Are you suggesting that these people (artists, authors, and writer) should not be held liable for anything that they do in relation to their craft? Why do they get a free pass? Should I, as a structural engineer, be allowed to design buildings that fall down and kill people? Keep in mind, all of my work product exist as drawings (artist) and documentation (author).
It is just plain silly to suggest they have no moral responsibility to society. Everyone who wants to participate in society has a responsibility to it. The only questions is where we, as society, want to draw that line. Personally, I draw the line pretty far to the left (i.e. relatively large freedoms for expression of ideas). However, this does not mean I want some idiot to publish the launch codes for and ICBM, or publish a list of all FBI informants.
As the judge said, the first amendments is not a sucide part.
... to demonstrate to our republican overlords that I am doing my patroiotic duty to consume as much gas as possible in order to justify our wars in the middle east.
Actually, it is much worse than this. As someone who has actually designed pavement, let me assure you that the cumulative damage caused to pavement increases exponentially with the weight of the vehicle. In fact, relative to the 18,000 pound design axle load for a semi, or even the 6,000 pound axle load of a land yacht SUV, your geo metro effectively causes no wear and tear on the highway. OTOH, you still benifit from being able to drive on the road.
... really, it does, and you are wrong. I would love to see you come into my office, with no degree in structural engineering, and design a 50 story moment-frame building that can resist an earthquake. Your probability of finding anyone who could do this without a degree is so close to zero (I do not know anyone offhand who can do this). There may be some fields where you are correct, but they do not include structural engineering.
Absolutes are danagerous.
I believe that science will eventually allow me to have a head the size of a 200 pound pumpkin, so that I will be able to grasp the reality of the cosmos.
In all seriousness, what is so unlikely about some type of machine-mind interface (see Ventor Vinge for a sci-fi example) that will allow us to be 1000x smarter than we currently are? This seems very plausible to me, although it may take a 1000 years to develope.
Even more plausible, humans could develope AIs that are 1000,000x smarter than us that can delve the meaning of the cosmos, and then explain in to us (see Ian Banks' Culture for a sci-fi example).
I mean, after all, if this stuff wasn't possible, they would not be able to publish books about it, right?
You post is very impressive (i.e. a lot of work). I think one could make a reasonable arguement that a weath tax is appropriate in an arsenal of taxes (i.e. sales, flat, income, real property, tariff and wealth). However, depending on wealth tax as a sole or primary source of tax revenue does nto seem to me to be a good idea.
You system is becommming clearer. Obviously, there are pros and cons to all tax systems, but the devil is in the details, and unfortunately it is hard to get too detailed in this format. However, I do not think that a wealth tax would ever work with a modern economic system.
Let's take some examples. Unless the rate of return (ROR) on my investment is larger than the tax rate plus inflation rate, I am losing money. Under current long-term economic performance, this would indicate a maximum tax rate on wealth of around 4%-5%. Would this rate give the tax income you are looking for? If the ROR on wealth dropped signficantly (from the current 4%-5%), would people still save and invest? Why invest if you are not making anything. Perhaps I'll just bury my gold in a hole in the ground with Dick Cheney and avoid taxes. If wealth is taxed, who the heck is going to invest in the US. You would simply push the capital overseas. If everyone taxed wealth, you would simply push it to the state with the lowest tax rate. I all states taxed wealth at the same rate we will have a one-world government and Christ will return, making investments moot. How are you going to value wealth? What is a family owned small business worth? If I am an investor, are not the tools of my trade my capital? I will simply agree to disagree.
If you want people to save for retirement, your floor on taxable wealth would have to be somewhere in the range of $1M-$1.5M, because this is what you are going to need for a $40-$60K/year retirement.
I agree that spending less than you earn is orthogonal to capitalism. However, capitalism allows those who send less than they make to become rich. I know of no other system that will allow this (at least at the level allowed by capitalism).
I do dispute that there is a sizable percentage of the world population that cannot save (without actually knowing what I am talking about because I have never lived in these areas). In any community, I have observed that there is always someone who makes less than you do. I am comfortable that this applies in most third world areas. By simply living as these poorer people do, you can save money. I believe that the reason these people cannot save capital and become rich(er) is the fact that the political systems in these areas are feudal, and you can only get right with the proper connections. Thus, I would argue that real capitalism would free these people.
The fact that you *can* spend less than you earn and stay healthy and content does not make you rich, it makes you psycologically healthy. Numerous studies have shown no link between wealth and happiness once basic essentials are provedd for, and you do not have to make $30,000/year US to provide for basic essential despite what the media tells you. There are plenty of happy tribes in the Amazon that have no income, and happy people in the third world making $500/year.
What leads to unhappiness is the belief that you need more than you currently have. I am not sure who all is to blame for this, but you can start with Madison Avenue and Hollywood.
He correctly observed that the inevitable result of capitalism is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
The rich get richer because they spend less than they earn. I am weathly (by my friends standards anyway), solely becuase I spend less than I make and invest the difference. They could also do this but would rather have a starbucks, new $35K SUV every year, plasma TV, etc. Better yet, I get wealthier every year without do anything except spending less than I earn. The problem is not capitalism, but an inequality of financial education and an unwillingness to sacrifice in the short term to come out ahead in the long term. Like studying in school rather than getting drunk three night a week, or choosing a degree based on the ability to earn a living rather than the ease of the coursework, or living in a $120K house rather than the $250K my peers live in.
BTW, I am signficantly wealthier than my parents, who were solidly working middle class. In turn, my parents are signficantly wealthier than thier parents, who were sharecroppers. So much for the poor getting poorer.
I think (and may be wrong) that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the weathy do with their money. Very few bury the money in a vault underground. The reason that they are wealthy is that their assets are invested, creating more wealth. Would you not tax wealth that was invested, say in stocks, income producing real estate and the like?
It is worse than you state. Let us assume that you investment portfolio returns 3% for the year but inflation is 4%. You will be taxed on the 3% return (called "profit" by the government), when in fact, you actually lost money. Wow!
BTW, I think the idea of taxing assets is a bad one. Like we do not already discourage saving for retirement the way things are. Imagine if the goverment took 5% of your savings every year. Only an idiot would save for retirement..
This is an honest to god true story. My father has lived in an airstream trailer for about 10 years now. The tires are flat, and it is covered with several layers to bluwe tarp to keep it from leaking. He has about 8 non-running cars sitting around his trailer, and two that run. He uses a privy for a toliet, as he does not have running water. He get his water out of a well using a bucket! He takes a shower by standing on a platform int he yard and dumping water over his head (He is a real man, as actually takes a weekly shower in the winter). There is insulating foam (i.e. r-board) of various colors screwed to the outside of the trailer to "keep down energy cost." If he moved next to your house, its value would drop by 75% overnight. Would this bother you? I would not want him within 10 miles of my house.
I guess my point is this. Of all the books you listed, GEB is the only one that there is no possible way (IMHO) that the average person has a chance of comprehending. It is not an entry level text to math and logic. Jane Austen or Moby Dick can be read as a (good) story, as can any other novel, ignoring the deepr subtext. This is not going to happen with GEB.
If you had the average american start reading GEB, a short distance into the novel they are going to decide you are crazy for suggesting it. Why not try a much more approachable book about science, say Darwin's Voyage of the Beagle, and don't tell them they are going to learn about science? GEB is not approachable (to the average person).
Plus, american's need all the help they can get with evolution. I am much less concerned about their knowledge of math. As long as they can push the right button on the cash register at McDonald' s I am ok.
I often hear this mistake from my friends. Bill Gates's parents were rich. Bill was not. Bill's rich parents's were able to help him start a business. Most of my do-nothing friends who think they are rich becuase their parents ARE rich would drink, smoke, inject, or snort any money they were given to start a business. Bill is a aberation (unfortunately).
For those of you who do not believe that options are an "expense." I am going to make you a great deal and purchase options from you for 1M shares of MS at 1$ more than the current share price. I will give you $100 for them. What a great deal! You just made $100!
I guess I don't understand the lego thing. Mind you, I grew up with an arc welder around and had lots of scrap to build stuff out of. Tinkering with legos, well, seemed silly when I could fabricate a perfectly useful table fireplace log holder which can support 500lbs without as much as a strain.:)
When I grew up, I had to build my clocks out of mud scraped off my body, moss and sticks, and we liked it.
That being said - I'm all for paying into Social Security to support those who depend on it or have paid into it for decades (and doing so as long as needed).
Why should I have to pay the SS benifits of people who voted me to pay their retirement? Sure, it is going to hurt current and near retirees, but they are the one who created the problem, let them pay the price.
This cracked me up after I had made several trips to "wet" seattle, washington from the "desert" of houston, texas. It averages 3-5 inches a month in houston, year round. I have seen one day of rain in three, two weeks trips to washington.
Folks, if you have never been to houston, it is a swamp that is only slightly dried than a tropical rain forest.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you suggesting that these people (artists, authors, and writer) should not be held liable for anything that they do in relation to their craft? Why do they get a free pass? Should I, as a structural engineer, be allowed to design buildings that fall down and kill people? Keep in mind, all of my work product exist as drawings (artist) and documentation (author). It is just plain silly to suggest they have no moral responsibility to society. Everyone who wants to participate in society has a responsibility to it. The only questions is where we, as society, want to draw that line. Personally, I draw the line pretty far to the left (i.e. relatively large freedoms for expression of ideas). However, this does not mean I want some idiot to publish the launch codes for and ICBM, or publish a list of all FBI informants. As the judge said, the first amendments is not a sucide part.
... to demonstrate to our republican overlords that I am doing my patroiotic duty to consume as much gas as possible in order to justify our wars in the middle east.
Actually, it is much worse than this. As someone who has actually designed pavement, let me assure you that the cumulative damage caused to pavement increases exponentially with the weight of the vehicle. In fact, relative to the 18,000 pound design axle load for a semi, or even the 6,000 pound axle load of a land yacht SUV, your geo metro effectively causes no wear and tear on the highway. OTOH, you still benifit from being able to drive on the road.
... really, it does, and you are wrong. I would love to see you come into my office, with no degree in structural engineering, and design a 50 story moment-frame building that can resist an earthquake. Your probability of finding anyone who could do this without a degree is so close to zero (I do not know anyone offhand who can do this). There may be some fields where you are correct, but they do not include structural engineering. Absolutes are danagerous.
I believe that science will eventually allow me to have a head the size of a 200 pound pumpkin, so that I will be able to grasp the reality of the cosmos. In all seriousness, what is so unlikely about some type of machine-mind interface (see Ventor Vinge for a sci-fi example) that will allow us to be 1000x smarter than we currently are? This seems very plausible to me, although it may take a 1000 years to develope. Even more plausible, humans could develope AIs that are 1000,000x smarter than us that can delve the meaning of the cosmos, and then explain in to us (see Ian Banks' Culture for a sci-fi example). I mean, after all, if this stuff wasn't possible, they would not be able to publish books about it, right?
You post is very impressive (i.e. a lot of work). I think one could make a reasonable arguement that a weath tax is appropriate in an arsenal of taxes (i.e. sales, flat, income, real property, tariff and wealth). However, depending on wealth tax as a sole or primary source of tax revenue does nto seem to me to be a good idea.
You system is becommming clearer. Obviously, there are pros and cons to all tax systems, but the devil is in the details, and unfortunately it is hard to get too detailed in this format. However, I do not think that a wealth tax would ever work with a modern economic system.
Let's take some examples. Unless the rate of return (ROR) on my investment is larger than the tax rate plus inflation rate, I am losing money. Under current long-term economic performance, this would indicate a maximum tax rate on wealth of around 4%-5%. Would this rate give the tax income you are looking for? If the ROR on wealth dropped signficantly (from the current 4%-5%), would people still save and invest? Why invest if you are not making anything. Perhaps I'll just bury my gold in a hole in the ground with Dick Cheney and avoid taxes. If wealth is taxed, who the heck is going to invest in the US. You would simply push the capital overseas. If everyone taxed wealth, you would simply push it to the state with the lowest tax rate. I all states taxed wealth at the same rate we will have a one-world government and Christ will return, making investments moot. How are you going to value wealth? What is a family owned small business worth? If I am an investor, are not the tools of my trade my capital? I will simply agree to disagree.
If you want people to save for retirement, your floor on taxable wealth would have to be somewhere in the range of $1M-$1.5M, because this is what you are going to need for a $40-$60K/year retirement.
I do dispute that there is a sizable percentage of the world population that cannot save (without actually knowing what I am talking about because I have never lived in these areas). In any community, I have observed that there is always someone who makes less than you do. I am comfortable that this applies in most third world areas. By simply living as these poorer people do, you can save money. I believe that the reason these people cannot save capital and become rich(er) is the fact that the political systems in these areas are feudal, and you can only get right with the proper connections. Thus, I would argue that real capitalism would free these people.
The fact that you *can* spend less than you earn and stay healthy and content does not make you rich, it makes you psycologically healthy. Numerous studies have shown no link between wealth and happiness once basic essentials are provedd for, and you do not have to make $30,000/year US to provide for basic essential despite what the media tells you. There are plenty of happy tribes in the Amazon that have no income, and happy people in the third world making $500/year.
What leads to unhappiness is the belief that you need more than you currently have. I am not sure who all is to blame for this, but you can start with Madison Avenue and Hollywood.
BTW, do we have a point here? :-)
The rich get richer because they spend less than they earn. I am weathly (by my friends standards anyway), solely becuase I spend less than I make and invest the difference. They could also do this but would rather have a starbucks, new $35K SUV every year, plasma TV, etc. Better yet, I get wealthier every year without do anything except spending less than I earn. The problem is not capitalism, but an inequality of financial education and an unwillingness to sacrifice in the short term to come out ahead in the long term. Like studying in school rather than getting drunk three night a week, or choosing a degree based on the ability to earn a living rather than the ease of the coursework, or living in a $120K house rather than the $250K my peers live in.
BTW, I am signficantly wealthier than my parents, who were solidly working middle class. In turn, my parents are signficantly wealthier than thier parents, who were sharecroppers. So much for the poor getting poorer.
I think (and may be wrong) that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the weathy do with their money. Very few bury the money in a vault underground. The reason that they are wealthy is that their assets are invested, creating more wealth. Would you not tax wealth that was invested, say in stocks, income producing real estate and the like?
It is worse than you state. Let us assume that you investment portfolio returns 3% for the year but inflation is 4%. You will be taxed on the 3% return (called "profit" by the government), when in fact, you actually lost money. Wow! BTW, I think the idea of taxing assets is a bad one. Like we do not already discourage saving for retirement the way things are. Imagine if the goverment took 5% of your savings every year. Only an idiot would save for retirement..
This is an honest to god true story. My father has lived in an airstream trailer for about 10 years now. The tires are flat, and it is covered with several layers to bluwe tarp to keep it from leaking. He has about 8 non-running cars sitting around his trailer, and two that run. He uses a privy for a toliet, as he does not have running water. He get his water out of a well using a bucket! He takes a shower by standing on a platform int he yard and dumping water over his head (He is a real man, as actually takes a weekly shower in the winter). There is insulating foam (i.e. r-board) of various colors screwed to the outside of the trailer to "keep down energy cost." If he moved next to your house, its value would drop by 75% overnight. Would this bother you? I would not want him within 10 miles of my house.
Yeah, I was joking. I agree with your last paragraph.
I think that both lack of interest, lack of education and lack of intelligence are large factors.
I guess my point is this. Of all the books you listed, GEB is the only one that there is no possible way (IMHO) that the average person has a chance of comprehending. It is not an entry level text to math and logic. Jane Austen or Moby Dick can be read as a (good) story, as can any other novel, ignoring the deepr subtext. This is not going to happen with GEB. If you had the average american start reading GEB, a short distance into the novel they are going to decide you are crazy for suggesting it. Why not try a much more approachable book about science, say Darwin's Voyage of the Beagle, and don't tell them they are going to learn about science? GEB is not approachable (to the average person). Plus, american's need all the help they can get with evolution. I am much less concerned about their knowledge of math. As long as they can push the right button on the cash register at McDonald' s I am ok.
Um, yeah. Mr. Tortise says that the average lay person could not understand the first five pages of Godel, Escher, Bach if their life depended on it.
I often hear this mistake from my friends. Bill Gates's parents were rich. Bill was not. Bill's rich parents's were able to help him start a business. Most of my do-nothing friends who think they are rich becuase their parents ARE rich would drink, smoke, inject, or snort any money they were given to start a business. Bill is a aberation (unfortunately).
For those of you who do not believe that options are an "expense." I am going to make you a great deal and purchase options from you for 1M shares of MS at 1$ more than the current share price. I will give you $100 for them. What a great deal! You just made $100!
I guess I don't understand the lego thing. Mind you, I grew up with an arc welder around and had lots of scrap to build stuff out of. Tinkering with legos, well, seemed silly when I could fabricate a perfectly useful table fireplace log holder which can support 500lbs without as much as a strain. :)
When I grew up, I had to build my clocks out of mud scraped off my body, moss and sticks, and we liked it.
... is much less of a problem that implied here. When was the last time you heard of serious concerns about the authenticity of a video clip?
So, basically, the game treats women the Egypt the same way they are actually treated today? Why is that offensive?
This cracked me up after I had made several trips to "wet" seattle, washington from the "desert" of houston, texas. It averages 3-5 inches a month in houston, year round. I have seen one day of rain in three, two weeks trips to washington. Folks, if you have never been to houston, it is a swamp that is only slightly dried than a tropical rain forest.
... is still vaporware, but I am waiting with rabid anticipation.