When everyday users get broad band connections to the internet at home, they *need* the security and stability that a Unix box brings. And they aren't going to be educated into being traditional Unix admins either. They're too busy being doctors, plumbers, and carpenters to add another profession.
But the technical community needs for them to be secure as well. The nightmare scenario with regard to hack attacks is to have a lot of powerful insecure boxes on the net with a broadband always on connection that are compromised and used as launch points. Intel's going to provide the power and even Microsoft can't hold down the hardware forever. Do we really want our net infrastructure to remain vulnerable or do we push Unix, whether Linux or Mac OS X or some other variants down the learning curve so that secure computing is available to the masses?
I suspect that Quicktime for BSD is just around the corner. Since the next MacOS is going to be based on BSD, BSD apps are likely to explode in quantity during the next 2-3 years. Will this tip the rivalry of BSD v. Linux in BSD's favor?
Actually, what I was envisioning would be a by law requirement for the feds to tape themselves with juries allowed to make appropriate inferences if taping just "happened" to fail in critical sections.
They aren't looking to just go after Intel but rather will have a surprise announcement of Multi processor Crusoes being launched by Apple running OS X server and emulating PPC faster than Motorola can make the chips run. 800 Mhz dual processor boxes running a *BSD variant that is easier to administer and cheaper than equivalent NT boxen (no CALs guarantee a price advantage).
The tip offs? IBM, a Motorola rival producer of PPC chips is producing the Crusoe but IBM's own PPC chips would compete with Crusoe if it were truly an embedded only chip. There's no advantage for IBM to do that.
Apple also plays into this with its stealth update of Mac OS X server to 1.2. With delays on other fronts (Pismo, the P7, Mystic) it would have been a natural to hype the upgrade to their server software at MacWorld SF but they didn't go for it. The stock price was hammered because of the lack of news.
A Transmeta tie in would give Transmeta an instant market for chips in a controlled hardware platform that has a good reputation for quality. This would ease Apple's supply problems for chips since they would suddenly be able to go to Crusoe whenever Motorola fell down on the job. It would also reinvigorate Apple's stock price by showing a business strategy that's been assembled piece by piece for the past year+, hidden in plain sight. It's just the sort of 180 degree coming from nowhere gotcha that Steve Jobs would love.
You can accomplish this in 15 minutes (if you are slow) by recording an applescript to do it. Save it, send it off to Steve Jobs and wait for your freebie tshirt B-)
Why oh why can't they just run a camera on each of the agents as they are executing the search? A personal camera would catch what was going on in full technicolor glory to catch both suspect behavior and any possible police abuse.
They do this for drunk driving stops and it both helps in the conviction rate (juries won't be fooled by defense rhetoric when they can see the drunk stagger around) and catches any police abuse that does occur (while cutting down on its occurance)
This also solves the inventory problem since a video inventory can help the problem of lost items. Just run two sets of tapes and leave one behind. That and the current written record will stop light fingered agents from making off with property.
The technical solution is easy on notification. The reasoning why they don't do it is what makes me sick.
I wonder sometimes why these people don't make a physics fraud FAQ so that when journalists come calling they can refer them to it and say that if they pass muster and don't fall into well established physics frauds, taking it apart will at least be an interesting exercise.
Then again, I'm still waiting for the Vatican/WCC to put out its christianity FAQ
That small software company? It's really hardware and it's called Transmeta. Coming to you live Jan 19, 2000. Bad example if you want to discredit the fella.
Transmeta has filed patents on their technology and Intel has cited them as significant competition in their anti-trust case. Check it out in past slashdot articles.
I've seen some cites for people who have confirmed his results but not from people who have failed to confirm the results. After a few months, the list of people who had tested cold fusion and failed to replicate was very long and the cold fusion hype machine became unraveled. This seems to have been going on for far longer and there are no lists of people who aren't confirming something new is going on here.
But beyond the energy numbers there are those new compounds that people apparently haven't seen before. Where are the debunkers who can map these compounds to previously discovered materials? Aparently nobody among his detractors are arguing that the compounds aren't novel.
The guy may yet be a fraud, but at the very least there appears to be wheat among the chaff. To dismiss it all with an airy wave of the hand is very much unscientific.
... if you were to load the old, outdated version of NT 4 that worked with PPC systems. Then again, that never worked very well, even by NT standards but they do make you learn how to do it for the MCSE exams (or used to). Ditto for Alpha and MIPS.
Windows NT, the cross platform OS from Microsoft! Now working on: 4 platforms! Err... 3 platforms! Err... 2 platforms! Err... 1 platform!
In the US the USPS has several advantages over FedEx and UPS that make cost comparisons like the one above useless if not actively deceitful. UPS cannot put a letter in your mailbox (and neither can anyone else) because the Congress has ruled that this is illegal. FedEx is prohibited by law (along with everyone else) from delivering regular first class mail that is not "urgent".
Every once in awhile, the USPS enforces that provision and people have to justify the urgency of a letter or package or they get hit with a stiff fine. The postmaster general used to (maybe still does) cite this provision in his stock speech, talking about how he would throw away any mail that reached him in a UPS or FedEx envelope because it wasn't delivered by the proper route.
To say that this sort of comparison is fair is ludicrous. The legal restrictions ensure that neither FedEx nor UPS will build up the infrastructure to carry a business that they aren't allowed to compete for. So the pro-statists "prove" that private enterprise can't deliver mail.
As for the idea of zoned delivery costs, they aren't pre-ordained but they wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. After all, AT&T simplified our life for decades, all the while charging higher than necessary costs for basic telephone service. If you look at the privatized, competitive long distance market today, it *is* more complicated, but it sure is cheaper than anyplace else. And what's the latest innovation? One flat rate national calling over a cellular network that would never have been built in the old monopoly days. Private enterprise gives people what they want.
As for universal mail delivery several private companies deliver to all addresses in the US. Just another red herring...
Apple has been interested in re-entering the PDA space for some time now. If they push in with their own entry they are likely to fragment the market and pull some of the steam out of Palm since anybody who is sticking to Windows CE at this point has a brain that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft.
Palm makes a great product but they don't have very good mac specific features (though it used to be worse). With Apple growing in market share, this is a bad thing for Palm. Hopefully, Apple will buy up a stake in Palm and use that to influence the company to at least license the Palm OS out to Apple.
In real capitalism, we pay $9 an hour to flip burgers because we can't get enough people in some areas. In real capitalism, people try to increase their skills so that they don't stay in unskilled labor positions. Take a look at the US and all you will see is help wanted signs and labor shortages. The only slack labor markets are in the socialist run indian reservations and the socialist enclaves of the welfare ruined inner cities.
I've wanted to start a business in my native Romania ever since the rebellion of '89 but the government stole, lied, and cheated so much that they kept me and a large number of my co-ethnics out. It's only now that I'm seriously considering making the jump back because a reformist government has taken over and is pushing through large, Reagan style tax cuts and regulation reforms.
Business operators are desperate for labor and if the only way they can get it is expand into the third world then they will but only if the local government doesn't impose so many barriers that it's more expensive for them than to lobby for more open immigration.
Sure, you aren't going to create tight labor markets all over the world with a wave of an invisible hand but as people do expand their operations from old capitalist areas to new capitalist areas, that labor slack is going to disappear over the course of a decade.
As for *some* people moving up or down, take a look at the US statistics, that *some* includes a majority. I'm sorry that the idea that somebody who works hard should have more than somebody who enjoys himself and doesn't work hard. I think that you have things exactly backwards. Those that contribute economically, end up running things because of the fruits of that work. They don't magically start out running things and then accumulate wealth (outside the field of politics that is).
I am not forgetting. I also do not forget that there are very paranoid men with large budgets all over the earth who understand gravity just as well. The first time somebody lobs a rock at the earth, they had better be prepared to survive nuclear war because the next supply rocket from earth is likely to contain a warhead.
Get a clue, the violence from governments is going to come before any space colony reaches self-sufficiency.
Fooled you, I actually read it. BTW: It's a nice sidestepping act to link rather than post your own thought. But your first link seems to have bitten you on the rear.
Your Sraffa link ends in conclusions such as "It seems clear that labor values do not explain relative prices, although it's arguable that Marx never intended them to."
Your own link disproves your own point. Pathetic. Pricing can be set using any system but it is only when you can set relative prices in a non-distorting fashion that a pricing system gains its usefulness in signalling where resources should be allocated.
Whenever anybody has ever tried to follow this LTV analysis as a practical matter, they have always failed. The problem isn't in taking backwards analysis but in prospective analysis which is only done when you actually have a country try it. It is in this forward looking that you cannot pick a "numeraire" to fudge your numbers so that they come out right. And without that fudging you end up with the classic marxist problems of "four unknowns, but only two equations". In other words, no solutions available.
You can't look at the 70 year results of this thinking and seriously hold that it hasn't been tried for long enough or in enough variation to have hit upon the right combinations. 100 million dead, 70 years of retrogression in the areas of the world where marxism has taken hold, and the groaning agony of the human wreckage left behind all show the inhumanity, the immorality of marxism. It also shows the economic stupidity and the inability to set rational prices when there is no market mechanism.
Analysis of opaque marxist thought isn't very necessary. The trend lines are repeated in country after country. Marxism is imposed strictly in the beginning, the country tanks economically, a reality check ensues and the government enters a period of reform. Then the government realizes that they can't get too far away from the economics of marxism because it is inextricably intertwined with the political control they need to maintain to avoid being overthrown. All the while, the seed capital of entreprenuers are eaten up by the gulag and people are beaten into not thinking, not innovating, and not stepping out of line.
I could perhaps see somebody saying in 1930 that they didn't know the human and economic cost of marxism. But the archives are open now and the truth is out there for anybody who wants to see.
As for your claim that pricing is not a basic function of economics, I always find it hilarious when a dedicated enemy of free-market economics deigns to define to an advocate what free-marketers actually believe in.
You misread the treaty. They aren't saying that they are limited but that they have agreed that there shall be no private property outside of earth. This means that any private thieves will not be restrained by the threat of government retribution and any government who wants to take you over has the assurance that none of the other governments are going to interfere. Think Poland, 1939 for an example of that kind of non-interference.
The problem with private space exploration at this point is that there are international treaties that state that there is no property rights outside of earth. So what is going to stop the UN or any earth government from stealing the fruits of this private labor? Nothing. So we are stuck until we can get a government to buck the trend and offer protection. It's either that or try for immediate independence and an instant war with earth. Not a bright idea.
"Capital is productive but 'ownership is not a productive activity"
Wrong. The owner decides where to allocate his capital. The proper allocation of resources across an entire economy is an incredibly valuable operation. The capitalist fulfills this role much better than the ministry of whatever. When you take away the capitalist and his allocating wisdom, you inevitably reduce the effectiveness of the economy. Value given deserves payment and so does the capitalist.
This is one more reason that capitalism is superior to marxism. Capitalism does not have anything to say outside of economics.
Workers *are* more than a mere creator of economic value. But their special value as children of God has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with morality. Capitalism doesn't insist on christianity, monotheism, or even religion at all to function. Capitalism is flexible enough so that if people want to honor the specialness of human beings, they can, without violating any capitalist principles.
Marxian theory has *never* been demonstrated to calculate a price properly. All the political systems that adopted marxian economics ended up trying to shadow either external capitalist markets, their own black markets, or set prices by fiat which wrecked the economy.
Price setting (you can also say priority setting) is a basic function of economics and marxism's persistent inability to do it properly renders it useless as economics.
If you do actually happen to have 2 degrees in economics you might honor us with a little demonstration of marxist price setting. The chuckles may just make the exercise worthwhile.
Do we really regret that 80% of the country no longer has to work farmer's hours (up at 4:30 in the morning to slop the hogs, milk the cows, etc.) and take farmer's risks (weather, etc.)? Sure, your lawn mowing example does result in people moving out of the lawn mowing business.
This is good because the number of things that need doing is infinite and the means that we have to do these things are finite. This little bit of economic theory is universally held, even by the marxists. If you reduce the number of people who mow lawns you increase the number of people available for other work. It is only when the government stops new companies from being formed to absorb the newly released workers that you get persistent unemployment a la e. europe and Germany/France.
Slashdot Mirror
When everyday users get broad band connections to the internet at home, they *need* the security and stability that a Unix box brings. And they aren't going to be educated into being traditional Unix admins either. They're too busy being doctors, plumbers, and carpenters to add another profession.
But the technical community needs for them to be secure as well. The nightmare scenario with regard to hack attacks is to have a lot of powerful insecure boxes on the net with a broadband always on connection that are compromised and used as launch points. Intel's going to provide the power and even Microsoft can't hold down the hardware forever. Do we really want our net infrastructure to remain vulnerable or do we push Unix, whether Linux or Mac OS X or some other variants down the learning curve so that secure computing is available to the masses?
DB
That may be true for Quicktime running in the classic environment but is it true for Cocoa or even Carbon? What is Cocoa if not a Unix API?
DB
REdundant Distributed NETwork Steganographic FILE System. REDNETS FILES
There, that didn't take 30 seconds
B-)
DB
I suspect that Quicktime for BSD is just around the corner. Since the next MacOS is going to be based on BSD, BSD apps are likely to explode in quantity during the next 2-3 years. Will this tip the rivalry of BSD v. Linux in BSD's favor?
DB
Actually, what I was envisioning would be a by law requirement for the feds to tape themselves with juries allowed to make appropriate inferences if taping just "happened" to fail in critical sections.
DB
They aren't looking to just go after Intel but rather will have a surprise announcement of Multi processor Crusoes being launched by Apple running OS X server and emulating PPC faster than Motorola can make the chips run. 800 Mhz dual processor boxes running a *BSD variant that is easier to administer and cheaper than equivalent NT boxen (no CALs guarantee a price advantage).
The tip offs? IBM, a Motorola rival producer of PPC chips is producing the Crusoe but IBM's own PPC chips would compete with Crusoe if it were truly an embedded only chip. There's no advantage for IBM to do that.
Apple also plays into this with its stealth update of Mac OS X server to 1.2. With delays on other fronts (Pismo, the P7, Mystic) it would have been a natural to hype the upgrade to their server software at MacWorld SF but they didn't go for it. The stock price was hammered because of the lack of news.
A Transmeta tie in would give Transmeta an instant market for chips in a controlled hardware platform that has a good reputation for quality. This would ease Apple's supply problems for chips since they would suddenly be able to go to Crusoe whenever Motorola fell down on the job. It would also reinvigorate Apple's stock price by showing a business strategy that's been assembled piece by piece for the past year+, hidden in plain sight. It's just the sort of 180 degree coming from nowhere gotcha that Steve Jobs would love.
DB
You can accomplish this in 15 minutes (if you are slow) by recording an applescript to do it. Save it, send it off to Steve Jobs and wait for your freebie tshirt
B-)
DB
Why oh why can't they just run a camera on each of the agents as they are executing the search? A personal camera would catch what was going on in full technicolor glory to catch both suspect behavior and any possible police abuse.
They do this for drunk driving stops and it both helps in the conviction rate (juries won't be fooled by defense rhetoric when they can see the drunk stagger around) and catches any police abuse that does occur (while cutting down on its occurance)
This also solves the inventory problem since a video inventory can help the problem of lost items. Just run two sets of tapes and leave one behind. That and the current written record will stop light fingered agents from making off with property.
The technical solution is easy on notification. The reasoning why they don't do it is what makes me sick.
DB
That's funny, Gold ore at least does. That's why people pan for gold in streams, it's ore that was in a deposit that leaked.
I somehow find it hard to believe that Uranium ore is significantly more resistant to water action than Gold is.
DB
I wonder sometimes why these people don't make a physics fraud FAQ so that when journalists come calling they can refer them to it and say that if they pass muster and don't fall into well established physics frauds, taking it apart will at least be an interesting exercise.
Then again, I'm still waiting for the Vatican/WCC to put out its christianity FAQ
DB
Transmeta has filed patents on their technology and Intel has cited them as significant competition in their anti-trust case. Check it out in past slashdot articles.
DB
I've seen some cites for people who have confirmed his results but not from people who have failed to confirm the results. After a few months, the list of people who had tested cold fusion and failed to replicate was very long and the cold fusion hype machine became unraveled. This seems to have been going on for far longer and there are no lists of people who aren't confirming something new is going on here.
But beyond the energy numbers there are those new compounds that people apparently haven't seen before. Where are the debunkers who can map these compounds to previously discovered materials? Aparently nobody among his detractors are arguing that the compounds aren't novel.
The guy may yet be a fraud, but at the very least there appears to be wheat among the chaff. To dismiss it all with an airy wave of the hand is very much unscientific.
We'll know by June what's real or not.
DB
... if you were to load the old, outdated version of NT 4 that worked with PPC systems. Then again, that never worked very well, even by NT standards but they do make you learn how to do it for the MCSE exams (or used to). Ditto for Alpha and MIPS.
Windows NT, the cross platform OS from Microsoft!
Now working on:
4 platforms! Err...
3 platforms! Err...
2 platforms! Err...
1 platform!
Doesn't anybody in the trade press have a memory?
TML
In the US the USPS has several advantages over FedEx and UPS that make cost comparisons like the one above useless if not actively deceitful. UPS cannot put a letter in your mailbox (and neither can anyone else) because the Congress has ruled that this is illegal. FedEx is prohibited by law (along with everyone else) from delivering regular first class mail that is not "urgent".
Every once in awhile, the USPS enforces that provision and people have to justify the urgency of a letter or package or they get hit with a stiff fine. The postmaster general used to (maybe still does) cite this provision in his stock speech, talking about how he would throw away any mail that reached him in a UPS or FedEx envelope because it wasn't delivered by the proper route.
To say that this sort of comparison is fair is ludicrous. The legal restrictions ensure that neither FedEx nor UPS will build up the infrastructure to carry a business that they aren't allowed to compete for. So the pro-statists "prove" that private enterprise can't deliver mail.
As for the idea of zoned delivery costs, they aren't pre-ordained but they wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. After all, AT&T simplified our life for decades, all the while charging higher than necessary costs for basic telephone service. If you look at the privatized, competitive long distance market today, it *is* more complicated, but it sure is cheaper than anyplace else. And what's the latest innovation? One flat rate national calling over a cellular network that would never have been built in the old monopoly days. Private enterprise gives people what they want.
As for universal mail delivery several private companies deliver to all addresses in the US. Just another red herring...
DB
Apple has been interested in re-entering the PDA space for some time now. If they push in with their own entry they are likely to fragment the market and pull some of the steam out of Palm since anybody who is sticking to Windows CE at this point has a brain that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft.
Palm makes a great product but they don't have very good mac specific features (though it used to be worse). With Apple growing in market share, this is a bad thing for Palm. Hopefully, Apple will buy up a stake in Palm and use that to influence the company to at least license the Palm OS out to Apple.
DB
In real capitalism, we pay $9 an hour to flip burgers because we can't get enough people in some areas. In real capitalism, people try to increase their skills so that they don't stay in unskilled labor positions. Take a look at the US and all you will see is help wanted signs and labor shortages. The only slack labor markets are in the socialist run indian reservations and the socialist enclaves of the welfare ruined inner cities.
I've wanted to start a business in my native Romania ever since the rebellion of '89 but the government stole, lied, and cheated so much that they kept me and a large number of my co-ethnics out. It's only now that I'm seriously considering making the jump back because a reformist government has taken over and is pushing through large, Reagan style tax cuts and regulation reforms.
Business operators are desperate for labor and if the only way they can get it is expand into the third world then they will but only if the local government doesn't impose so many barriers that it's more expensive for them than to lobby for more open immigration.
Sure, you aren't going to create tight labor markets all over the world with a wave of an invisible hand but as people do expand their operations from old capitalist areas to new capitalist areas, that labor slack is going to disappear over the course of a decade.
As for *some* people moving up or down, take a look at the US statistics, that *some* includes a majority. I'm sorry that the idea that somebody who works hard should have more than somebody who enjoys himself and doesn't work hard. I think that you have things exactly backwards. Those that contribute economically, end up running things because of the fruits of that work. They don't magically start out running things and then accumulate wealth (outside the field of politics that is).
DB
I am not forgetting. I also do not forget that there are very paranoid men with large budgets all over the earth who understand gravity just as well. The first time somebody lobs a rock at the earth, they had better be prepared to survive nuclear war because the next supply rocket from earth is likely to contain a warhead.
Get a clue, the violence from governments is going to come before any space colony reaches self-sufficiency.
DB
Fooled you, I actually read it.
BTW: It's a nice sidestepping act to link rather than post your own thought. But your first link seems to have bitten you on the rear.
Your Sraffa link ends in conclusions such as "It seems clear that labor values do not explain relative prices, although it's arguable that Marx never intended them to."
Your own link disproves your own point. Pathetic. Pricing can be set using any system but it is only when you can set relative prices in a non-distorting fashion that a pricing system gains its usefulness in signalling where resources should be allocated.
Whenever anybody has ever tried to follow this LTV analysis as a practical matter, they have always failed. The problem isn't in taking backwards analysis but in prospective analysis which is only done when you actually have a country try it. It is in this forward looking that you cannot pick a "numeraire" to fudge your numbers so that they come out right. And without that fudging you end up with the classic marxist problems of "four unknowns, but only two equations". In other words, no solutions available.
You can't look at the 70 year results of this thinking and seriously hold that it hasn't been tried for long enough or in enough variation to have hit upon the right combinations. 100 million dead, 70 years of retrogression in the areas of the world where marxism has taken hold, and the groaning agony of the human wreckage left behind all show the inhumanity, the immorality of marxism. It also shows the economic stupidity and the inability to set rational prices when there is no market mechanism.
Analysis of opaque marxist thought isn't very necessary. The trend lines are repeated in country after country. Marxism is imposed strictly in the beginning, the country tanks economically, a reality check ensues and the government enters a period of reform. Then the government realizes that they can't get too far away from the economics of marxism because it is inextricably intertwined with the political control they need to maintain to avoid being overthrown. All the while, the seed capital of entreprenuers are eaten up by the gulag and people are beaten into not thinking, not innovating, and not stepping out of line.
I could perhaps see somebody saying in 1930 that they didn't know the human and economic cost of marxism. But the archives are open now and the truth is out there for anybody who wants to see.
As for your claim that pricing is not a basic function of economics, I always find it hilarious when a dedicated enemy of free-market economics deigns to define to an advocate what free-marketers actually believe in.
DB
You misread the treaty. They aren't saying that they are limited but that they have agreed that there shall be no private property outside of earth. This means that any private thieves will not be restrained by the threat of government retribution and any government who wants to take you over has the assurance that none of the other governments are going to interfere. Think Poland, 1939 for an example of that kind of non-interference.
Somebody actually got a cash bonus for selecting WidePoint where, *ahem*, a friend of mine works.
But then again, it beats out ZMax (predecessor name). It's actually not that bad working for a company whose lamest aspect is their name.
In case you are reading fellas, just remember that any publicity is good publicity. B-)
DB
The problem with private space exploration at this point is that there are international treaties that state that there is no property rights outside of earth. So what is going to stop the UN or any earth government from stealing the fruits of this private labor? Nothing. So we are stuck until we can get a government to buck the trend and offer protection. It's either that or try for immediate independence and an instant war with earth. Not a bright idea.
DB
"Capital is productive but 'ownership is not a productive activity"
Wrong. The owner decides where to allocate his capital. The proper allocation of resources across an entire economy is an incredibly valuable operation. The capitalist fulfills this role much better than the ministry of whatever. When you take away the capitalist and his allocating wisdom, you inevitably reduce the effectiveness of the economy. Value given deserves payment and so does the capitalist.
DB
This is one more reason that capitalism is superior to marxism. Capitalism does not have anything to say outside of economics.
Workers *are* more than a mere creator of economic value. But their special value as children of God has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with morality. Capitalism doesn't insist on christianity, monotheism, or even religion at all to function. Capitalism is flexible enough so that if people want to honor the specialness of human beings, they can, without violating any capitalist principles.
DB
Marxian theory has *never* been demonstrated to calculate a price properly. All the political systems that adopted marxian economics ended up trying to shadow either external capitalist markets, their own black markets, or set prices by fiat which wrecked the economy.
Price setting (you can also say priority setting) is a basic function of economics and marxism's persistent inability to do it properly renders it useless as economics.
If you do actually happen to have 2 degrees in economics you might honor us with a little demonstration of marxist price setting. The chuckles may just make the exercise worthwhile.
DB
Do we really regret that 80% of the country no longer has to work farmer's hours (up at 4:30 in the morning to slop the hogs, milk the cows, etc.) and take farmer's risks (weather, etc.)? Sure, your lawn mowing example does result in people moving out of the lawn mowing business.
This is good because the number of things that need doing is infinite and the means that we have to do these things are finite. This little bit of economic theory is universally held, even by the marxists. If you reduce the number of people who mow lawns you increase the number of people available for other work. It is only when the government stops new companies from being formed to absorb the newly released workers that you get persistent unemployment a la e. europe and Germany/France.
DB