There is no more "left activism" because the left has already won. The left already controls the universities, newspapers, and government. The left is now the establishment.
Come back when you learn basic statistics. Your individual vote is practically worthless. The odds of being the deciding vote in a national election isn't any better than winning the lottery. Even if your candidate wins by one vote, there still is a good chance that the president will act differently than promised and enact policy that would harm you anyway! Trying to determine policy by voting is like trying to make money by playing the lottery. You could do a hell of a lot better by using your time and energy doing something that actually has a good chance of making a difference.
Voting gives you a good feeling that your voice is being heard, but how can you be heard when 100,000,000 other people are all talking at once? Democracy feels good but with a country as big as the U.S. you can take the outcome of elections as given.
These kinds of unemployment numbers aren't "shocking". In fact, they are normal in many parts of the world. Many French would consider 7% pretty decent.
"So what if the government has a monopoly? Where I live the railroads were once state-owned. The trains were on time and the price was fairly low. Then the privatising started and now the trains have become later and the tickets way more expensive."
How much were you paying in taxes for that level of service from the railroad? Or did you really think government provided service is free? When you say "cheaper" are you including the taxes you had to spend whether you road the train or not?
"Also, monopolies happen. See Microsoft, see internet connections in the US. And I rather have a person trying to do something but failing, then being squeezed by a big monopoly."
How is a government run service not a monopoly? At least monopolies in the relatively unregulated markets have to compete against potential rivals (if they raise prices too high other firms will pop up to compete). Government monopolies never have to fear competition from newer firms with lower prices, because they get paid the price they ask no matter what (through taxation).
Do you understand the macro-economic concept of expectations? I know very well that taxes increased after. Tell me this: if you knew that taxes or tariffs were going to increase dramatically in the near future would that information impact your current decision making? Of course it would!
"As for the tariff, it was orthodox Republicanism"
How is this an argument that high tariffs didn't increase the duration of the depression along with the Fed's contraction of the money supply? Do you expect me to argue that the Republicans were somehow right in their economic policy simply because I think the New Deal had a mostly negative impact on the economy? If anything I blame Hoover more than I do FDR but that does not excuse the fact that his New Deal was a disaster.
"Yes, indeed the new deal did nothing to rebuilt the US of A and its production infrastructure to the point that it could out produce the 3 power of the axis combined."
The original stock market crash had a good deal to do with expectations of a poorer business climate brought about by increased taxes and tariffs. The New Deal prolonged the Great Depression by cartelizing key industries. In fact, it was when these policies were repealed in the 1940s that economic growth started to accelerate again.
"In fact, FDR's plans were so catastrophic that he was elected "only" 3 times, and people cried in the streets when the guy crooked."
Re-election is not a sign of good economic policy or of good character. See the re-election of GWB as a recent example. You are falling prey to the argumentum ad populum fallacy by saying that because many people thought FDR was doing a good job he must have been doing a good job.
"So let me get this straight, one of the few economic policies with a proven record of success (the new deal for example) are now framed as toxic. Whereas the insane policies that led to the gilded age, the great depression, the crash of the late 80s, the recession of the early 90s, and the current credit crunch... all those things are now gospel. Wow!"
The track record of the New Deal is a sad one indeed. For evidence look to the second recession that took place in 1937. If it was working so well why did we have yet another recession and increasing unemployment?
"No wonder that capitalism is about making dumb people part of their money, as there seems to be an infinite supply of dumb idiots...."
If believing economic individualism is superior to central planning makes me an idiot than so be it.
If there is anything we don't need its the government trying to stop recessions from happening. Remember that recession that turned into the Great Depression? We don't need any more "experimenting" with the economy like Hoover and FDR did.
"The deeper downside: Dell will outsource more production and assembly."
Which will result in lower prices which is good for consumers. How is this the deeper downside? Why are Americans, which have one of the highest standards of living in the world, more deserving of these jobs than people in other countries?
"Anyone else think that June 30 is an excellent chance to push Linux to the desktop?"
Didn't you guys say that when Windows XP was coming out? Yeah... that's what I though.
Why is it that Slashdot's first reaction to these types of studies is "there should be a law!"? What ever happened to free speech?
Seriously, if you don't like ads DON'T WATCH THEM!
Stop demanding that the government outlaw everything you find uncomfortable or annoying or else don't complain when religious people try to regulate your life and control what you watch and say.
The WHO doesn't even rank countries based on the quality of health care. Did it ever occur to you that things like infant mortality are counted using wildly different measures? In many countries they consider certain births DOA because it would be too expensive and unlikely to save a child they just mark it off as dead before birth. In the U.S. they spend lots more money on the small chance that it could survive and many times it still doesn't and ends up bringing up the child mortality rate. Not only that the WHO isn't really even measuring health care at all. Rich people are more likely to spend a lot more money on the off chance that they could save a baby than poor people. Imagine that.
It is too late to start using the Constitution as the ultimate law of the land again. If we followed the Constitution exactly as it is written we would have to get rid of things like the Department of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency, Social Security, and many other government programs and agencies that people don't want to see taken away. After years of ignoring it, the Constitution has lost its power.
"The marketplace has been duped into believing that this is the best technology can provide. People don't have time to know, understand, or research history and find that technology really can be reliable."
No. They believe it is the best the technology can provide at a given price. Why do people "put up" with cars that only give them X amount of protection in a car crash even though there is technology out there that would make them safer? Because they aren't willing to pay the marginal cost for the extra protection. Arguing about what is possible with technology is pointless. What matters is what a piece of technology can do at a given price.
Everything is a trade-off. The sooner Slashdot learns this the less we will have these stupid "Why don't consumers use the latest, greatest, most expensive technology? We need to force them somehow!" articles.
So I would assume Germany would be the first to get economic sanctions right? They refuse to let their citizens engage in online purchases of Nazi books and clothing. Give me a break...
You don't have to pay for Bonds' liver. He will pay for it with his health insurance. Unless of course socialized medicine advocates get their way. Then you will pay for athlete's liver problems and my vegan neighbor will pay for Micheal Moore's heart problems. That's fair, right?
I just lost a ton of respect for Opera. Instead of improving their product and marketing better to increase marketing share they have resorted to using government force to compete with Microsoft. Opera is attempting to limit people's rights through the court system. They want to take away the rights of Microsoft's owners to make mutually agreed upon trades with their customers. There is simply no excuse for using government force in such a manner. If Opera wants my business they should offer me a better trade than Microsoft. Shame on you Opera...
I know many people think that Ron Paul doesn't have many real supporters and that it is mostly internet bots, but when Barack Obama visited Arizona State University to give a speech there were literally almost as many people with Ron Paul signs and t-shirts than Barack Obama even though Ron Paul wasn't even visiting that day. Make no mistake these supporters definitely are real. Unless of course all those people on campus are actually bots...
Actually it is thanks to capitalism that I am able to have enough wealth to take leisure time away from work to do things I really love like camping, inventing, and studying philosophy. Only a short time ago these things were only for those of elite birth. The market has lifted up the common man so high he can afford things kings couldn't even dream of only 200 years ago(cars, computers, air conditioning). I'm afraid I can't say the same of other economic systems.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no more "left activism" because the left has already won. The left already controls the universities, newspapers, and government. The left is now the establishment.
Come back when you learn basic statistics. Your individual vote is practically worthless. The odds of being the deciding vote in a national election isn't any better than winning the lottery. Even if your candidate wins by one vote, there still is a good chance that the president will act differently than promised and enact policy that would harm you anyway! Trying to determine policy by voting is like trying to make money by playing the lottery. You could do a hell of a lot better by using your time and energy doing something that actually has a good chance of making a difference. Voting gives you a good feeling that your voice is being heard, but how can you be heard when 100,000,000 other people are all talking at once? Democracy feels good but with a country as big as the U.S. you can take the outcome of elections as given.
These kinds of unemployment numbers aren't "shocking". In fact, they are normal in many parts of the world. Many French would consider 7% pretty decent.
"I thought soldiers were on a battlefield precisely to take as many lives as they could..."
No. If a nuclear armed nation wanted to take as many lives as possible, none of their soldiers would be on the battle-field.
"So what if the government has a monopoly? Where I live the railroads were once state-owned. The trains were on time and the price was fairly low. Then the privatising started and now the trains have become later and the tickets way more expensive."
How much were you paying in taxes for that level of service from the railroad? Or did you really think government provided service is free? When you say "cheaper" are you including the taxes you had to spend whether you road the train or not?
"Also, monopolies happen. See Microsoft, see internet connections in the US. And I rather have a person trying to do something but failing, then being squeezed by a big monopoly."
How is a government run service not a monopoly? At least monopolies in the relatively unregulated markets have to compete against potential rivals (if they raise prices too high other firms will pop up to compete). Government monopolies never have to fear competition from newer firms with lower prices, because they get paid the price they ask no matter what (through taxation).
"What increase in taxes?"
Do you understand the macro-economic concept of expectations? I know very well that taxes increased after. Tell me this: if you knew that taxes or tariffs were going to increase dramatically in the near future would that information impact your current decision making? Of course it would!
"As for the tariff, it was orthodox Republicanism"
How is this an argument that high tariffs didn't increase the duration of the depression along with the Fed's contraction of the money supply? Do you expect me to argue that the Republicans were somehow right in their economic policy simply because I think the New Deal had a mostly negative impact on the economy? If anything I blame Hoover more than I do FDR but that does not excuse the fact that his New Deal was a disaster.
"Yes, indeed the new deal did nothing to rebuilt the US of A and its production infrastructure to the point that it could out produce the 3 power of the axis combined."
The original stock market crash had a good deal to do with expectations of a poorer business climate brought about by increased taxes and tariffs. The New Deal prolonged the Great Depression by cartelizing key industries. In fact, it was when these policies were repealed in the 1940s that economic growth started to accelerate again.
"In fact, FDR's plans were so catastrophic that he was elected "only" 3 times, and people cried in the streets when the guy crooked."
Re-election is not a sign of good economic policy or of good character. See the re-election of GWB as a recent example. You are falling prey to the argumentum ad populum fallacy by saying that because many people thought FDR was doing a good job he must have been doing a good job.
"So let me get this straight, one of the few economic policies with a proven record of success (the new deal for example) are now framed as toxic. Whereas the insane policies that led to the gilded age, the great depression, the crash of the late 80s, the recession of the early 90s, and the current credit crunch... all those things are now gospel. Wow!"
The track record of the New Deal is a sad one indeed. For evidence look to the second recession that took place in 1937. If it was working so well why did we have yet another recession and increasing unemployment?
"No wonder that capitalism is about making dumb people part of their money, as there seems to be an infinite supply of dumb idiots...."
If believing economic individualism is superior to central planning makes me an idiot than so be it.
If there is anything we don't need its the government trying to stop recessions from happening. Remember that recession that turned into the Great Depression? We don't need any more "experimenting" with the economy like Hoover and FDR did.
"The deeper downside: Dell will outsource more production and assembly."
Which will result in lower prices which is good for consumers. How is this the deeper downside? Why are Americans, which have one of the highest standards of living in the world, more deserving of these jobs than people in other countries?
"Anyone else think that June 30 is an excellent chance to push Linux to the desktop?" Didn't you guys say that when Windows XP was coming out? Yeah... that's what I though.
Why is it that Slashdot's first reaction to these types of studies is "there should be a law!"? What ever happened to free speech? Seriously, if you don't like ads DON'T WATCH THEM! Stop demanding that the government outlaw everything you find uncomfortable or annoying or else don't complain when religious people try to regulate your life and control what you watch and say.
The WHO doesn't even rank countries based on the quality of health care. Did it ever occur to you that things like infant mortality are counted using wildly different measures? In many countries they consider certain births DOA because it would be too expensive and unlikely to save a child they just mark it off as dead before birth. In the U.S. they spend lots more money on the small chance that it could survive and many times it still doesn't and ends up bringing up the child mortality rate. Not only that the WHO isn't really even measuring health care at all. Rich people are more likely to spend a lot more money on the off chance that they could save a baby than poor people. Imagine that.
Here is a paper about just some of the many problems with the WHO rankings: http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf
It is too late to start using the Constitution as the ultimate law of the land again. If we followed the Constitution exactly as it is written we would have to get rid of things like the Department of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency, Social Security, and many other government programs and agencies that people don't want to see taken away. After years of ignoring it, the Constitution has lost its power.
You seem to make the mistake of thinking that paying for something through taxes and loss of choice isn't paying for something.
"The marketplace has been duped into believing that this is the best technology can provide. People don't have time to know, understand, or research history and find that technology really can be reliable."
No. They believe it is the best the technology can provide at a given price. Why do people "put up" with cars that only give them X amount of protection in a car crash even though there is technology out there that would make them safer? Because they aren't willing to pay the marginal cost for the extra protection. Arguing about what is possible with technology is pointless. What matters is what a piece of technology can do at a given price.
Everything is a trade-off. The sooner Slashdot learns this the less we will have these stupid "Why don't consumers use the latest, greatest, most expensive technology? We need to force them somehow!" articles.
So I would assume Germany would be the first to get economic sanctions right? They refuse to let their citizens engage in online purchases of Nazi books and clothing. Give me a break...
Two Words: Wilson Administration
How are you "life" but not a tumor? Would you object if we used some "radiation treatment" on you?
Could it be that he *gasp* ripped one of his CDs and loaded the songs onto his iPod?
You don't have to pay for Bonds' liver. He will pay for it with his health insurance. Unless of course socialized medicine advocates get their way. Then you will pay for athlete's liver problems and my vegan neighbor will pay for Micheal Moore's heart problems. That's fair, right?
I just lost a ton of respect for Opera. Instead of improving their product and marketing better to increase marketing share they have resorted to using government force to compete with Microsoft. Opera is attempting to limit people's rights through the court system. They want to take away the rights of Microsoft's owners to make mutually agreed upon trades with their customers. There is simply no excuse for using government force in such a manner. If Opera wants my business they should offer me a better trade than Microsoft. Shame on you Opera...
I know many people think that Ron Paul doesn't have many real supporters and that it is mostly internet bots, but when Barack Obama visited Arizona State University to give a speech there were literally almost as many people with Ron Paul signs and t-shirts than Barack Obama even though Ron Paul wasn't even visiting that day. Make no mistake these supporters definitely are real. Unless of course all those people on campus are actually bots...
I am most likely not a normal case but I learned to read playing RPGs on the NES.
Did you just say that on Slashdot?.....
Actually it is thanks to capitalism that I am able to have enough wealth to take leisure time away from work to do things I really love like camping, inventing, and studying philosophy. Only a short time ago these things were only for those of elite birth. The market has lifted up the common man so high he can afford things kings couldn't even dream of only 200 years ago(cars, computers, air conditioning). I'm afraid I can't say the same of other economic systems.