ome people just couldn't wrap their head around the fact that when money leaves the economy
And when does "money leave the economy"? Almost nobody who is wealthy has a lot of money because money has a negative return on investment. What people have is shares in corporations. Those shares are property, just like a lawn mower, a truck, or a lathe. Those shares have a positive return because they are shares in equipment that produces value for society.
the economy switches to a different form of money and becomes degenerate before that happens.
The economy would dearly love to switch to a different form of money: Bitcoin, gold, etc. Trouble is that US law doesn't allow that, in part because it would take away the government's ability to print money.
How about End This Depression Now! [wikipedia.org] by Nobel Price by Nobel Price winner and macroeconomist Paul Krugman? You've honestly never heard of this idea!?
"Leaving the entry-level unit at 16GB of storage rather than 32GB drives higher profit margins in two ways. One, it reduces the cost of manufacturing the $649 phone, which increases profit margins on sales of the lowest-end model. Second, and arguably more important, it pushes a lot of people who might be happy with a 32GB phone to shell out $749 for the 64GB model."
The 16GB iPhone 6S is a marketing ploy, it allows Apple to advertise "prices starting at..." and then upsell the customer. It's the same thing car dealers and other stores do with loss leaders and entry level models. (But for some people, the entry level models do actually work.)
But this raises the question of what purpose is served by Apple amassing more money anyhow. Apple pays out large (and growing) sums of cash to existing shareholders in the form of dividends and buybacks, but its enormous cash stockpile keeps remorselessly marching up toward $200 billion.
The purpose for Apple is that they are a for profit company seeking to maximize profit. And they are good at it.
The purpose for the economy is that other manufacturers look at the profits Apple is amassing and are saying "hey, we want some of that; what can we do to get it?" Apple's profit margin is why there are dozens of Android manufacturers and tons of mobile developers.
We already outlaw murder. That does not mean that the decision to commit murder becomes purely a utilitarian choice. Most people woulld still say it is wrong to murder.
You're confusing "belief" and "choice". Yes, you may or may not believe that the act is unethical, but your choice is not an ethical one anymore.
If you can't buy a sex bot, your choice of not using one is purely pragmatic; you never face any kind of ethical issues related to the use of sex bots. That's the situation that "ethicist" wants to bring about, and it removes ethics from the equation.
If you can obtain a sex bot but laws against its use are effective and make it likely that you will get punished, you might quibble that the decision not to use one becomes a mix of utility and ethics. But in that situation, you would choose not to use a sex bot even if you had no ethical beliefs related to sex bots at all. Therefore, the choice is purely a utilitarian one (it's not affected by the ethical beliefs of the people making that choice), even though the people making that choice might still hold ethical beliefs related to sex bots.
It may surprise you to learn that the study of ethics actually goes beyond "absolute personal freedom at all costs" - in fact it largely consists of contradictions to that position.
Ethics is the study of right and wrong choices. Once the freedom to make such choices is taken away, ethics ceases to be involved. That is, if you outlaw sex bots, then the choice not to obtain a sex bot is not an ethical choice anymore, it is a pragmatic or utilitarian choice.
Are you able to address any of the points she actually makes
We have addressed the "points" she makes elsewhere. Here, we are discussing the contradiction inherent in an ethicist advocating authoritarian policies.
That's awesome, now when do we escape the rent-seeking monopolies and actually get some kind of market mechanisms?
Just as soon as people realize that the politicians who scream most loudly about evil corporations (Sanderrs, Clinton, Obama, etc.) are the biggest enablers of rent seeking.
Rent seeking, by definition, isn't a market mechanism. And rent seeking is only possible through government regulation.
Voting really hasn't changed in thousands of years, so I'm not really sure why the voting machines can be 'past their prime'.
Actually, voting has changed. It used to be done by tokens placed into urns or people raising their hands in a town square. Then by marks made on paper.
Only fairly recently has it started being done by "machine" (punch cards, levers, or digital computers), and it's unclear why a "machine" is needed: it's expensive, difficult to audit, and easy to manipulate.
I think we should go back to pen-and-paper voting, with ballot boxes and manual counting. No practical purpose is served by introducing technology into the process of voting.
MHO, providers should be focusing on some (ultimately arbitrary, yes) number that better represents the growth curve of usage and speeds.
They focus on what people actually want, as evidenced by what they are willing to pay for.
IMHO, providers should be focusing on some (ultimately arbitrary, yes) number that better represents the growth curve of usage and speeds.
Network usage doesn't just "grow" independent of providers; it is determined by the cost, availability, and utility of network bandwidth. And the balance between those are best found using market mechanisms.
What you seem to want is for providers to invest more money in network infrastructure than is economically rational for them. Geeks love that idea because it also drives down prices massively... until providers start going out of business.
If I could get 5 Mb/s out of Comcast and have it RELIABLE I'd be way better off than I am now with 20+Mb/s to Comcast servers and VPN connections dropping 5 times a day.
You can get reliable 5 Mb/s... if you pay for it. What you actually are paying for is a shared channel that has a theoretical maximum capacity of 20 Mb/s.
Reliable guaranteed minimum speeds are much more expensive than shared bandwidth. You get what you pay for.
The argument you're making was, indeed, made by the Founders.
I'm not making an argument. I'm just pointing out that you got your facts wrong and that your reasoning is faulty.
So you're arguing every military campaign the US has ever waged, that has involved capturing prisoners ("seizure") or reading people's papers ("search") is unconstitutional and nobody noticed?
I'm not arguing anything. I'm just pointing out that you got your facts wrong and that your reasoning is faulty.
What's more likely: That I'm right, and the Courts will not work to fix this problem, or that you're right
I have no idea what courts will do with Fourth Amendment protections.
I would seriously worry about someone who could approach work in the manner you prescribe
I didn't "prescribe" anything. You were making this vast generalization: "Europeans view work as... the necessary evil to earn money to enjoy the rest of your life". To the degree that such cultural stereotyping is meaningful at all, I agree. What bothers you is that I pointed out what a stupid attitude towards work that is to have.
Don't hate your job. Just don't live SOLELY for it. Because one tick of a HR button and you've lost vast portions of your life.
Thanks for proving my point again: Europeans by and large view themselves as wage slaves at the mercy of big corporations and governments, with little autonomy or control over their lives. And you're right to be worried about that, given the way European societies are structured. Don't you worry your pretty little head about me or Americans; we have a much better handle on those issues than you do.
There are no such thing as "burner phones" in Australia,
Sure there are: you can violate the law to get them (consider it an act of civil disobedience). You can get a foreign SIM card (there are plenty of companies that offer those, and quite cheaply too). Journalists can set a phone swapping club. Or you can use smart phones and use text messages only to initiate communications on privacy-conscious chat services.
The reason for the Constitution was not to give us the glories of limited government, or protect our rights from DC
What the Constitution was intended to do was to limit the power of the federal government, as an inducement for states to form the union. That is, it was primarily intended to tell states: you can mostly keep doing whatever it is you're doing and the federal government won't interfere. The extension of many Constitutional limits on state governments happened later.
it is the reason the union Army could search suspected confederate spies and gun-runners without being accompanied by a District Court Judge, etc.... After all, opposing us militarily isn't necessarily wrong, so detaining Laura Secords of the world does not imply we have a legal case against them.
Just because the military or government does something and gets away with it doesn't mean it's constitutional. Probably the vast majority of constitutional violates are never prosecuted, so producing an endless litany of cases where people got away with such violations is evidence of nothing.
You can never really protect against these kinds of invasions of privacy, in particular by telecoms or governments.
Professional journalists should be using "burner phones" for this. That's their job as professionals, even if some countries (I guess Australia among them) make this difficult.
People should also protest against legal requirements for registering their phones with the government.
You are arguing your emotion-drenched opinion, not fact. Remember that.
Which part? Certainly not the part where I corrected Ledow about compensation or coal miner strikes.
And certainly not the part about "Europeans view work as... the necessary evil to earn money to enjoy the rest of your life" or that Americans are "workaholics", because that's Ledow's statement, not mine. All I did there was agree with him: it matches my observations, being from Europe and all that. It also matches data (e.g., http://www.oecd.org/els/public... ). Of course, those are generalities and stereotypes, but those are what happens to drive voting and politics. And if you knew a bit about history (fat chance), you'd understand where those cultural attitudes come from.
But you are absolutely right: the rest is my "emotion drenched opinion": it is my "emotion drenched opinion" that the European view is idiotic, that spending half your waking hours doing something just to earn money for the other half makes no sense. I believe that people should pick jobs that fulfill and satisfy them, jobs that they are passionate about and that they love doing.
The reason for your prickly response is that you realize deep down that I'm right.
but have strong legal protections from mass surveillance
Those "strong legal protections" have numerous loopholes for national security and other purposes. That's in addition to those governments quietly tolerating the US and other nations spying on their citizens.
Some of the enclaves for the super-rich, like Switzerland and Monaco, may be decent choices... if you are super rich. But if you are super rich, you can probably avoid government surveillance pretty much anywhere.
Risk of you killing me in a car crash from DWI driving while impaired
If that's your argument, then, of course, you also have to restrict all recreational activities that might tire people out. Best make every citizen wear sleep monitors, right?
I'm sure you'll hand waive away those things though, because, Fuck everyone else, right?
I waive them away because if that's your justification and you are logically consistent about it, we have to transform our nation into a totalitarian state.
So, I say "fuck you" because you are a totalitarian.
It has nothing to do with "invisible hands"; transferring these functions to government simply isn't a solution: it doesn't work for the elderly and it isn't financially sustainable.
Professor, what do we know about them? We know they're extremely advanced technologically......which suggests, very rightfully so, that they're peaceful. An advanced civilization is, by definition, not barbaric.
Slashdot Mirror
And when does "money leave the economy"? Almost nobody who is wealthy has a lot of money because money has a negative return on investment. What people have is shares in corporations. Those shares are property, just like a lawn mower, a truck, or a lathe. Those shares have a positive return because they are shares in equipment that produces value for society.
The economy would dearly love to switch to a different form of money: Bitcoin, gold, etc. Trouble is that US law doesn't allow that, in part because it would take away the government's ability to print money.
Trouble is that those ideas just don't work.
Basic income is a reasonable policy, provided you get rid of all the other government benefits: food stamps, social security, Medicare/Medicaid, etc.
The 16GB iPhone 6S is a marketing ploy, it allows Apple to advertise "prices starting at..." and then upsell the customer. It's the same thing car dealers and other stores do with loss leaders and entry level models. (But for some people, the entry level models do actually work.)
The purpose for Apple is that they are a for profit company seeking to maximize profit. And they are good at it.
The purpose for the economy is that other manufacturers look at the profits Apple is amassing and are saying "hey, we want some of that; what can we do to get it?" Apple's profit margin is why there are dozens of Android manufacturers and tons of mobile developers.
You're confusing "belief" and "choice". Yes, you may or may not believe that the act is unethical, but your choice is not an ethical one anymore.
If you can't buy a sex bot, your choice of not using one is purely pragmatic; you never face any kind of ethical issues related to the use of sex bots. That's the situation that "ethicist" wants to bring about, and it removes ethics from the equation.
If you can obtain a sex bot but laws against its use are effective and make it likely that you will get punished, you might quibble that the decision not to use one becomes a mix of utility and ethics. But in that situation, you would choose not to use a sex bot even if you had no ethical beliefs related to sex bots at all. Therefore, the choice is purely a utilitarian one (it's not affected by the ethical beliefs of the people making that choice), even though the people making that choice might still hold ethical beliefs related to sex bots.
Ethics is the study of right and wrong choices. Once the freedom to make such choices is taken away, ethics ceases to be involved. That is, if you outlaw sex bots, then the choice not to obtain a sex bot is not an ethical choice anymore, it is a pragmatic or utilitarian choice.
We have addressed the "points" she makes elsewhere. Here, we are discussing the contradiction inherent in an ethicist advocating authoritarian policies.
How does choosing to have sex with a robot reinforce stereotypes about women or relationships with women?
Just as soon as people realize that the politicians who scream most loudly about evil corporations (Sanderrs, Clinton, Obama, etc.) are the biggest enablers of rent seeking.
Rent seeking, by definition, isn't a market mechanism. And rent seeking is only possible through government regulation.
Actually, voting has changed. It used to be done by tokens placed into urns or people raising their hands in a town square. Then by marks made on paper.
Only fairly recently has it started being done by "machine" (punch cards, levers, or digital computers), and it's unclear why a "machine" is needed: it's expensive, difficult to audit, and easy to manipulate.
I think we should go back to pen-and-paper voting, with ballot boxes and manual counting. No practical purpose is served by introducing technology into the process of voting.
They focus on what people actually want, as evidenced by what they are willing to pay for.
Network usage doesn't just "grow" independent of providers; it is determined by the cost, availability, and utility of network bandwidth. And the balance between those are best found using market mechanisms.
What you seem to want is for providers to invest more money in network infrastructure than is economically rational for them. Geeks love that idea because it also drives down prices massively... until providers start going out of business.
You can get reliable 5 Mb/s... if you pay for it. What you actually are paying for is a shared channel that has a theoretical maximum capacity of 20 Mb/s.
Reliable guaranteed minimum speeds are much more expensive than shared bandwidth. You get what you pay for.
I'm not making an argument. I'm just pointing out that you got your facts wrong and that your reasoning is faulty.
I'm not arguing anything. I'm just pointing out that you got your facts wrong and that your reasoning is faulty.
I have no idea what courts will do with Fourth Amendment protections.
I'm just saying: obviously, neither do you.
I didn't "prescribe" anything. You were making this vast generalization: "Europeans view work as... the necessary evil to earn money to enjoy the rest of your life". To the degree that such cultural stereotyping is meaningful at all, I agree. What bothers you is that I pointed out what a stupid attitude towards work that is to have.
Thanks for proving my point again: Europeans by and large view themselves as wage slaves at the mercy of big corporations and governments, with little autonomy or control over their lives. And you're right to be worried about that, given the way European societies are structured. Don't you worry your pretty little head about me or Americans; we have a much better handle on those issues than you do.
What difference does it make? It doesn't affect your choice: if you don't like the working conditions or salary, don't take the job.
No, I'm just a regular employee. But I work in an area where there is a labor shortage. That's no accident either, it's a conscious choice.
Sure there are: you can violate the law to get them (consider it an act of civil disobedience). You can get a foreign SIM card (there are plenty of companies that offer those, and quite cheaply too). Journalists can set a phone swapping club. Or you can use smart phones and use text messages only to initiate communications on privacy-conscious chat services.
What the Constitution was intended to do was to limit the power of the federal government, as an inducement for states to form the union. That is, it was primarily intended to tell states: you can mostly keep doing whatever it is you're doing and the federal government won't interfere. The extension of many Constitutional limits on state governments happened later.
Just because the military or government does something and gets away with it doesn't mean it's constitutional. Probably the vast majority of constitutional violates are never prosecuted, so producing an endless litany of cases where people got away with such violations is evidence of nothing.
You can never really protect against these kinds of invasions of privacy, in particular by telecoms or governments.
Professional journalists should be using "burner phones" for this. That's their job as professionals, even if some countries (I guess Australia among them) make this difficult.
People should also protest against legal requirements for registering their phones with the government.
Which part? Certainly not the part where I corrected Ledow about compensation or coal miner strikes.
And certainly not the part about "Europeans view work as... the necessary evil to earn money to enjoy the rest of your life" or that Americans are "workaholics", because that's Ledow's statement, not mine. All I did there was agree with him: it matches my observations, being from Europe and all that. It also matches data (e.g., http://www.oecd.org/els/public... ). Of course, those are generalities and stereotypes, but those are what happens to drive voting and politics. And if you knew a bit about history (fat chance), you'd understand where those cultural attitudes come from.
But you are absolutely right: the rest is my "emotion drenched opinion": it is my "emotion drenched opinion" that the European view is idiotic, that spending half your waking hours doing something just to earn money for the other half makes no sense. I believe that people should pick jobs that fulfill and satisfy them, jobs that they are passionate about and that they love doing.
The reason for your prickly response is that you realize deep down that I'm right.
Those "strong legal protections" have numerous loopholes for national security and other purposes. That's in addition to those governments quietly tolerating the US and other nations spying on their citizens.
Some of the enclaves for the super-rich, like Switzerland and Monaco, may be decent choices... if you are super rich. But if you are super rich, you can probably avoid government surveillance pretty much anywhere.
If that's your argument, then, of course, you also have to restrict all recreational activities that might tire people out. Best make every citizen wear sleep monitors, right?
I waive them away because if that's your justification and you are logically consistent about it, we have to transform our nation into a totalitarian state.
So, I say "fuck you" because you are a totalitarian.
So you are defending failed labor market regulations with failed drug policy? Good going.
It has nothing to do with "invisible hands"; transferring these functions to government simply isn't a solution: it doesn't work for the elderly and it isn't financially sustainable.
Because it's not a real solution to the problem of elder care. In addition, it's not financially sustainable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...