"There is no way you would be able to create money fast enough without sending the entire economy into a tailspin."
Based on what? The fed gave banks trillions in created money before they even informed the government of housing crisis. We don't know how much money they create in a typical year, because they are a private bank with no reporting obligation, we only know about that year because they were forced to turn over the information by government on a one off basis. We are currently at risk of deflation, which is dramatically worse than inflation with our fiat currency. We've just erased trillions of dollars in phantom debt through refinancing, and we are just beginning to feel the impact through slowing growth.
Taxation would have to play it's part, money generated at the fed tap is still a loan with some nominal interest but the dollars it is paid back with are worth less than the dollars borrowed thanks to inflation. I've proposed a UBI equivalent to a 40 hour workweek at $15/hr. That is $31,200. That requires $78 worth of interest at the current rate while inflation will devalue it a little more like $312 in the same period. Now say that goes to someone who makes that same amount currently, even if you don't tax the UBI itself but still factor it for determining tax bracket for the rest of the income, that will someone will have their remaining $31,200 taxed at a 10% higher rate, generating $3,120 in extra tax revenue. For the person this a very good deal, paying $3,120 for $31,200 is a no brainer while recouping 40 years worth of interest on that loan. As a nation we need to make up that $31,200 in economic growth at some point in the next 400 years along with covering interest to break even. If that individual by virtue of having another $28,080 to play with manages to be able to put 10% in their retirement account we'll get that value back in 10 years not 400.
It's actually a perfect marriage of conservative and liberal economics. You put free flowing cash in the hands of the people and this enables them to spend and invest that money creating economic growth. The additional inflation creates a built in (if small) tax on all existing money including billions sitting in a bank or held in a business by warren buffet using tax loopholes which is how we actually pay for it. Which means the wealthy can't merely sit on their laurels, they at least have to take greater risks leading to greater rewards to maintain their wealth. Enables greater investment by the middle class means the benefits of our corporations globalizing is better distributed among our population as our middle class is able to invest more and more in the stock of those corporations and owns a bigger piece of them. While jobs moved overseas the growing profits will remain here and offset that lost income.
It doesn't really matter how much you grow or shrink the number, the math works out the same we can float a massive number on UBI and it won't change anything.
Additionally, having a real and substantial UBI set at minimum wage levels will eliminate the need for the minimum wage. This would allow our food production and unskilled services to remain inexpensive while improving the lives of those who work there. Limiting UBI to existing citizens and their descendants would even allow us to easily legalize all the illegal immigrants and open borders without worries about disrupting food supply costs and job availability.
Money actually does magically appear. Our entire economic system is based on inflation. New money is created from magic fairy dust (or printed by the treasury in the case of paper money) it is loaned, nearly for free, to banks by the federal reserve. The federal reserve is a private bank who can create digital money at will and buy paper money at printing cost (less than 50 cents for a hundred dollar bill) and loan it to anyone they like while keeping all details secret. The banks borrowing must have a fraction of their outstanding funds in holdings at any given time but that doesn't really limit them because they can basically just deposit what they borrowed and then borrow against that at the next accounting. The only real throttle on the banks is the fed rate, if you increase it, they will increase their interest yet more which means less people take out loans, refi, etc.
With deflationary money, the money itself increases in value as the economy grows this means you need to use smaller and smaller units to enable trade and the pressure to spend equates to need/greed either you need things bad enough you have to spend or you are greedy to reap profits at higher than the rate of deflation. With inflationary money (like ours), the pressure comes from injecting new money into the system, devaluing all existing currency which means you constantly have to get more in order to break even. That new money has to come from somewhere, currently we give it all to the wealthiest people who need it the least, I'm proposing we first use that money for the UBI and then let the banks have what is left the old fashioned with a fed determined higher interest rate.
You seem to be confusing the top 1% by income with the top 0.1% by wealth. Two entirely different animals and a massive gap. Working Doctors, Lawyers, and Engineers are in the top 1% by income the top 0.1% don't do any work, they just scrape wealth off the top in interest, loan it back to the people who do all the work, rinse and repeat. They contribute no more than a drunk bum on a street corner, less, that guy might pick up cans or work in a shelter every now and then but they consume dramatically more than anyone else (although they pay far less than anyone else would because of the leverage of wealth).
Also, the top 10% by income pays half the taxes, not the top 1% or the top 0.1%. Warren Buffet is a good example, his income is billions and according to the tax statement he just released he got his adjusted gross income down to about $11 million on which he only paid $1.5m in taxes. The doctors actually contributing to society working in even one small hospital pay more tax than that guy. Remove the top 0.1% from the equation and you likely won't see a big drop in the portion of taxes paid by the top 10% but take away their wealth and you'll see a massive drop in the portion of the nations wealth held by the top 10%.
Thinking of UBI as a form of assistance is the problem. This impacts the entire portion of the population that contributes anything to society now. Both the bottom and the top are populated with drains on society with the top being the largest drains.
Most of the jobs being eliminated aren't low wage jobs, they are some of the most skilled and highest paying jobs.
Either you are part of the 0.01% by wealth (in which case 99.99% of us have conflicting interests and don't care what you think) or you are likely incorrectly thinking this should be paid for with taxes. The correct way to fund a real UBI (which would be closer to a full time job at $15/hr for everyone, not a welfare level payment) would be at the fed tap. Currently we only use the fed tap for generating money for banks which can borrow as much as they like far below real inflation rates. Currently we are near deflation so there is plenty of room. If inflation starts to become an issue the fed rate get raised, which makes money more expensive to borrow. This is not the biggest issue in the world because people will have more cash.
Not incorporated areas with any notable population. In all such areas you have at least a telco and cable operator. And even in areas where you only have a telco there is a satellite operator. Yes, you do admittedly have to use the term broadband very loosely in some places.
In fairness, at some point it is reasonable to make people choose between living away from everyone else and having the freedoms that provides and having shared infrastructure and the benefits that provides. It is a little ridiculous to expect anyone to spend hundreds of thousands to be able to provide a $50/mo fiber link to your cabin in the mountains.
If I'm traveling at the speed of light in one direction and something else is traveling at the speed of light in the opposite direction, how long is it before it's light reaches me?
"If some other user's voip slows down your download, then your ISP is grossly oversubscribed and your service is already shit."
They are all grossly oversubscribed. If there is contention on the link prioritizing any traffic slows down the rest of the traffic. None of my packets should have to wait for yours unless we are all getting equal slices at equal intervals (or equal within bounds of our relative respective paid link speeds).
"Every ISP is doing some kind of traffic shaping."
Exactly, we have a major problem. Net neutrality is about putting a stop to it.
And all the "competitors" have figured out it is more profitable to cooperate and compete in areas that don't cost much so they might as well be the same company.
Instead of a race to the most bang for the least cost they are racing to the bottom of their cost barrel while hyping up taken ads and promotions to create the illusion they are somehow actually trying to beat each other.
None of these major isps would want to beat another, if that happened they would be the only provider in too many areas and risk anti-trust.
They've divided up the country so there are two majors in every area so nothing done by one overly impacts any of the others, there are only a handful of major providers and none of them compete on areas that would benefit the consumer too much by costing them something. They have an unspoken agreement not to race to the bottom. Population density makes a difference but otherwise two states over is going to be about the same as where you are especially with regard to net neutrality concerns.
Just as soon as your "private infrastructure" doesn't require use of my public property and you aren't one of 1-2 "competitors" who've intentionally collaborated to split up the country I'll start thinking about agreeing.
Even with a larger number of competitors ISPs will have common interests that are anti-consumer and so areas they won't compete on. You see this with plumbers, just try to get a quote for a slab repair and find a single plumber among the dozens who doesn't charge a higher labor rate just because they can despite labor costing them the same for a sink vs slab repair.
"The problem with Net Neutrality is it suppose to make sure vendors don't get disadvantaged, just because the ISP doesn't like them... However if the rules go to far, it prevents them from offering better services for those they do like."
The point of net neutrality is it is supposed to prevent ISPs from fiddling with my connection to promote lower bandwidth (aka more profitable) internet use practices, to prevent them from disadvantaging vendors as you said, which means not giving an advantage to any vendor they do like.
That doesn't mean your scenario can't happen with a direct link and internal server. It means the ISP has to set fixed thresholds based purely on objective current consumption criteria for when to do that, provide this free (their customers already pay for their services and this reduces cost) service to all vendors equally including their biggest competitor, and perform absolutely no shaping.
More than that, we also need standards put in place requiring routine maintenance and replacement of network gear like routers and minimum standards maintained on links. No more throttling via intentional neglect.
No you can't allow any prioritization. First, my traffic shouldn't suffer for the sake of your traffic. Giving priority voip does slow down my download it just doesn't have as big of an impact as my download can have on your voip. There is nobody, especially the ISP, who is justified to deciding which is more important so round robin it is. Second and most importantly if you the give the ISP any flexibility whatsoever they can and will abuse it.
Forget it. Set you and the other yahoo on your segment to equal priority buckets so if you are both sending/receiving you get one packet to his one packet, if there are three you each get every third packet. It doesn't matter what those packets contain.
"That signal is hitting you from all sorts of angles, especially if you have a clear view of the horizon."
That is a fair point since there are multiple satellites.
"I see you're unfamiliar with scattering."
On the contrary I'm quite familiar with scattering and when you start with a weak signal being sent from such a long distance each bounce significantly weakens it further. Also, 10cm isn't exactly a great wavelength for bouncing.
"I pick up on average 18 satellites (mix of GPS and GLONASS) in my car with a good signal strength."
Impressive, I've never picked up more than 8 under the open sky. I don't often have a problem now but just a few years ago with my Garmin window mounted would often have trouble acquiring GPS signal when properly mounted (in a metal bodied car). Any of my devices takes some time to acquire a signal in the car and much longer yet if the car is moving. My phone does better because it maintains location even when GPS is down but if you actually check your location data you can see all the blips where signal is lost.
In Dallas I found that waze was great for a little while. During the time I was teaching my preferred routes which were much faster than its estimates suddenly lots of people looking at their phones started appearing on those routes and they stopped being much faster which in turn caused waze to start directing me down a long annoying route it thinks is a couple minutes faster but only because it always underestimates the delay of heavy traffic.
It sucks, I have to use waze as a defensive strategy now and there is no fast way to commute anymore, waze makes all the choices equally slow.
ummm no, then you have to stop and look at a piece of paper instead of listening to a voice telling you where to turn and an occasional quick glance at a screen mounted in front a giant window which also shows you the road.
Yes, garmin and tomtom both have options like this. I used to swear by Garmin but now I'd have to say that TomTom just does a better job. Especially since the last Garmin I had with lifetime updates turned out to mean lifetime of Garmin choosing to support updates on that model and not lifetime of the device.
"and they can free your phone up for other tasks."
What exactly is it you are doing in your car with you phone while driving? How is this not evidence your license should be taken away?
That signal is pointed straight down from quite a fair distance though so if you don't have a sun roof then the roof is going to be very effective shielding (especially for such a faint signal).
Slashdot Mirror
"There is no way you would be able to create money fast enough without sending the entire economy into a tailspin."
Based on what? The fed gave banks trillions in created money before they even informed the government of housing crisis. We don't know how much money they create in a typical year, because they are a private bank with no reporting obligation, we only know about that year because they were forced to turn over the information by government on a one off basis. We are currently at risk of deflation, which is dramatically worse than inflation with our fiat currency. We've just erased trillions of dollars in phantom debt through refinancing, and we are just beginning to feel the impact through slowing growth.
Taxation would have to play it's part, money generated at the fed tap is still a loan with some nominal interest but the dollars it is paid back with are worth less than the dollars borrowed thanks to inflation. I've proposed a UBI equivalent to a 40 hour workweek at $15/hr. That is $31,200. That requires $78 worth of interest at the current rate while inflation will devalue it a little more like $312 in the same period. Now say that goes to someone who makes that same amount currently, even if you don't tax the UBI itself but still factor it for determining tax bracket for the rest of the income, that will someone will have their remaining $31,200 taxed at a 10% higher rate, generating $3,120 in extra tax revenue. For the person this a very good deal, paying $3,120 for $31,200 is a no brainer while recouping 40 years worth of interest on that loan. As a nation we need to make up that $31,200 in economic growth at some point in the next 400 years along with covering interest to break even. If that individual by virtue of having another $28,080 to play with manages to be able to put 10% in their retirement account we'll get that value back in 10 years not 400.
It's actually a perfect marriage of conservative and liberal economics. You put free flowing cash in the hands of the people and this enables them to spend and invest that money creating economic growth. The additional inflation creates a built in (if small) tax on all existing money including billions sitting in a bank or held in a business by warren buffet using tax loopholes which is how we actually pay for it. Which means the wealthy can't merely sit on their laurels, they at least have to take greater risks leading to greater rewards to maintain their wealth. Enables greater investment by the middle class means the benefits of our corporations globalizing is better distributed among our population as our middle class is able to invest more and more in the stock of those corporations and owns a bigger piece of them. While jobs moved overseas the growing profits will remain here and offset that lost income.
It doesn't really matter how much you grow or shrink the number, the math works out the same we can float a massive number on UBI and it won't change anything.
Additionally, having a real and substantial UBI set at minimum wage levels will eliminate the need for the minimum wage. This would allow our food production and unskilled services to remain inexpensive while improving the lives of those who work there. Limiting UBI to existing citizens and their descendants would even allow us to easily legalize all the illegal immigrants and open borders without worries about disrupting food supply costs and job availability.
Money actually does magically appear. Our entire economic system is based on inflation. New money is created from magic fairy dust (or printed by the treasury in the case of paper money) it is loaned, nearly for free, to banks by the federal reserve. The federal reserve is a private bank who can create digital money at will and buy paper money at printing cost (less than 50 cents for a hundred dollar bill) and loan it to anyone they like while keeping all details secret. The banks borrowing must have a fraction of their outstanding funds in holdings at any given time but that doesn't really limit them because they can basically just deposit what they borrowed and then borrow against that at the next accounting. The only real throttle on the banks is the fed rate, if you increase it, they will increase their interest yet more which means less people take out loans, refi, etc.
With deflationary money, the money itself increases in value as the economy grows this means you need to use smaller and smaller units to enable trade and the pressure to spend equates to need/greed either you need things bad enough you have to spend or you are greedy to reap profits at higher than the rate of deflation. With inflationary money (like ours), the pressure comes from injecting new money into the system, devaluing all existing currency which means you constantly have to get more in order to break even. That new money has to come from somewhere, currently we give it all to the wealthiest people who need it the least, I'm proposing we first use that money for the UBI and then let the banks have what is left the old fashioned with a fed determined higher interest rate.
You seem to be confusing the top 1% by income with the top 0.1% by wealth. Two entirely different animals and a massive gap. Working Doctors, Lawyers, and Engineers are in the top 1% by income the top 0.1% don't do any work, they just scrape wealth off the top in interest, loan it back to the people who do all the work, rinse and repeat. They contribute no more than a drunk bum on a street corner, less, that guy might pick up cans or work in a shelter every now and then but they consume dramatically more than anyone else (although they pay far less than anyone else would because of the leverage of wealth).
Also, the top 10% by income pays half the taxes, not the top 1% or the top 0.1%. Warren Buffet is a good example, his income is billions and according to the tax statement he just released he got his adjusted gross income down to about $11 million on which he only paid $1.5m in taxes. The doctors actually contributing to society working in even one small hospital pay more tax than that guy. Remove the top 0.1% from the equation and you likely won't see a big drop in the portion of taxes paid by the top 10% but take away their wealth and you'll see a massive drop in the portion of the nations wealth held by the top 10%.
Thinking of UBI as a form of assistance is the problem. This impacts the entire portion of the population that contributes anything to society now. Both the bottom and the top are populated with drains on society with the top being the largest drains.
Most of the jobs being eliminated aren't low wage jobs, they are some of the most skilled and highest paying jobs.
Either you are part of the 0.01% by wealth (in which case 99.99% of us have conflicting interests and don't care what you think) or you are likely incorrectly thinking this should be paid for with taxes. The correct way to fund a real UBI (which would be closer to a full time job at $15/hr for everyone, not a welfare level payment) would be at the fed tap. Currently we only use the fed tap for generating money for banks which can borrow as much as they like far below real inflation rates. Currently we are near deflation so there is plenty of room. If inflation starts to become an issue the fed rate get raised, which makes money more expensive to borrow. This is not the biggest issue in the world because people will have more cash.
Because free is not unlimited, we still need a system for limiting consumption.
On the contrary engineers would use it utilize it anyway and the morons ultimately would fall behind and be culled for the benefit of the human race.
Not incorporated areas with any notable population. In all such areas you have at least a telco and cable operator. And even in areas where you only have a telco there is a satellite operator. Yes, you do admittedly have to use the term broadband very loosely in some places.
In fairness, at some point it is reasonable to make people choose between living away from everyone else and having the freedoms that provides and having shared infrastructure and the benefits that provides. It is a little ridiculous to expect anyone to spend hundreds of thousands to be able to provide a $50/mo fiber link to your cabin in the mountains.
If I'm traveling at the speed of light in one direction and something else is traveling at the speed of light in the opposite direction, how long is it before it's light reaches me?
Either you are on a small ISP with very low rates (because they aren't large enough to get fair prices on bandwidth) or you aren't here in the US.
Especially since Steve Jobs in relative terms contributed almost nothing to the world while Ritchie is an undisputed father of modern computing.
"If some other user's voip slows down your download, then your ISP is grossly oversubscribed and your service is already shit."
They are all grossly oversubscribed. If there is contention on the link prioritizing any traffic slows down the rest of the traffic. None of my packets should have to wait for yours unless we are all getting equal slices at equal intervals (or equal within bounds of our relative respective paid link speeds).
"Every ISP is doing some kind of traffic shaping."
Exactly, we have a major problem. Net neutrality is about putting a stop to it.
And all the "competitors" have figured out it is more profitable to cooperate and compete in areas that don't cost much so they might as well be the same company.
Instead of a race to the most bang for the least cost they are racing to the bottom of their cost barrel while hyping up taken ads and promotions to create the illusion they are somehow actually trying to beat each other.
None of these major isps would want to beat another, if that happened they would be the only provider in too many areas and risk anti-trust.
They've divided up the country so there are two majors in every area so nothing done by one overly impacts any of the others, there are only a handful of major providers and none of them compete on areas that would benefit the consumer too much by costing them something. They have an unspoken agreement not to race to the bottom. Population density makes a difference but otherwise two states over is going to be about the same as where you are especially with regard to net neutrality concerns.
Just as soon as your "private infrastructure" doesn't require use of my public property and you aren't one of 1-2 "competitors" who've intentionally collaborated to split up the country I'll start thinking about agreeing.
Even with a larger number of competitors ISPs will have common interests that are anti-consumer and so areas they won't compete on. You see this with plumbers, just try to get a quote for a slab repair and find a single plumber among the dozens who doesn't charge a higher labor rate just because they can despite labor costing them the same for a sink vs slab repair.
"The problem with Net Neutrality is it suppose to make sure vendors don't get disadvantaged, just because the ISP doesn't like them... However if the rules go to far, it prevents them from offering better services for those they do like."
The point of net neutrality is it is supposed to prevent ISPs from fiddling with my connection to promote lower bandwidth (aka more profitable) internet use practices, to prevent them from disadvantaging vendors as you said, which means not giving an advantage to any vendor they do like.
That doesn't mean your scenario can't happen with a direct link and internal server. It means the ISP has to set fixed thresholds based purely on objective current consumption criteria for when to do that, provide this free (their customers already pay for their services and this reduces cost) service to all vendors equally including their biggest competitor, and perform absolutely no shaping.
More than that, we also need standards put in place requiring routine maintenance and replacement of network gear like routers and minimum standards maintained on links. No more throttling via intentional neglect.
No you can't allow any prioritization. First, my traffic shouldn't suffer for the sake of your traffic. Giving priority voip does slow down my download it just doesn't have as big of an impact as my download can have on your voip. There is nobody, especially the ISP, who is justified to deciding which is more important so round robin it is. Second and most importantly if you the give the ISP any flexibility whatsoever they can and will abuse it.
Forget it. Set you and the other yahoo on your segment to equal priority buckets so if you are both sending/receiving you get one packet to his one packet, if there are three you each get every third packet. It doesn't matter what those packets contain.
Yup. I love waze for routes I'm less sure about and when I actually need directions but I wish I'd never used it for the drive in to the office ;)
"That signal is hitting you from all sorts of angles, especially if you have a clear view of the horizon."
That is a fair point since there are multiple satellites.
"I see you're unfamiliar with scattering."
On the contrary I'm quite familiar with scattering and when you start with a weak signal being sent from such a long distance each bounce significantly weakens it further. Also, 10cm isn't exactly a great wavelength for bouncing.
"I pick up on average 18 satellites (mix of GPS and GLONASS) in my car with a good signal strength."
Impressive, I've never picked up more than 8 under the open sky. I don't often have a problem now but just a few years ago with my Garmin window mounted would often have trouble acquiring GPS signal when properly mounted (in a metal bodied car). Any of my devices takes some time to acquire a signal in the car and much longer yet if the car is moving. My phone does better because it maintains location even when GPS is down but if you actually check your location data you can see all the blips where signal is lost.
It works even better just to have those people drive their own cars instead of yours.
In Dallas I found that waze was great for a little while. During the time I was teaching my preferred routes which were much faster than its estimates suddenly lots of people looking at their phones started appearing on those routes and they stopped being much faster which in turn caused waze to start directing me down a long annoying route it thinks is a couple minutes faster but only because it always underestimates the delay of heavy traffic.
It sucks, I have to use waze as a defensive strategy now and there is no fast way to commute anymore, waze makes all the choices equally slow.
ummm no, then you have to stop and look at a piece of paper instead of listening to a voice telling you where to turn and an occasional quick glance at a screen mounted in front a giant window which also shows you the road.
As long as it has internet it would have updates because the data is on googles servers the downside is if you have no internet you have no maps.
Yes, garmin and tomtom both have options like this. I used to swear by Garmin but now I'd have to say that TomTom just does a better job. Especially since the last Garmin I had with lifetime updates turned out to mean lifetime of Garmin choosing to support updates on that model and not lifetime of the device.
"and they can free your phone up for other tasks."
What exactly is it you are doing in your car with you phone while driving? How is this not evidence your license should be taken away?
That signal is pointed straight down from quite a fair distance though so if you don't have a sun roof then the roof is going to be very effective shielding (especially for such a faint signal).