Or you could consider that the US company could easily double their salary, reduce work week to, say, 60 hours and fix the most grievous safety hazards - all at the cost of cutting compensation of top executives by half.
Having worked with companies in China, I can say it's not that easy. Because labor costs are low, companies in asia simply throw people to solve problems rather than automating. They easily employ 10x the number of people to accomplish the same job. What would happen with a western style system is 1 person would have US style benefits running machines, and the other 9 would be unemployed.
And since nobody can foretell the future, there is NO guarantee that the purchase of capital will reap more rewards in the future. Since there is no such guarantee, basically it becomes a realtime shift of ownership from the borrower to the creditor.
Actually you have it backwards, the real-time shift of wealth goes from the creditor to the borrower. The creditor is the one taking the risk since it is their capital that is being borrowed.
Only if you are 100% certain that the capital investment won't be undermined by, say, a new international treaty that sends your entire industry overseas.
Or that a giant meteor doesn't hit the earth.
Actually, I found that in both cases that was a fallacy- because neither a computer, your own business, nor an education can guarantee that you'll make more money than you borrowed. A sudden shift in the industry ends up leaving you with tens of thousands of dollars of credit card debt, and neither business nor job to pay for it.
Should I not get a job, because afterall the company could go under the next day and I don't get paid. Life is full of risk, the key to be successful is finding the right mix of risk vs reward.
WRONG. Debt is fake economic expansion that carries with it the forces that create depressions and the downswing of the business cycle. Debt is an evil that should NEVER be used, by anybody. After all, as you said above, the problem is individuals who can't manage a budget. That's the only reason anybody ever goes into debt- because they're trying to live beyond their means.
Debt is a timeshift of wealth and allows the purchase of capital which can reap more rewards in the future. There is a big difference between borrowing to buy something, and borrowing to make a capital investment. If you borrow to allow yourself to make more money that's a good thing. For example borrowing money to buy a computer and start your own business, or borrowing to pay for your education.
Faith in exponential growth does not equal emperacism in agricultural, it equals faith like religion. Alas I am an atheist and think your faith is not even charmingly naive.
I see exponential growth in economics and agriculture as I do moore's law. There is nothing fundamentally forcing it, and there is no visibility into how it can be achieved in the distant future, yet you cannot deny the empirical evidence that it's true. Alas I am agnostic, I have my doubts about infinate sustainability (which is why I do not totally disagree with your views), yet I still recognize there are are a variety of methods, some we haven't even imagined, of overcoming those shortcomings in the future - there's still a whole universe of resources out there. Looking back through history, I find siding with human survival to be the best bet.
The longer we wait if you are wrong the greater the suffering will be when the crash comes
Again I don't totally disagree with you, though there are still moral/philosophical hurdles when you simply quantify suffering by numbers. What's worse 4 billion people dying now, or the possibility of 10 billion dying in the future?
This is just one problem, once fossil fuels get scarcer and scarcer in the next 20 years we are in real trouble for hey are the basis of fertilizers that allow for a temporary increase in agricultural productive of the soil at the expense of it's natural fertility. Once the fossil fuels are gone or are too expensive to use as fertilizers we face the trifecta of increasing population, degraded soil, and no easy way to build soil fertility up above it's natural levels that would be required to support "green revolution" expanded populations
Because there are no other possible ways of creating fertilizers, or geneticly modifying food sources to require less. Then there's always the "Modest Proposal"/"Soylent Green" scenarios.
And no we won't be able to eat Eric Drexler's nanotech, brain uploads, or other other inventions imagined by techno optimists.
And man will never fly or go to the moon
So sorry I don't share your pie in the sky faith I prefer empirical realism, thanks.
I would call that empirical cynicism, since empirical evidence shows that humanity has been able to constantly adapt and flourish. The biggest mistake most futurists make is underestimating change. 100 years ago most of what we have could not even be imagined. If you look at the rapid development of genetics & technology, and how they are increasingly being integrated not just into our lives but into our bodies... humanity may not even look like its current form.
Alcohol impairs your ability to perform any function. Period. It is not a question of what it does, but how badly it does it. The law allows a few drinks over time. I would allow none.
None within the last hour, 24 hours, ever in your life? I feel the current law creates a quantitative means of assessing the level of somebody's impairment.
It is irresponsible, selfish and childish to drink and operate any machinery that could be dangerous.
Same can be said about having a screaming kid in the back seat, not having enough sleep. being really angry after a fight with your wife, etc. Cars are dangerous, and expecting 100% attention towards driving just isn't going to happen. It's a matter of personal responsibility knowing whether or not having a glass of wine (or any other scenerio) will impair your ability to drive.
Rather than expanding the economy how about a steady state population? Hint resources do not =infinite. At some point this fancy pyramid scheme is going to crash.
Not that I totally disagree with you, but that solutions has serious philosphical and moral concerns. Look at population control in china, should we just let those in arid regions of Africa die because the land cannot support them? There were those who argued the world could not adequeately support over 1 billion people. Time and again humans have found ways to overcome the natural environment and better utilize limited resources. Rather than just blow up the pyramid and give up, why not ride it out and see how far human ingenuity can take us.
Basically your proposals are to abandon all the ideals that the country was founded upon. The same "sustainability" argument has been used in various forms for hundreds of years, technology and social changes have overcome the issues time & time again.
The problem is, the interest due on that loan is never created.
The interest due on the loan is created in the future. Debt/csavings allow timeshifting of wealth at a marginal cost. Don't confuse personal loans with capital debt. Using a credit card to pay for dinner is vastly different from borrowing money to start a new company.
Wealth is never "created" it is only transfered
So the value of the economy now is the same as the value of the economy in the 1700's. Basic macroeconomics describes how wealth is created as the economy expands.
A real gold standard with 100% reserve banking would automatically maintain steady/maintainable growth and increase the purchasing power of money over time as society becomes more productive
No it wouldn't, market liquidity for investment would be drastically reduced. People couldn't buy houses because they can't take out loans, and businesses can't take out short-term debt for expansion.
A gold standard insures that no one can just "create money" because it costs money to mine gold and there is only so much that can be mined. Gold is also easily divisible and very dense. It is also hard to counterfeit.
And a gold standard has and would be abandoned in the name of national emergency
For the very poor, this is true- but their cash will go further. Of course, they're already spending 108% of their income on goods and services- so it'd be hard to spend a greater percentage
Which is why inflation helps them, since in that environment the value of debt decreases.
Re:Fiat currencies have several problems.
on
Bank Run in Second Life
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It ended in 1971 after a thousand years of use. Neither ridiculous nor particularly archaic.
Or it ended anytime the government felt like it (eg to pay for wars). Basically the key reason to use a gold standard, to prevent overspending by government, never worked in practice
It decreases in value every year destroying the value of savings.
Forcing investment, which is a much better use for capital to expand the economy.
It requires an exponentially increasing economy and debt burden just to maintain the status quo and make interest payments. This has a devastating effect on the environment and human being's work/life balance.
It requires and exponentially increasing economy to meet the demands of exponentially increasing populations. An economy based on a fixed resource results in deflation which will actually prevent the economy from keeping pace with population. For example it was difficult for farmers in the late 19th century to get capital because of the fixed gold based money supply. With supply and demand, the rich will get richer just sitting on money, rather than what we have today where it requires investment and economic expansion to become wealthier.
I think Massive Deflation would be a great thing for just about everybody *except* the very rich.
Even though much of the wealth of the very rich is tied up in assets, they still have far more cash than the poor. Poor people would spend a greater percentage of their income on goods & services and therefore would not be able to capitalize on the increasing value of cash.
The moment they prove to me to be an idiot, regardless of gender, I have to start looking at them with a more critical eye. And I have met women who treat that as if they were being singled out when they truly aren't.
I think the worry of many women is that individual screw-ups are magnified. There is enormous pressure in the enviroment that average is not good enough. If you have a company with 500 programmers she will be much more looked down upon being the 250th best programmer, than any other average joe. A sports analogy, racial integration was accomplished because the first players were amongst the best. If a black player was only average, it would be "proof" to many they couldn't compete, while in fact it showed they were good enough to participate.
I don't think South/Central America and Africa were part of the Cold War. Or if they were then they were even less closely related to Russia than some of the others.
There were plenty of pro- and anti- communist revolutions, rebellions, movements etc. Do a little research for example on Grenada and Nicaragua The key feature of the cold war was superpower finanical & advisory intervention in 3rd world affairs around the world
Actually I was basing my experience more on local examples, not popular figures. Of the people in my high school, take the top 25 in the class. Almost all were from lower income families.
I would argue your experience reflects parents who have had a difficult life who push their children and want something better for them. Unfortunately in many cases parents who are underachievers will not be as involved or have as high expectations, resulting in underachieving children.
I'm absolutely certain anyone on death row that is innocent, would not agree with you. In fact I think your tune would change considerably if the "error" was snuffing you out. And judging by your faith in the system I don't think you have the slightest clue about what goes on in the real Legal system
So what is your magic fix that makes the system perfect?
And if I show your images/video/sound to a third and he goes to tell a fourth and fifth party that your images/video/sound are worth the money and they go on pay you to watch them(your images/video/sound) do I get a cut of your profit?
Who decided you should be responsible for promotion? Maybe health care companies should widely distribute your medical records so that more doctors can access them and possibly help you
Why, because we are assuming your product will gain or lose value but thats all assumption, we can't prove anything unless we have a time machine. So if your product ain't crap people will buy it.
If it is readily available to be consumed for no cost, then nobody pays. That is the problem, if you allow distribution by anybody the supply becomes infinate and the value approaches 0.
It's not about smart vs dumb artists, it's about the fundamental change in how people communicate and how that is changing culture. Kids prefer texting each other, even though it is often cheaper and faster to just call. People are increasingly socializing with avatars rather than in person. Perhaps you are not affected by the shift towards a more cold digital culture, but it will impact the next generations.
Slashdot Mirror
Or that a giant meteor doesn't hit the earth.
Should I not get a job, because afterall the company could go under the next day and I don't get paid. Life is full of risk, the key to be successful is finding the right mix of risk vs reward.
Alas I am agnostic, I have my doubts about infinate sustainability (which is why I do not totally disagree with your views), yet I still recognize there are are a variety of methods, some we haven't even imagined, of overcoming those shortcomings in the future - there's still a whole universe of resources out there. Looking back through history, I find siding with human survival to be the best bet.
Because there are no other possible ways of creating fertilizers, or geneticly modifying food sources to require less. Then there's always the "Modest Proposal"/"Soylent Green" scenarios.
And man will never fly or go to the moon
I would call that empirical cynicism, since empirical evidence shows that humanity has been able to constantly adapt and flourish.
The biggest mistake most futurists make is underestimating change. 100 years ago most of what we have could not even be imagined. If you look at the rapid development of genetics & technology, and how they are increasingly being integrated not just into our lives but into our bodies... humanity may not even look like its current form.
Same can be said about having a screaming kid in the back seat, not having enough sleep. being really angry after a fight with your wife, etc. Cars are dangerous, and expecting 100% attention towards driving just isn't going to happen. It's a matter of personal responsibility knowing whether or not having a glass of wine (or any other scenerio) will impair your ability to drive.
There were those who argued the world could not adequeately support over 1 billion people. Time and again humans have found ways to overcome the natural environment and better utilize limited resources. Rather than just blow up the pyramid and give up, why not ride it out and see how far human ingenuity can take us.
Debt is necessary for economic expansion and is not necessarily a bad thing.
Basically your proposals are to abandon all the ideals that the country was founded upon. The same "sustainability" argument has been used in various forms for hundreds of years, technology and social changes have overcome the issues time & time again.
So the value of the economy now is the same as the value of the economy in the 1700's. Basic macroeconomics describes how wealth is created as the economy expands.
No it wouldn't, market liquidity for investment would be drastically reduced. People couldn't buy houses because they can't take out loans, and businesses can't take out short-term debt for expansion.
And a gold standard has and would be abandoned in the name of national emergency
Forcing investment, which is a much better use for capital to expand the economy.
It requires and exponentially increasing economy to meet the demands of exponentially increasing populations. An economy based on a fixed resource results in deflation which will actually prevent the economy from keeping pace with population. For example it was difficult for farmers in the late 19th century to get capital because of the fixed gold based money supply. With supply and demand, the rich will get richer just sitting on money, rather than what we have today where it requires investment and economic expansion to become wealthier.
A sports analogy, racial integration was accomplished because the first players were amongst the best. If a black player was only average, it would be "proof" to many they couldn't compete, while in fact it showed they were good enough to participate.
The key feature of the cold war was superpower finanical & advisory intervention in 3rd world affairs around the world
It's not about smart vs dumb artists, it's about the fundamental change in how people communicate and how that is changing culture. Kids prefer texting each other, even though it is often cheaper and faster to just call. People are increasingly socializing with avatars rather than in person.
Perhaps you are not affected by the shift towards a more cold digital culture, but it will impact the next generations.