on a schedule, not when you're ready. It will be a lot more expensive than a bus ticket. It won't work in bad weather. There will be TSA (unless we come to our senses before 2026).
It's not an inherently bad idea, but who is it for? Who'll be willing to pay the fare? Who has a 2 hour commute?
Are they going to swap out the battery with a charged one for the return trip? And why are they saying it will be quiet? Are helicopters loud because of combustion, or because the blades disturb the air?
Only because that subset is artificially limited.
People don't "need" better internet because the ISPs strangle out the competition. Netflix v Comcast was well documented. AT&T meters all of it's traffic, while zero-rating their own individually purchasable items. The current ISPs are doing everything they can to prevent people from moving into the 21st century of connectivity.
Yes, that's why almost no one uses Netflix and Netflix is going out of business.
And that's just talking about today, right now. Give it another 5-10 years, when people are streaming 4k movies in 3D, or whatever the "next big thing" is. Should we wait till then to upgrade our infrastructure? Or just let the ISPs keep running through the same 30 year old lines?
If everyone pre-pays for their next 10 years of broadband bills, I'm sure the ISPs will install the next 10 years of equipment. Other than that, why should they setup anything they don't intend to use in the next year or two?