After I factor out rent and utilities and necessary living expenses (like, food), I still have nearly a thousand dollars of cash per month. Here's a hint, don't buy useless shit, and you'll have plenty of cash for the things that actually MATTER.
I think saving a few months' of spare income on my #1 most important tool of life isn't a big sacrifice. There are much better areas to pinch pennies at.
Some people spend money on the tools of their trade and expect a return on their investment.
$1000 isn't much money. I spend that much on a set of tires, or a new musical instrument or something. I spent much, much more than that on my source of livelihood, my UNIX workstation.
You, on the other hand, don't expect much more than 150fps until you drop another $1000 upgrading your machine next year.
You're right. Apple can't touch that market, and nor do they want to. Have fun shooting 'em up.
Before I answer your question, I think you should clarify what you mean by "living standard". I can't give you a strict definition of "wealthy", but I can provide some interesting examples that counter your argument.
A high standard of living and average happiness of a populace can be a nice side effect of wealth, but I don't think it's the only one. Take, for example, a typical muslim oil-producing country ruled by a dictatorship or royal family. The country is incredibly wealthy, as it has vast oil reserves that other countries will gladly export its currency for, as this introduces wealth into the foreign country. By pumping out more currency to offset this loss, the country is in effect making its own currency less valuable, negating any interest the oil-producing country may have.
If the monarchy doesn't spread this wealth among the people through whatevers means necessary, the standard of living in the country would be extremely low, yet the country, as an entity, is "wealthy".
Why do you think Gates values $5,000,000 less than you do? That $5,000,000 will buy him the same things it will buy you.
You're applying principles of microeconomics on a national, possibly even global macroeconomic scale. This is something they also teach you not to do in introductory economics.
And that's why currency has a value, as well - it's not just an arbitrary numbers. Did Universal's announcement to slash CD prices to around $10 affect the strength of the dollar - uhm, probably not.
Wealth isn't created by a bunch of consumers buying a new album, okay. That's called spending money. It's stimulating the economy, sure, by catalyzing the flow of money through a profit-system, but it isn't spontaneously creating new wealth. A country where everybody has 10 copies of their favorite CD is NOT wealthy.
He consented to the exchange because he had some personal value attached to the consumable good. Not because it's actual capital or wealth, which is what this entire discussion is about. Just because someone likes shiny things doesn't mean the world is richer.
You, like many of the other people who responded to my post, are mistaking personal satisfaction/happiness/excitement over a new item as the spontaneous creation of new wealth in the global economy.
THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS.
Yes, wealth is created through the banking system, but profits are created (and losses are incurred) through buying consumer products and making bad investments. That money went into someone else's pocket. The widget (or stock certificate) is not the SAME as money, it can be TRADED for money, if the conditions are oh-so-right. There's a huge difference there. Either way, wealth and capital are being shifted.
If we're going to assign the definition of "value" to willy-nilly, arbitrary, personal, subjective constructs - well then, I think this pile of shit here is really valuable. Would you like to buy it from me?
You're not talking about profits, wealth, or capital. You're talking about perceived personal value, which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. I may think blue swim trunks are the absolutely coolest thing in the world, and would pay $100 for them, but chances are some guy in the third world isn't going to give half a rat's ass, and wouldn't pay a penny for them. He'd rather buy a loaf of bread. But I already have a loaf of bread, and I would rather have the swim trunks. Who's right? It's subjective, and it's not wealth.
If your definition of "wealth" does not encompass capital and money, then why exactly are you bringing it into this discussion? Can I use my precious blue swim trunks as an economic metric too?
No, the profit made by combining or using resources in a way that others were not immediately able to is just that - a profit. It's not wealth. This margin is built upon through every step of the distribution chain until a loss is incurred by the consumer. *This is how companies make money - by taking it from other people or companies*. I'm not saying this is bad, horrible, or whatever. It's just how it works.
Whether or not the consumer wishes to resell this later is up to him. Whether or not this automobile or whatever will rise in value due to appreciation - that's a whole 'nother discussion that really has nothing to do with the allocation and creation of capital by a central baning system.
Profits companies make are made by the losses of their immediate customers. This just isn't obvious until it gets to the consumer.
The notion that new wealth is spontaneously created through this profit-motivated supply chain is ABSOLUTELY absurd.
Capitalism is based entirely on value built by the virtue of economic inequity.
Shifting this from a national level to an international level by using terms like the gross national product is misleading. What do you think the GNP represents? It represents the WEALTH that a country holds, right?
It's not because of a "mind virus" that some countries have huge and some have abysmal GNPs. It's the nature of capitalism. Every country in the world having an equal and growing GNP is analogous to every person in this country making the same income that grows at the same rate.
It will never end up that way, and if it does, you've turned into a socialist/capitalist society.
Yeesh.
Yes, wealth is created, yes, there is more capital.
No, zero-sum does not mean "fixed, unwavering, and spread-ever-so-thin-as-time-progresses".
Get over your mind virus technobabble, and step into the real world where the wealthy are wealthy, and the poor are poor. That's how it pans out.
I'm not saying that the amount of wealth/capital in the world is FIXED. I'm saying it's limited/finite/scarce/whatever.
Sure, the bank may loan out money to you, but it's up to you to make sure you pay them back, with interest. I assure you wealth isn't being created fast enough for everyone to pay it back without any problems. If that were true, well, we wouldn't really need a silly thing like the Federal Reserve, would we? Not EVERYONE can make money - those who default on loans - well they fucked up somewhere, and the money they were unable to repay got slammed into the system for further distribution. Out of their hands, into someone else's. That's all I'm saying.
Try thinking about that the next time you buy your jeans that were Hecho En Mexico for 25c a day.
Much of the world IS agrarian - and countries like the US have governments subsidize the farms as to ensure they make a profit year after year, so that the producers don't get dicked over. Does this not seem like an important aspect of growing a modern country?
It's a zero-sum game because the participants in this game are fighting over a finite amount of resources (i.e., capital).
The products that are made, bought, and sold, do not constitute wealth. They are items that may be exchanged for the real source of wealth, currency. Money.
We're not working with seashells and colored rocks, anymore. You can't just say "well, i'll trade you this stack of bills for that pile of iron ore, and we're even!". The investment in this raw materials is in preparation for the sale of goods, which brings in more capital from the surroundings (customers/distributors, whatever). Wealth is transferred all the way down the line, a profit being made at each step.
So where does this profit come from? Money isn't made out of nowhere, magically - the Fed releases it slowly, cautiously, thoughtfully. When someone fucks up this precarious balance of profit and wealth transfer, loans get defaulted upon after the money has been injected into the workings of the economy. Bankruptcies are filed, companies go under, and someone else ends up with the money that was supposed to be for them. It's competitive, and there are clear and obvious winners and losers.
No, wealth has been transferred. A consumable item (HINT: "CONSUME") has been bought. It may later be sold, in exchange for ANOTHER transfer of wealth/capital.
Do you see what I'm getting at here?
The amount of investment capital in the world is not fixed, but the very nature of a capitalistic system dictates the the wealthy are diametrically opposed from the poor - hence my statement that economics is basically a zero-sum game of people trying to take a finite resource from each other.
Yes, it's obvious that the amount of invested and returned capital in the world is growing - that's what central banks do. I'm aware of this.
All I'm saying is that in every transaction, someone is out to make a monetary profit, and in order for you to grab a "larger piece of the pie", you are ensuring the inequity of the distribution of total wealth among the populace.
How can you argue with this? It's obvious that if everyone wants a bigger piece, someone is goign to get dicked. Not everyone can be as wealthy as they want while the global monetary fund keeps pumping out capital - that leads to rapid inflation and devalued currency.
My definition of zero-sum is that resources are limited, and any allocation of a subset of those resources come at a detriment to others who are not able to get said resources allocated to them - this creates the relative value of "wealthy" things such as capital and physical resources.
What about the inflation that would occur if the exponential and viral growth of wealth were to continue unabated throughout the world?
The profit margins that drive efficiency and expansion/scale in the capitalist system are by nature designed to uphold and propel the incongruous nature of the distribution of wealth. The only way you create new wealth is by creating more rich/poor relationships. Obviously, that's how this stuff works - if everyone had it, it wouldn't be worth anything.
Your example of paying your neighbor's kid to cut your lawn is interesting, but, in my opinion, a bit flawed. You may be converting his labor into capital for him, but what do you get? You get a service. That's not wealth. That's just a nice lawn. Although it seems like you have set in motion a sequence of events that's sure to create abundant wealth from nowhere, in reality you merely transferred your capital to him, at your loss, since you did not receive any monetary return on your investment. That's what I mean by zero-sum.
As for the plasma screens and Angola - the capital poured into those ventures is only done so with the prospect of capital gains - again, the profit margin must rear its ugly head, and someone is going to get the shorter end of the stick.
I'm not saying that the amount of money in the world is constant - I'm saying that in order for you to grab a larger piece, you ensure the inequity of the distribution throughout the population.
We are bound by the laws of scarcity; there isn't an unlimited amount of money in this world, even if modern currencies aren't backed by gold bullion or the like.
Creating your own wealth means taking someone else's (or capital that "would have" gone to someone else). Directly or indirectly, it's a zero-sum game, and that's the name of it.
Totally valid point. However, the choice as to whether I want to have less battery life at the expense of better sound quality should be my choice should it not?
Actually, that choice is up to the manufacturer. Your choice is whether or not you want to buy it.
Telephone companies have been doing this for years.
They list bogus entries in phone books and then scan other lists for occurrences of these entries. Subscriber lists and customer information is copyrighted and non-freely-distributable, supposedly (these terms may be slightly wrong).
If they start showing up in other databases (like other companies' phone books), calls are made. It's an excellent way to prevent the copying of their property en masse.
Slashdot Mirror
The original post was a joke, you moron.
I'm a student with a part time job.
I make less than $30k a year.
After I factor out rent and utilities and necessary living expenses (like, food), I still have nearly a thousand dollars of cash per month. Here's a hint, don't buy useless shit, and you'll have plenty of cash for the things that actually MATTER.
I think saving a few months' of spare income on my #1 most important tool of life isn't a big sacrifice. There are much better areas to pinch pennies at.
Just my opinion on the matter.
Some people spend money on the tools of their trade and expect a return on their investment.
$1000 isn't much money. I spend that much on a set of tires, or a new musical instrument or something. I spent much, much more than that on my source of livelihood, my UNIX workstation.
You, on the other hand, don't expect much more than 150fps until you drop another $1000 upgrading your machine next year.
You're right. Apple can't touch that market, and nor do they want to. Have fun shooting 'em up.
Before I answer your question, I think you should clarify what you mean by "living standard". I can't give you a strict definition of "wealthy", but I can provide some interesting examples that counter your argument.
A high standard of living and average happiness of a populace can be a nice side effect of wealth, but I don't think it's the only one. Take, for example, a typical muslim oil-producing country ruled by a dictatorship or royal family. The country is incredibly wealthy, as it has vast oil reserves that other countries will gladly export its currency for, as this introduces wealth into the foreign country. By pumping out more currency to offset this loss, the country is in effect making its own currency less valuable, negating any interest the oil-producing country may have.
If the monarchy doesn't spread this wealth among the people through whatevers means necessary, the standard of living in the country would be extremely low, yet the country, as an entity, is "wealthy".
Why do you think Gates values $5,000,000 less than you do? That $5,000,000 will buy him the same things it will buy you.
You're applying principles of microeconomics on a national, possibly even global macroeconomic scale. This is something they also teach you not to do in introductory economics.
And that's why currency has a value, as well - it's not just an arbitrary numbers. Did Universal's announcement to slash CD prices to around $10 affect the strength of the dollar - uhm, probably not.
Wealth isn't created by a bunch of consumers buying a new album, okay. That's called spending money. It's stimulating the economy, sure, by catalyzing the flow of money through a profit-system, but it isn't spontaneously creating new wealth. A country where everybody has 10 copies of their favorite CD is NOT wealthy.
He consented to the exchange because he had some personal value attached to the consumable good. Not because it's actual capital or wealth, which is what this entire discussion is about. Just because someone likes shiny things doesn't mean the world is richer.
You, like many of the other people who responded to my post, are mistaking personal satisfaction/happiness/excitement over a new item as the spontaneous creation of new wealth in the global economy.
THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS.
Yes, wealth is created through the banking system, but profits are created (and losses are incurred) through buying consumer products and making bad investments. That money went into someone else's pocket. The widget (or stock certificate) is not the SAME as money, it can be TRADED for money, if the conditions are oh-so-right. There's a huge difference there. Either way, wealth and capital are being shifted.
If we're going to assign the definition of "value" to willy-nilly, arbitrary, personal, subjective constructs - well then, I think this pile of shit here is really valuable. Would you like to buy it from me?
You're not talking about profits, wealth, or capital. You're talking about perceived personal value, which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. I may think blue swim trunks are the absolutely coolest thing in the world, and would pay $100 for them, but chances are some guy in the third world isn't going to give half a rat's ass, and wouldn't pay a penny for them. He'd rather buy a loaf of bread. But I already have a loaf of bread, and I would rather have the swim trunks. Who's right? It's subjective, and it's not wealth.
If your definition of "wealth" does not encompass capital and money, then why exactly are you bringing it into this discussion? Can I use my precious blue swim trunks as an economic metric too?
No, the profit made by combining or using resources in a way that others were not immediately able to is just that - a profit. It's not wealth. This margin is built upon through every step of the distribution chain until a loss is incurred by the consumer. *This is how companies make money - by taking it from other people or companies*. I'm not saying this is bad, horrible, or whatever. It's just how it works.
Whether or not the consumer wishes to resell this later is up to him. Whether or not this automobile or whatever will rise in value due to appreciation - that's a whole 'nother discussion that really has nothing to do with the allocation and creation of capital by a central baning system.
Profits companies make are made by the losses of their immediate customers. This just isn't obvious until it gets to the consumer.
The notion that new wealth is spontaneously created through this profit-motivated supply chain is ABSOLUTELY absurd.
Capitalism is based entirely on value built by the virtue of economic inequity.
Shifting this from a national level to an international level by using terms like the gross national product is misleading. What do you think the GNP represents? It represents the WEALTH that a country holds, right?
It's not because of a "mind virus" that some countries have huge and some have abysmal GNPs. It's the nature of capitalism. Every country in the world having an equal and growing GNP is analogous to every person in this country making the same income that grows at the same rate.
It will never end up that way, and if it does, you've turned into a socialist/capitalist society.
Yeesh.
Yes, wealth is created, yes, there is more capital.
No, zero-sum does not mean "fixed, unwavering, and spread-ever-so-thin-as-time-progresses".
Get over your mind virus technobabble, and step into the real world where the wealthy are wealthy, and the poor are poor. That's how it pans out.
I may have used it a bit wrongly, but you totally missed the mark. Zero-sum does NOT mean that the amount of money in the world stays constant.
It merely means that in when money is lost somewhere, it is gained elsewhere. And vice versa.
Please re-read my post.
I'm not saying that the amount of wealth/capital in the world is FIXED. I'm saying it's limited/finite/scarce/whatever.
Sure, the bank may loan out money to you, but it's up to you to make sure you pay them back, with interest. I assure you wealth isn't being created fast enough for everyone to pay it back without any problems. If that were true, well, we wouldn't really need a silly thing like the Federal Reserve, would we? Not EVERYONE can make money - those who default on loans - well they fucked up somewhere, and the money they were unable to repay got slammed into the system for further distribution. Out of their hands, into someone else's. That's all I'm saying.
Try thinking about that the next time you buy your jeans that were Hecho En Mexico for 25c a day.
Much of the world IS agrarian - and countries like the US have governments subsidize the farms as to ensure they make a profit year after year, so that the producers don't get dicked over. Does this not seem like an important aspect of growing a modern country?
It's a zero-sum game because the participants in this game are fighting over a finite amount of resources (i.e., capital).
The products that are made, bought, and sold, do not constitute wealth. They are items that may be exchanged for the real source of wealth, currency. Money.
We're not working with seashells and colored rocks, anymore. You can't just say "well, i'll trade you this stack of bills for that pile of iron ore, and we're even!". The investment in this raw materials is in preparation for the sale of goods, which brings in more capital from the surroundings (customers/distributors, whatever). Wealth is transferred all the way down the line, a profit being made at each step.
So where does this profit come from? Money isn't made out of nowhere, magically - the Fed releases it slowly, cautiously, thoughtfully. When someone fucks up this precarious balance of profit and wealth transfer, loans get defaulted upon after the money has been injected into the workings of the economy. Bankruptcies are filed, companies go under, and someone else ends up with the money that was supposed to be for them. It's competitive, and there are clear and obvious winners and losers.
No, wealth has been transferred. A consumable item (HINT: "CONSUME") has been bought. It may later be sold, in exchange for ANOTHER transfer of wealth/capital.
Do you see what I'm getting at here?
The amount of investment capital in the world is not fixed, but the very nature of a capitalistic system dictates the the wealthy are diametrically opposed from the poor - hence my statement that economics is basically a zero-sum game of people trying to take a finite resource from each other.
The key is that it's FINITE, not "FIXED".
Yes, it's obvious that the amount of invested and returned capital in the world is growing - that's what central banks do. I'm aware of this.
All I'm saying is that in every transaction, someone is out to make a monetary profit, and in order for you to grab a "larger piece of the pie", you are ensuring the inequity of the distribution of total wealth among the populace.
How can you argue with this? It's obvious that if everyone wants a bigger piece, someone is goign to get dicked. Not everyone can be as wealthy as they want while the global monetary fund keeps pumping out capital - that leads to rapid inflation and devalued currency.
My definition of zero-sum is that resources are limited, and any allocation of a subset of those resources come at a detriment to others who are not able to get said resources allocated to them - this creates the relative value of "wealthy" things such as capital and physical resources.
What about the inflation that would occur if the exponential and viral growth of wealth were to continue unabated throughout the world?
The profit margins that drive efficiency and expansion/scale in the capitalist system are by nature designed to uphold and propel the incongruous nature of the distribution of wealth. The only way you create new wealth is by creating more rich/poor relationships. Obviously, that's how this stuff works - if everyone had it, it wouldn't be worth anything.
Your example of paying your neighbor's kid to cut your lawn is interesting, but, in my opinion, a bit flawed. You may be converting his labor into capital for him, but what do you get? You get a service. That's not wealth. That's just a nice lawn. Although it seems like you have set in motion a sequence of events that's sure to create abundant wealth from nowhere, in reality you merely transferred your capital to him, at your loss, since you did not receive any monetary return on your investment. That's what I mean by zero-sum.
As for the plasma screens and Angola - the capital poured into those ventures is only done so with the prospect of capital gains - again, the profit margin must rear its ugly head, and someone is going to get the shorter end of the stick.
I'm not saying that the amount of money in the world is constant - I'm saying that in order for you to grab a larger piece, you ensure the inequity of the distribution throughout the population.
We are bound by the laws of scarcity; there isn't an unlimited amount of money in this world, even if modern currencies aren't backed by gold bullion or the like.
Creating your own wealth means taking someone else's (or capital that "would have" gone to someone else). Directly or indirectly, it's a zero-sum game, and that's the name of it.
It's called global competition, and it's been going on for decades.
You know your computer was probably manufactured in China or Taiwan, right?
And your TV.
Maybe your car. Hell, maybe even your fucking toaster.
The point is, if you feel so strongly about this kind of thing, there are plenty of things you can be doing (or avoid doing) to vote with your wallet.
Peace,
Cause, like... there isn't one.
Next time you're watching the film, pay close attention - his voice is dubbed in.
Actually, that choice is up to the manufacturer. Your choice is whether or not you want to buy it.
Once mortal enemies, IBM and Apple are strategic partners now. In the deepest sense of the phrase.
Isn't that weird for two companies who were mortal enemies less than 20 years ago?
Telephone companies have been doing this for years.
They list bogus entries in phone books and then scan other lists for occurrences of these entries. Subscriber lists and customer information is copyrighted and non-freely-distributable, supposedly (these terms may be slightly wrong).
If they start showing up in other databases (like other companies' phone books), calls are made. It's an excellent way to prevent the copying of their property en masse.
The similiarities are beyond skin-deep
What makes you think they won't move the server room to India once the bandwidth and power become reliable and plentiful?