If you would prefer a more socialized system, you're welcome to emigrate to [insert favorite socialist country here] rather than try to undermine our government with your retarded ideas.
why can't he try to reform the American government and establish a socialist platform in your country. Indeed not allowing him to (and telling him to emigrate) is inherently undemocratic.
Allowing the majority to rule leads to the tyranny of the masses. Say, the majority rules that Black, Indians, or Jews, should be persecuted that doesn't mean they should be.
I'm all for small government myself*, but I'd never tell someone to emigrate elsewhere because they disagree with my political philosophy.
If someone wants to dictate to me how my government will be of I certainly will tell them to move to another country to their liking.
Well I would guess that the poster isn't simple-minded enough to believe that you have to pick one system and stick to it ideologically 100%. Its possible to have capitalism, along with some regulations and socialism that prevent the lower classes from being exploited. Its what we have in America and Europe today. It makes libertarians feel all icky, but thus far they haven't really bothered to show how its a bad idea. Well, at least not in a way that basically ignores history or reality.
Boosting my rainy day fund by some very fractional amount isn't buying as much psychological bang for the buck as shaving 5 years off my repayment plan, basically.
If you're comfortable and have enough saved for a rainy period, then go for it.
Ever heard of the New Deal? It, not World War II, brought us out of the Great Depression.
Citation needed to back this statement up. Some economists have concluded the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression, and I'll back that up with some citations:
Forget that all the "stimulus packages" and TARP bailouts together just about add up to the cost of the Iraq War and nobody was saying how the government spending all that money on the Iraq War was going to bankrupt our grandchildren
A lot of people said precisely that. A lot of people were against the invasion of Iraq and against the Wall Street Bank bailout. In the case of the bailout more than half opposed it but congress approved it anyway.
I can think of one thing wrong with it. How do you insure that only American software developers benefit from such the stimulus?
I see two problems with this line of reasoning. One is that the US economy depends on international trade, the US economy will not be stable if the rest of the world's economy is not stable too. And secondly, even closed source US proprietary software companies use and pay foreigners. Microsoft not only has offices employing people in China and India but also has supported H1B visas for foreign nationals.
Why don't we just subsidize neither? Seriously, why do we have to subsidize OSS or any business?
As is practiced today, eg where farms are subsidized yearly, there should be no subsidies. Subsidies are only supposed to be a temporary measure of help, and I am against them.
It's bizarre. If it's worth subsidizing or bailing out, then let the free market subsidize and bail.
In the vast majority of cases I agree. I opposed the Wall Street and Bank bailouts, and I oppose the stimulus plan today.
I've never missed a payment on my mortage, always paid a little extra in fact so that I'd pay it off sooner and pay less overall.
I used to think like this, but in a normal economy it's better to pay exactly what your payment is and invest the rest. The interest on the mortgage for a person's primary residence is tax deductible and the investment returns better rates than what is saved by paying off a mortgage faster than it's term. With the economy like it is now, it's better to save money in case your primary source of income disappears.
There will be no incentives for... people interested in buying foreclosed properties.
Of course there is : do you how CHEAP you can buy an investment property now ? If you have the money now is definitely a good time.
At least some economists expect it to get worse. I've read where economists expect the housing market to bottom out in the fall of 2009. If true and you wait until then you can buy a house cheaper in the fall.
One buys a house within his means; the other overextends.
The one who buys a house within their means benefits as well when the government steps in to help the one who's going through foreclosure. A foreclosed home on the same street depresses the values of all the homes in the area. The more houses that are foreclosed the lower the value of the rest of the houses.
Now, I'm not saying people who paid too much for a house should get government help, I was against the bailout period, however since there was a bailout the money should have gone to those who were having their houses foreclosed instead of directly to the banks. By helping struggling home owners pay their mortgage the banks would still have been paid keeping the credit market functioning.
The Day my company realizes they can get half-baked tools for free (ie. open office), my salary will get cut alongside it. People believe technology is expensive, which helps keep my salary up. If they thought all software should be downloadable from anywhere, my salary will suffer, I guarantee it.
That depends, perhaps if employers didn't have to spend as much on software they would then pay employees more. That or lower their prices so more could afford it.
I prefer the private sector (non-profit charities, churches, etc) for providing relief to the poor.
Gues you've never been poor enough to require those services, then
I have been there, and though I've never been homeless I have worked with many who were.
They're overstretched as it is; cutting food stamps, disability, and Medicare while expecting a third party to cover the resulting mess is wishful thinking, to say the least.
I am on, and have been for more than 10 years, disability. As a student years ago I was hit by a moving van like apartment movers (not the same company) while riding my bike after classes. And because of the accident and my injury I have been denied health insurance, so my sister has been trying to get Medicaid for me.
I believe it was the driver who it me and his employer who should have been held responsible not taxpayers.
Boy, some people are terrified of the free market and capitalism. What I am terrified of is government. Almost every mass atrocity and human rights violations was done by government not capitalism.
I get the feeling there are a lot of people who would rather see any unemployed person starve than give them a penny of government money.
That's right. I'd rather the bum who does nothing to improve their lot in get no taxpayer money. Instead I'll rather use my money to help those who try to help themselves.
Think of it this way: would you rather be forced to pay some guy to make widgets you don't want and only he will profit from, or pay someone to pick up garbage in the park?
No, no, no, think of it this way: would you rather be forced to pay for some bum who will not work, or someone who tries to work? Would you rather pay for someone's medical bills who eats at McDonald's all the tyme, or donate money to someone who through no fault of their own is injured?
"At least the latter contributes to the public good."
The difference is choice. Who's forcing you to buy any software? Nobody. If Open Source is subsidized by the government, then I'm being forced to pay for software I might not want or even be able to use. I can easily skip that software if it's made commercially.
You have no choice when your tax dollars pay for commercial software, you can not easily skip paying for proprietary software the government uses your tax dollars to pay for.
That's like an ANTI-Stimulus to us software developers trying to make a living.
Only if you let it be anti-stimulus. There are a number of businesses that focus on open source including large ones like IBM. Perhaps, like IBM, a business or software developer can use a mix of open source and closed source proprietary software can be used.
Fair enough, thanks for the reference, it does appear fairly complicated.
It is complicated, just one change can affect the legality of taking photos in public. So far I have only shot photos for myself, but even then when I'm out taking photos and someone is going to be identifiable I always ask them if I can take their photo. If they say no I'll look for something or someone else to shoot. Something I'll been thinking about though is to get one of those portable photo printers when I get a DSRL, I still use a 35mm film camera. That way I could offer to make a print of a photo for those I take photos of.
What about having a couple of media companies owning almost all the newspapers, radio stations, and TV stations in the entire country?
Except there aren't just a couple of media companies that own own almost all newspapers or radio and TV stations in the US. There are literally dozens of media companies.
But in Libertarianworld all the competitors would have to do would be to make a better product and suddenly everyone would abandon the multi-billion dollar investment they have in Windows and Office and live happily ever after.
Except some libertarians do not support Intellectual Property and Microsoft is built on IP.
The first thing to consider is is Google a monopoly?
Both the Computerworld article and Bloomberg's mention Google's online advertizing but neither says that both Microsoft and Yahoo! also has online advertizing. According to CNN Google's market share in online advertising is 75%, MS's is 5%, and Yahoo's is 20%.
Next they both talk about Google being in cloud computing, however they don't say Google faces competition there too, from Amazon, IBM, Microsoft, Salesforce, and other businesses.
The third to consider, actually it should be the first, is is being a monopoly illegal? And the answer is no. What is illegal is using a monopoly position to stifle competition in another business. And Google hasn't even been accused of that.
Slashdot Mirror
If you would prefer a more socialized system, you're welcome to emigrate to [insert favorite socialist country here] rather than try to undermine our government with your retarded ideas.
why can't he try to reform the American government and establish a socialist platform in your country. Indeed not allowing him to (and telling him to emigrate) is inherently undemocratic.
Allowing the majority to rule leads to the tyranny of the masses. Say, the majority rules that Black, Indians, or Jews, should be persecuted that doesn't mean they should be.
I'm all for small government myself*, but I'd never tell someone to emigrate elsewhere because they disagree with my political philosophy.
If someone wants to dictate to me how my government will be of I certainly will tell them to move to another country to their liking.
Falcon
Well I would guess that the poster isn't simple-minded enough to believe that you have to pick one system and stick to it ideologically 100%. Its possible to have capitalism, along with some regulations and socialism that prevent the lower classes from being exploited. Its what we have in America and Europe today. It makes libertarians feel all icky, but thus far they haven't really bothered to show how its a bad idea. Well, at least not in a way that basically ignores history or reality.
So it only seems we are in a recession?
Falcon
Boosting my rainy day fund by some very fractional amount isn't buying as much psychological bang for the buck as shaving 5 years off my repayment plan, basically.
If you're comfortable and have enough saved for a rainy period, then go for it.
Falcon
Ever heard of the New Deal? It, not World War II, brought us out of the Great Depression.
Citation needed to back this statement up. Some economists have concluded the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression, and I'll back that up with some citations:
There's more from where those came from.
Falcon
Forget that all the "stimulus packages" and TARP bailouts together just about add up to the cost of the Iraq War and nobody was saying how the government spending all that money on the Iraq War was going to bankrupt our grandchildren
A lot of people said precisely that. A lot of people were against the invasion of Iraq and against the Wall Street Bank bailout. In the case of the bailout more than half opposed it but congress approved it anyway.
Falcon
I can think of one thing wrong with it. How do you insure that only American software developers benefit from such the stimulus?
I see two problems with this line of reasoning. One is that the US economy depends on international trade, the US economy will not be stable if the rest of the world's economy is not stable too. And secondly, even closed source US proprietary software companies use and pay foreigners. Microsoft not only has offices employing people in China and India but also has supported H1B visas for foreign nationals.
Falcon
Why don't we just subsidize neither? Seriously, why do we have to subsidize OSS or any business?
As is practiced today, eg where farms are subsidized yearly, there should be no subsidies. Subsidies are only supposed to be a temporary measure of help, and I am against them.
It's bizarre. If it's worth subsidizing or bailing out, then let the free market subsidize and bail.
In the vast majority of cases I agree. I opposed the Wall Street and Bank bailouts, and I oppose the stimulus plan today.
Falcon
I've never missed a payment on my mortage, always paid a little extra in fact so that I'd pay it off sooner and pay less overall.
I used to think like this, but in a normal economy it's better to pay exactly what your payment is and invest the rest. The interest on the mortgage for a person's primary residence is tax deductible and the investment returns better rates than what is saved by paying off a mortgage faster than it's term. With the economy like it is now, it's better to save money in case your primary source of income disappears.
Falcon
There will be no incentives for ... people interested in buying foreclosed properties.
Of course there is : do you how CHEAP you can buy an investment property now ? If you have the money now is definitely a good time.
At least some economists expect it to get worse. I've read where economists expect the housing market to bottom out in the fall of 2009. If true and you wait until then you can buy a house cheaper in the fall.
Falcon
One buys a house within his means; the other overextends.
The one who buys a house within their means benefits as well when the government steps in to help the one who's going through foreclosure. A foreclosed home on the same street depresses the values of all the homes in the area. The more houses that are foreclosed the lower the value of the rest of the houses.
Now, I'm not saying people who paid too much for a house should get government help, I was against the bailout period, however since there was a bailout the money should have gone to those who were having their houses foreclosed instead of directly to the banks. By helping struggling home owners pay their mortgage the banks would still have been paid keeping the credit market functioning.
Falcon
the big wall street bailout (TARP #1) rewarded all the banks that were failing, too.
Warning, don't spit on your monitor. Banks charge to withdraw unemployment benefits.
Falcon
The first couple of hits are from freelancer websites and the next ones are from 2006.
Okay then let's limit to the past month, that shows more than 170,000. Eliminating freelance still results in more than 160,000.
Falcon
The Day my company realizes they can get half-baked tools for free (ie. open office), my salary will get cut alongside it. People believe technology is expensive, which helps keep my salary up. If they thought all software should be downloadable from anywhere, my salary will suffer, I guarantee it.
That depends, perhaps if employers didn't have to spend as much on software they would then pay employees more. That or lower their prices so more could afford it.
Falcon
I prefer the private sector (non-profit charities, churches, etc) for providing relief to the poor.
Gues you've never been poor enough to require those services, then
I have been there, and though I've never been homeless I have worked with many who were.
They're overstretched as it is; cutting food stamps, disability, and Medicare while expecting a third party to cover the resulting mess is wishful thinking, to say the least.
I am on, and have been for more than 10 years, disability. As a student years ago I was hit by a moving van like apartment movers (not the same company) while riding my bike after classes. And because of the accident and my injury I have been denied health insurance, so my sister has been trying to get Medicaid for me.
I believe it was the driver who it me and his employer who should have been held responsible not taxpayers.
Falcon
Boy, some people are terrified of the free market and capitalism. What I am terrified of is government. Almost every mass atrocity and human rights violations was done by government not capitalism.
I get the feeling there are a lot of people who would rather see any unemployed person starve than give them a penny of government money.
That's right. I'd rather the bum who does nothing to improve their lot in get no taxpayer money. Instead I'll rather use my money to help those who try to help themselves.
Think of it this way: would you rather be forced to pay some guy to make widgets you don't want and only he will profit from, or pay someone to pick up garbage in the park?
No, no, no, think of it this way: would you rather be forced to pay for some bum who will not work, or someone who tries to work? Would you rather pay for someone's medical bills who eats at McDonald's all the tyme, or donate money to someone who through no fault of their own is injured?
"At least the latter contributes to the public good."
Falcon
The difference is choice. Who's forcing you to buy any software? Nobody. If Open Source is subsidized by the government, then I'm being forced to pay for software I might not want or even be able to use. I can easily skip that software if it's made commercially.
You have no choice when your tax dollars pay for commercial software, you can not easily skip paying for proprietary software the government uses your tax dollars to pay for.
Falcon
I have no problem with people donating their time and code.
However, when I am given no choice but to pay them for it, it's no longer charity, it's socialism.
The same applies commercially, only the money go to a big corporation.
Falcon
if the chips are down, and it comes to either 'you' or 'me'. I will do what it takes for me to win out. Simple human nature.
What does it mean if you're the only left? Humanity has progressed because of both "looking out for number 1" and cooperation.
Falcon
I don't want any of my tax dollars subsidizing it.
I don't want any or my tax dollars subsidizing any business.
Falcon
That's like an ANTI-Stimulus to us software developers trying to make a living.
Only if you let it be anti-stimulus. There are a number of businesses that focus on open source including large ones like IBM. Perhaps, like IBM, a business or software developer can use a mix of open source and closed source proprietary software can be used.
Falcon
Fair enough, thanks for the reference, it does appear fairly complicated.
It is complicated, just one change can affect the legality of taking photos in public. So far I have only shot photos for myself, but even then when I'm out taking photos and someone is going to be identifiable I always ask them if I can take their photo. If they say no I'll look for something or someone else to shoot. Something I'll been thinking about though is to get one of those portable photo printers when I get a DSRL, I still use a 35mm film camera. That way I could offer to make a print of a photo for those I take photos of.
Falcon
Yes, but you miss the part where libertarians are douchebags who aren't to be taken seriously.
Those who use demagoguery and not reason are the douche bags.
Falcon
What about having a couple of media companies owning almost all the newspapers, radio stations, and TV stations in the entire country?
Except there aren't just a couple of media companies that own own almost all newspapers or radio and TV stations in the US. There are literally dozens of media companies.
Falcon
But in Libertarianworld all the competitors would have to do would be to make a better product and suddenly everyone would abandon the multi-billion dollar investment they have in Windows and Office and live happily ever after.
Except some libertarians do not support Intellectual Property and Microsoft is built on IP.
The first thing to consider is is Google a monopoly?
Both the Computerworld article and Bloomberg's mention Google's online advertizing but neither says that both Microsoft and Yahoo! also has online advertizing. According to CNN Google's market share in online advertising is 75%, MS's is 5%, and Yahoo's is 20%.
Next they both talk about Google being in cloud computing, however they don't say Google faces competition there too, from Amazon, IBM, Microsoft, Salesforce, and other businesses.
The third to consider, actually it should be the first, is is being a monopoly illegal? And the answer is no. What is illegal is using a monopoly position to stifle competition in another business. And Google hasn't even been accused of that.
Falcon