That would be true if economics were a zero-sum game. It isn't. Obscene greed doesn't have to come at the expense of everyone else. Not every company is Enron.
Instead of passing laws to limit wealth, pass laws to keep wealthy people from harming society. Bill Gates doesn't get to abuse the monopoly position, but he still gets to give 20 billion to charity.
If you think the wealthy are corrupting the politicians, maybe you need to demand more from your politicians. I'll tell you what, though, the pension fund managers and insurance companies are going to do a hell of a lot more to make the financial institutions honest that the govt will. And they would be a lot less likely to do it if they didn't have some big players holding their feet to the fire.
After all, if OJ can get away with murder, you're going to have to lower the bar really low to keep the wealthy and powerful from influencing government.
Which treaty? The ones we haven't signed (Kyoto, which didn't come *close* to passing in Congress), or the ones we signed with countries that don't exist anymore?
They're throwing people in prison in the US for speaking out against the war? Wow, I really need to catch up on current events. Either that, or you need to go back on your medication.
Before you do so, you may want to ask yourself whether the Democrats would have better for your constitutional rights in the last 3 years.
It's likely they wouldn't have been so, uh, agressive against the Taliban and Al-Queda, and may have compensated by being more aggressive on the home front.
After all, isn't the senator from Disney a Democrat? And the last time a couple of thousand Americans died in a sneak attack, a whole bunch of Americans spent the next few years in internment camps. And they were put there by a Democrat.
The people in Guantanomo Bay aren't Americans. They're lucky they didn't get killed in Afghanistan. Unless you're a citizen of Yemen or Pakistan (the only nations that ever recognized the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan), those people can't even be considered POWs. They're criminals, like the Barbary pirates. Most of them are stateless, and it's pretty likely that the ones that aren't (like any Saudis) would be even worse off if we send them home.
The only governments that should be worried about being on the receiving end of America's 'justice', 'liberation', and whatever are North Korea and the like. Let them worry.
The Europeans are concerned because their nose is being rubbed in the fact that they're irrelevant, and there's no chance of that changing. They can't have a decent military and be socialists states at the same time. They'll go broke like the Soviet Union.
However did you come to the conclusion that having everything paid for by tax money is in the people's best interest?
Capital punishment? I live in Texas. The problem in Texas isn't that the people are bloodthirsty, it's that, for some stupid reason, it is impossible for a jury to sentence somebody to a life sentence. They can get out on parole. You can't put somebody away for life in this state. So if a jury thinks that somebody is too dangerous to ever be allowed out in public again, their only realistic choice is the death sentence.
You must be in your 20s. You've obviously never worked through an economic downturn before. Do you know that the average standard of living in the European countries you admire is about two-thirds that of the average American?
Don't expect a revolution anytime soon within America.
In a few years, you might be surprised to find out what the Iraqi people are saying about the "second superpower". I bet they'll be saying the same things that other recently liberated people like the Poles are saying.
Of course, the French can just tell them to shut up and remember their place.
If the war in Iraq goes on for 8 or 9 years like Vietnam and the Revolutionary war, with nothing remotely looking like victory in the future, yeah, maybe, the peace movement will change policy.
So we've got, what, at least another 7 years, 50 weeks to go before that can happen.
Oh, and in the two examples you gave, the soldiers were conscripts. You think Clinton would have been protesting the war if he didn't have to worry about getting drafted (well, he probably would, since it would help him get chicks).
Just what do you think somebody with a billion dollars *does* with that money? Stick it under their mattress? They invest it, creating jobs. People with that kind of money are the ones that are good at creating wealth, and that wealth eventually works its way through the system.
Or have you not noticed that in countries that are run by your ideals, nearly everybody lives in poverty?
No, I believe government to be bad *and* corporations to be bad. And while you never argued that corporations weren't capable of causing major harm, asking "where does this government good, corporations bad nonsense come from" sure implies it.
I didn't mention any of the points you raised because I agree with them. It's just that I don't see anything that can counter corporate excess other than government, especially when the media is owned by large corporations.
Get rid of Social Security. Pull US troops out of Europe and South Korea. Legalize, regulate, and heavily tax pot and other recreational drugs. Cut way back on foreign aid and tie it to human rights. Eliminate all business subsidies and tax breaks, and eliminate the alternative minimum tax too. Cut out all the crap in the government and cut taxes by increasing the standard exemption by about $10000.
But the budget for the SEC needs to go from 500 million to 2 billion. There's a tax on stock trades that's supposed to fund the SEC, and that money should go to the SEC. And some people at companies like Firestone do need to go to jail. This part of government that oversees corporate behaviou is the *one* part that needs to be expanded.
And I agree with going into Iraq. As far as Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, etc., all I'm seeing these days is people around the world being perfectly content with leaving monsters alone to brutalize their own people. Hell, the US didn't even get into WWII until we were attacked. Don't really see how to deal with NK without millions of people dying, but in the long run removing that regime would save lives.
And as far as the govt being able to "haul out the guns and take it" whenever they need money, I can recall one recent president that didn't get re-elected precisely because he did that.
As I see it, in the last 200 years, America has dragged large parts of the world towards democracy and freedom, while at the same time we've been dragged away from democracy and freedom by the world (major hits were caused by Civil War, Depression, WWII, Cold War, now terrorism). We're still the freeest country in the world, which isn't saying much, and about the only way to reverse the downward spiral is if some country is created/has a revolution and gets something going that's better. Don't know where or how that can happen, though. Maybe Mars:)
Do you think at the end of WWII the Allies thought it would be a piece of cake to make Japan and Germany into democracies? Yeah.
The "puppet" we're propping up in Afghanistan was selected by the tribal leaders in a manner about as close to democracy as was feasible at the time. The future puppet leader of Iraq will be elected by the Iraqi people. I would bet that they'll be accepted in a few years about like the puppet leaders we installed in Germany and Japan were.
"The kind of a government we have" is a democracy. Democracies are reactive, not proactive. There really hasn't been an external threat to the US for a looong time (MAD contained the USSR threat effectively). The real reason for this war isn't WMD, I agree, but that's as close a reason they can get to legitimize the war. The real reason is not oil, either, we were on the way to easing a lot of the sanctions before 9/11. The real reason is that terrorists are bred because of the oppressive regimes in the region, many of which are propped up by the West, and to reduce the future threat of terrorism the governents in the region must become democracies. Don't expect any western government to publicly admit to changing their policy of propping up despots, although, in hindsight, admitting past mistakes and vowing to bringing democracy to all nations might have been more successful diplomatically.
Iraq becoming a viable democracy is likely the number 1 foreign policy goal of the US.
Iran is on its way to being a democracy; a democratic Iraq should speed up the process.
Saudi, well with their increasing population, and with a democratic Iraq next door, and lower oil prices caused by Iraq being fully in the market, they'll be under incredible pressure to reform. A few months after 9/11 I read a short blurb about how SA was holding their first-ever elections for local offices. You don't think they've been under pressure from the US to reform? When members of the royal family have stated that they'll shower Al-Queda with cash rather than lose power?
I don't think the war is idiotic; in fact it's way overdue. Saddam has attacked his neighbors twice and there's no reason to believe he'd not do it again. Sanctions haven't kept him from staying in power, it's just enraged the Arab world.
Well, there's reason to be hopeful. Historically, countries that have undergone military occupation by the US were able to transition to democracy pretty well; it's the countries that the CIA and the State Dept meddled with are the ones that became basket cases.
There's enough parallels to the post WWII situation to be encouraged; we built up stable democracies in Japan and Europe so they could stand with us against communism; we'll build up a stable democracy in Iraq to fight terrorism by making it blindingly obvious to even the most stupid Arab that their problems are caused by their own corrupt tyrannies.
Which maimed ones do you want me to ask? The ones whos tongues were cut out for saying bad things about Saddam, or the athletes tortured for losing a soccer game?
You are right; it is too late to ask the ones fed through the plastic shredders and the ones that were beheaded.
It would be great to reign in the government in a big way, but to be quite honest, corporations are capable of causing major harm (cigarette companies, Exxon Valdez, Bhopal). Presidents as for back as Lincoln and even Jefferson considered large companies to be a threat to the union, and eliminating some of that "limited liability" should be done, especially if you go and greatly weaken the federal government. Don't you think somebody should have at least gone to *jail* for covering up the problems with Firestone tires to delay a recall by a year, causing dozens of preventable deaths?
You should keep in mind that if the troops were actually "proles" then the government would go for massed ill-equipped troops instead of well-armed, well-trained troops because:
1) A 1984-ish state is less likely to have the economic ability to provide the high-quality equipment and training. See North Korea.
2) A well-trained, well-armed, professional army is a major threat to the powers that be. Remember why Stalin was so ill-prepared for WWII; he purged the military of everyone he could find that was competent.
3) Soldiers in a democracy's army are voters, and are related to voters. Equipping them badly would have bad results at election time. This is also why an all-volunteer army makes a war more acceptable to the people than a drafted army.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, the Club of Rome said the exact same thing 40 years ago. Ehrlich lost his little bet to Simon.
BTW, the parent poster was wondering what would happen if populations *declined* in America. Hard to reconcile with "Malthusian anthill". The latest estimates I've seen show the total human population peaking at under 10 billion, then declining. America's population would be declining if it weren't for immigration; the problem is the rest of the world needs to get their crap together.
Hackers? How about "The Net" with Sandra Bullock, where she's reviewing Wolfenstein on an Apple, talking about how "immersive" it is. A few years after "Doom" came out. Jeez.
> It would be interesting to see what would happen if the US population ever flattened out or started declining.
Watch western Europe for the next 30 years. It will not be pretty. At least England isn't totally hosed; Maggie bought them some time.
A vicious circle. High unemployment, high taxes, little opportunity create financial and emotional disincentive to have children, who will be future workers, taxpayers, and caregivers. Repeat a few generations and let simmer.
You must not be old enough to remember all the "hostile takeovers" in the eighties. Check out "Wall Street" with Michael Douglas and Charlie Sheen. The market wasn't always overvalued.
If the stock price is too low, somebody can tender an offer, buy up the outstanding shares, and either reorg the company till you make money or sell off the company's assets (physical, IP, etc.).
How much is MS worth? Let's see: 35 gigabucks in the bank, IP and market position out the wazoo, and plenty of congressmen in their pocket. It's overvalued now (like all the tech stocks), but if it ever gets too low, they *could* get taken over.
They aren't just "slips of paper". You are part owner of the company. You get to vote for who runs the company. Bill and Monkeyboy are, essentially, *required* by the stockholders to be evil. If they aren't, they can lose their job, or even be sued. Shareholders get to determine whether the company pays dividends or not (by not paying dividends, the money can go into growing the company). If a company is becoming more efficient, or increasing market share/revenue/profit, it's reasonable to think that the stock price should go up.
Microsoft didn't pay dividends when they were growing. Now it's hard for them to grow any more, and it's hard to justify not paying dividends when you have that 35 GB in the bank.
Granted, most tech companies are overvalued, and it's unlikely they will gain value worth a crap for the next ten years. The P/E ratios are still too high.
Heard a story once (don't know if it's true). In 1929, Joe Kennedy (JFK's father, who made a fortune in bootlegging then went legit in the market) was walking to his office in NYC. He stopped to get a shoe shine. The shoe shine boy started talking about the stock market and what stocks were hot. When the shoe shine was done, Joe gave the kid a good tip, walked to his office, and sold every stock he owned.
When the shoe shine boys start following the market, it's time to get out.
Wrong. If you own 51% of a publicly traded company, yes you can decide who runs the company and you can make the company go in whatever direction you want. If you take the company in a direction that doesn't increase shareholder value as much as possible, the other 49% *can* sue you for damages (for the hit on their stock price). Remember "the dentist" from Cryptonomicon?
Re:First, human self-knowledge
on
AI in Sci-Fi
·
· Score: 1
Not really. Took a class in neural networks; one of the labs was to build one and train it to recognize hand-written numbers. It learned to do it with over 90% accuracy (on a 486-33; it was a while ago).
You tell me how it knew the difference between a 2 and a 3. I had no idea how it knew.
With fast enough hardware, organized in a manner roughly similar to a human's brain structure, exposed to external stimulus in an interactive environment, sentience will appear. And we won't have a *clue* as to why.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be true if economics were a zero-sum game. It isn't. Obscene greed doesn't have to come at the expense of everyone else. Not every company is Enron.
Instead of passing laws to limit wealth, pass laws to keep wealthy people from harming society. Bill Gates doesn't get to abuse the monopoly position, but he still gets to give 20 billion to charity.
If you think the wealthy are corrupting the politicians, maybe you need to demand more from your politicians. I'll tell you what, though, the pension fund managers and insurance companies are going to do a hell of a lot more to make the financial institutions honest that the govt will. And they would be a lot less likely to do it if they didn't have some big players holding their feet to the fire.
After all, if OJ can get away with murder, you're going to have to lower the bar really low to keep the wealthy and powerful from influencing government.
Maybe it's because your dollar bills, when rolled up, make for inexpensive tampons :).
Which treaty? The ones we haven't signed (Kyoto, which didn't come *close* to passing in Congress), or the ones we signed with countries that don't exist anymore?
They're throwing people in prison in the US for speaking out against the war? Wow, I really need to catch up on current events. Either that, or you need to go back on your medication.
Before you do so, you may want to ask yourself whether the Democrats would have better for your constitutional rights in the last 3 years.
It's likely they wouldn't have been so, uh, agressive against the Taliban and Al-Queda, and may have compensated by being more aggressive on the home front.
After all, isn't the senator from Disney a Democrat? And the last time a couple of thousand Americans died in a sneak attack, a whole bunch of Americans spent the next few years in internment camps. And they were put there by a Democrat.
Wow. Interesting article. Wonder if American and British troops will be liberating Paris from fascism again in ten years.
The people in Guantanomo Bay aren't Americans. They're lucky they didn't get killed in Afghanistan. Unless you're a citizen of Yemen or Pakistan (the only nations that ever recognized the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan), those people can't even be considered POWs. They're criminals, like the Barbary pirates. Most of them are stateless, and it's pretty likely that the ones that aren't (like any Saudis) would be even worse off if we send them home.
The only governments that should be worried about being on the receiving end of America's 'justice', 'liberation', and whatever are North Korea and the like. Let them worry.
The Europeans are concerned because their nose is being rubbed in the fact that they're irrelevant, and there's no chance of that changing. They can't have a decent military and be socialists states at the same time. They'll go broke like the Soviet Union.
However did you come to the conclusion that having everything paid for by tax money is in the people's best interest?
Capital punishment? I live in Texas. The problem in Texas isn't that the people are bloodthirsty, it's that, for some stupid reason, it is impossible for a jury to sentence somebody to a life sentence. They can get out on parole. You can't put somebody away for life in this state. So if a jury thinks that somebody is too dangerous to ever be allowed out in public again, their only realistic choice is the death sentence.
You must be in your 20s. You've obviously never worked through an economic downturn before. Do you know that the average standard of living in the European countries you admire is about two-thirds that of the average American?
Don't expect a revolution anytime soon within America.
In a few years, you might be surprised to find out what the Iraqi people are saying about the "second superpower". I bet they'll be saying the same things that other recently liberated people like the Poles are saying.
Of course, the French can just tell them to shut up and remember their place.
If the war in Iraq goes on for 8 or 9 years like Vietnam and the Revolutionary war, with nothing remotely looking like victory in the future, yeah, maybe, the peace movement will change policy.
So we've got, what, at least another 7 years, 50 weeks to go before that can happen.
Oh, and in the two examples you gave, the soldiers were conscripts. You think Clinton would have been protesting the war if he didn't have to worry about getting drafted (well, he probably would, since it would help him get chicks).
I don't think the GOP is worried about losing the votes of French and German citizens.
Or maybe his grandpa has a brother buried at Normandy. Jackass.
Just what do you think somebody with a billion dollars *does* with that money? Stick it under their mattress? They invest it, creating jobs. People with that kind of money are the ones that are good at creating wealth, and that wealth eventually works its way through the system.
Or have you not noticed that in countries that are run by your ideals, nearly everybody lives in poverty?
No, I believe government to be bad *and* corporations to be bad. And while you never argued that corporations weren't capable of causing major harm, asking "where does this government good, corporations bad nonsense come from" sure implies it.
:)
I didn't mention any of the points you raised because I agree with them. It's just that I don't see anything that can counter corporate excess other than government, especially when the media is owned by large corporations.
Get rid of Social Security. Pull US troops out of Europe and South Korea. Legalize, regulate, and heavily tax pot and other recreational drugs. Cut way back on foreign aid and tie it to human rights. Eliminate all business subsidies and tax breaks, and eliminate the alternative minimum tax too. Cut out all the crap in the government and cut taxes by increasing the standard exemption by about $10000.
But the budget for the SEC needs to go from 500 million to 2 billion. There's a tax on stock trades that's supposed to fund the SEC, and that money should go to the SEC. And some people at companies like Firestone do need to go to jail. This part of government that oversees corporate behaviou is the *one* part that needs to be expanded.
And I agree with going into Iraq. As far as Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, etc., all I'm seeing these days is people around the world being perfectly content with leaving monsters alone to brutalize their own people. Hell, the US didn't even get into WWII until we were attacked. Don't really see how to deal with NK without millions of people dying, but in the long run removing that regime would save lives.
And as far as the govt being able to "haul out the guns and take it" whenever they need money, I can recall one recent president that didn't get re-elected precisely because he did that.
As I see it, in the last 200 years, America has dragged large parts of the world towards democracy and freedom, while at the same time we've been dragged away from democracy and freedom by the world (major hits were caused by Civil War, Depression, WWII, Cold War, now terrorism). We're still the freeest country in the world, which isn't saying much, and about the only way to reverse the downward spiral is if some country is created/has a revolution and gets something going that's better. Don't know where or how that can happen, though. Maybe Mars
Do you think at the end of WWII the Allies thought it would be a piece of cake to make Japan and Germany into democracies? Yeah.
The "puppet" we're propping up in Afghanistan was selected by the tribal leaders in a manner about as close to democracy as was feasible at the time. The future puppet leader of Iraq will be elected by the Iraqi people. I would bet that they'll be accepted in a few years about like the puppet leaders we installed in Germany and Japan were.
"The kind of a government we have" is a democracy. Democracies are reactive, not proactive. There really hasn't been an external threat to the US for a looong time (MAD contained the USSR threat effectively). The real reason for this war isn't WMD, I agree, but that's as close a reason they can get to legitimize the war. The real reason is not oil, either, we were on the way to easing a lot of the sanctions before 9/11. The real reason is that terrorists are bred because of the oppressive regimes in the region, many of which are propped up by the West, and to reduce the future threat of terrorism the governents in the region must become democracies. Don't expect any western government to publicly admit to changing their policy of propping up despots, although, in hindsight, admitting past mistakes and vowing to bringing democracy to all nations might have been more successful diplomatically.
Iraq becoming a viable democracy is likely the number 1 foreign policy goal of the US.
Iran is on its way to being a democracy; a democratic Iraq should speed up the process.
Saudi, well with their increasing population, and with a democratic Iraq next door, and lower oil prices caused by Iraq being fully in the market, they'll be under incredible pressure to reform. A few months after 9/11 I read a short blurb about how SA was holding their first-ever elections for local offices. You don't think they've been under pressure from the US to reform? When members of the royal family have stated that they'll shower Al-Queda with cash rather than lose power?
I don't think the war is idiotic; in fact it's way overdue. Saddam has attacked his neighbors twice and there's no reason to believe he'd not do it again. Sanctions haven't kept him from staying in power, it's just enraged the Arab world.
Well, there's reason to be hopeful. Historically, countries that have undergone military occupation by the US were able to transition to democracy pretty well; it's the countries that the CIA and the State Dept meddled with are the ones that became basket cases.
There's enough parallels to the post WWII situation to be encouraged; we built up stable democracies in Japan and Europe so they could stand with us against communism; we'll build up a stable democracy in Iraq to fight terrorism by making it blindingly obvious to even the most stupid Arab that their problems are caused by their own corrupt tyrannies.
Which maimed ones do you want me to ask? The ones whos tongues were cut out for saying bad things about Saddam, or the athletes tortured for losing a soccer game?
You are right; it is too late to ask the ones fed through the plastic shredders and the ones that were beheaded.
It would be great to reign in the government in a big way, but to be quite honest, corporations are capable of causing major harm (cigarette companies, Exxon Valdez, Bhopal). Presidents as for back as Lincoln and even Jefferson considered large companies to be a threat to the union, and eliminating some of that "limited liability" should be done, especially if you go and greatly weaken the federal government. Don't you think somebody should have at least gone to *jail* for covering up the problems with Firestone tires to delay a recall by a year, causing dozens of preventable deaths?
You should keep in mind that if the troops were actually "proles" then the government would go for massed ill-equipped troops instead of well-armed, well-trained troops because:
1) A 1984-ish state is less likely to have the economic ability to provide the high-quality equipment and training. See North Korea.
2) A well-trained, well-armed, professional army is a major threat to the powers that be. Remember why Stalin was so ill-prepared for WWII; he purged the military of everyone he could find that was competent.
3) Soldiers in a democracy's army are voters, and are related to voters. Equipping them badly would have bad results at election time. This is also why an all-volunteer army makes a war more acceptable to the people than a drafted army.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, the Club of Rome said the exact same thing 40 years ago. Ehrlich lost his little bet to Simon.
BTW, the parent poster was wondering what would happen if populations *declined* in America. Hard to reconcile with "Malthusian anthill". The latest estimates I've seen show the total human population peaking at under 10 billion, then declining. America's population would be declining if it weren't for immigration; the problem is the rest of the world needs to get their crap together.
Hackers? How about "The Net" with Sandra Bullock, where she's reviewing Wolfenstein on an Apple, talking about how "immersive" it is. A few years after "Doom" came out. Jeez.
> It would be interesting to see what would happen if the US population ever flattened out or started declining.
Watch western Europe for the next 30 years. It will not be pretty. At least England isn't totally hosed; Maggie bought them some time.
A vicious circle. High unemployment, high taxes, little opportunity create financial and emotional disincentive to have children, who will be future workers, taxpayers, and caregivers. Repeat a few generations and let simmer.
You must not be old enough to remember all the "hostile takeovers" in the eighties. Check out "Wall Street" with Michael Douglas and Charlie Sheen. The market wasn't always overvalued.
If the stock price is too low, somebody can tender an offer, buy up the outstanding shares, and either reorg the company till you make money or sell off the company's assets (physical, IP, etc.).
How much is MS worth? Let's see: 35 gigabucks in the bank, IP and market position out the wazoo, and plenty of congressmen in their pocket. It's overvalued now (like all the tech stocks), but if it ever gets too low, they *could* get taken over.
They aren't just "slips of paper". You are part owner of the company. You get to vote for who runs the company. Bill and Monkeyboy are, essentially, *required* by the stockholders to be evil. If they aren't, they can lose their job, or even be sued. Shareholders get to determine whether the company pays dividends or not (by not paying dividends, the money can go into growing the company). If a company is becoming more efficient, or increasing market share/revenue/profit, it's reasonable to think that the stock price should go up.
Microsoft didn't pay dividends when they were growing. Now it's hard for them to grow any more, and it's hard to justify not paying dividends when you have that 35 GB in the bank.
Granted, most tech companies are overvalued, and it's unlikely they will gain value worth a crap for the next ten years. The P/E ratios are still too high.
You're right.
Heard a story once (don't know if it's true). In 1929, Joe Kennedy (JFK's father, who made a fortune in bootlegging then went legit in the market) was walking to his office in NYC. He stopped to get a shoe shine. The shoe shine boy started talking about the stock market and what stocks were hot. When the shoe shine was done, Joe gave the kid a good tip, walked to his office, and sold every stock he owned.
When the shoe shine boys start following the market, it's time to get out.
Wrong. If you own 51% of a publicly traded company, yes you can decide who runs the company and you can make the company go in whatever direction you want. If you take the company in a direction that doesn't increase shareholder value as much as possible, the other 49% *can* sue you for damages (for the hit on their stock price). Remember "the dentist" from Cryptonomicon?
Not really. Took a class in neural networks; one of the labs was to build one and train it to recognize hand-written numbers. It learned to do it with over 90% accuracy (on a 486-33; it was a while ago).
You tell me how it knew the difference between a 2 and a 3. I had no idea how it knew.
With fast enough hardware, organized in a manner roughly similar to a human's brain structure, exposed to external stimulus in an interactive environment, sentience will appear. And we won't have a *clue* as to why.