We want not only jobs, but also jobs in areas that benefit society. Jobs that are makework do not add to the general wealth and therefore do not contribute to improved standard of living. There is no difference between ineffective jobs and welfare in that respect.
Here is the principle difference between communism and capitalism: Property rights. Your property (land, items, etc.) is yours to do with as you please. (actually some would argue this is the only tennet of capitalism, everything else is just a corollary) Sometimes, (and always for noneconomic reasons) governments choose to limit property rights. This can be beneficial to society, but must be kept to a minimum if capitalism is the economic model you choose.
OK, so how does this benefit society? You have specifically asked the question about how does it generate jobs, and I will discuss, but I would point out again that 'jobs' in and of themselves are not the goal. The maximum amount of 'good' for as many people as possible is the goal.
If property rights are secure, it does not matter whether the wealthy choose to buy yachts, houses, philanthropic organizations or squirrel the money away in investment accounts. As long as they act in their own economic best interest, society benefits. If they buy yachts, there will be increased demand for yachts and boatbuilders, designers, marinas will benefit. More to do means more jobs.
If they invest the money in a company (as shareholders they expect some kind of return of course) say that makes yachts for the other rich people, they provide the capital for those yacht companies to expand and grow jobs for yacht builders. The supply of yachts increases, price drops and allows more people to buy yachts. If they buy shares at market prices, they are buying them ultimately from the initial investors, freeing up that investment money for other perhaps riskier endeavors.
If they put the money away in a bank, the bank invests the money to same effect or 'invests' the money in loans to people buying houses or starting businesses. The more money available for this, the lower the interest rates will have to be to attract more borrowers, so more people will be able to afford houses or to start businesses. If they invest in rental houses, they increase the supply of such in a given area allowing more people to move in, more choice among people already there or lower prices (somewhere) for people that need housing.
Obviously philanthropy benefits others, but even it need not be done for selfless reasons. Vanity philanthropy benefits society at least somewhat as effectively as the selfless variety and is certainly better than none at all.
In short, the free market Korea (mostly) efficiently directs the capital and effort toward the areas where it is most needed/wanted by the population. Failure to understand that this could work (and has been shown to work) is what leads to the ideas of central planning and social 'equity' so common to Marxist philosophy that have largely failed wherever implemented. Communism isn't bad because it's evil, communism is bad because it's been shown to be inferior at generating and distributing wealth than capitalism. USSR, China and N. Korea are the most glaring examples.
I did the opposite: When optical mice came out, I upgrade from a crappy (but high friction on the mouseball) pad to bare smooth desk. As a bonus, somehow the sensor got more accurate. Now i just gotta find a way to repace those sliding pad feet thingies and i'll never have to buy another mouse again.
You paid for the nonsensical ravings of a deranged dillettante? I can sum up Moore's work from "Columbine" on:
Something Is wrong with society and you should all be ashamed. But [insert item] isn't it. But it contributes to it. or maybe not. You people make me sick and you should be sick too.
Of course, his patronizing tone is much harder to capture in a snippit, but I think i got the gist of it. For $10 plus shipping and handling, I will print a greeting card with the previous statements and mail it to you.
Scams involving paypal are easy to spot. They're using paypal. If the CC's don't trust someone enough to give them a point-o'-sale, why do you?
Paypal's customer list is exactly a list of people foolish enough to fall for the convenience argument. (And yes I was that foolish. I was too lazy to have myself removed. Fortunately I never actually linked it to any
It appears I was off a bit: Total foreign trade is 20%, I must have been looking at imports. That is still a number which would be possible to overcome given the desire to do so. The long term result of decreased Chinese industrial production would be increased production elsewhere, a situation which is good for everyone but china. Chinese imports account for less than 2% of GDP. I submit that since GDP grows annually by 3-4% lately, a total stoppage of trade with china would be missed for only a few months as the economy restructured and grew out of it. (The slack would be taken up either by American companies or more foreign trade.) China does not currently sell us a significant quanty of goods with inelastic demand, (like oil - notice how a small change in production results in huge swings in price) which would enhance the effect if it were the case.
I'm sorry, by "work for us" I meant, "Create the greatest total quantity of wealth and elevate the general quality of living as much as possible." In the capitalist system, a few people will get very wealthy. often their children will piss it away, so there is some turnover of who these people are. The total amount of wealth available to a society, and hence to even its lowest member is the goal.
The whole point is to encourage people WITH wealth to invest and create jobs for people without and more wealth for everyone in general (especially themselves.. that's the point). Why is it that people don't seem to understand the basic tenets of free market economies or the object lessons provided by USSR, Cuba, China, and N. Korea? (If electric lights are a proxy for quality of life, Korea is a startling example: on the "Night map of the world" you can see the DMZ quite clearly..north of it, there is almost no light at all)
Aag now i've responded to your troll calling my post a troll with a troll of my own. My head hurts.
Yeah, but you never have to deal with a wet mop (regular or sponge) that is covered in yucky. Swiffer may not be great if you have a lot of floor but for apartments it is very convenient. As an added bonus you don't need a special closet to store it in because you throw away the yucky part and the handle breaks down to fit under the sink.
Does the copy making process kill the original? If not, then there is no way you can say the copy IS the original. The problem that arises here is that if the copy is perfect in every way, there is still no way to tell: the copy will think it's the original, and therefore believe in the process, even though the original might be dead (and therefore unable to offer any counter evidence)
If there is a soul and it somehow gets magically transferred to the longer living copy, you could live forever. It is important to note that no matter how perfect, a copy is not the original.
for instance: If you have two hydrogen atoms and somehow force them into exactly the same state wrt. spin, electron orbit, etc, you still have two separate (though identical) hydrogen atoms. The relatively low number of possible energy states of hydrogen atoms means that in any classically measurable quantity of hydrogen gas, there will be at least two identical hydrogen atoms, which are not the same.
To paraphrase a great european leader: Capitalism is the worst philosophy of wealth distribution..except for all the others.
The reason we want to encourage shareholder growth is to encourage people with wealth to invest capital in ventures in the hope of generating more wealth for themsleves. If they held on to their wealth instead of risking it and potentially generating hundreds of jobs and improving society in some way, how would that benefit anyone?
The economic philosophy of capitalism does not say, "greed is bad" or "greed is good." It avoids that issue altogether. Instead it says, "People are greedy. This is how to make it work for us." This is a lesson that the russians and the eastern europeans have already learned, at the cost of millions of lives and much treasure.
Assuming the jobs are being transferred 1for1 and not being replaced by expansion of other similar companies... Is it better to be poor/unemployed in India or Europe?
Which is different than windows how? Most people replace entire computers as their "HW" upgrade, and buy from a vendor that charges them for windows regardless of whether they want it or not.
Yeah I like that too.. expecially matinee movies (when not targeted to the younglings) are very empty.. and cheap.
The only problem is, the film degrades over time, so it's kind of a trade off between seeing a vivid film with no specks and pops and seeing a slightly less impressive film with no crying babies. (Seriously.. I've actually been to a film where *people* thought it would be a good idea to bring infants)
Indestructability and robustness is gadgety too. It's just that there aren't ANY phones that fit his specs for the market to respond to. Granted it's not actually the phone that affects signal quality the most. The poor sales performance of the panasonic toughbook may be holding back indestructable phones.
Remember that solid forms of matter take up MUCH less space than gaseious forms of matter. If you look at the chemical composition of the regolith, you can find out the % that is oxygen and thus extrapolate the minimum amouht of regolith that could produce the required oxygen provided you can come up with an ideal reaction. the "infrastructure" required shouldn't be very many orders bigger than the raw materials themselves, no? also, there are 1000 liters in a cubic meter. so 3.7 cubic meters is not all that much. I don't think you could fill a weather balloon with that much.
At the time of the first movie, the only known dark jedi are the sith, of which, at the time of the first movie, there are never more than two. All other jedi shown are light-side jedi. By the end of the second movie, it is clear that dooku is dark, but whether he is sith is not shown. I would guess yes. Evidence (ep 4) suggests that untrained jedi are unable to express their powers and so are pretty irrelevant. Regardless, the overwhelmng balance of force-users in the galaxy at the time of ep 1 was light-side. Which is why they should FEAR the balancing of the force.
Wrong. the deficit is not 10% the total foreign trade is 10%. Also I have already pointed out that if there's gotta be a deficit, we're on the side you want to be on: exporting green paper, importing valuable goods. Though I expressed wonder as to whether our exports were being valued as highly as they should be. if/when the pendulum swings we'll find out how much our agricultural exports are really worth. Everyone needs to eat. You don't need a fresh car.
the french guns weren't pointed the wrong way. the germans did not invade THROUGH the maginot line. they went around it by first invading Belgium. France did not extend the line across the border with belgium because they were allies and trading partners and did not want to restrict trade (or be seen as cutting belgium off). Also they could not extend the lline on the belgium/germany border because belgium is not part of france. Their guns were pointed the right way if german armor had come through the maginot line but they did not have guns where the germans DID choose to invade.
Would you rather have guns that are pointed the wrong way or no guns at all when the aliens come to invade?
Slashdot Mirror
We want not only jobs, but also jobs in areas that benefit society. Jobs that are makework do not add to the general wealth and therefore do not contribute to improved standard of living. There is no difference between ineffective jobs and welfare in that respect.
Here is the principle difference between communism and capitalism: Property rights. Your property (land, items, etc.) is yours to do with as you please. (actually some would argue this is the only tennet of capitalism, everything else is just a corollary) Sometimes, (and always for noneconomic reasons) governments choose to limit property rights. This can be beneficial to society, but must be kept to a minimum if capitalism is the economic model you choose.
OK, so how does this benefit society? You have specifically asked the question about how does it generate jobs, and I will discuss, but I would point out again that 'jobs' in and of themselves are not the goal. The maximum amount of 'good' for as many people as possible is the goal.
If property rights are secure, it does not matter whether the wealthy choose to buy yachts, houses, philanthropic organizations or squirrel the money away in investment accounts. As long as they act in their own economic best interest, society benefits. If they buy yachts, there will be increased demand for yachts and boatbuilders, designers, marinas will benefit. More to do means more jobs.
If they invest the money in a company (as shareholders they expect some kind of return of course) say that makes yachts for the other rich people, they provide the capital for those yacht companies to expand and grow jobs for yacht builders. The supply of yachts increases, price drops and allows more people to buy yachts. If they buy shares at market prices, they are buying them ultimately from the initial investors, freeing up that investment money for other perhaps riskier endeavors.
If they put the money away in a bank, the bank invests the money to same effect or 'invests' the money in loans to people buying houses or starting businesses. The more money available for this, the lower the interest rates will have to be to attract more borrowers, so more people will be able to afford houses or to start businesses. If they invest in rental houses, they increase the supply of such in a given area allowing more people to move in, more choice among people already there or lower prices (somewhere) for people that need housing.
Obviously philanthropy benefits others, but even it need not be done for selfless reasons. Vanity philanthropy benefits society at least somewhat as effectively as the selfless variety and is certainly better than none at all.
In short, the free market Korea (mostly) efficiently directs the capital and effort toward the areas where it is most needed/wanted by the population. Failure to understand that this could work (and has been shown to work) is what leads to the ideas of central planning and social 'equity' so common to Marxist philosophy that have largely failed wherever implemented. Communism isn't bad because it's evil, communism is bad because it's been shown to be inferior at generating and distributing wealth than capitalism. USSR, China and N. Korea are the most glaring examples.
I did the opposite: When optical mice came out, I upgrade from a crappy (but high friction on the mouseball) pad to bare smooth desk. As a bonus, somehow the sensor got more accurate. Now i just gotta find a way to repace those sliding pad feet thingies and i'll never have to buy another mouse again.
I predict: Middle of november. The push-back dates are closing with the real dates at about the right rate for a november launch.
You paid for the nonsensical ravings of a deranged dillettante? I can sum up Moore's work from "Columbine" on:
Something Is wrong with society and you should all be ashamed. But [insert item] isn't it. But it contributes to it. or maybe not. You people make me sick and you should be sick too.
Of course, his patronizing tone is much harder to capture in a snippit, but I think i got the gist of it. For $10 plus shipping and handling, I will print a greeting card with the previous statements and mail it to you.
Scams involving paypal are easy to spot. They're using paypal. If the CC's don't trust someone enough to give them a point-o'-sale, why do you?
Paypal's customer list is exactly a list of people foolish enough to fall for the convenience argument. (And yes I was that foolish. I was too lazy to have myself removed. Fortunately I never actually linked it to any
Revinue != profit. But you do have a point. Does anyone know what the marginal cost of each "product sold" is? as opposed to the fixed cost?
Quick Google search:
/ us.html#Econ
. html#2004
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos
GDP: $11.75 trillion
Imports: $1.476 trillion (13% GDP)
Exports: $795 billion (7% GDP)
Deficit: $-646.5 billion (5% GDP)
Trade with China:
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700
Export: $ 34 Billion (1% GDP)
Import: $ 196 Billion (2% GDP)
Deficit: $ -162 Billion (1% GDP)
It appears I was off a bit: Total foreign trade is 20%, I must have been looking at imports. That is still a number which would be possible to overcome given the desire to do so. The long term result of decreased Chinese industrial production would be increased production elsewhere, a situation which is good for everyone but china. Chinese imports account for less than 2% of GDP. I submit that since GDP grows annually by 3-4% lately, a total stoppage of trade with china would be missed for only a few months as the economy restructured and grew out of it. (The slack would be taken up either by American companies or more foreign trade.) China does not currently sell us a significant quanty of goods with inelastic demand, (like oil - notice how a small change in production results in huge swings in price) which would enhance the effect if it were the case.
I'm sorry, by "work for us" I meant, "Create the greatest total quantity of wealth and elevate the general quality of living as much as possible." In the capitalist system, a few people will get very wealthy. often their children will piss it away, so there is some turnover of who these people are. The total amount of wealth available to a society, and hence to even its lowest member is the goal.
The whole point is to encourage people WITH wealth to invest and create jobs for people without and more wealth for everyone in general (especially themselves.. that's the point). Why is it that people don't seem to understand the basic tenets of free market economies or the object lessons provided by USSR, Cuba, China, and N. Korea? (If electric lights are a proxy for quality of life, Korea is a startling example: on the "Night map of the world" you can see the DMZ quite clearly..north of it, there is almost no light at all)
Aag now i've responded to your troll calling my post a troll with a troll of my own. My head hurts.
Where do you keep the bucket then?
I don't think they can pass a percent on to customers.. if they increase the price, the fine goes up.
Yeah, but you never have to deal with a wet mop (regular or sponge) that is covered in yucky. Swiffer may not be great if you have a lot of floor but for apartments it is very convenient. As an added bonus you don't need a special closet to store it in because you throw away the yucky part and the handle breaks down to fit under the sink.
Does the copy making process kill the original? If not, then there is no way you can say the copy IS the original. The problem that arises here is that if the copy is perfect in every way, there is still no way to tell: the copy will think it's the original, and therefore believe in the process, even though the original might be dead (and therefore unable to offer any counter evidence)
If there is a soul and it somehow gets magically transferred to the longer living copy, you could live forever. It is important to note that no matter how perfect, a copy is not the original.
for instance:
If you have two hydrogen atoms and somehow force them into exactly the same state wrt. spin, electron orbit, etc, you still have two separate (though identical) hydrogen atoms. The relatively low number of possible energy states of hydrogen atoms means that in any classically measurable quantity of hydrogen gas, there will be at least two identical hydrogen atoms, which are not the same.
To paraphrase a great european leader:
Capitalism is the worst philosophy of wealth distribution..except for all the others.
The reason we want to encourage shareholder growth is to encourage people with wealth to invest capital in ventures in the hope of generating more wealth for themsleves. If they held on to their wealth instead of risking it and potentially generating hundreds of jobs and improving society in some way, how would that benefit anyone?
The economic philosophy of capitalism does not say, "greed is bad" or "greed is good." It avoids that issue altogether. Instead it says, "People are greedy. This is how to make it work for us." This is a lesson that the russians and the eastern europeans have already learned, at the cost of millions of lives and much treasure.
Assuming the jobs are being transferred 1for1 and not being replaced by expansion of other similar companies... Is it better to be poor/unemployed in India or Europe?
Which is different than windows how? Most people replace entire computers as their "HW" upgrade, and buy from a vendor that charges them for windows regardless of whether they want it or not.
Yeah I like that too.. expecially matinee movies (when not targeted to the younglings) are very empty.. and cheap.
The only problem is, the film degrades over time, so it's kind of a trade off between seeing a vivid film with no specks and pops and seeing a slightly less impressive film with no crying babies. (Seriously.. I've actually been to a film where *people* thought it would be a good idea to bring infants)
so... it loops around?
Indestructability and robustness is gadgety too. It's just that there aren't ANY phones that fit his specs for the market to respond to. Granted it's not actually the phone that affects signal quality the most. The poor sales performance of the panasonic toughbook may be holding back indestructable phones.
"Rosecrans Ave."? sounds like rosencrantz? like the ill fated messenger in Hamlet? Interesting.
For the last one, shouldn't the answer be before the question?
Remember that solid forms of matter take up MUCH less space than gaseious forms of matter. If you look at the chemical composition of the regolith, you can find out the % that is oxygen and thus extrapolate the minimum amouht of regolith that could produce the required oxygen provided you can come up with an ideal reaction. the "infrastructure" required shouldn't be very many orders bigger than the raw materials themselves, no? also, there are 1000 liters in a cubic meter. so 3.7 cubic meters is not all that much. I don't think you could fill a weather balloon with that much.
At the time of the first movie, the only known dark jedi are the sith, of which, at the time of the first movie, there are never more than two. All other jedi shown are light-side jedi. By the end of the second movie, it is clear that dooku is dark, but whether he is sith is not shown. I would guess yes. Evidence (ep 4) suggests that untrained jedi are unable to express their powers and so are pretty irrelevant. Regardless, the overwhelmng balance of force-users in the galaxy at the time of ep 1 was light-side. Which is why they should FEAR the balancing of the force.
Wrong. the deficit is not 10% the total foreign trade is 10%. Also I have already pointed out that if there's gotta be a deficit, we're on the side you want to be on: exporting green paper, importing valuable goods. Though I expressed wonder as to whether our exports were being valued as highly as they should be. if/when the pendulum swings we'll find out how much our agricultural exports are really worth. Everyone needs to eat. You don't need a fresh car.
GPS gives you elevation. You just have to be able to see at least 4 satellites.
the french guns weren't pointed the wrong way. the germans did not invade THROUGH the maginot line. they went around it by first invading Belgium. France did not extend the line across the border with belgium because they were allies and trading partners and did not want to restrict trade (or be seen as cutting belgium off). Also they could not extend the lline on the belgium/germany border because belgium is not part of france. Their guns were pointed the right way if german armor had come through the maginot line but they did not have guns where the germans DID choose to invade.
Would you rather have guns that are pointed the wrong way or no guns at all when the aliens come to invade?