That's my point. I'm pointing out that the government never really went away after the war.
That's crazy talk. After all, we're sitting in a free market nirvana with no government interference whatsoever.
The people who want to test your loyalty can say your line right back at you. i.e "In a democracy, you have to accept that not everyone shares your self-interest. And it's in OUR interest that your loyalty gets tested". They'll even frame it as "are you loyal to democracy?" (see: are you with us or with the commies). If there's a vote and they win, well government's gonna do just that.
So what? The obvious rebuttal at that point is "Fuck you." If it really is a democracy, then that's the end of the debate.
Question for you, why did the allies enter Europe in France and not Spain?
Strategically and tactically, it would have been dumb to do so. The Allies weren't fighting Spain and the logistics of invading and holding Spain would have been a large burden on top of invading places that the Allies actually did want to invade.
Where did the 3,600 cubic miles of ash and rock figure come from?
It's probably based on the size of the magma chambers underneath Yellowstone which are much larger in volume than the eruptions from Yellowstone.
While you are currently right about the estimated size of known, possibly single volcanic eruptions, it's worth noting that ongoing volcanic eruptions can be much larger, such as the Siberian Traps, which are thought to originally have been as high as seven million cubic km of lava over a million year period.
In the case of an eruption like that, clearly the ruined lawn of Americans would be the pertinent problem. Global winter and loss of crops worldwide? Who gives a shit.
I suppose in that light it'd be worth noting that most of that lost food production would be on North America's "lawns".
Well, one of those lessons of history is that if you're trying to get from point A to point B and there's a fence in the way, then more/better guns than the guys with the fence plus better tactics, can get you to point B. Not every problem can be solved with guns, but the simple sort described in this thread is of the kind that can.
I would consider this a cautionary tale because the lesson learned by corporations will be that workers are willing to live out of a truck in the parking lot, it follows that paying more to support higher standard of living is unnecessary. They will gladly rent you a truck and garnish part of your wage to pay for it.
And how many workers are they going to get?
I find it interesting how when someone finds a way to live cheaply, they get taken down by the anti-corporate types. That's some bizarre mental issues there.
My view on this is that if you don't want to be beholden to your corporate masters, then don't spend like a corporate whore.
It's less smugness and more earthquake protection. Building anything taller than 2 floors in San Francisco is a regulatory nightmare AND a civil engineering nightmare
Right, for those real estate prices, it's a nightmare that a lot of people living there could afford.
Except for the ones that aren't like Bretton Woods. And let us note you are cherrypicking here. Where does, for example NYC rent control fit in? or the FCC? Lot of bad ideas either never went away or took root in this time.
Rational self interest. Nation states like to continue existing, whether they are democracies or dictatorships. Loyalty is one measure on whether you are on board in helping the nation state continue to exist, or at least not deliberately try to end it.
Whose rational self-interest? Not mine. In a democracy you have to accept that not everyone shares your self-interest whether you are in a nation state or not. When people, such as in this thread, start proposing litmus tests for loyalty in a society where such a flavor of loyalty is not expected or valued, then you're going to end up very disappointed.
No, it shouldn't. There are plenty of business opportunities which are short term too. For example, the old, Y2K bug fixing was short term. In fact, one of the bad consequences of treating Y2K stuff as if it were sustainable, was the dotcom bubble and its subsequent burst. When the transition from fossil fuels to other approaches happens, it'll be a fairly short term thing too. We shouldn't and usually don't expect businesses based on short term transitions to be sustainable.
Imagine being invited to the White House as a poor student but super-bright from say, Compton. Would you bring the president a gift of a mug from your high school knowing that heads of state bring gifts of sterling silverware and thousand year old vases?
Well, the previous poster accounted for your reality preferences with the "dipshit" category. It will be worthwhile for you to learn the difference between investment and hoarding, for example, should you choose to accept the mission.
That's literally what the FAA has been doing all along.
Sure, they have. That's why small, private planes are still allowed to fly./sarc
What they're saying here is Drones don't get a free pass on ignoring the rules.
And what evidence is there that drones are ignoring the rules? Last I heard, it was a small number of "close calls" events, many which had nothing to do with drones, and a start up which has since been fined $3 million dollars or so. You would think that if there were a problem, we would have seen evidence of it by now.
You really think drones are more useful than passenger/cargo aircraft?
That sort of thinking is going to nail a lot of air travel too. It doesn't just apply to drones. Some traffic is going to be less valuable than other traffic. When do you decide that some traffic shouldn't fly due to a potential threat to other traffic?
They keep promising to clean up their mess, but then they never seem to quite get around to fulfilling their promises.
So they have a "mind-boggling" amount of waste there (including a cubic km of contaminated soil according to Wikipedia) and they didn't clean it up overnight. What makes you think they're taking their time? How many decades should it take?
To be fair, free market capitalism didn't have much to do with the boom either. After WW2, the government didn't just step back and let free market take over. The popular economic school back then (and now) is Keynesian, not Austrian or other schools that favored letting the market take care of itself. They cut a few regulations and taxes, but the government was still doing a lot of other stuff like handing out GI BIlls, creating the Bretton Woods system, the Marshall Plan, and of course switching from fighting a "hot" war to a Cold one.
Funny how the real reason is the last reason (though the Marshall Plan did help). When your societies (not just including the US here, worldwide) are no longer actively destroying hundreds of cities and killing millions of people, then the economy picks up.
Besides the real regulatory cutbacks happened at the beginning of the war rather than the end.
No, but you do live in a nation state. Unless you're for no government at all (anarchy), loyalty is always something of a concern. Are you with "us", or are you with the communists/terrorists/etc.
Ok, how is it a concern? You sound a little Big Brother there.
The increase in income was proportionally about the same pre-WW2 under FDR's administration as the following post-WW2 boom, if you don't want to give him any credit for that.
Yes, I don't want to give him credit for stuff that isn't his due. Income would have increased anyway.
I'll bet that more than half wouldn't. Their loyalties are tested every day, if they all moved to Monaco or better yet the ungoverned regions of Somalia they could get some nice big tax breaks right now. What are they waiting for?
...I don't think that's a workable idea with current humanity, sorry.
Well, I'm only going to stupid stuff, if it's my idea.
The reason it was explored is that the alternative - a huge underclass which has nothing to lose but its chains - very nearly brought down the whole society. The Emperors of Rome didn't provide bread and circuses out of the goodness of their bleeding liberal hearts, and neither did capitalists after World War parts I&II. As the lessons about the limits of power and exploitation have been forgotten, we're headed for another hands-on learning episode.
Not much difference really, just a different sort of chains.
Another person who thinks that just mentioning a thing without even a remote connection to the discussion is an argument. My rebuttal: Boudicca.
As if indirectly claiming that the rich already voluntarily transfer their wealth to the poor in their daily activities didn't already make that abundantly apparent.
Happens every day. You're just not paying attention.
You seem to be clinging to the same trickle-down economic theories that have created this mess.
Just because your perception is broken doesn't mean that I'm clinging to "trickle-down".
The GP was recommending policies that seem to have worked in the New Deal era.
Such as create a bunch of non-competitive oligopolies and then watch the economy circle the drain?
Forcing rich people to keep their wealth in their business led to business expansion instead of high scores racked up in Swiss bank accounts.
And what happens when their business isn't worth expanding? We also need to remember that FDR created the Swiss bank account thing by regulation. There was a huge increase in taxes during his reign.
Or we could just not do stupid stuff. One thing I find is that a large portion of the poor are just as greedy and short-sighted as the rich, they just aren't as competent or lucky. Creating a huge underclass for which society is just something to take stuff from, legally or otherwise, is one of the worst ideas explored in modern democracies.
Higher taxes on the superrich also discourage absurdly high salaries
Why would we want to do that? Pulling money out of businesses is one way wealth gets redistributed naturally.
hoarding all the new wealth.
Forcing rich people to keep their wealth in their business makes this worse. Think about what you're saying.
This is typical of the counterproductive, envy-driven measures that people do just because someone else has more. Let's outline what's wrong with your proposals. First, you discourage the transfer of wealth from rich to poor. Second, you encourage all sorts of fraud, embezzlement, bribery, and other shenanigans. Once again, rather than encouraging people to do things for society, we're encouraging them to keep and hide it where society can't get at their wealth.
Slashdot Mirror
That's my point. I'm pointing out that the government never really went away after the war.
That's crazy talk. After all, we're sitting in a free market nirvana with no government interference whatsoever.
The people who want to test your loyalty can say your line right back at you. i.e "In a democracy, you have to accept that not everyone shares your self-interest. And it's in OUR interest that your loyalty gets tested". They'll even frame it as "are you loyal to democracy?" (see: are you with us or with the commies). If there's a vote and they win, well government's gonna do just that.
So what? The obvious rebuttal at that point is "Fuck you." If it really is a democracy, then that's the end of the debate.
Even weirder, they cleaned up back when the accident happened.
If your story is true, then they probably have secretly recovered it by now. Don't want the Reds to get the designs for a working nuke, right?
Question for you, why did the allies enter Europe in France and not Spain?
Strategically and tactically, it would have been dumb to do so. The Allies weren't fighting Spain and the logistics of invading and holding Spain would have been a large burden on top of invading places that the Allies actually did want to invade.
Public Debt-to-GDP ratio:
USA: 71.2%
Spain: 97.6%
FIFY (using apples to apples comparison of public debt per GDP by the World Fact Book for 2014).
Where did the 3,600 cubic miles of ash and rock figure come from?
It's probably based on the size of the magma chambers underneath Yellowstone which are much larger in volume than the eruptions from Yellowstone.
While you are currently right about the estimated size of known, possibly single volcanic eruptions, it's worth noting that ongoing volcanic eruptions can be much larger, such as the Siberian Traps, which are thought to originally have been as high as seven million cubic km of lava over a million year period.
In the case of an eruption like that, clearly the ruined lawn of Americans would be the pertinent problem. Global winter and loss of crops worldwide? Who gives a shit.
I suppose in that light it'd be worth noting that most of that lost food production would be on North America's "lawns".
Well, one of those lessons of history is that if you're trying to get from point A to point B and there's a fence in the way, then more/better guns than the guys with the fence plus better tactics, can get you to point B. Not every problem can be solved with guns, but the simple sort described in this thread is of the kind that can.
I would consider this a cautionary tale because the lesson learned by corporations will be that workers are willing to live out of a truck in the parking lot, it follows that paying more to support higher standard of living is unnecessary. They will gladly rent you a truck and garnish part of your wage to pay for it.
And how many workers are they going to get?
I find it interesting how when someone finds a way to live cheaply, they get taken down by the anti-corporate types. That's some bizarre mental issues there.
My view on this is that if you don't want to be beholden to your corporate masters, then don't spend like a corporate whore.
It's less smugness and more earthquake protection. Building anything taller than 2 floors in San Francisco is a regulatory nightmare AND a civil engineering nightmare
Right, for those real estate prices, it's a nightmare that a lot of people living there could afford.
All of them are real reasons.
Except for the ones that aren't like Bretton Woods. And let us note you are cherrypicking here. Where does, for example NYC rent control fit in? or the FCC? Lot of bad ideas either never went away or took root in this time.
Rational self interest. Nation states like to continue existing, whether they are democracies or dictatorships. Loyalty is one measure on whether you are on board in helping the nation state continue to exist, or at least not deliberately try to end it.
Whose rational self-interest? Not mine. In a democracy you have to accept that not everyone shares your self-interest whether you are in a nation state or not. When people, such as in this thread, start proposing litmus tests for loyalty in a society where such a flavor of loyalty is not expected or valued, then you're going to end up very disappointed.
Business should be about a sustainable models
No, it shouldn't. There are plenty of business opportunities which are short term too. For example, the old, Y2K bug fixing was short term. In fact, one of the bad consequences of treating Y2K stuff as if it were sustainable, was the dotcom bubble and its subsequent burst. When the transition from fossil fuels to other approaches happens, it'll be a fairly short term thing too. We shouldn't and usually don't expect businesses based on short term transitions to be sustainable.
Imagine being invited to the White House as a poor student but super-bright from say, Compton. Would you bring the president a gift of a mug from your high school knowing that heads of state bring gifts of sterling silverware and thousand year old vases?
Sounds like a good idea actually.
Well, the previous poster accounted for your reality preferences with the "dipshit" category. It will be worthwhile for you to learn the difference between investment and hoarding, for example, should you choose to accept the mission.
That's literally what the FAA has been doing all along.
Sure, they have. That's why small, private planes are still allowed to fly. /sarc
What they're saying here is Drones don't get a free pass on ignoring the rules.
And what evidence is there that drones are ignoring the rules? Last I heard, it was a small number of "close calls" events, many which had nothing to do with drones, and a start up which has since been fined $3 million dollars or so. You would think that if there were a problem, we would have seen evidence of it by now.
What makes you think a single example proves anything? The grandparent said very few exceptions. Well, here's one of those exceptions.
You really think drones are more useful than passenger/cargo aircraft?
That sort of thinking is going to nail a lot of air travel too. It doesn't just apply to drones. Some traffic is going to be less valuable than other traffic. When do you decide that some traffic shouldn't fly due to a potential threat to other traffic?
They keep promising to clean up their mess, but then they never seem to quite get around to fulfilling their promises.
So they have a "mind-boggling" amount of waste there (including a cubic km of contaminated soil according to Wikipedia) and they didn't clean it up overnight. What makes you think they're taking their time? How many decades should it take?
To be fair, free market capitalism didn't have much to do with the boom either. After WW2, the government didn't just step back and let free market take over. The popular economic school back then (and now) is Keynesian, not Austrian or other schools that favored letting the market take care of itself. They cut a few regulations and taxes, but the government was still doing a lot of other stuff like handing out GI BIlls, creating the Bretton Woods system, the Marshall Plan, and of course switching from fighting a "hot" war to a Cold one.
Funny how the real reason is the last reason (though the Marshall Plan did help). When your societies (not just including the US here, worldwide) are no longer actively destroying hundreds of cities and killing millions of people, then the economy picks up.
Besides the real regulatory cutbacks happened at the beginning of the war rather than the end.
No, but you do live in a nation state. Unless you're for no government at all (anarchy), loyalty is always something of a concern. Are you with "us", or are you with the communists/terrorists/etc.
Ok, how is it a concern? You sound a little Big Brother there.
The increase in income was proportionally about the same pre-WW2 under FDR's administration as the following post-WW2 boom, if you don't want to give him any credit for that.
Yes, I don't want to give him credit for stuff that isn't his due. Income would have increased anyway.
I'll bet that more than half wouldn't. Their loyalties are tested every day, if they all moved to Monaco or better yet the ungoverned regions of Somalia they could get some nice big tax breaks right now. What are they waiting for?
Remember? Big Brother stuff?
That's an odd way to describe the post-WW2 boom
FDR had nothing to do with that. Keep in mind that a lot of his policies had to be reversed in order to fight the Second World War.
if they decide they like their tax shelters more than their country, at least moving away will honestly show where their loyalties lie
Who wouldn't? We don't live in a democracy to get loyalty tested. That's Big Brother stuff.
Or we could just not do stupid stuff.
...I don't think that's a workable idea with current humanity, sorry.
Well, I'm only going to stupid stuff, if it's my idea.
The reason it was explored is that the alternative - a huge underclass which has nothing to lose but its chains - very nearly brought down the whole society. The Emperors of Rome didn't provide bread and circuses out of the goodness of their bleeding liberal hearts, and neither did capitalists after World War parts I&II. As the lessons about the limits of power and exploitation have been forgotten, we're headed for another hands-on learning episode.
Not much difference really, just a different sort of chains.
The period of 1940 to 1980 is calling.
Another person who thinks that just mentioning a thing without even a remote connection to the discussion is an argument. My rebuttal: Boudicca.
As if indirectly claiming that the rich already voluntarily transfer their wealth to the poor in their daily activities didn't already make that abundantly apparent.
Happens every day. You're just not paying attention.
You seem to be clinging to the same trickle-down economic theories that have created this mess.
Just because your perception is broken doesn't mean that I'm clinging to "trickle-down".
The GP was recommending policies that seem to have worked in the New Deal era.
Such as create a bunch of non-competitive oligopolies and then watch the economy circle the drain?
Forcing rich people to keep their wealth in their business led to business expansion instead of high scores racked up in Swiss bank accounts.
And what happens when their business isn't worth expanding? We also need to remember that FDR created the Swiss bank account thing by regulation. There was a huge increase in taxes during his reign.
Higher taxes on the superrich also discourage absurdly high salaries
Why would we want to do that? Pulling money out of businesses is one way wealth gets redistributed naturally.
hoarding all the new wealth.
Forcing rich people to keep their wealth in their business makes this worse. Think about what you're saying.
This is typical of the counterproductive, envy-driven measures that people do just because someone else has more. Let's outline what's wrong with your proposals. First, you discourage the transfer of wealth from rich to poor. Second, you encourage all sorts of fraud, embezzlement, bribery, and other shenanigans. Once again, rather than encouraging people to do things for society, we're encouraging them to keep and hide it where society can't get at their wealth.