I can't see food riots in America. Food is practically free there, and most of it is wasted anyway. Food could probably go up five times and most of them wouldn't notice.
With a crushing budget deficit, what better than to appoint someone whose specialisation seems to be international tax dodging. Maybe he can advise all of Americas corporations how to use these 'double dutch' schemes so the US can collapse altogether.
What baffles me about American measurements is the use of 'cup'. I mean I know that a teaspoon is 5ml, and a tablespoon is 15ml, but what the hell is a cup? Google gives 237ml, but that's a volume. When a recipe tells me to use a cup of flour, which is weighed out in the bowl, what the fuck are you supposed to do? Look up the density of flour?
It's not about minor luxuries like TVs or cars, it's about the fixed resources. Two-worker households double the price of property, which means if you only have one person working you'll only afford half the house you could have had when the wife stayed at home.
This reminds me of the Richard Dawkins passage about the trees. The point was that trees spend all that time and energy growing higher to compete with each other for light, and at the end of it all, none of them are any better off than if they'd just stayed on the ground.
It was the other way around, the economy started sucking to the point that you needed both people to work. More people working = more production and a richer society. Going off the gold standard in '73 made the dollar fall by ~60% overnight, and that's why you need two people to work now.
Other countries came off the gold standard way before then but saw the same patterns. It's nothing to do with currency no matter how much you gold-bug conspiracy theorists want it to be.
So what if it is socialism? Capitalism has never worked without huge government intervention to counteract all the huge downsides, and only then during specific circumstances such as endless growth and resource extraction.
At any rate, capitalism can't work at all in a world with no jobs. If the capitalists don't need any workers to run their factories, then no-one can afford their products and the factory closes down. A collectively owned factory where people do the bare minimum of work to keep it running whilst sharing the proceeds is pretty much the only viable system in a post-labour economy.
I'm not sure that capitalism has anything to do with freedom and small government. In fact it seems that capitalism requires a pretty big government to remove everyone's freedoms before it can even exist.
How can you even run a private capitalist farm in a field without big government goons coming along and removing the freedoms of everyone else to farm there?
Interesting then how millions of people manage to get by without owning a car, even in developed nations. Maybe because they don't have a list of excuses as long as a train.
What I don't understand is why so many Americans hate the idea of government and long for the idea of borderline anarchy, when they owe so much of their prosperity to the strength of their government.
You think that all the luxuries you enjoy today were just dropped out of the sky by the invisible hand? I think a lot of these 'libertarians' should do some research into American history.
Depleting resources, global competition, weaker unions, and lower taxes on the rich.
When there's oil bursting out of the ground wherever you bury a pickaxe, when you're the only country with any factories left after the war, and when redistribution via government and unions means the workers all receive the benefits growth, then the country can enjoy very high living standards.
Japan's decline is entirely down to demographics, and most of America's 'growth' over the same period is down to population growth, borrowing and inflation.
The Japanese and the French might wonder why they'd want to follow a country which has spent the last thirty years propping up the economy by opening the immigration floodgates and cooking inflation figures to generate growth.
But if a new player came in and was just as good, would that new player be the star? I believe that most sports viewership is for tribalist reasons, otherwise people wouldn't watch teams for decades when the old players have long since retired.
Neutrals may watch a game to see a star player, but is that really a significant proportion of the market?
Slashdot Mirror
Do you honestly think the US has the population density to support a hunter/gatherer existence?
I can't see food riots in America. Food is practically free there, and most of it is wasted anyway. Food could probably go up five times and most of them wouldn't notice.
100% free? So all those professional journalists work for free? That's generous of them.
Gas? Proper beer is hand-drawn son.
But I suppose it doesn't really matter for tasteless commercial swill like Guinness.
With a crushing budget deficit, what better than to appoint someone whose specialisation seems to be international tax dodging. Maybe he can advise all of Americas corporations how to use these 'double dutch' schemes so the US can collapse altogether.
Probably because Europeans cook more.
What baffles me about American measurements is the use of 'cup'. I mean I know that a teaspoon is 5ml, and a tablespoon is 15ml, but what the hell is a cup? Google gives 237ml, but that's a volume. When a recipe tells me to use a cup of flour, which is weighed out in the bowl, what the fuck are you supposed to do? Look up the density of flour?
A water supply is not a 'minor engineering problem'. Why do idiots on the Internet think they have all the answers?
PC games mustn't be that much fun if you need to keep distracting yourself from them.
It's not about minor luxuries like TVs or cars, it's about the fixed resources. Two-worker households double the price of property, which means if you only have one person working you'll only afford half the house you could have had when the wife stayed at home.
This reminds me of the Richard Dawkins passage about the trees. The point was that trees spend all that time and energy growing higher to compete with each other for light, and at the end of it all, none of them are any better off than if they'd just stayed on the ground.
Other countries came off the gold standard way before then but saw the same patterns. It's nothing to do with currency no matter how much you gold-bug conspiracy theorists want it to be.
So what if it is socialism? Capitalism has never worked without huge government intervention to counteract all the huge downsides, and only then during specific circumstances such as endless growth and resource extraction.
At any rate, capitalism can't work at all in a world with no jobs. If the capitalists don't need any workers to run their factories, then no-one can afford their products and the factory closes down. A collectively owned factory where people do the bare minimum of work to keep it running whilst sharing the proceeds is pretty much the only viable system in a post-labour economy.
I'm not sure that capitalism has anything to do with freedom and small government. In fact it seems that capitalism requires a pretty big government to remove everyone's freedoms before it can even exist.
How can you even run a private capitalist farm in a field without big government goons coming along and removing the freedoms of everyone else to farm there?
Your comment is totally retarded.
Sorry, there's nothing else to add.
Interesting then how millions of people manage to get by without owning a car, even in developed nations. Maybe because they don't have a list of excuses as long as a train.
Yeah, America might have full employment, a better work-life balance, and higher incomes.
But I'm sure you're much better off after thirty years of Reaganomics...
Is not hiring people and pocketing the vast profits whilst millions of workers are unemployed something to be admired now?
What I don't understand is why so many Americans hate the idea of government and long for the idea of borderline anarchy, when they owe so much of their prosperity to the strength of their government.
You think that all the luxuries you enjoy today were just dropped out of the sky by the invisible hand? I think a lot of these 'libertarians' should do some research into American history.
Depleting resources, global competition, weaker unions, and lower taxes on the rich.
When there's oil bursting out of the ground wherever you bury a pickaxe, when you're the only country with any factories left after the war, and when redistribution via government and unions means the workers all receive the benefits growth, then the country can enjoy very high living standards.
On the contrary, America has a large, untapped tax-base, a good credit rating, as well as the ability to print its own currency.
But nothing will happen when the overriding ideology of an entire political party is to cut taxes on their donors.
Japan's decline is entirely down to demographics, and most of America's 'growth' over the same period is down to population growth, borrowing and inflation.
The Japanese and the French might wonder why they'd want to follow a country which has spent the last thirty years propping up the economy by opening the immigration floodgates and cooking inflation figures to generate growth.
How much of New Hampshire's economy relies on it being part of the United States?
You should hope they copy the old slashdot system rather than the new one which doesn't actually work.
Especially as theye convinced their workers to give their labour for free.
But if a new player came in and was just as good, would that new player be the star? I believe that most sports viewership is for tribalist reasons, otherwise people wouldn't watch teams for decades when the old players have long since retired.
Neutrals may watch a game to see a star player, but is that really a significant proportion of the market?