In spite of my verbosity I confess to significant experience with Twitter. I think the most recent gem of a meme might be the realization that the so-called Republican Party has given up on winning presidential elections by fair means.
And if you have been paying attention to the news, the so-called Democratic Party has also given up on winning presidential elections by fair means.
My response is "Concision". Yes, Twitter is a cesspool on its best days, and much worse the rest of the time, but the quest for brevity brings a clarity to the mimes. There are a few gems there.
True, and finding those gems surely matters to you when you're as superficial and ignorant as the rest of the people on Twitter.
dryeo's statement that "Those are just some of the groups that aren't even counted as unemployed and the percent of the total population employed has generally dropped with a few upticks." is false; for 50 years, it didn't drop despite massive increases in automation.
The availability of automation doesn't cause a decrease in the "number of jobs" or labor force participation rate.
(However, decreases in labor force participation rates due to other causes might cause more automation.)
Ah, you define "progressives" and "anyone I don't like".
Which part of That's a false dichotomy; we don't need to choose between cholera (conservatives) and typhoid (progressives), did you not understand? I despise both progressives and conservatives, for the simple reason that there is little difference between them: they both are statists and budding totalitarians, they just differ in some details.
With a useless definition like that, you'd hold the insane opinions you do.
I know exactly what progressives are because I used to be one (as well as a member of the Democratic party). And I know why you are so ignorant of the history of progressivism because I used to be like you.
The progressives know that the government must lead progress.
Of course, they "know" that. They simply happen to be wrong.
When progressives worked for sufferage, abolition, and basic worker rights, they were harassed
How about when progressives worked for disenfranchisement, forced commitments, forced sterilization, and segregation? How about when progressive policies end up causing government corruption, starvation, disease, inequalitiy, racial disparities, mass incarceration, and economic decline? You can't just cherry pick examples and see "hey, this is what progressivism accomplished" and ignore the massive costs and the massive rights violations that come along with progressivism.
or the conservatives will execute the undesirables
That's a false dichotomy; we don't need to choose between cholera (conservatives) and typhoid (progressives), both of which have massive boners for hurting and killing people they don't like. Progressives and conservatives are largely interchangeable: they are both intolerant, totalitarian bigots.
Twitter is a cesspool of corporate and political propaganda, self-righteous indignation, and minor celebrities trying to make a name for themselves. Why does anybody listen to the crap these people post?
Those are just some of the groups that aren't even counted as unemployed and the percent of the total population employed has generally dropped with a few upticks.
The labor force participation rate increased pretty much steadily from 1945 to about 2003, a period of spectacular increases in automation; automation does not decrease labor force participation, period.
It's been declining somewhat since, not due to automation, but a combination of demographics, changing definitions, the recession, and some bad economic and social policies.
To an untrained uneducated individual, progress is bad (That's why we have so many poor Republicans, as Republican is the party of ant-progress).
Not quite. Progressives and Democrats that suffer from the delusion that the only thing society can accomplish something is through government. So, they naturally believe that progress can only be achieved if it is created from above by government.
The rest of us simply don't agree on the means, not the desirability, of achieving progress. That is, we believe (and history backs us up) that for a society to make progress, government should get out of the business of trying to create progress.
As ar as "automation kills jobs" goes, as automation has increased, so has the total number of jobs. So we are improving on all fronts.
And, as you may notice, Democrats and progressives are fighting automation and new economic models tooth and nail; again, another example of how anti-progress Democrats and progressives are.
So you're saying you prefer miners to continue working in very dangerous occupations and get killed unnecessarily?
Many, if not most, will be unemployed for a while or receive less pay on their next job.
I think your premise is wrong. Younger workers can retrain and easily have a different, safer, and more productive career. Older miners are at high risk of disability and loss of their livelihood anyway.
but what Aaron Cosbey, a development economist and a report author, can say is this: "Where you can find robotic replacements for human labor you tend to do it." Cosbey estimates that automation will replace 40% to 80% of the workers at a mine...
You do it when government imposes massive mandatory benefits on employers and raises the cost of labor. That is, the primary benefit of robots is that they don't unionize, don't get minimum wage, don't need health insurance, don't need retirement plans, don't need worker's comp, and won't sue over discrimination or injuries.
Of course, I don't think that's a bad thing either in this case. Robots replacing people in dangerous, boring, repetitive jobs is a good thing for everybody.
Problem with smear tactics now, what's the point, every accepts the corporations will lie about everything
Yes, for a politician to succeed, they need to be corrupt liars. It's a pretty fundamental rule of politics. That's why Hillary Clinton succeeds and Jill Stein fails.
There are two things that we have influence over as citizens. First, the fact that politicians are corrupt liars doesn't mean that any level of corruption and dishonesty is acceptable; we still need to punish politicians when they misbehave, otherwise, it's just going to get worse. Second, we can limit the degree to which corruption and dishonesty are rewarded by limiting the amount of power politicians wield.
[Ol Olsoc] Because today, science and advances take an extremely remote second place to servicing the stockholders.
My goodness, the derp is strong in you. Capitalism is all about making money, both for the corporation, and for the stockholders. Do you deny that?
You are missing the point. The article complains about bad rules imposed on scientific research that is government funded. Those bad decisions have nothing to do with either capitalism or stockholders; they are the bad decisions of politicians and bureaucrats. There are no stockholders involved in the funding that TFA complains about, so science can't take "second place" to their interests.
There isn't that much of what used to be referred as R&D going on in industry any more. That's because the two do not mix in capitalism as practiced in the USA at this time.
You're out of touch with reality there. Private R&D spending in the US is huge, and many researchers are leaving academia and government labs to work for private companies because they find they get more freedom and more resources that way.
Capitalism is defined as an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. Paying money to politicians in order to get them to interfere in the economy is the opposite of capitalism.
This is true if favorable laws aren't viewed as a good and individual politicians as the private owners of the legislative gateway.
No, it isn't true "if" you view something some way; that's how capitalism is defined.
We could solve this in a number of ways like making political donations anonymous to the recipient.
No, that doesn't work, for two reasons. First, it's unenforceable. Second, and more importantly, you're erroneously assuming that you can solve political influence buying through eliminating quid-pro-quo behavior. In fact, in most cases, donors simply donate to politicians that already favor their causes.
However, a better way would to make donations into a shared pool for all candidates. Unsurprisingly, when they tried these measures, corporate donations ended.
You can also simply go to mandatory public financing of campaigns, but that cure is worse than the disease: now, instead of private money influencing elections, you have a self-perpetuating political class.
Why have you applied an arbitrary restriction in your definition of a good? Just because it's illegal, technically legal or even intangible doesn't make it any less of a good. Everything is for sale in capitalism.
You're confusing capitalism with anarchocapitalism. The ideal capitalist government is limited, mostly to enforcing basic negative rights. Empirically, limited government results in the greatest degree of freedom and prosperity. To many people (myself included), it's also the only morally justifiable form of government.
Frankly, corrupted governments are the height of capitalism.
Corrupted governments are also the height of socialism, communism, fascism, and progressivism. Why? Because what corrupts government isn't a specific economic system, it is power: the more power and money you give government, the more you attract greedy and corrupt people into government. You can't fix that by changing the economic system. Furthermore, government tends to use whatever little power it has in order to gain more power.
I was hoping Mr. Sanders could steer the nation to a better path and I think that may happen if we can fix campaign financing.
Sanders is an honest fool, and as such, he appeals to other fools. If Sanders were to come to power, either he'd be an ineffective court jester while other politicians continued their corrupt ways, or he'd come around and start paying off special interest groups and fool himself into believing that anything is justified to keep a "good guy" like him in power; that's the way Hillary has chosen.
Rules for rulers probably isn't completely accurate, but it gives you the gist of how people get into, and stay in, power, and it applies to Sanders as well. And the more we move away from a self-reliant, individualistic culture, the more oppressive our government will become, for the simple reason that the more rewarding it gets for rulers to concentrate money and power.
From a classic interview:
[Heffner] I understand, but again that is the philosophic basis of the argument that government must step in.
[Friedman] But it’s a false argument, because it assumes somehow that government is a way in which you put unselfish and ungreedy men in charge of selfish and greedy men. But government is an institution whereby the people who have the greatest drive to get power over their fellow men, get in a position of controlling them. Look at the record of government. Where are these philosopher kings that Plato supposedly was trying to develop?
it's hilarious that you think politicians aren't tied to capitalism. who do you think pays for their campaigns? what do they do to get that money?
People with money also shit and fuck; that doesn't make shitting and fucking capitalist activities.
Capitalism is defined as an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. Paying money to politicians in order to get them to interfere in the economy is the opposite of capitalism.
it's capitalism all the way down and if you disagree then you are obviously ignorant of the truth, lying or stupid.
It's you who is either lying or stupid, misrepresenting the corporate kleptocracy and the politicians they buy it as "capitalist". And what makes that so bad is that people like you then go on electing "anti-capitalist" politicians who just engage in even more corruption and theft under the guise of "regulating and curbing markets". I mean, some of you are so stupid that you actually believe that Hillary is going to fight against Wall St and corporate influence on politics.
What stockholders? I have no idea what libertarian fappoff you are doing, but your replies to me don't have anything to do with what I wrote. You make a ridiculous mistake in trying to say that I wrote that scientists are somehow stockholders
I literally quoted you. Would you like me to quote you again?
[Ol Olsoc] Because today, science and advances take an extremely remote second place to servicing the stockholders.
That is copied and pasted you.
I pointed out that there are no stockholders involved in government grants or science. Hence, your claim that "science" takes second place to "servicing the stock holders" is bullshit.
Point is, basic research doesn't have an immediate profit, so is not a real good candidate for free market principles.
Point is that you blamed problems in science on "servicing the stockholders". I pointed out that there are no stockholders involved in the science funding that TFA talks about: it's all government bureaucrats and academic peers that are responsible for the problems with short term thinking.
This is about a government grant in applied research
Then it isn't relevant; TFA is about basic research.
and it is _not_ peer reviewed. It gets reviewed by bureaucrats
Being an academic and a bureaucrat are not mutually exclusive. In fact, almost all government research grants are reviewed by experts.
and that is one thing I will never be.
Perhaps not. If you keep failing to get grant funding, even the academic bureaucrat career is likely closed to you. Have you consider driving for Uber?
Russia is using its hacks to run a smear campaign against one candidate
(1) That is Hillary's claim, not fact.
(2) What has come to light isn't a "smear campaign", it is actual facts about Hillary and her lies and deceptions, facts that US voters are entitled to.
(3) The simplest explanation why there is nothing like this being released on Trump is that (a) Trump has not engaged in Hillary's level of corruption and deception, and/or (b) Trump's staff isn't terminally incompetent when dealing with E-mail, like Hillary and the DNC.
to interfere with the Democratic election in another country
And if that "interference" consists of exposing fraud, corruption, and deception by one of the candidates, I think it's a good thing.
Furthermore, foreign governments have a legitimate interest in not having to deal with a lying, crooked war-monger like Hillary. I would see no reason to fault them for that even if Hillary's beliefs about who is doing this are true.
I approve of governments hacking each other and sharing each other's dirty little secrets with the public. Adversarial systems work well in the service of justice and honesty.
I hope someone hacks Merkel's and May's E-mails too and publishes them. Unfortunately, the Germans are likely too careful to let that happen.
The root problem (I speculate) is the same one that afflicts companies looking ahead only to the next quarter
And which companies would that be? Google, Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Oracle, VW, Mercedes, BMW, Exxon--pretty much any big company--invest for the long term.
Would taxpayers accept 99% of research funding to add up to nothing for the remaining 1% to pay off 1000-fold or more? I doubt it. The angels and VCs might risk those odds, but not the standard research funding apparatus.
Oh, that's cute, you think that government decisions about spending are actually based on what taxpayers "accept". Get real.
Government funding of research is primarily based on three things: (1) the biases, preferences, and petty turf wars of academics themselves, (2) funneling money to politically important special interests and groups, and (3) photo-ops for politicians.
Because today, science and advances take an extremely remote second place to servicing the stockholders.
What stockholders? Most people working in basic science work at universities and research labs; they don't have any "stockholders".
Once upon a time, there were places like Bell labs where a lot of research was done.
Bell Labs was funded by a monopoly on telecommunications, something that kept prices for telephone calls astronomically high, stifled innovation, and delayed the start of the Internet revolution by probably at least a decade.
but now the Universities are groaning under the weight, are in some cases employing more managers than any other field, except for possibly accountants and fundraisers
And which "stockholders" is this the fault of? Please tell me what shares I should sell so that universities fire managers and start functioning better again.
Indeed, it does. Even getting applied research funding requires you to lie convincingly these days, as the ones evaluating the applications seem to think they are buying a finished product.
Academic research proposals are peer reviewed, so you are not complaining about capitalists or investors, you are complaining about people like yourself. Even the nominally non-peers (like DARPA program managers) usually started out as academics.
Smart people move out of it as soon as they can. The rest cannot really do well.
Smart people move out of it as soon as they can because of people like you, people like you who then go on to become the peer reviewers and funding managers for future generations of academic researchers. When you reach that stage, you'll have your own little games of favoritism, your bottled up anger, and your own ignorance to guide you and make you just as bad as those you are complaining about now.
What we're seeing is the result of capitalism's reach getting to scientists.
There is no capitalism in academic research. Capitalism means that the people who spend money on research benefit from its success and pay for its failures. But the funding sources for academic research don't take any risks with their own money, they take tax dollars and hand them out to academic researchers based on scientific fashion and political objectives.
The focus of institutions has moved from discoveries of research to the monetary benefits of research.
Yes, academic institutions are focused on money, but so are the Mafia and the Catholic church. A focus on money isn't capitalism, it is more commonly corruption and rent seeking. That is, the benefits public funders of academic research seek are political and personal in nature.
The question is, who is restricting funds and what is their motive. If you find this, you'll discover the problem.
Correct. Academic funding decisions are largely made by other academics themselves, by the US government, and by politicians. And that's where the problem is.
They say that often times while examining one thing researchers are able to uncover several other important things, but deviating from the path is something frowned upon for various reasons among the industry
Academic researchers are primarily funded and promoted by (1) government and (2) other researchers. "Industry" has little to do with it.
Industrial researchers tend to work on whatever is actually important to their company and tend to be flexible in terms of research directions.
Slashdot Mirror
And if you have been paying attention to the news, the so-called Democratic Party has also given up on winning presidential elections by fair means.
True, and finding those gems surely matters to you when you're as superficial and ignorant as the rest of the people on Twitter.
dryeo's statement that "Those are just some of the groups that aren't even counted as unemployed and the percent of the total population employed has generally dropped with a few upticks." is false; for 50 years, it didn't drop despite massive increases in automation.
The availability of automation doesn't cause a decrease in the "number of jobs" or labor force participation rate.
(However, decreases in labor force participation rates due to other causes might cause more automation.)
What does the "common man" have to do with Twitter? The kind of people who inhabit Twitter are pretty much the opposite of the "common man".
Which part of That's a false dichotomy; we don't need to choose between cholera (conservatives) and typhoid (progressives), did you not understand? I despise both progressives and conservatives, for the simple reason that there is little difference between them: they both are statists and budding totalitarians, they just differ in some details.
I know exactly what progressives are because I used to be one (as well as a member of the Democratic party). And I know why you are so ignorant of the history of progressivism because I used to be like you.
Of course, they "know" that. They simply happen to be wrong.
How about when progressives worked for disenfranchisement, forced commitments, forced sterilization, and segregation? How about when progressive policies end up causing government corruption, starvation, disease, inequalitiy, racial disparities, mass incarceration, and economic decline? You can't just cherry pick examples and see "hey, this is what progressivism accomplished" and ignore the massive costs and the massive rights violations that come along with progressivism.
That's a false dichotomy; we don't need to choose between cholera (conservatives) and typhoid (progressives), both of which have massive boners for hurting and killing people they don't like. Progressives and conservatives are largely interchangeable: they are both intolerant, totalitarian bigots.
Twitter is a cesspool of corporate and political propaganda, self-righteous indignation, and minor celebrities trying to make a name for themselves. Why does anybody listen to the crap these people post?
Don't you know even the basics of our economy?
http://www.businessinsider.com...
The labor force participation rate increased pretty much steadily from 1945 to about 2003, a period of spectacular increases in automation; automation does not decrease labor force participation, period.
It's been declining somewhat since, not due to automation, but a combination of demographics, changing definitions, the recession, and some bad economic and social policies.
Not quite. Progressives and Democrats that suffer from the delusion that the only thing society can accomplish something is through government. So, they naturally believe that progress can only be achieved if it is created from above by government.
The rest of us simply don't agree on the means, not the desirability, of achieving progress. That is, we believe (and history backs us up) that for a society to make progress, government should get out of the business of trying to create progress.
And, as you may notice, Democrats and progressives are fighting automation and new economic models tooth and nail; again, another example of how anti-progress Democrats and progressives are.
So you're saying you prefer miners to continue working in very dangerous occupations and get killed unnecessarily?
I think your premise is wrong. Younger workers can retrain and easily have a different, safer, and more productive career. Older miners are at high risk of disability and loss of their livelihood anyway.
Hence my comment: I don't think [government regulations destroying these jobs] is a bad thing either in this case
Yes, I am. I'm also serious about this: you are an illiterate bigot and partisan.
You do it when government imposes massive mandatory benefits on employers and raises the cost of labor. That is, the primary benefit of robots is that they don't unionize, don't get minimum wage, don't need health insurance, don't need retirement plans, don't need worker's comp, and won't sue over discrimination or injuries.
Of course, I don't think that's a bad thing either in this case. Robots replacing people in dangerous, boring, repetitive jobs is a good thing for everybody.
You evidently go back and forth between both.
Yes, for a politician to succeed, they need to be corrupt liars. It's a pretty fundamental rule of politics. That's why Hillary Clinton succeeds and Jill Stein fails.
There are two things that we have influence over as citizens. First, the fact that politicians are corrupt liars doesn't mean that any level of corruption and dishonesty is acceptable; we still need to punish politicians when they misbehave, otherwise, it's just going to get worse. Second, we can limit the degree to which corruption and dishonesty are rewarded by limiting the amount of power politicians wield.
You are missing the point. The article complains about bad rules imposed on scientific research that is government funded. Those bad decisions have nothing to do with either capitalism or stockholders; they are the bad decisions of politicians and bureaucrats. There are no stockholders involved in the funding that TFA complains about, so science can't take "second place" to their interests.
You're out of touch with reality there. Private R&D spending in the US is huge, and many researchers are leaving academia and government labs to work for private companies because they find they get more freedom and more resources that way.
No, it isn't true "if" you view something some way; that's how capitalism is defined.
No, that doesn't work, for two reasons. First, it's unenforceable. Second, and more importantly, you're erroneously assuming that you can solve political influence buying through eliminating quid-pro-quo behavior. In fact, in most cases, donors simply donate to politicians that already favor their causes.
You can also simply go to mandatory public financing of campaigns, but that cure is worse than the disease: now, instead of private money influencing elections, you have a self-perpetuating political class.
You're confusing capitalism with anarchocapitalism. The ideal capitalist government is limited, mostly to enforcing basic negative rights. Empirically, limited government results in the greatest degree of freedom and prosperity. To many people (myself included), it's also the only morally justifiable form of government.
Corrupted governments are also the height of socialism, communism, fascism, and progressivism. Why? Because what corrupts government isn't a specific economic system, it is power: the more power and money you give government, the more you attract greedy and corrupt people into government. You can't fix that by changing the economic system. Furthermore, government tends to use whatever little power it has in order to gain more power.
Sanders is an honest fool, and as such, he appeals to other fools. If Sanders were to come to power, either he'd be an ineffective court jester while other politicians continued their corrupt ways, or he'd come around and start paying off special interest groups and fool himself into believing that anything is justified to keep a "good guy" like him in power; that's the way Hillary has chosen.
Rules for rulers probably isn't completely accurate, but it gives you the gist of how people get into, and stay in, power, and it applies to Sanders as well. And the more we move away from a self-reliant, individualistic culture, the more oppressive our government will become, for the simple reason that the more rewarding it gets for rulers to concentrate money and power.
From a classic interview:
People with money also shit and fuck; that doesn't make shitting and fucking capitalist activities.
Capitalism is defined as an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. Paying money to politicians in order to get them to interfere in the economy is the opposite of capitalism.
It's you who is either lying or stupid, misrepresenting the corporate kleptocracy and the politicians they buy it as "capitalist". And what makes that so bad is that people like you then go on electing "anti-capitalist" politicians who just engage in even more corruption and theft under the guise of "regulating and curbing markets". I mean, some of you are so stupid that you actually believe that Hillary is going to fight against Wall St and corporate influence on politics.
I literally quoted you. Would you like me to quote you again?
That is copied and pasted you.
I pointed out that there are no stockholders involved in government grants or science. Hence, your claim that "science" takes second place to "servicing the stock holders" is bullshit.
Point is that you blamed problems in science on "servicing the stockholders". I pointed out that there are no stockholders involved in the science funding that TFA talks about: it's all government bureaucrats and academic peers that are responsible for the problems with short term thinking.
Then it isn't relevant; TFA is about basic research.
Being an academic and a bureaucrat are not mutually exclusive. In fact, almost all government research grants are reviewed by experts.
Perhaps not. If you keep failing to get grant funding, even the academic bureaucrat career is likely closed to you. Have you consider driving for Uber?
(1) That is Hillary's claim, not fact.
(2) What has come to light isn't a "smear campaign", it is actual facts about Hillary and her lies and deceptions, facts that US voters are entitled to.
(3) The simplest explanation why there is nothing like this being released on Trump is that (a) Trump has not engaged in Hillary's level of corruption and deception, and/or (b) Trump's staff isn't terminally incompetent when dealing with E-mail, like Hillary and the DNC.
And if that "interference" consists of exposing fraud, corruption, and deception by one of the candidates, I think it's a good thing.
Furthermore, foreign governments have a legitimate interest in not having to deal with a lying, crooked war-monger like Hillary. I would see no reason to fault them for that even if Hillary's beliefs about who is doing this are true.
I approve of governments hacking each other and sharing each other's dirty little secrets with the public. Adversarial systems work well in the service of justice and honesty.
I hope someone hacks Merkel's and May's E-mails too and publishes them. Unfortunately, the Germans are likely too careful to let that happen.
And which companies would that be? Google, Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Oracle, VW, Mercedes, BMW, Exxon--pretty much any big company--invest for the long term.
Oh, that's cute, you think that government decisions about spending are actually based on what taxpayers "accept". Get real.
Government funding of research is primarily based on three things: (1) the biases, preferences, and petty turf wars of academics themselves, (2) funneling money to politically important special interests and groups, and (3) photo-ops for politicians.
What stockholders? Most people working in basic science work at universities and research labs; they don't have any "stockholders".
Bell Labs was funded by a monopoly on telecommunications, something that kept prices for telephone calls astronomically high, stifled innovation, and delayed the start of the Internet revolution by probably at least a decade.
And which "stockholders" is this the fault of? Please tell me what shares I should sell so that universities fire managers and start functioning better again.
Academic research proposals are peer reviewed, so you are not complaining about capitalists or investors, you are complaining about people like yourself. Even the nominally non-peers (like DARPA program managers) usually started out as academics.
Smart people move out of it as soon as they can because of people like you, people like you who then go on to become the peer reviewers and funding managers for future generations of academic researchers. When you reach that stage, you'll have your own little games of favoritism, your bottled up anger, and your own ignorance to guide you and make you just as bad as those you are complaining about now.
There is no capitalism in academic research. Capitalism means that the people who spend money on research benefit from its success and pay for its failures. But the funding sources for academic research don't take any risks with their own money, they take tax dollars and hand them out to academic researchers based on scientific fashion and political objectives.
Yes, academic institutions are focused on money, but so are the Mafia and the Catholic church. A focus on money isn't capitalism, it is more commonly corruption and rent seeking. That is, the benefits public funders of academic research seek are political and personal in nature.
Correct. Academic funding decisions are largely made by other academics themselves, by the US government, and by politicians. And that's where the problem is.
Academic researchers are primarily funded and promoted by (1) government and (2) other researchers. "Industry" has little to do with it.
Industrial researchers tend to work on whatever is actually important to their company and tend to be flexible in terms of research directions.