I'm a socialist (80% socialist; 15% anarchist; 5% other:) ) so here is MY view. Do note that socialism is very broad and people have diverging views. I would be somewhere near the far-left.
Without reading anything about FairTax, I don't see how it can work under modern capitalism. Modern economies, the vast majority capitalist, depend on consumption to drive their economies. Economists (who are mostly hardcore capitalists) even say that 2/3 of the US economy, for example, is driven by consumption. If you attempt to tax consumption, I am pretty sure those in power (ie. corporations, wealthy elites, economists, etc) won't let you. I can't see how economists will want to REDUCE consumption. For example, if Americans reduced consupmtion even further, USA would go into deflation (and possibly depression). Regardless of what you think, consumption is what is driving the US economy. Needless to say, consumption is bad for the world (especially from an environmental point of view) but that's another story. Capitalists don't entertain ethical or moral considerations.
To understand progressive taxes, you need to understand a lot of things. You probably already know this but let me just restate it. PROGRESSIVE TAXES tax the wealthy at a HIGHER rate than lower classes. An example is income tax in most countries, where the rich pay a higher rate (not just base amount eg. their tax rate may be 47% while yours is 37%). So is it an unfair tax, as the right wing claims? Not really, although it depends on your econopolitical stance.
A moderate may ask why the left wing supports a progressive tax rate when we stand for equality. Clearly, a progressive tax is not "fair" in the sense that it is not equal. Well the answer to why the left likes progressive taxes requires some understanding.
Socialism, as well as most--if not all--of the left wing, is based on two key underlying philosophies: egalitarianism and utilitarianism. Egalitarianism is the view that we should be striving to create a society where everyone is equal/no discrimination/etc. However, it goes one step above equality. Egalitarnianism also requires the elimination of CLASSES.
Socialists, as well as branches of socialism such as communism, Communism, trokyism, etc, attempt to eliminate classes, on top of trying to create equality. Elimination of classes requires minimizing economic wealth disparities. Progressive taxes are thought to flatten the economic disparity (somewhat) so that's why most socialists, including me, support it. The problem isn't money per se. It is important to note that socialism does not value money, like capitalism (under capitalism, money is #1; under socialism it isn't very valuable--it is simply a counting mechanism (ie. currency)). So money or wealth isn't the problem. Instead, the problem is that wealth can be translated to POWER, especially under capitalistic societies. That is really the problem: POWER. You might be a good capitalist and in total denial that money isn't power but you are wrong! The truth of the matter is, if you are wealthy you have greater access to politicians, you can name streets after you, you can purchase huge swaths of land/forest, you can access media more easily than a lower class person, and so forth. Progressive taxes weaken the power that the wealthy gain. They aren't the total solution but they do help. For instance, the wealthy in Europe, which has higher progressive taxes are weaker than the wealthy in USA, which has lower progressive taxes.
Now, if you are a moderate, you might still go: 'how can you violate the notion of fairness?' Well the answer lies in utilitarianism. This is the view that an action should be performed that benefits the majority instead of the minority. In other words, policies should be directed at the COMMON GOOD rather than an individual. This is what causes most of the battles between socialists and right-wingers. Right-wingers generally hate helping the majority. In any case, in the progressive tax case this j
lol... nothing like a conservative trying to equate a liberal to a child, while he/she purports to be an adult...
I hope you do realize that USA was subsidizing Europe for its own interests. Do you really think Americans would subsidize Europe for a charitable cause? Some Americans don't even want to spend money on their OWN citizens so what are the chances of USA spending money on some foreign country?
Your understanding of the world leaves a lot to be desired. I suggest you start by understanding something called REALPOLITIK. That is the policy that USA uses. Very little of USA's foreign policy is based on ethical or humanatarian concerns, or on theoretical objectives. Think about why USA props up and defends the highly corrupt and vile Middle Eastern governments. Why do you think there are American soldiers in Saudi Arabia defending the monarchy? Do you think it is because USA is trying to subsidize Saudi Arabia's development? Of course not! USA spent more helping Saddam Hussein in the late 80's than on the homeless in America. Ever wonder why? Is it because USA cares more about Iraq than itself? Of course not!
As far as your military comments are concerned, they don't make sense given that USA is an imperial power. Imperialists need a strong infantry, strong navy, etc so that they can invade countries and hold on to them. What you are saying will strip USA of its offense in order to strengthen defense.
You do realize that most of the Balkans were nothing like the rest of Europe (they were struggling countries after the collapse of Communism). If anything, someone in USA probably paid more for social policies than anyone in the Balkans at that time. If you want to attack social policies, stick with left-leaning European core. Attempting to bring in the former Communist states does not prove anything.
I just love how capitalists love to minimize the debt problem. The fact that the survivability of capitalism depends on preventing the collapse of debt probably has something to do with it.
Point 1... Attempting to curb spending by cutting taxes is the most idiotic thing ever. Why? It doesn't work. Captitalism allows you to mortgage your future via debt so people will just borrow more. Look at USA in the 70's, 80's, 90's, and 2000's and you'll find that people just borrow even more. As long as those in power (ie. capitalists, bankers, investors, etc) keep lending moeny to USA, it will keep borrowing...
I don't want to even go into point #2... I just love how economists, who are mostly capitalists, ignore govt income and love to concentrate on GDP. It works so well in their perfect nonsensical world. At the end of the day, GDP is not what is going to pay the debt--it will be govt income. To illustrate my point, consider this hypothetical example. Let's say the govt shrinks and becomes very small (ie. lower spending, less taxes, etc but LOWER income). Is the govt better off from a debt point of view? The answer is a resounding NO! Since the govt income is significantly lower, it will have a hard time paying off its massive debt. BUT if you measure it as a percentage of GDP, you would think everything is still the same.
I just find it funny how economists brainwash everyone into buying into their simplistic GDP-related view. In the modern day, where you have powerful computers, which can measure govt income and things like that, what reason is there to not look at more complex things? Economists are mostly a bunch of fools so I don't expect them to change but I expected better of them. This is like how in the early 1900's, economists used RAW GDP figures to measure countries. Well, that turned out to be completely wrong. Nowadays, people use GDP figures adjusted for purchasing parity. I wonder when they will actually start looking at government income...
lol.. that's the most idiotic argument ever presented for going against Kyoto...
essentially it would create an economic landrush to relocate the old cheapest, dirtiest, most environmentally dangerous plants to these nations who thus-far have been blessed by -not- having been raped by industrial mistakes.
This is ALREADY happening. There is nothing different now that is stopping this. So I don't know where you get this view that it would have actually INCREASED under Kyoto...
If poor countries were able to sell "pollution credits" it is even worse now. NOW, there isn't even any system. A company can simply move to any country that it can buy out...
Spoken like a true right-winger... Something you fail to realize: most of the money is spent on "discretionary" things like war/military, tax cuts, etc... In any case, what you are saying will not accomplish anything because capitalism allows you to mortgage the future via debt. All you will be doing is running up the debt. Incidentally, that is what has been happening in 90% of the world, including USA. US debt will just keep going up, and up, and up, and up... until capitalism collapses:)
One more thing, since you claim to work for Microsoft:
Why is microsoft.com so damned hard to navigate, and why does the site search engine suck so much?
How can you ask him that? MS is large corporation and it's not like as if he lives and breathes MS (although one may often think a corporate worker is a slave of the corporation). This is like asking some software developer why their company logo is black...
That's the goal of terrorism. Make governments do something that they otherwise wouldn't. Having said that, I can see why governments do what they do. They are simply covering themselves. Modern world is based on liability. You do whatever is necessary to ensure that you can't be accused of negligence.
I don't know what you are getting at... but there is an important point you ignore. People WITHIN an institution act differently from when they are individuals. The people who work for corporations or governments or militaries and so on are people too. BUT they act differently within those institutions. You could be the nicest guy around but when you work at the corporation, for example, you aren't doing the same thing.
...if one takes the value of migration to a logical extreme, won't we see future governments actively competing for skilled migrants, offering better legal systems, more civil liberties, easier integration, etc. etc.
This is already the case in the world (although not as extreme as you are implying). Many people migrate for economic reasons. BUT there are A LOT of people who pick countries simply based on political issues. A lot of people go to Europe or USA, instead of say Middle East (rich countries such as Kuwait), even though you can make a lot of money there (as long as you keep your mouth shut).
There are also certain people who pick USA instead of Europe because USA grants more freedoms (neo-Nazis and fascists come to mind--these guys are severely persecuted in Europe).
But the thing is... right now, economic issues play a bigger role than political issues (unless you are a victim of discrimination). The gap in economics is far greater than the gap in political rights.
No, I do not think you are stupid. I was just hoping you would look up the stuff if you didn't believe me.... Anyway, I"ll try looking for the stuff I have seen before...
The adoption of C# by the industry cannot be said to be a good thing. Developers, who mostly program for Windows, may not mind it. However, from a computer industry point of view, it isn't so good. Will C# ever take off on Linux or Mac or whatever? Nope.
Furthermore, languages like Java were never designed to be used for games in the first place.
I don't think ANY language is designed for games (unless you look at something like Lua or something).:|
I'm not a gamer programmer but I'll bet that if you ask a game programmer for what helps him with programming, you won't find it in the language. Languages like C (and C++) are used for games but I'll bet programmers would avoid them if given the choice. A huge number of problems are simply due to the language. For example, saving game states (ie. saving your game) is one major cause of headaches. Not only is it error prone and doesn't work well, often the solutions are not badkward compatible (game version 1.0 doesn't load save files from v1.04). As someone above said, the vast majority of programming is for business use, so game programming isn't even considered.
As you kind of eluded to, I think scripting languages might actually take over game programming.
Trickle-down economics. Constitution vs. rights to free speech. 1st amendment vs posting the 10 commandments in freaking courthouses. Etc. etc. They constantly make laws that violate thir oaths to protect the constitution. So no, they DON'T think things through.
See, that's YOUR view of them. They think all of it through. Consider trickle-down economics. YOU might not like it, and I might not like it, but many prominent economists claim it works. Bush's recent tax cut, for example, is supposed to trickle down from the rich at some future point in time.
Immaterial. We're discussing stated goals and policies, not the current set of morons in congress.
But if these politicians are LYING (which is what they are doing) and don't behave according to their own party ideologies, why are you even believing in them?
But the rest are economic in that they deal with redistribution of wealth.
My original point was that using economic dimension captures social policies because they are intertwined. You said they should be seperated but now don't consider those things to be social. Your system is very misleading. MOST people would consider healthcare/etc to be social policies.
Social right (you do what WE say) and economic left (WE choose what to do with your 'money' (yes, ideal communism, no money. 'work time' or whatever is an equivilent process, though)).
This is a point of contention but it can be shown that Nazis were practicing capitalism. They used private property, private businesses were running the show, etc.
I say that the freedom to do what you want with your money is the greater good, because that is freedom. Individual rights ARE the greater good.
Then you are less utilitarian. You support individual rights over the "common good". I guess you would support something that benefits the individual instead of society as a whole.
That doesn't make it moral, and it doesn't change my point that those who vote for and uphold those laws should be fined and sometimes imprisoned for the damage they do to society.
Good luck with that:) If anything, YOU will be the one that ends up in jail if you start accusing those in power with your grievances...
And as far as I'm concerned, that's enough to say that the majority of the population has no right to vote. They MUST look at what is in front of them and they MUST do the research they need to determine which is the best course, without relying on idiots like Pat Buchanan to tell them what it is. It is their RESPONSIBILITY, and if they can't handle it, they don't have the moral justification to vote.
That's a very elitist attitude. You are basically saying that SOME people should do something while OTHERS shouldn't. That's basically the definition of elitism. Sure a lot of people are not knowledgeable and don't even know what they are doing when it comes to politics BUT who gives YOU the right to claim that these people don't have the moral right to vote? Would the world be better if the majority of hte population actually studied the issues? Of course! But that doesn't mean YOU or anyone else can claim that these people shouldn't vote.... As far as Pat Buchanan is concerned, what can I say? He is from Florida;)
BTW, I've just had a bad day, so I'm sorry if I've sounded insulting or anything. I didn't mean to, but on a day like today, no matter how much I proofread, I screw something up.
Nope.. your're cool... If anything, I have probably insulted you more than you ever have. Hope you don't mind:)... I hope tomorrow will be a better day for you. Good luck at work...
First you say you don't need to make a living off it but then you say it is good for hte unemployed. Make up your mind: is it a living wage or just a "temp" wage?
Why don't we start paying low wages and even reinstitue kids? You know... let kids in school work full time like in the late 1800's and early 1900's. That will surely pump up the economy...
Try to find a PT Crusier in Japan for example. You'll have a much harder time than if you were looking for a Honda here in the states.
True...
With the movement of more and more jobs off shore, that deficit begins to look like greater because in many cases we have to import the finished goods.
True...
Ok so what is your point? I don't think any of it contradicts anything I'm saying. I said USA has massive trade deficits. The only reason USA is even functioning is because (i)mortgaging the future for the present by running up the debt, (ii)US multinationals brining in money from other countries, (iii)foreign investment. If USA can't do any of these, it'll run itn oa problem because its trade is not competitive in the sense that other countries are cheaper.
I assume from your post that Western economists are not your favorite people.
Nope... as a matter of fact, it isn't just WESTERN economists; it's ALL economists.
For the middle class, undoubtedly the most powerful entity in the US ecoonomy, to die, and the lower-income segment of the population dominate the population numbers, a huge disparity in wealth would have to occur.
That is nothing unreasonable. It can happen IMO. All that requires is for USA to go into deflation and not get out of it. For instance, you already see how Japan has been in deflation for almost 10 years. I'm not sure when they will get out. If that happens to USA, the middle class will mostly be converted to working class and poor. You already see this happening in South America, where the elimination of the middle class is resulting in all sorts of problems (eg. Venezeula, Argentina, etc). I agree with you that as long as the middle class exists and is a large segement of hte population, the won't be a class war.
Look at the average middle-class American, his/her life is not necessarily so different than that of the elite.
This totally misrepresents the average American. Their life is NOT similar to the elite. If anything, they don't have the same power, their job is insecure, they face greater shocks from the economy, etc. Anyway, the most important point is that this middle class has a greater chance of dropping classes than the upper class.
Unfortunately, it seems like the charge from materialism leads quickly to religious fundamentalism, a disease that is quickly spreading through all parts of the globe.
I don't think religious fundamentalism has anything to do with materialism. Religious fundamentalists are trying to create society with a particular social and political structure and could care less about economics. In fact, I expect religious fundamentalists to practice capitalism.
The problem is capitalism. In particular, the fact that we practice an elitist system (which capitalism is). You bring up an EXCELLENT point about technology and how our lives haven't changed much. People still work as much as they did 50 years ago, and so forth.
The problem here is that the benefit of technology, for example, accrues to a select few. The benefits that you DO gain are often side-effects and transient effects. For instance, imagine that we developed the perfect robot, one that can do everything you imagine. Do you think the world will change? Do you think people will have an easier time? That you only need to work 5 hours a day and spend the rest on your interests? Of course not! It can't happen because, under capitalism, some person (or some entity, such as a corporation) will hoard this resource called robot. Before you know it, a few who control the production of robots will control the planet (kind of like how oil companies literally control economies nowadays--this is why USA is involved in many wars over Oil and why Britain was doing the same thing 50 years ago)...
The only solution is to eliminate capitalism, or any other elitist system that pops up...
I think you just severely hurt your job prospects. You are going to be blacklisted for sure. What sort of company is going to hire a guy who puts his daughter above the company? It cannot be so! Totally unacceptable! I suggest that you change your loyalty order...
Sure minimum wage kills jobs... but these econoidiots never realize that you can't even make A living with low wages. Of course, the numbers all make sense.
Economists have no heart! They are all a bunch of fools. They will be discredited within 200 years. It's too bad that you worship modern day (capitalist) economics:(:(:(
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a socialist (80% socialist; 15% anarchist; 5% other :) ) so here is MY view. Do note that socialism is very broad and people have diverging views. I would be somewhere near the far-left.
Without reading anything about FairTax, I don't see how it can work under modern capitalism. Modern economies, the vast majority capitalist, depend on consumption to drive their economies. Economists (who are mostly hardcore capitalists) even say that 2/3 of the US economy, for example, is driven by consumption. If you attempt to tax consumption, I am pretty sure those in power (ie. corporations, wealthy elites, economists, etc) won't let you. I can't see how economists will want to REDUCE consumption. For example, if Americans reduced consupmtion even further, USA would go into deflation (and possibly depression). Regardless of what you think, consumption is what is driving the US economy. Needless to say, consumption is bad for the world (especially from an environmental point of view) but that's another story. Capitalists don't entertain ethical or moral considerations.
To understand progressive taxes, you need to understand a lot of things. You probably already know this but let me just restate it. PROGRESSIVE TAXES tax the wealthy at a HIGHER rate than lower classes. An example is income tax in most countries, where the rich pay a higher rate (not just base amount eg. their tax rate may be 47% while yours is 37%). So is it an unfair tax, as the right wing claims? Not really, although it depends on your econopolitical stance.
A moderate may ask why the left wing supports a progressive tax rate when we stand for equality. Clearly, a progressive tax is not "fair" in the sense that it is not equal. Well the answer to why the left likes progressive taxes requires some understanding.
Socialism, as well as most--if not all--of the left wing, is based on two key underlying philosophies: egalitarianism and utilitarianism. Egalitarianism is the view that we should be striving to create a society where everyone is equal/no discrimination/etc. However, it goes one step above equality. Egalitarnianism also requires the elimination of CLASSES.
Socialists, as well as branches of socialism such as communism, Communism, trokyism, etc, attempt to eliminate classes, on top of trying to create equality. Elimination of classes requires minimizing economic wealth disparities. Progressive taxes are thought to flatten the economic disparity (somewhat) so that's why most socialists, including me, support it. The problem isn't money per se. It is important to note that socialism does not value money, like capitalism (under capitalism, money is #1; under socialism it isn't very valuable--it is simply a counting mechanism (ie. currency)). So money or wealth isn't the problem. Instead, the problem is that wealth can be translated to POWER, especially under capitalistic societies. That is really the problem: POWER. You might be a good capitalist and in total denial that money isn't power but you are wrong! The truth of the matter is, if you are wealthy you have greater access to politicians, you can name streets after you, you can purchase huge swaths of land/forest, you can access media more easily than a lower class person, and so forth. Progressive taxes weaken the power that the wealthy gain. They aren't the total solution but they do help. For instance, the wealthy in Europe, which has higher progressive taxes are weaker than the wealthy in USA, which has lower progressive taxes.
Now, if you are a moderate, you might still go: 'how can you violate the notion of fairness?' Well the answer lies in utilitarianism. This is the view that an action should be performed that benefits the majority instead of the minority. In other words, policies should be directed at the COMMON GOOD rather than an individual. This is what causes most of the battles between socialists and right-wingers. Right-wingers generally hate helping the majority. In any case, in the progressive tax case this j
YOu have any sources to back up the claim that 30% of Americans don't pay taxes?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
lol... nothing like a conservative trying to equate a liberal to a child, while he/she purports to be an adult...
I hope you do realize that USA was subsidizing Europe for its own interests. Do you really think Americans would subsidize Europe for a charitable cause? Some Americans don't even want to spend money on their OWN citizens so what are the chances of USA spending money on some foreign country?
Your understanding of the world leaves a lot to be desired. I suggest you start by understanding something called REALPOLITIK. That is the policy that USA uses. Very little of USA's foreign policy is based on ethical or humanatarian concerns, or on theoretical objectives. Think about why USA props up and defends the highly corrupt and vile Middle Eastern governments. Why do you think there are American soldiers in Saudi Arabia defending the monarchy? Do you think it is because USA is trying to subsidize Saudi Arabia's development? Of course not! USA spent more helping Saddam Hussein in the late 80's than on the homeless in America. Ever wonder why? Is it because USA cares more about Iraq than itself? Of course not!
As far as your military comments are concerned, they don't make sense given that USA is an imperial power. Imperialists need a strong infantry, strong navy, etc so that they can invade countries and hold on to them. What you are saying will strip USA of its offense in order to strengthen defense.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You do realize that most of the Balkans were nothing like the rest of Europe (they were struggling countries after the collapse of Communism). If anything, someone in USA probably paid more for social policies than anyone in the Balkans at that time. If you want to attack social policies, stick with left-leaning European core. Attempting to bring in the former Communist states does not prove anything.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I just love how capitalists love to minimize the debt problem. The fact that the survivability of capitalism depends on preventing the collapse of debt probably has something to do with it.
Point 1... Attempting to curb spending by cutting taxes is the most idiotic thing ever. Why? It doesn't work. Captitalism allows you to mortgage your future via debt so people will just borrow more. Look at USA in the 70's, 80's, 90's, and 2000's and you'll find that people just borrow even more. As long as those in power (ie. capitalists, bankers, investors, etc) keep lending moeny to USA, it will keep borrowing...
I don't want to even go into point #2... I just love how economists, who are mostly capitalists, ignore govt income and love to concentrate on GDP. It works so well in their perfect nonsensical world. At the end of the day, GDP is not what is going to pay the debt--it will be govt income. To illustrate my point, consider this hypothetical example. Let's say the govt shrinks and becomes very small (ie. lower spending, less taxes, etc but LOWER income). Is the govt better off from a debt point of view? The answer is a resounding NO! Since the govt income is significantly lower, it will have a hard time paying off its massive debt. BUT if you measure it as a percentage of GDP, you would think everything is still the same.
I just find it funny how economists brainwash everyone into buying into their simplistic GDP-related view. In the modern day, where you have powerful computers, which can measure govt income and things like that, what reason is there to not look at more complex things? Economists are mostly a bunch of fools so I don't expect them to change but I expected better of them. This is like how in the early 1900's, economists used RAW GDP figures to measure countries. Well, that turned out to be completely wrong. Nowadays, people use GDP figures adjusted for purchasing parity. I wonder when they will actually start looking at government income...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
lol.. that's the most idiotic argument ever presented for going against Kyoto...
essentially it would create an economic landrush to relocate the old cheapest, dirtiest, most environmentally dangerous plants to these nations who thus-far have been blessed by -not- having been raped by industrial mistakes.
This is ALREADY happening. There is nothing different now that is stopping this. So I don't know where you get this view that it would have actually INCREASED under Kyoto...
If poor countries were able to sell "pollution credits" it is even worse now. NOW, there isn't even any system. A company can simply move to any country that it can buy out...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Spoken like a true right-winger... Something you fail to realize: most of the money is spent on "discretionary" things like war/military, tax cuts, etc... In any case, what you are saying will not accomplish anything because capitalism allows you to mortgage the future via debt. All you will be doing is running up the debt. Incidentally, that is what has been happening in 90% of the world, including USA. US debt will just keep going up, and up, and up, and up... until capitalism collapses :)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
One more thing, since you claim to work for Microsoft: Why is microsoft.com so damned hard to navigate, and why does the site search engine suck so much?
How can you ask him that? MS is large corporation and it's not like as if he lives and breathes MS (although one may often think a corporate worker is a slave of the corporation). This is like asking some software developer why their company logo is black...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
That's the goal of terrorism. Make governments do something that they otherwise wouldn't. Having said that, I can see why governments do what they do. They are simply covering themselves. Modern world is based on liability. You do whatever is necessary to ensure that you can't be accused of negligence.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Terrorists won't use planes for their next attack so none of this will matter... The problem with terrorism is that it is totally unpredictable...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Oh man... you just made my life even tougher. I am in a financial quagmire:
:|
(i) help some rich oppressed millionaries in Nigeria by helping them launder money
OR
(ii) pay the SCO license fee for using Linux
hmm...so little money on hand... so little time
Sivaram Velauthapillai
If you don't care about the welfare of the people, then yeah, capitalism rules...
Sooner or later, capitalists like yourself will realize that there is more to life than efficiency and productivity...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't know what you are getting at... but there is an important point you ignore. People WITHIN an institution act differently from when they are individuals. The people who work for corporations or governments or militaries and so on are people too. BUT they act differently within those institutions. You could be the nicest guy around but when you work at the corporation, for example, you aren't doing the same thing.
:)
BTW, watch a documentary called The Corporation
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Some consider both of them to be hostile viruses ;)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
...if one takes the value of migration to a logical extreme, won't we see future governments actively competing for skilled migrants, offering better legal systems, more civil liberties, easier integration, etc. etc.
This is already the case in the world (although not as extreme as you are implying). Many people migrate for economic reasons. BUT there are A LOT of people who pick countries simply based on political issues. A lot of people go to Europe or USA, instead of say Middle East (rich countries such as Kuwait), even though you can make a lot of money there (as long as you keep your mouth shut).
There are also certain people who pick USA instead of Europe because USA grants more freedoms (neo-Nazis and fascists come to mind--these guys are severely persecuted in Europe).
But the thing is... right now, economic issues play a bigger role than political issues (unless you are a victim of discrimination). The gap in economics is far greater than the gap in political rights.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
No, I do not think you are stupid. I was just hoping you would look up the stuff if you didn't believe me.... Anyway, I"ll try looking for the stuff I have seen before...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The adoption of C# by the industry cannot be said to be a good thing. Developers, who mostly program for Windows, may not mind it. However, from a computer industry point of view, it isn't so good. Will C# ever take off on Linux or Mac or whatever? Nope.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Furthermore, languages like Java were never designed to be used for games in the first place.
:|
I don't think ANY language is designed for games (unless you look at something like Lua or something).
I'm not a gamer programmer but I'll bet that if you ask a game programmer for what helps him with programming, you won't find it in the language. Languages like C (and C++) are used for games but I'll bet programmers would avoid them if given the choice. A huge number of problems are simply due to the language. For example, saving game states (ie. saving your game) is one major cause of headaches. Not only is it error prone and doesn't work well, often the solutions are not badkward compatible (game version 1.0 doesn't load save files from v1.04). As someone above said, the vast majority of programming is for business use, so game programming isn't even considered.
As you kind of eluded to, I think scripting languages might actually take over game programming.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Trickle-down economics. Constitution vs. rights to free speech. 1st amendment vs posting the 10 commandments in freaking courthouses. Etc. etc. They constantly make laws that violate thir oaths to protect the constitution. So no, they DON'T think things through.
:) If anything, YOU will be the one that ends up in jail if you start accusing those in power with your grievances...
;)
:) ... I hope tomorrow will be a better day for you. Good luck at work...
See, that's YOUR view of them. They think all of it through. Consider trickle-down economics. YOU might not like it, and I might not like it, but many prominent economists claim it works. Bush's recent tax cut, for example, is supposed to trickle down from the rich at some future point in time.
Immaterial. We're discussing stated goals and policies, not the current set of morons in congress.
But if these politicians are LYING (which is what they are doing) and don't behave according to their own party ideologies, why are you even believing in them?
But the rest are economic in that they deal with redistribution of wealth.
My original point was that using economic dimension captures social policies because they are intertwined. You said they should be seperated but now don't consider those things to be social. Your system is very misleading. MOST people would consider healthcare/etc to be social policies.
Social right (you do what WE say) and economic left (WE choose what to do with your 'money' (yes, ideal communism, no money. 'work time' or whatever is an equivilent process, though)).
This is a point of contention but it can be shown that Nazis were practicing capitalism. They used private property, private businesses were running the show, etc.
I say that the freedom to do what you want with your money is the greater good, because that is freedom. Individual rights ARE the greater good.
Then you are less utilitarian. You support individual rights over the "common good". I guess you would support something that benefits the individual instead of society as a whole.
That doesn't make it moral, and it doesn't change my point that those who vote for and uphold those laws should be fined and sometimes imprisoned for the damage they do to society.
Good luck with that
And as far as I'm concerned, that's enough to say that the majority of the population has no right to vote. They MUST look at what is in front of them and they MUST do the research they need to determine which is the best course, without relying on idiots like Pat Buchanan to tell them what it is. It is their RESPONSIBILITY, and if they can't handle it, they don't have the moral justification to vote.
That's a very elitist attitude. You are basically saying that SOME people should do something while OTHERS shouldn't. That's basically the definition of elitism. Sure a lot of people are not knowledgeable and don't even know what they are doing when it comes to politics BUT who gives YOU the right to claim that these people don't have the moral right to vote? Would the world be better if the majority of hte population actually studied the issues? Of course! But that doesn't mean YOU or anyone else can claim that these people shouldn't vote.... As far as Pat Buchanan is concerned, what can I say? He is from Florida
BTW, I've just had a bad day, so I'm sorry if I've sounded insulting or anything. I didn't mean to, but on a day like today, no matter how much I proofread, I screw something up.
Nope.. your're cool... If anything, I have probably insulted you more than you ever have. Hope you don't mind
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Isn't a bad job better then unemployment?
First you say you don't need to make a living off it but then you say it is good for hte unemployed. Make up your mind: is it a living wage or just a "temp" wage?
Why don't we start paying low wages and even reinstitue kids? You know... let kids in school work full time like in the late 1800's and early 1900's. That will surely pump up the economy...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't really understand your point.
Try to find a PT Crusier in Japan for example. You'll have a much harder time than if you were looking for a Honda here in the states.
True...
With the movement of more and more jobs off shore, that deficit begins to look like greater because in many cases we have to import the finished goods.
True...
Ok so what is your point? I don't think any of it contradicts anything I'm saying. I said USA has massive trade deficits. The only reason USA is even functioning is because (i)mortgaging the future for the present by running up the debt, (ii)US multinationals brining in money from other countries, (iii)foreign investment. If USA can't do any of these, it'll run itn oa problem because its trade is not competitive in the sense that other countries are cheaper.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I assume from your post that Western economists are not your favorite people.
Nope... as a matter of fact, it isn't just WESTERN economists; it's ALL economists.
For the middle class, undoubtedly the most powerful entity in the US ecoonomy, to die, and the lower-income segment of the population dominate the population numbers, a huge disparity in wealth would have to occur.
That is nothing unreasonable. It can happen IMO. All that requires is for USA to go into deflation and not get out of it. For instance, you already see how Japan has been in deflation for almost 10 years. I'm not sure when they will get out. If that happens to USA, the middle class will mostly be converted to working class and poor. You already see this happening in South America, where the elimination of the middle class is resulting in all sorts of problems (eg. Venezeula, Argentina, etc). I agree with you that as long as the middle class exists and is a large segement of hte population, the won't be a class war.
Look at the average middle-class American, his/her life is not necessarily so different than that of the elite.
This totally misrepresents the average American. Their life is NOT similar to the elite. If anything, they don't have the same power, their job is insecure, they face greater shocks from the economy, etc. Anyway, the most important point is that this middle class has a greater chance of dropping classes than the upper class.
Unfortunately, it seems like the charge from materialism leads quickly to religious fundamentalism, a disease that is quickly spreading through all parts of the globe.
I don't think religious fundamentalism has anything to do with materialism. Religious fundamentalists are trying to create society with a particular social and political structure and could care less about economics. In fact, I expect religious fundamentalists to practice capitalism.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The problem is capitalism. In particular, the fact that we practice an elitist system (which capitalism is). You bring up an EXCELLENT point about technology and how our lives haven't changed much. People still work as much as they did 50 years ago, and so forth.
The problem here is that the benefit of technology, for example, accrues to a select few. The benefits that you DO gain are often side-effects and transient effects. For instance, imagine that we developed the perfect robot, one that can do everything you imagine. Do you think the world will change? Do you think people will have an easier time? That you only need to work 5 hours a day and spend the rest on your interests? Of course not! It can't happen because, under capitalism, some person (or some entity, such as a corporation) will hoard this resource called robot. Before you know it, a few who control the production of robots will control the planet (kind of like how oil companies literally control economies nowadays--this is why USA is involved in many wars over Oil and why Britain was doing the same thing 50 years ago)...
The only solution is to eliminate capitalism, or any other elitist system that pops up...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I think you just severely hurt your job prospects. You are going to be blacklisted for sure. What sort of company is going to hire a guy who puts his daughter above the company? It cannot be so! Totally unacceptable! I suggest that you change your loyalty order...
;)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sure minimum wage kills jobs... but these econoidiots never realize that you can't even make A living with low wages. Of course, the numbers all make sense.
:(:(:(
Economists have no heart! They are all a bunch of fools. They will be discredited within 200 years. It's too bad that you worship modern day (capitalist) economics
Sivaram Velauthapillai