Taken a look at America's budget deficit and trade deficit recently? And I'm not just talking about federal level. When you throw in state, city and private debt too, it seems the entire American economy is propped up by borrowing.
Those European economies were affording their social programmes fine before Wall Street fucked the world economy.
If everyone worked 60 hours a week instead of 40, they'd simply eliminate one third of the work-force. Good luck retiring when you've never had a job. Or selling any products when no-one can afford them because they don't have job.
Don't expect to get paid any more either, with more people fighting for the same jobs that means lower wages. You do realise that your vast income is the exception, not the rule, and down to fortune rather than you being some sort of super worker? In millions of companies across the world, people are working as hard as you for as many hours and being paid fuck all whilst the bosses run away with all the cash.
Hell, it'd only take a change of ownership or management before someone wonders why they're paying you so much money when there are so many experienced, qualified people unemployed and willing to do the same work for a fraction of your salary.
Don't be so confident about your retirement either. With your mentality leading to mass unemployment and stagnant incomes, the consumer economy will collapse and your shares will be worthless.
Actually I'm pretty sure that's par for the course everywhere in the world outside of the US. It's the exception, not the rule, that parents kick their kids out of the house as soon as legally allowed, leaving them drowing in bills and rents before they've even finished school, never mind managed to get a well-paying job.
This was only really possible thanks to America's cheap land that enabled surburban expansion whereby anyone even on minimum wage could afford a cheap house, and the productive economy that enabled everyone to get a job.
Now that economic reality is setting in, America's advantages being eroded, and the debt which supported this unsustainable lifestyle reaching its limits, they might have to accept living in the parents basement like the rest of the world.
So, do genetics work differently in the US than other countries which don't have anywhere near the same correlation between a parent's income and that of the child?
Why does a Swedish doctor or lawyer not confer the same earning potential or intelligence to his child than an American?
You do realise that in statistics, not every data point is along the line of best fit? You could be born in a gutter and become a billionaire, it wouldn't mean that in America your parents wealth wasn't still the main determiner of your own.
It's more to do with wealth than anything. Those born into rich families get the best education and the best jobs, the main correlation is being rich, especially in America.
Perhaps if you ate meat of better quality you wouldn't feel a need to eat a bucket of it. There's a reason they have to drown that factory-farmed chicken in batter, oil, salt and gravy, as well as dulling your tastebuds with sugary drinks: so you can't taste the chicken itself.
Although what is most disturbing about your post is the insinuation that animal cruelty, disease, and environmental degradation are all worth it if it means you can stuff yourself with even greater quantities of junk food.
I believe that's categorised under 'tough shit'. They're already granted the incredible privilege of limited liability, allowing them to destroy the planet and walk away without paying a cent in compensation, now you want them to keep the value of their investments too?
How do they afford it? My local petrol station in a surburban area has eight pumps and one employee working at any time. There's no way they could afford eight workers to stand there all day.
Or imagine that a few cars turn up during a quiet period when there's only one attendent, you'd be waiting for ages.
As far as job-creation schemes go it's pretty dumb. May as well pay people to dig holes and fill them in again.
I think the main problem with realistic graphics is that past a certain point, it just amplifies the flaws. Let's say you're playing a game with basic cartoonish graphics, if your character's sword, for example, clips through his cloak, you don't really notice or mind it. In a photorealistic game, it's incredibly jarring.
If the water effects are stunning DX11 with ripple effects and everything, then the blurry ground textures on the shore really piss you off in a way they wouldn't in a game with more basic graphics.
A bush that looks like a photograph is laughable when it pops into existence ten yards in front of you. You wouldn't care if it was a pixelly bush in an old game.
A crisp character with every pore rendered in high definition looks ridiculous when you see it go through clunky animations, and hitting an opponent despite the swing of its sword being five yards short.
Realistic graphics are a dead end because they're awkward and disturbing unless absolutely perfect in every way. You're better off going for stylised graphics and spending the processing power on draw depth, particle affects, more complicated environments etc. at a lower resolution.
But once everyone rides transit, who is going to fund its losses?
Who funds the losses of the roads? Unless you live in Europe or somewhere with similarly high fuel taxes, your roads are probably subsidised by the government. But that's one form of socialism that Americans have no problem with...
If everyone used public transport, there's no reason it couldn't be run at cost.
So, the Queen deserves a salary for giving back some of the money from the rent she extracts from us in the first place?
What does the Queen actually contribute to the Crown Estate, that benefits us over the monarchy not existing and the Crown Estate assets belonging to the people, as they did before they were stolen by the aristocracy?
I'm pretty sure that apartment has a door. You're forgetting that he's in Hong Kong, he probably has more things to do and places to see within a couple of miles than the average American suburbanite in his 3000 sq foot McMansion has within a hundred miles.
Not really. Even if all the money did just go into a big pot for him, without an educated population in the future, his retirement assets are worth absolutely fuck all. He should be grateful to provide taxes to universities so they can education the people to invent the medical treatments he'll be relying on in the future.
Without a prosperous economy in the future, all the pensions schemes in the world are utterly useless. What's the value in a portfolio full of shares in companies which don't have any workers nor any customers?
Actually I think I remember a study somewhere in a company which had an honesty box for coffee and snacks or something, and the executives were most likely to rip it off.
When fuel is cheap, and likely to stay that way, why invest a bunch of money developing more expensive energy sources that won't pay off for decades?
Because it might be easier to develop new technologies whilst energy is cheap?
Market forces would have us using up every last drop of oil and every last fleck of coal, then when it runs out wondering what the fuck we're going to do.
It's quite clear that capitalism is incapable of seeing further than the nearest quarter, or seeking anything other than the biggest profits in the shortest time period, and damn the consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
Taken a look at America's budget deficit and trade deficit recently? And I'm not just talking about federal level. When you throw in state, city and private debt too, it seems the entire American economy is propped up by borrowing.
Those European economies were affording their social programmes fine before Wall Street fucked the world economy.
All the more reason to form a union then, no?
America produces all that Arabian and Canadian oil? I thought they just found it in the ground and burned it to produce luxuries.
If everyone worked 60 hours a week instead of 40, they'd simply eliminate one third of the work-force. Good luck retiring when you've never had a job. Or selling any products when no-one can afford them because they don't have job.
Don't expect to get paid any more either, with more people fighting for the same jobs that means lower wages. You do realise that your vast income is the exception, not the rule, and down to fortune rather than you being some sort of super worker? In millions of companies across the world, people are working as hard as you for as many hours and being paid fuck all whilst the bosses run away with all the cash.
Hell, it'd only take a change of ownership or management before someone wonders why they're paying you so much money when there are so many experienced, qualified people unemployed and willing to do the same work for a fraction of your salary.
Don't be so confident about your retirement either. With your mentality leading to mass unemployment and stagnant incomes, the consumer economy will collapse and your shares will be worthless.
Actually I'm pretty sure that's par for the course everywhere in the world outside of the US. It's the exception, not the rule, that parents kick their kids out of the house as soon as legally allowed, leaving them drowing in bills and rents before they've even finished school, never mind managed to get a well-paying job.
This was only really possible thanks to America's cheap land that enabled surburban expansion whereby anyone even on minimum wage could afford a cheap house, and the productive economy that enabled everyone to get a job.
Now that economic reality is setting in, America's advantages being eroded, and the debt which supported this unsustainable lifestyle reaching its limits, they might have to accept living in the parents basement like the rest of the world.
The reduction of higher education to vocational training is itself a sign of societal anti-intellectualism.
So, do genetics work differently in the US than other countries which don't have anywhere near the same correlation between a parent's income and that of the child?
Why does a Swedish doctor or lawyer not confer the same earning potential or intelligence to his child than an American?
You do realise that in statistics, not every data point is along the line of best fit? You could be born in a gutter and become a billionaire, it wouldn't mean that in America your parents wealth wasn't still the main determiner of your own.
It's more to do with wealth than anything. Those born into rich families get the best education and the best jobs, the main correlation is being rich, especially in America.
Americans already eat way too much food, cutting meat consumption would probably be good for them.
Perhaps if you ate meat of better quality you wouldn't feel a need to eat a bucket of it. There's a reason they have to drown that factory-farmed chicken in batter, oil, salt and gravy, as well as dulling your tastebuds with sugary drinks: so you can't taste the chicken itself.
Although what is most disturbing about your post is the insinuation that animal cruelty, disease, and environmental degradation are all worth it if it means you can stuff yourself with even greater quantities of junk food.
I believe that's categorised under 'tough shit'. They're already granted the incredible privilege of limited liability, allowing them to destroy the planet and walk away without paying a cent in compensation, now you want them to keep the value of their investments too?
How do they afford it? My local petrol station in a surburban area has eight pumps and one employee working at any time. There's no way they could afford eight workers to stand there all day.
Or imagine that a few cars turn up during a quiet period when there's only one attendent, you'd be waiting for ages.
As far as job-creation schemes go it's pretty dumb. May as well pay people to dig holes and fill them in again.
No it would make it worse, as pixels look better than cartoonish vectors.
Plenty of generic guitar music on the radio. Including the Quo.
I think the main problem with realistic graphics is that past a certain point, it just amplifies the flaws. Let's say you're playing a game with basic cartoonish graphics, if your character's sword, for example, clips through his cloak, you don't really notice or mind it. In a photorealistic game, it's incredibly jarring.
If the water effects are stunning DX11 with ripple effects and everything, then the blurry ground textures on the shore really piss you off in a way they wouldn't in a game with more basic graphics.
A bush that looks like a photograph is laughable when it pops into existence ten yards in front of you. You wouldn't care if it was a pixelly bush in an old game.
A crisp character with every pore rendered in high definition looks ridiculous when you see it go through clunky animations, and hitting an opponent despite the swing of its sword being five yards short.
Realistic graphics are a dead end because they're awkward and disturbing unless absolutely perfect in every way. You're better off going for stylised graphics and spending the processing power on draw depth, particle affects, more complicated environments etc. at a lower resolution.
Who funds the losses of the roads? Unless you live in Europe or somewhere with similarly high fuel taxes, your roads are probably subsidised by the government. But that's one form of socialism that Americans have no problem with...
If everyone used public transport, there's no reason it couldn't be run at cost.
So, the Queen deserves a salary for giving back some of the money from the rent she extracts from us in the first place?
What does the Queen actually contribute to the Crown Estate, that benefits us over the monarchy not existing and the Crown Estate assets belonging to the people, as they did before they were stolen by the aristocracy?
How the hell do you eat $500 worth of food before it goes off?
I'm pretty sure that apartment has a door. You're forgetting that he's in Hong Kong, he probably has more things to do and places to see within a couple of miles than the average American suburbanite in his 3000 sq foot McMansion has within a hundred miles.
Says who, the American government which has changed its story about four hundred times in the last week?
That's something like three times the average hourly wage. From a worthless app they made while sitting on the shitter.
Not really. Even if all the money did just go into a big pot for him, without an educated population in the future, his retirement assets are worth absolutely fuck all. He should be grateful to provide taxes to universities so they can education the people to invent the medical treatments he'll be relying on in the future.
Without a prosperous economy in the future, all the pensions schemes in the world are utterly useless. What's the value in a portfolio full of shares in companies which don't have any workers nor any customers?
Actually I think I remember a study somewhere in a company which had an honesty box for coffee and snacks or something, and the executives were most likely to rip it off.
Because it might be easier to develop new technologies whilst energy is cheap?
Market forces would have us using up every last drop of oil and every last fleck of coal, then when it runs out wondering what the fuck we're going to do.
It's quite clear that capitalism is incapable of seeing further than the nearest quarter, or seeking anything other than the biggest profits in the shortest time period, and damn the consequences.