at this point, some of you may be going berserk and raging, calling me names and adjectives, thinking that the system works, see, you having made it and all, others having made it and all and whatnot.
We know you're just jealous that you didn't get cited, Capt. Kirk.
You're missing the point that the "few" in this example are the one or two generations who will benefit from subsidized healthcare and an extra 10-20 years of lifespan at the expense of the "many" of younger generations who get completely screwed when the system completely collapses.
In general, "moderated" anything is not an example of fairness, but of ignorance, muddled thinking, and an inability to synthesize a more complete and/or consistent philosophy.
This is not communism - this is a capitalist, socialist, utilitarian hybrid that works very well when implemented in good faith, and is basically the system we would have if it weren't for the constant undermining influence of the libertarian right in our government.
Sorry, but what you have in mind is communism, and it only works as long as the productive people are separated from the consumers a la Eloi and Morlocks, and both groups are lied to. It has been tried over and over again, and each time fails once producers become aware of their exploitation, and consumers are made aware of their precarious position.
For thousands of years this division broke down along gender lines, and the institution that did the lying was religion. Men lived in a world of competition and production, while women were left to consume whatever they were given. Religion told each this was their duty. The institution of marriage, however, has lately broken down in the face of competing systems.
With slavery, the division was along racial lines. The institution that held together this arrangement was, variously depending on time and place, the military or the police-state. Overt slavery turned out to be too costly a system to maintain, however.
Today, the division is mostly along national lines, with the clearest example being the consuming USians and the producing Chinese. The institutions lying to these groups are the central banks.
Can we not have a utilitarian baseline of humane living conditions for all, and a capitalist economic engine that allows for the successful to rise (well) above the baseline? Also, why not these same concepts to protect the environment and other resources for future generations?
Fortunately, this ideal is actually achievable, and achievable even with a fair and logically consistent philosophical underpinning. Unfortunately, there is little incentive to implement such a solution because the immediate costs are high, and the future rewards accrue mainly to generations not yet even conceived.
Philosophically, the simplest solution is to regulate and eliminate negative economic externalities, and to regulate or prohibit reproduction beyond replacement. Unfortunately, that's easier said than done. The entire global economy is built upon negative externalities such as pollution, resource depletion, and subsidized consumers. And it doesn't look like that will change any time soon.
You're right, this isn't Sim City. There are no arcologies. There are real resource and energy constraints on growth. If people can't find work or maintain a sufficient standard of living, there are wars and civil unrest that result.
Progress requires some amount of risk.
These workers weren't intentionally poisoned by anyone. They are simply willing to take on more risk than we are. There are more of them, and they have less capital per person.
Remember, the only reason most of them even have jobs, aside from subsistence farming, is that Western companies were willing to take on the risk of exporting lots of capital and setting up shop in a foreign country and hoping that they wouldn't have those investments nationalized.
But, by all means, go ahead, raise environmental standards for Chinese workers. Make it less attractive for foreign companies to invest in China.
We'll just build stuff here, using robots instead, and they can go back to dying in floods or starving or whatever.
Earning profit requires risk. People who moved from the countryside into factories are taking the risk that it will pay off. If you asked them, most would probably say it was worthwhile, and that it is paying off. But odds are good that a large portion will not profit by it. Now that the consequences of this type of work are known, we will see how many continue to choose to work in dangerous factories. I imagine it will still be enough to keep them running.
Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.
Previous research has identified a connection between a variant of this gene and novelty-seeking behavior, and this behavior has previously been associated with personality traits related to political liberalism.
Rich Whitey (aka Rich Whitney, R) is the way some illiterate decided to program some voting machines in a predominately black voting district in Chicago.
But I digress: if the choice is a linux distro and Android I will buy the linux distro, so I can install every possible package I already have on my desktop/laptop.
This is such a huge advantage, but the market of people who want it is so tiny no company will ever chase them.
I wonder if really good base runners have a left leg that is shorter than their right leg. Like all the tennis players with one arm that's like three times as big as the other one.
Not a chance. Taxes have almost nothing to do with government spending. Most of it is funded by borrowing freshly-printed, devalued dollars from the Federal Reserve or from foreign countries who are propping up their own export-based economies (oil producers, China, etc).
You can't name a single thing that the US government would better spend that money on than Google.
Bonuses for failed bankers? Rescuing inefficient industries and manufacturers to the detriment of more efficient ones? Torturing innocent people? Subsidizing irresponsible borrowers? Spying on Americans? Attacking countries that pose no threat to us? Creating a new permanent underclass of welfare recipients? More jails and more corrupt, militarized police? Services for illegal immigrants and their hordes of children? Tearing up and re-building perfectly-good roads and bridges? Pointless, ecologically-destructive make-work? Extending old age at the expense of youth? Maintaining overpaid bureaucrats? Creating more terrorists who hate us? Handing out prescription drugs?
Is there even one thing they do that isn't corrupt and destructive from top to bottom?
I get the impression that "dish" is now used as the opposite of "diss" in the gossip media, since it fits easily into headlines. So, if someone "dishes" on someone else, it's supposed to be a good thing.
People don't understand that the human body is not like a truck. It's a series of tubes. Why, just yesterday I ate vast amounts of donuts, and they didn't come out until 2:30 this afternoon. Why? Because they got tangled up. The tubes were too full. You can't just put enormous amounts of donuts into the tubes and expect them not to get delayed.
As soon as the Tea Party starts understanding what "externality" means
I'm not really sure how best to explain this to you, so let's just start out with you telling us why you think people constitute an externality subject to regulation, and what that has to do with health insurance.
The biggest area in which the market tends to fail is in risk analysis of rare-but-significant events.
What does this have to do with anything we're discussing? The crash of '08 was not a random event. It wasn't a meteor or natural disaster.
The reason markets fail to hedge against "rare-but-significant events" is that they are almost always the result of government force.
Another real-world example of this is water rights handling in the western US.
I'm not very knowledgeable of this area, but I do know that water is cheaper in the middle of the desert in some western states than it is in states that get 10x as much rainfall. This does seem analogous to oil, in that it is yet another example of government monopolizing a resource and distributing it for less than market value in order to maintain the ponzi scheme of perpetual growth in population and consumption.
This is where an agent external to the system is beneficial in acting as a globally optimizing force
This "external agent" already exists. It's the US government. And it hasn't optimized anything. In fact, it's been the cause of most of the supply shocks. By forcing oil-exporting states to continue producing for US consumption (see: Operation Iraqi Liberation) and by forcibly preventing the development of viable energy alternatives (see: US nuclear regulations and the Iranian controversy), the US government has completely destroyed the world economy. Instead of a nice slow rise in oil prices and plenty of time to develop alternatives, we get terrorist attacks and resource wars and supply shocks and money printing to subsidize giant houses and SUVs.
with such an agent the supply shocks in the oil market, for instance, could have been avoided- there existed sufficient information over the long term to see that such shocks were coming (and will come again)
Now you don't seem to even understand the meaning of the term "supply shock". It isn't merely a reduction in supply. We're going to get that regardless. It's a sharp, sudden reduction in supply. And there would never be supply shocks of the magnitude we saw in '06-'08 in the absence of government force. There wouldn't even be any future ones if government would stop subsidizing failure and preventing progress.
no in-market plan can afford to move the economy in such a direction as to mitigate those shocks
Speculators were the ones moving the economy in the right direction -- in the direction of liquidating the banks that were building million-dollar homes for people with no incomes. Unfortunately, it turns out that this bloated and unproductive sector of the economy was actually created and mandated (see: FNM, FRE) by your all-seeing "external agent" in the first place, and this external agent prevented it from being liquidated by those "in-market" forces acting in the benefit of the real economy.
Slashdot Mirror
if, nothing intervenes, then eventually
at this point, some of you may be going berserk and raging, calling me names and adjectives, thinking that the system works, see, you having made it and all, others having made it and all and whatnot.
We know you're just jealous that you didn't get cited, Capt. Kirk.
You're missing the point that the "few" in this example are the one or two generations who will benefit from subsidized healthcare and an extra 10-20 years of lifespan at the expense of the "many" of younger generations who get completely screwed when the system completely collapses.
In general, "moderated" anything is not an example of fairness, but of ignorance, muddled thinking, and an inability to synthesize a more complete and/or consistent philosophy.
This is not communism - this is a capitalist, socialist, utilitarian hybrid that works very well when implemented in good faith, and is basically the system we would have if it weren't for the constant undermining influence of the libertarian right in our government.
Sorry, but what you have in mind is communism, and it only works as long as the productive people are separated from the consumers a la Eloi and Morlocks, and both groups are lied to. It has been tried over and over again, and each time fails once producers become aware of their exploitation, and consumers are made aware of their precarious position.
For thousands of years this division broke down along gender lines, and the institution that did the lying was religion. Men lived in a world of competition and production, while women were left to consume whatever they were given. Religion told each this was their duty. The institution of marriage, however, has lately broken down in the face of competing systems.
With slavery, the division was along racial lines. The institution that held together this arrangement was, variously depending on time and place, the military or the police-state. Overt slavery turned out to be too costly a system to maintain, however.
Today, the division is mostly along national lines, with the clearest example being the consuming USians and the producing Chinese. The institutions lying to these groups are the central banks.
Can we not have a utilitarian baseline of humane living conditions for all, and a capitalist economic engine that allows for the successful to rise (well) above the baseline? Also, why not these same concepts to protect the environment and other resources for future generations?
Fortunately, this ideal is actually achievable, and achievable even with a fair and logically consistent philosophical underpinning. Unfortunately, there is little incentive to implement such a solution because the immediate costs are high, and the future rewards accrue mainly to generations not yet even conceived.
Philosophically, the simplest solution is to regulate and eliminate negative economic externalities, and to regulate or prohibit reproduction beyond replacement. Unfortunately, that's easier said than done. The entire global economy is built upon negative externalities such as pollution, resource depletion, and subsidized consumers. And it doesn't look like that will change any time soon.
There is a time parameter on everything.
Took place on a military vessel that had replicators and a nearly unlimited energy source.
You're right, this isn't Sim City. There are no arcologies. There are real resource and energy constraints on growth. If people can't find work or maintain a sufficient standard of living, there are wars and civil unrest that result.
Progress requires some amount of risk.
These workers weren't intentionally poisoned by anyone. They are simply willing to take on more risk than we are. There are more of them, and they have less capital per person.
Remember, the only reason most of them even have jobs, aside from subsistence farming, is that Western companies were willing to take on the risk of exporting lots of capital and setting up shop in a foreign country and hoping that they wouldn't have those investments nationalized.
But, by all means, go ahead, raise environmental standards for Chinese workers. Make it less attractive for foreign companies to invest in China.
We'll just build stuff here, using robots instead, and they can go back to dying in floods or starving or whatever.
Sorry, but this is the market fixing itself.
Earning profit requires risk. People who moved from the countryside into factories are taking the risk that it will pay off. If you asked them, most would probably say it was worthwhile, and that it is paying off. But odds are good that a large portion will not profit by it. Now that the consequences of this type of work are known, we will see how many continue to choose to work in dangerous factories. I imagine it will still be enough to keep them running.
Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.
Except it holds true even before university.
CHANGE
Previous research has identified a connection between a variant of this gene and novelty-seeking behavior, and this behavior has previously been associated with personality traits related to political liberalism.
Cutting back on government power will in turn cut back on corporate influence in government.
If only we had some sort of independent branch of government or something specifically designed to do such a thing.
I submit the reason is that, when a person places money in a slot machine, she expects at least some small chance of getting something back.
Rich Whitey (aka Rich Whitney, R) is the way some illiterate decided to program some voting machines in a predominately black voting district in Chicago.
But I digress: if the choice is a linux distro and Android I will buy the linux distro, so I can install every possible package I already have on my desktop/laptop.
This is such a huge advantage, but the market of people who want it is so tiny no company will ever chase them.
I wonder if really good base runners have a left leg that is shorter than their right leg. Like all the tennis players with one arm that's like three times as big as the other one.
I see. You're right, the article in the GGP conflates household income with personal income.
Not a chance. Taxes have almost nothing to do with government spending. Most of it is funded by borrowing freshly-printed, devalued dollars from the Federal Reserve or from foreign countries who are propping up their own export-based economies (oil producers, China, etc).
You can't name a single thing that the US government would better spend that money on than Google.
Bonuses for failed bankers? Rescuing inefficient industries and manufacturers to the detriment of more efficient ones? Torturing innocent people? Subsidizing irresponsible borrowers? Spying on Americans? Attacking countries that pose no threat to us? Creating a new permanent underclass of welfare recipients? More jails and more corrupt, militarized police? Services for illegal immigrants and their hordes of children? Tearing up and re-building perfectly-good roads and bridges? Pointless, ecologically-destructive make-work? Extending old age at the expense of youth? Maintaining overpaid bureaucrats? Creating more terrorists who hate us? Handing out prescription drugs?
Is there even one thing they do that isn't corrupt and destructive from top to bottom?
I doubt you're using the right figure for median income.
The overall median personal income for all individuals over the age of 18 was $25,149 in the year 2005.
Something tells me that hasn't changed much in the last five years.
I get the impression that "dish" is now used as the opposite of "diss" in the gossip media, since it fits easily into headlines. So, if someone "dishes" on someone else, it's supposed to be a good thing.
And there is nothing wrong with ascetics either.
heh
People don't understand that the human body is not like a truck. It's a series of tubes. Why, just yesterday I ate vast amounts of donuts, and they didn't come out until 2:30 this afternoon. Why? Because they got tangled up. The tubes were too full. You can't just put enormous amounts of donuts into the tubes and expect them not to get delayed.
Cute. You know, I have a karma bonus too. I just don't abuse it.
You didn't "get into externalities" at all. Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about.
It's unfortunate that people can now post absolute gibberish here without being modded into oblivion.
As soon as the Tea Party starts understanding what "externality" means
The first post you responded to was discussing health insurance. What are you referring to here then? Carbon taxes?
As soon as the Tea Party starts understanding what "externality" means
I'm not really sure how best to explain this to you, so let's just start out with you telling us why you think people constitute an externality subject to regulation, and what that has to do with health insurance.
The biggest area in which the market tends to fail is in risk analysis of rare-but-significant events.
What does this have to do with anything we're discussing? The crash of '08 was not a random event. It wasn't a meteor or natural disaster.
The reason markets fail to hedge against "rare-but-significant events" is that they are almost always the result of government force.
Another real-world example of this is water rights handling in the western US.
I'm not very knowledgeable of this area, but I do know that water is cheaper in the middle of the desert in some western states than it is in states that get 10x as much rainfall. This does seem analogous to oil, in that it is yet another example of government monopolizing a resource and distributing it for less than market value in order to maintain the ponzi scheme of perpetual growth in population and consumption.
This is where an agent external to the system is beneficial in acting as a globally optimizing force
This "external agent" already exists. It's the US government. And it hasn't optimized anything. In fact, it's been the cause of most of the supply shocks. By forcing oil-exporting states to continue producing for US consumption (see: Operation Iraqi Liberation) and by forcibly preventing the development of viable energy alternatives (see: US nuclear regulations and the Iranian controversy), the US government has completely destroyed the world economy. Instead of a nice slow rise in oil prices and plenty of time to develop alternatives, we get terrorist attacks and resource wars and supply shocks and money printing to subsidize giant houses and SUVs.
with such an agent the supply shocks in the oil market, for instance, could have been avoided- there existed sufficient information over the long term to see that such shocks were coming (and will come again)
Now you don't seem to even understand the meaning of the term "supply shock". It isn't merely a reduction in supply. We're going to get that regardless. It's a sharp, sudden reduction in supply. And there would never be supply shocks of the magnitude we saw in '06-'08 in the absence of government force. There wouldn't even be any future ones if government would stop subsidizing failure and preventing progress.
no in-market plan can afford to move the economy in such a direction as to mitigate those shocks
Speculators were the ones moving the economy in the right direction -- in the direction of liquidating the banks that were building million-dollar homes for people with no incomes. Unfortunately, it turns out that this bloated and unproductive sector of the economy was actually created and mandated (see: FNM, FRE) by your all-seeing "external agent" in the first place, and this external agent prevented it from being liquidated by those "in-market" forces acting in the benefit of the real economy.