Liberals don't care about that ruling. They are the primary beneficiaries of government welfare, and most of them claim not to believe in the concept of "property" anyways. They don't own capital because most of them are too stupid and irresponsible to make effective use of it. So having the government forcibly re-arrange property ownership under a pretext of increasing their welfare payments is A-okay to liberals.
I would say I'm almost convinced of Portugal's success, but I'm really not convinced similar policy would have a beneficial effect in the US. Comparing alcohol use in Europe and the US, for example, it's obvious that Americans have much less responsible attitudes towards it. I would say I agree with a federalist (anti-federalist actually) approach to de-criminalization of drug use, even though the point is becoming moot with the rise of prescription drug abuse, and the federal implementation of UHC would completely negate any economic differences between states that choose to criminalize drug use and those that don't. In fact, it would favor states that de-criminalize, with other states subsidizing them. Furthermore, individual drug abuse has not been likely to result in criminal sanctions in the US for some time. The most usual result is deferred sentencing, probation and monitoring, with jail time only being imposed after violation of probation.
Violent crime rates rose, though "drug-related" violence fell. Where to draw the line on these is extremely difficult. Violence is highly correlated with substance abuse in individuals, even though many drugs have a palliative effect when used. Increases in carjackings and armed-robbery give me the impression that roving bands of crack-heads are stealing to get their fix, which is what happens in any US neighborhood with widespread drug abuse. These crimes occur when the abuser hasn't had drugs lately, so they aren't "drug-related".
As for cost/benefits, I couldn't find where those are directly addressed. I would have expected the CATO paper to at least delve into this. It doesn't even mention the cost of treatment programs. The number of people in treatment more than doubled. Portugal already had a large welfare state that the US does not have. And Portugal's economy, which was already the worst in Western Europe, has worsened since de-criminalization. In fact, I suspect that the welfare state is masking the true costs of the policy.
They are also paying taxes.
The US has a progressive income tax. They aren't paying the true cost of the services they consume. People making higher incomes are subsidizing them.
While the birth rate, in developed nations, needs to be about 2.1 in the US it is about 2.09.
The US economy is shedding a half a million jobs a month, mostly due to rising energy costs and a growth in automation technologies. If anything, the birth rate "needs" to be negative.
Now if you want to reduce immigration them you should oppose the billions of dollars the government gives in subsidies to businesses
I do. But it's perfectly possible for Mexican peasant farmers to grow fruits and vegetables instead of corn, and profit from trade as you mentioned. They don't because it's easier for them to pack up and move here, because there are no barriers and US governments will happily provide them services as incentive.
Those people receiving remittances from immigrant laborers can then buy American goods, which helps the American economy.
It doesn't help the American economy nearly as much as Americans buying American goods due to the multiplier effect.
In fact, fewer jobs is the ideal economic situation
I call BS. Now I'm willing to admit I am wrong, so if you can provide a link to economic studies supporting your assertion I am change my beliefs. But you have to prove it to me first.
I can't find any economic studies, and quite frankly I doubt any exist. I doubt it has been considered much at all lately, given the current economic state of the US which is traditionally a powerhouse of economic theory.
Naive macroeconomic optimization says that full employment produces maximum utility. "Full employment" means that everyone who wants a job, has one. Gove
Actually that's pretty insightful. The patent is littered with the phrase "digital signature", as this seems to be the proposed novelty of Microsoft's method. But ransomware was doing the exact things described in the patent as nearly a decade prior to it's filing.
With legal drugs all those people can be taxpaying employees.
For most jobs, drug users make pretty crappy employees. In fact, (and this should be scary to think about), many minimum-wage employees could be thrown in jail and replaced with robots, and it would cost less and provide economic benefit to the rest of us, overall.
I've actually met drug users who would rather be in jail than have access to drugs.
And, unfortunately, I believe history shows that violent crime rates rise with increased drug use, and has fallen dramatically since the onset of the war on drugs. More importantly, the victims of those crimes are random citizens, not drug dealers or gang members fighting amongst each other.
I don't want government passing laws that make victim-less crimes.
I don't either. But that horse left the barn several decades ago. And there's no sign of it coming back. So until I can drive without being harassed for not wearing my seatbelt, I don't think this argument will gain any traction when it comes to anything more controversial.
So, what American Indian tribe are you a member of?
Choctaw. From what overpopulated shithole did you come to invade my country?
Including technology, which illegal immigrant are not taking jobs away.
Correct. They are, however, taking capital away. As I stated, this capital is being diverted to provide education and other government services for illegal immigrants and their many children.
Actually immigrants are more likely to start new businesses creating jobs than those born in the US. More jobs make for a better economy in general.
1. We're talking about illegal immigrants, not all immigrants. Who's being "racist" now?
2. If that were true, they would be doing it in their own countries. They aren't.
3. If true, illegal immigrants still don't create enough jobs to make up for their higher-than-average birth rate. Again, look at their home countries for perfect examples of this in action.
4. More jobs absolutely do not "make for a better economy". Low unemployment, high wages and low resource costs make for a better economy. The number of jobs is irrelevant. In fact, fewer jobs is the ideal economic situation. Failure to understand this simple fact is one of the primary reasons that emigrant nations are such overpopulated shitholes.
The recession was caused by financial institutions giving mortgages to people who could not afford those mortgages.
That's true. And most of the houses would likely have been built regardless due to poor Fed policy. Cheap illegal immigrant labor just ensured that vast quantities of capital would be transferred out of the country, or invested in a new generation of migrant laborers, in the process, rather than continuing to circulate in the US economy to ensure jobs and benefit Americans.
Legalize drugs and release those convicted of non violent drug offenses. Not only would this reduce the costs of laws enforcement but it would reduce drug violence as well.
I'm not really prepared to debate this, but I doubt you can back this up with anything resembling statistics or proof.
Sorry, but immigrants don't have the "liberty" of invading this country and breeding it into crippling poverty like the failed states from whence they came. They have the priviledge of getting in line, entering through the front door and being integrated into our society.
Look at the facts from the latest recession:
1) All major sectors of the economy contracting, except Education and Government. Why? Schools are filled with immigrant anchor-babies. Jails are filled with immigrant criminals and drug users supplied by foreign smugglers. Immigrants and US citizens out of work due to over-supplied labor markets require more government welfare and unemployment services.
2) Housing market vastly oversupplied. Why? Government-set artificially-low interest rates, racist preferred-lending laws, and open borders created the perfect environment for a flood of immigrants to enter the US, build homes that were not demanded by the market, and get loans they couldn't afford to pay back. The rest of us paid for it for years through lost interest on our savings. And now we're continuing to pay for it through direct government subsidies to irresponsible banks and home "owners".
Borders are not racist. Unchecked immigration has crippled the US economy and is fueling the largest government expansion since that idiot Bush's failed war.
Night, definitely. I have known since I was around seven years old that I do my best work at night. No one at the last start-up where I worked came in before 10 o' clock. Studies have even show that night owls are more intelligent than larks.
Well, excuse me, then. It sounded like you were looking for some actual advice rather than an argument.
So, are we talking about some hypothetical user who bought a computer with a supported Linux OS, or you? Because "my laptop that also runs Windows" doesn't sound like a "netbook that came with Gnome".
If you can't manage to disable a Gnome applet or install KDE in Ubuntu, go ahead and buy a Mac. They have pretty good, albeit limited, hardware support. Of course most of the rest of their software sucks. But you won't be able to hurt yourself with it and no one will pretend to care about your fabricated complaints.
Some things in TFA make me wonder though, like "Enterprise: no standard way of software distribution". How hard is it to set up a local repository(-ies), from where workstations get updates?
It's not hard. But IT support in most corporations is filled with dyslexic drooling retards. If it doesn't come with a training program, an 800 support number, and a GUI, it's "too difficult" or "takes too much time" for their annoying Cheeto-stained overpaid asses to handle.
In fact, ditching Gnome for KDE will likely fix your printer problems too.
Battery life and suspend/resume are a bit more esoteric. You'll never improve those on your own unless you're willing to hack and compile a kernel. It's certainly possible, but hardware support lags for obvious reasons.
Certainly the article is more in-depth than most, but you're right that many points are exaggerated or simply wrong. I was surprised to see the complaint about Qt and GTK backwards compatibility.
2.5 No double buffering.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding but every distro I've ever used has had the dbe extension enabled by default in X11.
5.1.1 No equivalent of some hardcore Windows software like AutoCAD/3D Studio/Adobe Premier/Corel Painter/etc. Home and work users just won't bother installing Linux until they can work for real.
I run AutoCAD and qcad on Linux and do REAL work with LaTeX that is several times more efficient and productive than any Windows equivalent. The "you can't do real work with Linux" argument has been tired for years. Linux and OSS are quietly kicking ass in the "doing real work" arena. The fact that Windows is still the preferred porn-surfing OS means little.
How about another? When I switched to Linux on the desktop nearly ten years ago, my sound card worked in Linux but not in Windows 98. Since then, Debian has supported every sound card on every computer I have used.
American population has trippled since 1900. By your logic, our standard of living should be 1/3 of what it was in 1900.
No, by my logic our standard of living would be higher if American population had grown at slower rate. In no way did I imply a linear relationship. Furthermore, I also did not imply that the relationship between population and standard of living does not have an inflection point. In fact I specifically accounted for "reasonably slow population growth".
Besides, if we ignored external inputs due to trade (not human trafficking), our standard of living would be much lower than it is currently. And if we further ignore the vast amounts of physical resources that have been depleted in the US since 1900 we could come quite close to explaining why the timeframe you chose as your sterling example of progress through uncontrolled population growth is little more than an aberration.
Your assumtions are flawed. It's not a zero sum game. More people means BOTH more workers AND more customers.
Unfortunately finite resources ARE a zero sum game. And one which economists routinely ignore. More people means fewer resources, full stop.
Energy use per capita has peaked. Standards of living have been stagnant for two decades. Technological progress has slowed.
Furthermore, as I pointed out in my post which you blithely ignored, HUMAN LABOR IS REACHING OBSOLESCENCE IN THE FACE OF AUTOMATION TECHNOLOGIES THAT CONSUME VAST AMOUNTS OF ENERGY. So there is zero need for more workers beyond the replacement rate.
My assumptions are NOT flawed. I am not some type of neo-Malthusian. You are simply ignoring physical reality in favor of some mathematical bullshit of which you have convinced yourself, not unlike the idiots who spent the last ten years destroying the US economy by importing Mexicans to build craptacularly overpriced houses.
I find it astonishingly ironic that the most rabid protectionists are also the ones who are apparently pro-free-market.
That's because you don't understand the physical limits of economics and of the free market.
The free market for labor only works in a closed system with reasonably slow population growth. Human labor is the only commodity that is self-replicating, legally protected and government subsidized. For those reasons it's also the only economic input whose supply has an inverse relationship to quality of living and, thus, utility. Without limits, labor supply would grow uncontrollably, outstripping demand and collapsing individual quality of life.
Look at almost any third world country for an example of this in action. China and India don't need more people. They're trying to kill them off as quickly as possible by herding them into polluted cities and enforcing quotas on cigarettes and limits on children. Saturating our labor markets with an unending flow of immigrants would cause Americans' quality of life to plummet, and would not appreciably improve the quality of life in the emigrant countries from which they came, because they would quickly be replaced.
Then, beyond any of that, which should be obvious by now, consider that labor demand is shrinking as technology improves. Jobs are increasingly being done by computers and robots. One worker can do the jobs of ten or a hundred workers of just a few decades ago. Energy is the limiting factor to future economic growth, not labor.
And you're wrong about one other thing: Borders don't create wars. Resource shortages create wars. Overpopulation creates resource shortages. And competent governments with well-managed borders prevent overpopulation.
I just hope that well-intentioned idiots like yourself begin to realize this before the next large-scale war is caused by China and India's overpopulation problems. Surely you wouldn't be so stupid and short-sighted as to blame that on racism and fascism when greed and scarcity are much more obvious culprits?
Unfortunately, employed workers in the West (the US at least) have been creating shoddy, overpriced products that no one wants for some time now:
Giant cars that get horrid gas mileage; doctors and prescription drugs that routinely cause more harm than good; tiny, uninsulated, overcrowded apartments that cost more than houses; buggy, barely-functional software; industries that are less energy-efficient than those in developing countries; financial services that border on fraud.
And that's not even including any of the horrid government "services" which employ nearly half of everyone and no one has any say in even purchasing: prisons for substance abusers; welfare for immigrants; jack-booted thugs who murder Americans; spooks who spy on us; soldiers who waste trillions of dollars making us less secure; and of course generous hand-outs for banks and wealthy corporations.
And I'll point out that this was never an issue through nearly three decades of horrid software quality from large software providers (cough, Microsoft, cough).
In those three decades, the market evolved a solution to poor commercial software quality, though, in OSS. Open source may not come with a warranty, but it is mostly free and supportable. This means that, for some time, it has been more cost-effective to get a stable, working solution from OSS than from commercial developers.
But while the growth of OSS has been a response to poor commercial software quality, commercial providers have responded by improving the quality of their products. Microsoft has made vast improvements in the past decade due to the threat of competition. Other providers who were shipping buggy products silently failed. Most of the rest have simply co-opted OSS for use in their products, and now sell supported, stable software for less than the cost of traditional commercial providers.
So now that the large providers have mostly caught up to the quality and stability of OSS, and the free market has worked to mitigate the incidence of poor quality products, it's time for government to step in a fuck things up as usual, eliminating competition for large corporations, creating a captive market for failing insurance companies, and once again attempting to co-opt, outlaw, or denigrade Free Software that cannot be taxed or controlled.
Anyone can get a permit to cut wood in a National Forest. It is public land, after all. And recently, businesses have been given the same opportunity in order to clear out wood that would otherwise contribute to the frequency and severity of forest fires.
Besides, unlike National Parks, the government isn't saving radio spectrum for future generations. They're just denying access to a common resource.
Not that I don't believe you, but doesn't reinstalling Windows overwrite the boot sector? How does a trojan on a separate partition even execute? Windows doesn't do Autorun on IDE drive partitions, AFAIK.
Slashdot Mirror
What makes you think they aren't already hacking your WiFi router in order to ensure it "complies with regulations"?
Liberals don't care about that ruling. They are the primary beneficiaries of government welfare, and most of them claim not to believe in the concept of "property" anyways. They don't own capital because most of them are too stupid and irresponsible to make effective use of it. So having the government forcibly re-arrange property ownership under a pretext of increasing their welfare payments is A-okay to liberals.
articles
I would say I'm almost convinced of Portugal's success, but I'm really not convinced similar policy would have a beneficial effect in the US. Comparing alcohol use in Europe and the US, for example, it's obvious that Americans have much less responsible attitudes towards it. I would say I agree with a federalist (anti-federalist actually) approach to de-criminalization of drug use, even though the point is becoming moot with the rise of prescription drug abuse, and the federal implementation of UHC would completely negate any economic differences between states that choose to criminalize drug use and those that don't. In fact, it would favor states that de-criminalize, with other states subsidizing them. Furthermore, individual drug abuse has not been likely to result in criminal sanctions in the US for some time. The most usual result is deferred sentencing, probation and monitoring, with jail time only being imposed after violation of probation.
Violent crime rates rose, though "drug-related" violence fell. Where to draw the line on these is extremely difficult. Violence is highly correlated with substance abuse in individuals, even though many drugs have a palliative effect when used. Increases in carjackings and armed-robbery give me the impression that roving bands of crack-heads are stealing to get their fix, which is what happens in any US neighborhood with widespread drug abuse. These crimes occur when the abuser hasn't had drugs lately, so they aren't "drug-related".
As for cost/benefits, I couldn't find where those are directly addressed. I would have expected the CATO paper to at least delve into this. It doesn't even mention the cost of treatment programs. The number of people in treatment more than doubled. Portugal already had a large welfare state that the US does not have. And Portugal's economy, which was already the worst in Western Europe, has worsened since de-criminalization. In fact, I suspect that the welfare state is masking the true costs of the policy.
They are also paying taxes.
The US has a progressive income tax. They aren't paying the true cost of the services they consume. People making higher incomes are subsidizing them.
While the birth rate, in developed nations, needs to be about 2.1 in the US it is about 2.09.
The US economy is shedding a half a million jobs a month, mostly due to rising energy costs and a growth in automation technologies. If anything, the birth rate "needs" to be negative.
Now if you want to reduce immigration them you should oppose the billions of dollars the government gives in subsidies to businesses
I do. But it's perfectly possible for Mexican peasant farmers to grow fruits and vegetables instead of corn, and profit from trade as you mentioned. They don't because it's easier for them to pack up and move here, because there are no barriers and US governments will happily provide them services as incentive.
Those people receiving remittances from immigrant laborers can then buy American goods, which helps the American economy.
It doesn't help the American economy nearly as much as Americans buying American goods due to the multiplier effect.
In fact, fewer jobs is the ideal economic situation
I call BS. Now I'm willing to admit I am wrong, so if you can provide a link to economic studies supporting your assertion I am change my beliefs. But you have to prove it to me first.
I can't find any economic studies, and quite frankly I doubt any exist. I doubt it has been considered much at all lately, given the current economic state of the US which is traditionally a powerhouse of economic theory.
Naive macroeconomic optimization says that full employment produces maximum utility. "Full employment" means that everyone who wants a job, has one. Gove
Actually that's pretty insightful. The patent is littered with the phrase "digital signature", as this seems to be the proposed novelty of Microsoft's method. But ransomware was doing the exact things described in the patent as nearly a decade prior to it's filing.
With legal drugs all those people can be taxpaying employees.
For most jobs, drug users make pretty crappy employees. In fact, (and this should be scary to think about), many minimum-wage employees could be thrown in jail and replaced with robots, and it would cost less and provide economic benefit to the rest of us, overall.
I've actually met drug users who would rather be in jail than have access to drugs.
And, unfortunately, I believe history shows that violent crime rates rise with increased drug use, and has fallen dramatically since the onset of the war on drugs. More importantly, the victims of those crimes are random citizens, not drug dealers or gang members fighting amongst each other.
I don't want government passing laws that make victim-less crimes.
I don't either. But that horse left the barn several decades ago. And there's no sign of it coming back. So until I can drive without being harassed for not wearing my seatbelt, I don't think this argument will gain any traction when it comes to anything more controversial.
So, what American Indian tribe are you a member of?
Choctaw. From what overpopulated shithole did you come to invade my country?
Including technology, which illegal immigrant are not taking jobs away.
Correct. They are, however, taking capital away. As I stated, this capital is being diverted to provide education and other government services for illegal immigrants and their many children.
Actually immigrants are more likely to start new businesses creating jobs than those born in the US. More jobs make for a better economy in general.
1. We're talking about illegal immigrants, not all immigrants. Who's being "racist" now?
2. If that were true, they would be doing it in their own countries. They aren't.
3. If true, illegal immigrants still don't create enough jobs to make up for their higher-than-average birth rate. Again, look at their home countries for perfect examples of this in action.
4. More jobs absolutely do not "make for a better economy". Low unemployment, high wages and low resource costs make for a better economy. The number of jobs is irrelevant. In fact, fewer jobs is the ideal economic situation. Failure to understand this simple fact is one of the primary reasons that emigrant nations are such overpopulated shitholes.
The recession was caused by financial institutions giving mortgages to people who could not afford those mortgages.
That's true. And most of the houses would likely have been built regardless due to poor Fed policy. Cheap illegal immigrant labor just ensured that vast quantities of capital would be transferred out of the country, or invested in a new generation of migrant laborers, in the process, rather than continuing to circulate in the US economy to ensure jobs and benefit Americans.
Legalize drugs and release those convicted of non violent drug offenses. Not only would this reduce the costs of laws enforcement but it would reduce drug violence as well.
I'm not really prepared to debate this, but I doubt you can back this up with anything resembling statistics or proof.
Over ten million people have illegally entered this country, destroyed our economy, and likely influenced our elections.
I call that an invasion.
States have every right and duty to demand border enforcement from the federation.
Sorry, but immigrants don't have the "liberty" of invading this country and breeding it into crippling poverty like the failed states from whence they came. They have the priviledge of getting in line, entering through the front door and being integrated into our society.
Look at the facts from the latest recession:
1) All major sectors of the economy contracting, except Education and Government. Why? Schools are filled with immigrant anchor-babies. Jails are filled with immigrant criminals and drug users supplied by foreign smugglers. Immigrants and US citizens out of work due to over-supplied labor markets require more government welfare and unemployment services.
2) Housing market vastly oversupplied. Why? Government-set artificially-low interest rates, racist preferred-lending laws, and open borders created the perfect environment for a flood of immigrants to enter the US, build homes that were not demanded by the market, and get loans they couldn't afford to pay back. The rest of us paid for it for years through lost interest on our savings. And now we're continuing to pay for it through direct government subsidies to irresponsible banks and home "owners".
Borders are not racist. Unchecked immigration has crippled the US economy and is fueling the largest government expansion since that idiot Bush's failed war.
There's basically no way in hell that would ever work. It would seriously be the most awful pyramid scheme ever.
Forget about rehab centers. Those are expensive. The profits from legalized drugs wouldn't even pay for the increase in jail cells required.
And aside from the practical difficulties, do you really want government more dependent on the proceeds of drug distribution than it already is?
Night, definitely. I have known since I was around seven years old that I do my best work at night. No one at the last start-up where I worked came in before 10 o' clock. Studies have even show that night owls are more intelligent than larks.
correcting-NASA nerdgasm...
Well, excuse me, then. It sounded like you were looking for some actual advice rather than an argument.
So, are we talking about some hypothetical user who bought a computer with a supported Linux OS, or you? Because "my laptop that also runs Windows" doesn't sound like a "netbook that came with Gnome".
If you can't manage to disable a Gnome applet or install KDE in Ubuntu, go ahead and buy a Mac. They have pretty good, albeit limited, hardware support. Of course most of the rest of their software sucks. But you won't be able to hurt yourself with it and no one will pretend to care about your fabricated complaints.
Some things in TFA make me wonder though, like "Enterprise: no standard way of software distribution". How hard is it to set up a local repository(-ies), from where workstations get updates?
It's not hard. But IT support in most corporations is filled with dyslexic drooling retards. If it doesn't come with a training program, an 800 support number, and a GUI, it's "too difficult" or "takes too much time" for their annoying Cheeto-stained overpaid asses to handle.
Wifi connectivity -- Disable that stupid fucking Gnome network manager applet. It's braindead.
In fact, ditching Gnome for KDE will likely fix your printer problems too.
Battery life and suspend/resume are a bit more esoteric. You'll never improve those on your own unless you're willing to hack and compile a kernel. It's certainly possible, but hardware support lags for obvious reasons.
Certainly the article is more in-depth than most, but you're right that many points are exaggerated or simply wrong. I was surprised to see the complaint about Qt and GTK backwards compatibility.
2.5 No double buffering.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding but every distro I've ever used has had the dbe extension enabled by default in X11.
5.1.1 No equivalent of some hardcore Windows software like AutoCAD/3D Studio/Adobe Premier/Corel Painter/etc. Home and work users just won't bother installing Linux until they can work for real.
I run AutoCAD and qcad on Linux and do REAL work with LaTeX that is several times more efficient and productive than any Windows equivalent. The "you can't do real work with Linux" argument has been tired for years. Linux and OSS are quietly kicking ass in the "doing real work" arena. The fact that Windows is still the preferred porn-surfing OS means little.
How about another? When I switched to Linux on the desktop nearly ten years ago, my sound card worked in Linux but not in Windows 98. Since then, Debian has supported every sound card on every computer I have used.
Pennies aren't currency.
And why the hell would you think this?
American population has trippled since 1900. By your logic, our standard of living should be 1/3 of what it was in 1900.
No, by my logic our standard of living would be higher if American population had grown at slower rate. In no way did I imply a linear relationship. Furthermore, I also did not imply that the relationship between population and standard of living does not have an inflection point. In fact I specifically accounted for "reasonably slow population growth".
Besides, if we ignored external inputs due to trade (not human trafficking), our standard of living would be much lower than it is currently. And if we further ignore the vast amounts of physical resources that have been depleted in the US since 1900 we could come quite close to explaining why the timeframe you chose as your sterling example of progress through uncontrolled population growth is little more than an aberration.
Your assumtions are flawed. It's not a zero sum game. More people means BOTH more workers AND more customers.
Unfortunately finite resources ARE a zero sum game. And one which economists routinely ignore. More people means fewer resources, full stop.
Energy use per capita has peaked. Standards of living have been stagnant for two decades. Technological progress has slowed.
Furthermore, as I pointed out in my post which you blithely ignored, HUMAN LABOR IS REACHING OBSOLESCENCE IN THE FACE OF AUTOMATION TECHNOLOGIES THAT CONSUME VAST AMOUNTS OF ENERGY. So there is zero need for more workers beyond the replacement rate.
My assumptions are NOT flawed. I am not some type of neo-Malthusian. You are simply ignoring physical reality in favor of some mathematical bullshit of which you have convinced yourself, not unlike the idiots who spent the last ten years destroying the US economy by importing Mexicans to build craptacularly overpriced houses.
That's what I want, my speedometer to be connected to a wireless mesh network.
This sounds like a great opportunity for the Dems to waste money finding stupid new ways to tax us.
I find it astonishingly ironic that the most rabid protectionists are also the ones who are apparently pro-free-market.
That's because you don't understand the physical limits of economics and of the free market.
The free market for labor only works in a closed system with reasonably slow population growth. Human labor is the only commodity that is self-replicating, legally protected and government subsidized. For those reasons it's also the only economic input whose supply has an inverse relationship to quality of living and, thus, utility. Without limits, labor supply would grow uncontrollably, outstripping demand and collapsing individual quality of life.
Look at almost any third world country for an example of this in action. China and India don't need more people. They're trying to kill them off as quickly as possible by herding them into polluted cities and enforcing quotas on cigarettes and limits on children. Saturating our labor markets with an unending flow of immigrants would cause Americans' quality of life to plummet, and would not appreciably improve the quality of life in the emigrant countries from which they came, because they would quickly be replaced.
Then, beyond any of that, which should be obvious by now, consider that labor demand is shrinking as technology improves. Jobs are increasingly being done by computers and robots. One worker can do the jobs of ten or a hundred workers of just a few decades ago. Energy is the limiting factor to future economic growth, not labor.
And you're wrong about one other thing: Borders don't create wars. Resource shortages create wars. Overpopulation creates resource shortages. And competent governments with well-managed borders prevent overpopulation.
I just hope that well-intentioned idiots like yourself begin to realize this before the next large-scale war is caused by China and India's overpopulation problems. Surely you wouldn't be so stupid and short-sighted as to blame that on racism and fascism when greed and scarcity are much more obvious culprits?
Unfortunately, employed workers in the West (the US at least) have been creating shoddy, overpriced products that no one wants for some time now:
Giant cars that get horrid gas mileage; doctors and prescription drugs that routinely cause more harm than good; tiny, uninsulated, overcrowded apartments that cost more than houses; buggy, barely-functional software; industries that are less energy-efficient than those in developing countries; financial services that border on fraud.
And that's not even including any of the horrid government "services" which employ nearly half of everyone and no one has any say in even purchasing: prisons for substance abusers; welfare for immigrants; jack-booted thugs who murder Americans; spooks who spy on us; soldiers who waste trillions of dollars making us less secure; and of course generous hand-outs for banks and wealthy corporations.
And I'll point out that this was never an issue through nearly three decades of horrid software quality from large software providers (cough, Microsoft, cough).
In those three decades, the market evolved a solution to poor commercial software quality, though, in OSS. Open source may not come with a warranty, but it is mostly free and supportable. This means that, for some time, it has been more cost-effective to get a stable, working solution from OSS than from commercial developers.
But while the growth of OSS has been a response to poor commercial software quality, commercial providers have responded by improving the quality of their products. Microsoft has made vast improvements in the past decade due to the threat of competition. Other providers who were shipping buggy products silently failed. Most of the rest have simply co-opted OSS for use in their products, and now sell supported, stable software for less than the cost of traditional commercial providers.
So now that the large providers have mostly caught up to the quality and stability of OSS, and the free market has worked to mitigate the incidence of poor quality products, it's time for government to step in a fuck things up as usual, eliminating competition for large corporations, creating a captive market for failing insurance companies, and once again attempting to co-opt, outlaw, or denigrade Free Software that cannot be taxed or controlled.
Obviously you weren't paying attention, and you didn't even understand the OP.
The government isn't politely asking big banks to "increase their financial ability".
They're just handing them our fucking tax money because they're "too big to fail".
Anyone can get a permit to cut wood in a National Forest. It is public land, after all. And recently, businesses have been given the same opportunity in order to clear out wood that would otherwise contribute to the frequency and severity of forest fires.
Besides, unlike National Parks, the government isn't saving radio spectrum for future generations. They're just denying access to a common resource.
Not that I don't believe you, but doesn't reinstalling Windows overwrite the boot sector? How does a trojan on a separate partition even execute? Windows doesn't do Autorun on IDE drive partitions, AFAIK.