You wrote: "Uh...this year is the twentieth anniversary of MacOS. I don't think they were predicting the death of MacOS and Apple 2 decades ago...unless they were predicting the death of MacOS the instant it came out. "
I wrote: "People have been predicting the death of MacOS and Apple for almost 2 decades now. "
Note: "almost 2 decades" < 20 years. There's nothing *factually* or technically incorrect about what I wrote; technically, I didn't say people were predicting Apple's demise upon MacOS's release (although, probability states that there likely were still one or two people doing so. I think we can ignore those loonies though:-) ).
People have been predicting the death of MacOS and Apple for almost 2 decades now. That "wizard" over at PCMag, John Dvorak, has been doing so for almost that long, and look at where that prediction has gone.
*tears out another Dvorak article, wipes, and flushes it down the toilet*
Always pretending to hate Europe when in reality are envious for lacking the style, panache and free thinking that has shaped most of humanity (for good or worst).
Nazi Germany was hardly a fine example of style and free thinking.
You want free thought? The closest you'll find to that is found in the U.S., and that's only because the First Amendment guarantees you that right. Only here in America can you walk through any given town espousing beliefs as extreme as those of the KKK and Black Panthers and *still* not be arrested. In France, Germany, and Britain, such people would be arrested under "anti-hate-speech" laws. What sort of "free thought" is it that restricts free expression? Ohhh, I see -- you mean "free thought" for those who agree with mainstream views (or you, personally)! I get it now... that's hardly the vision of a free-and-equal-under-the-law society, however, nor is it one of tolerance for those whose opinions may vary greatly from yours.
Style? Who cares; dressing in Armani suits doesn't mean shit if you can't get the work done. Just look at President Bush -- you can put a monkey in a suit, but the suit can't make the monkey competent.
Europe is a whiny incompetent socialist continent incapable of doing anything productive because their welfare systems subsidize the otherwise-useful lazy workers to sit on their asses at home instead. How productive that the smart and motivated pay their nanny-states to take care of Joe Sixpack on the other side of town to sit around watching lesbian orange juice commercials...
There are limited resources, therefore it *is* a zero sum game.
Wrong.
What happens to the rate at which a scarce resource is used when the efficiency of its use is doubled?
That usage rate halves -- thus slowing by half the usage of that resource. Thus, twice as many people can now use that resource as could before under the less-efficient method.
If twice as many people are better-off with no change in the amount of resource available, then what has happened?
What's happened is that your "zero-sum" theory -- so often held by "progressives," "Greens," "socialists," and whatever else said far-left liberals are calling themselves this week -- has been proven arithmetically-wrong.
A zero-sum theory holds that there can be no gains in societal wealth because the stock of resource is static. Yet efficiency gains clearly prove this theory wrong. Scientific and technological progress is a cannon which sinks the zero-sum ship.
BTW, the theory of "comparative advantage" is one you ought to look into. It makes this point quite nicely, while simultaneously making the case for free-trade.
* Cash (enough to bribe^H^H^H^H^Hpay a speeding ticket on the spot) * Visa and Mastercard * coupons * photos of loved ones * driver's license * firearm owner ID card * university ID card * university copy/laundry/etc. card * contact info (names, addrs, phone, etc.) * logins/passwords * 1 copy of the first 10 Amendments to the U.S. Bill of Rights * 1 condom (well, I used to have one. I finally got tired of not using it for, uh, let's say a long time and took it out)
So yeah, my wallet is so big and is carried you can't pickpocket me without me noticing it, I'm pretty sure.:)
I consider my wallet one of the 2 things I need with me at all times (the other being my keys). I try to keep in my wallet what I would need in the event that literally everything in my life went to shit -- all my computers' data destroyed, family killed, etc. Call it the wallet of a survivalist, except I'm missing the credit-card sized knife/multi-purpose tool that I'm sure every *real* survivalist carries.:-)
I have known people who kept shurikens in their wallets. I'd do that too, but the metal detectors cause problems...
Where's the freedom in forced voting? As Americans, is it not the right of the people not only to decide *whom* they're going to vote for, but *whether* they will vote at all?
Granted, this is a private school, and if they are funded strictly by private funds, then they can legitimately make this a requirement (students can go to other universities if they disagree with the requirement). But if the university receives government funding in any way - for research, etc. - then they are not wholly-privately-funded, they are funded in part by the public as well, and thus should be subject to the same 1st Amendment rights that government entities are.
Though all in all that's still better than colleges. Which now charges $65,000 easily in two years.
You're an idiot if you're paying $32,500/year for an undergraduate college education.
State schools are worse than private schools, but for the $22,500/year (or thereabouts) difference you're suggesting, at the undergrad level, they aren't *that* much worse (now, at the graduate level, it may make a real difference. But at the undergrad level, I generally don't think so, unless your comparison is Harvard to Bumfuck U. in Montana or something).
Now India can educate its populace too, relatively-cheaply. Surely the anti-outsourcing crowd isn't opposed to people being educated -- right?
(except, that is, for those who don't mind publicly stating that their having a monopoly on being educated is a good thing b/c it raises their wages. Some of us like to think that having everybody educated beyond caveman levels has been good for the world; we also believe that further education is likewise, logically, a good thing. But some people don't agree, I know...)
Progressive view of Milton Friedman is uneducated
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I love how in TFA, they say (under " Professional "Guest Workers.""):
"Since the employer pays a token fee for a guest worker visa, the employer is essentially using the public resource of immigration rights as a partial compensation--a practice even pro-business economists like Milton Friedman admit is a de facto corporate "subsidy"."
Friedman is *not* a "pro-business" economist. He is a pro-free-market economist -- and there is a difference. Pro-business economists prefer policy that explicitly favors businesses. Pro-free-market economists favor policy (or more-often, a deliberate lack of policy) that favors a freer, more-open marketplace, or the elimination of policies which oppose the goal of a free-market -- even if that more-open marketplace comes at the expense of the desires of some businesses.
Friedman would support fewer regulations on the financial industry, for instance. Yet, having worked in a big financial firm myself (which shall remain nameless), some of these companies actually support increased regulation -- because they know it benefits their cause of making a profit. In this way, Friedman could be alternately described as anti-business -- or, more-correctly, a neutral onlooker who prefers a free-market to outright pro-business policies.
Not that I would expect the illiterates of free-market economics (i.e. "progressives" or "socialists" or "Greens" or whatever they're calling themselves this week) to actually understand the difference between "markets" and "business"...
If the Dems and Reps don't look out, the next election could be between Greens and Libertarians, with the former major parties groveling for signatures to get on the ballot.
Bwahahahahaa!!!
Thanks for the laugh buddy, that was hilarious.
Join us back in reality for lunch once your acid trip is over.
Also, I support strong labor unions and environmental regulations.
Do you support coercive labor unions?
I'm generally-libertarian, and I very much support the idea of labor unions. Just not *coercive* (read: if you work for X company, you are required to join, or, "if you don't vote for so-and-so, we'll bust your kneecaps") labor unions.
Labor unions are just organizations of people on the labor side of the economic equation; corporations are organizations of people on the capital side.
Enviro regs -- I waffle on those. It depends on the reg...
Bush's economic policies have been mostly retarded by all credible accounts.
Most economists agree that a little deficit spending is OK, but Bush has done so to such an extent that it worries people about the future of the economy, i.e. "why should I start a business now if my taxes are likely to be raised by the next President to cover for these deficits?" It affects international investment in the U.S. in particular.
Also, war is not good for the public's belief in the stability of a nation; war tends to worry people about whether they are going to get killed. That nervousness keeps people from making major business decisions as well.
Massive tax cuts have produced increased job-creation in the past. Reagan's tax cuts are the classic example of this happening. Why isn't it working for Bush? Because of external factors (war, terrorism, big govn't spending rather than more time spent cutting regulation, etc.) and Bush's own incompetence and inability to inspire people as a leader.
"Jobs haven't bounced back?" In what way? We aren't creating 150k jobs/month as we'd like to, true, but jobs-creation has been a positive value every month for over a year now. Still, that trend isn't much to be excited about.
So the gap between the rich and the poor grows - so what? Suppose you earn $10,000 a year and I earn $100,000 year, working for the same company. The boss comes in and says that due to increased sales, you and I both get a raise. I'm now making $10,000,000 a year, while you make $100,000 a year. You used to be earning 1/10 of what I made, but now it's 1/100th. The gap between us got bigger, but so what ? You're still a hell of a lot better off than you were.
Disagree. You're looking at wages from a nominal standpoint, not a real (inflation-adjusted) standpoint.
Because if I were a businessman and knew that both of you were making more money, I would raise the price of my products. Especially if they were luxury goods, which you would be inclined to buy, but the lesser-paid guy might not (due to a lower income).
And thus, we get inflation. Once that occurs, the real value of your money declines; you're able to buy fewer goods/services.
It's the same effect you see with minimum wage levels (and which is why minimum wage laws are stupid) -- if everybody's wage is known to be $5.25/hour, then why should McDonald's sell burgers at an old price based (at least in part, via their demographic analyses) on the old minimum-wage rate?
Anyway, were I a businessman in your town, I would likely notice that you are spending more with your newfound wealth. I may not know for certain that you are much-richer now, or by how much, but I can detect an increased level of wealth based on your spending habits, and as a result, I will find that I can raise my prices...
That said, I agree w/ you and Schwarzenegger wholeheartedly, that people should not be "economic girly-men." He is quite right to promote policies of economic growth rather than government handouts.
And you are dead-on in your comparison of the modern life of the poor to where people used to be (the comparison to Roman Emporers is a good one).
1. Winning 19 percent of the vote in a three way election is a significant portion. You only need 34% to win. (in a election decided by popular vote). If 15% more of the voters were convinced to vote for Perot a third party would have taken the majority of the votes. That is pretty damn close for a third party in my book.
He still lost, didn't he? Why, yes he did.
2. By winning over 5%? of the popular vote the reform party recieved federal funding for the 2000 election and automatically appeared on the ballet on all of the states.
Except that the Libertarians would refuse federal funding on principle that the government shouldn't be funding political campaigns. That would be the utter height of hypocrisy for them to accept federal funding.
There is room for a third party in America, and people do want one. They just aren't standing up and fighting for one, and are missing the fact that those in power are doing everything they can to maintain power.
That's right -- and that's precisely why a third party will never take hold.
From what I can determine, Libertarianism embraces the central tenets of Capitalism -- that people are lazy, and that people are greedy. I ask you: Are those really healthy core values to be driving your politics?
They are healthy tenets to realize when you want to build an economic system that leverages those traits for the benefit of all the people in that economy.
Socialism (and Soviet socialism, a.k.a. "communism") fail because those systems do not recognize laziness and greed as fundamental human traits.
But I can tell you right now: if I lived in a society where the government handed me a check for being a citizen, without doing any work, I sure as hell wouldn't be in college. I'd be kicking back, waiting for some other schmuck to do my work; after all, the world owes me a living, right? Why work if some other communist-idealist will do it for me?
Of course, if I am to be forced to work so as not to take advantage of the system, then where is the freedom in being forced to work at the barrel of the government's gun? Isn't that just another description for slavery? Socialized slavery?
See, it's this problem of gradualism where the LP falls down hard.
Milton Friedman - himself a libertarian (but a RINO because he believed he would be more-effective within the GOP, because he saw the LP as incompetent as it has since proven to be) - recognized this problem. He is my favorite libertarian (and economist, and philosopher) because he has on one hand his ideals, and on the other hand, solutions which are practically-implementable which tend *towards* his ideals. He argues for both, but put more work into the latter, b/c the former were not realistic and hence, mostly a waste of his time.
I wish the LP would realize that sudden shocks to any economy or society (like it often suggests) would be disastrous, but frankly, I believe the LP is run by dogmatic Randroids left over from the 1960s; people who are completely-unwilling to budge from their principles in order to effect a change that would more-suitably fit their principles...
That's why the LP is an ineffective party, and Friedman saw as much back in the 1970s and 80s when he was at his peak of public personality, and is why Friedman avoided aligning himself with the LP.
(1) As a Republican-turned-Democrat-turned-very-briefly-Soc ialist-turned-Libertarian-turned-libertarian (all changes occurring throughout my undergrad years as a Comp. Sci major, Economics minor), in the 2 years since I've become a convert to the libertarian mindset, (specifically to Milton Friedman's very-rational, very-reasonable brand of libertarianism - I am a diehard Friedmanite), I've seriously considered starting a Libertarian organization at my university. But I am faced with the realization of a few problems:
1) It is difficult for me personally in good conscience to found a big-'L' Libertarian organization which would promote the Libertarian Party, a party which I have always seen as having at least 2 distinct problems:
A) The "Ralph Nader Effect." No matter the few advances the LP makes, it is not going to be very effective. Nor has the LP ever been effective; the highest popular vote for any LP Presidential was for Ed Crane, back in 1980 -- and he received about 1% of the popular vote. Even Socialist Eugene Debs did better during the 1912 and 1920 elections (6% and 3.2%, respectively, the latter of which he received while sitting in jail).
Love it or hate it, the LP is a 3rd party, and no 3rd party in the 228 year history of the U.S. has ever had any real significance. Ross Perot ran as an independent, once winning some 18% or so of the popular vote. But he was pulling votes from the left and right, so he wasn't blamed for "stealing" votes from the GOP or Dems (as though by rightful barony they should be given those votes).
And where is Perot now? Sitting on an oil rig somewhere, surely still listening for that "giant sucking sound" he thought he heard with those big ears.
B) The extremism and Randian doggedness to stick to principle. Love it or hate it, politics in a democracy is necessarily a game of compromise, because the votes of a diverse set of individuals remove the extrema of points from most actions in government. The LP takes a no-compromise, highly-principled stance on all its issues; this makes working with the LP in a practical sense rather difficult. This problem, I believe, contributes strongly back to problem A.
Look, I agree with your principles 100%. I agree we should keep the U.N. at arm's-length and not let them make any decisions whatsoever about the direction of this country. And I agree that driver's licenses shouldn't require a fingerprint or SSN; nor should they have a barcode or really any other identifying info besides one's name, DOB, and license expiration date. But let's be serious -- these things exist whether we like them or not, and unless you take the issue to the courts, they are not going to be changed anytime soon, and childish daydreams of blowing up the property of those we don't like and running from the cops don't help your case in the eyes of most of the public.
Hence, do I want to start an organization promoting people whose intentions and general views I sympathize with very strongly, but the principles of which I realize cannot reasonably be fulfilled without compromise? Why, as a rational user of my time, should I waste my time starting such an organization in that case?
Mr. Badnarik, it is in my view that organizations such as the Cato Institute and The Economist magazine, and Reason magazine do a vastly-superior job of promoting libertarian philosophy than the LP ever has. Why should I start an organization which p
And what exactly happens when they "put it in the bank" as you claim? (which they generally do not, but let's say you are right)
Banks loan that money out to people who need loans. That's how banks make a profit -- they receive interest on those loans they were able to make using money people have deposited with them.
So, the money increases in velocity by sheer fact that the bank isn't going to sit on it either; they're going to make the money work for them.
I said earlier that you were wrong though. Most wealthy people do not stuff their money into a bunch of savings accounts earning 0.30%-2.20% APY. Anybody with a clue (and say what you will about the rich, most rich people didn't get where they are by being *complete* morons, President Bush aside) invests that money in higher-returning ventures -- stocks or bonds are the typical example, but many play in real estate or foreign-exchange too. All of those have potentially higher returns than merely keeping money in a bank.
Most of the middle-upper class of America (those in the 2nd quintile of income, roughly), for example, have too much personal liquid wealth from their jobs to save it in a bank, because the FDIC only insures up to $100,000 of savings; most middle-upper income folks have more than that to their names. After that $100k, you're on your own, and for most people in that class, losing their hard-earned wealth is not an option. So they invest in mutual funds or their own private portfolio of stocks instead, in hopes to earn a greater ROI than they would by letting it sit in a bank, since either way, their wealth isn't insured by the FDIC...
But of course, you know all about rich people. They just put their money in the bank and let it do... nothing???... I'm no expert on what the rich do, but I know they don't let their money just sit and rot.
Our economy depends on their re-investment, and so does their personal desire to make more money. The relationship works both for the economy as a whole and for those who invest in it. Welcome to Economics, champ.:-)
Oh, and you might want to check your assumption that the rich aren't taxed very much (see "share of tax liability" for the highest quintile of Americans in individual income taxes. Note that these are percentages, and the value in that cell reads "78"...).
Being an ardent pro-gun "nut", I think this is excellent advice.
One should always be instructed first in the safe handling of any tool, be it a saw, an automobile, or a gun. Firearms safety and effectiveness courses = great idea!
And practice. Like riding a bicycle or martial arts or writing software, if you want to be *good* at it, you have to have regular practice.
Yours is wonderful, well-reasoned advice sir, without the usual impassioned "buy a gun and cap tha' mofo!" or "guns are tools of the devil!" cries so often heard in gun-related discussions.
That's one of the reasons why my dad prefers a shotgun for home-defense -- the mere sound of a pump shotgun being pumped would be damn heart-stopping to somebody who knows they're intended to be on the wrong end.
Also nice is that a shotgun's spray is unlikely to go through the invader (and thus possibly risk going through walls, etc. into unintended targets), unlike, say, a.45 or a shotgun's deer slug...
Slashdot Mirror
In a manner of speaking, actually yes... ;-)
Just to nitpick your nitpick...
:-) ).
You wrote: "Uh...this year is the twentieth anniversary of MacOS. I don't think they were predicting the death of MacOS and Apple 2 decades ago...unless they were predicting the death of MacOS the instant it came out. "
I wrote: "People have been predicting the death of MacOS and Apple for almost 2 decades now. "
Note: "almost 2 decades" < 20 years. There's nothing *factually* or technically incorrect about what I wrote; technically, I didn't say people were predicting Apple's demise upon MacOS's release (although, probability states that there likely were still one or two people doing so. I think we can ignore those loonies though
People have been predicting the death of MacOS and Apple for almost 2 decades now. That "wizard" over at PCMag, John Dvorak, has been doing so for almost that long, and look at where that prediction has gone.
*tears out another Dvorak article, wipes, and flushes it down the toilet*
Always pretending to hate Europe when in reality are envious for lacking the style, panache and free thinking that has shaped most of humanity (for good or worst).
Nazi Germany was hardly a fine example of style and free thinking.
You want free thought? The closest you'll find to that is found in the U.S., and that's only because the First Amendment guarantees you that right. Only here in America can you walk through any given town espousing beliefs as extreme as those of the KKK and Black Panthers and *still* not be arrested. In France, Germany, and Britain, such people would be arrested under "anti-hate-speech" laws. What sort of "free thought" is it that restricts free expression? Ohhh, I see -- you mean "free thought" for those who agree with mainstream views (or you, personally)! I get it now... that's hardly the vision of a free-and-equal-under-the-law society, however, nor is it one of tolerance for those whose opinions may vary greatly from yours.
Style? Who cares; dressing in Armani suits doesn't mean shit if you can't get the work done. Just look at President Bush -- you can put a monkey in a suit, but the suit can't make the monkey competent.
Europe is a whiny incompetent socialist continent incapable of doing anything productive because their welfare systems subsidize the otherwise-useful lazy workers to sit on their asses at home instead. How productive that the smart and motivated pay their nanny-states to take care of Joe Sixpack on the other side of town to sit around watching lesbian orange juice commercials...
There are limited resources, therefore it *is* a zero sum game.
Wrong.
What happens to the rate at which a scarce resource is used when the efficiency of its use is doubled?
That usage rate halves -- thus slowing by half the usage of that resource. Thus, twice as many people can now use that resource as could before under the less-efficient method.
If twice as many people are better-off with no change in the amount of resource available, then what has happened?
What's happened is that your "zero-sum" theory -- so often held by "progressives," "Greens," "socialists," and whatever else said far-left liberals are calling themselves this week -- has been proven arithmetically-wrong.
A zero-sum theory holds that there can be no gains in societal wealth because the stock of resource is static. Yet efficiency gains clearly prove this theory wrong. Scientific and technological progress is a cannon which sinks the zero-sum ship.
BTW, the theory of "comparative advantage" is one you ought to look into. It makes this point quite nicely, while simultaneously making the case for free-trade.
* Cash (enough to bribe^H^H^H^H^Hpay a speeding ticket on the spot)
:)
:-)
* Visa and Mastercard
* coupons
* photos of loved ones
* driver's license
* firearm owner ID card
* university ID card
* university copy/laundry/etc. card
* contact info (names, addrs, phone, etc.)
* logins/passwords
* 1 copy of the first 10 Amendments to the U.S. Bill of Rights
* 1 condom (well, I used to have one. I finally got tired of not using it for, uh, let's say a long time and took it out)
So yeah, my wallet is so big and is carried you can't pickpocket me without me noticing it, I'm pretty sure.
I consider my wallet one of the 2 things I need with me at all times (the other being my keys). I try to keep in my wallet what I would need in the event that literally everything in my life went to shit -- all my computers' data destroyed, family killed, etc. Call it the wallet of a survivalist, except I'm missing the credit-card sized knife/multi-purpose tool that I'm sure every *real* survivalist carries.
I have known people who kept shurikens in their wallets. I'd do that too, but the metal detectors cause problems...
If a tree falls in a forest when nobody is around, does it make a sound?
Where's the freedom in forced voting? As Americans, is it not the right of the people not only to decide *whom* they're going to vote for, but *whether* they will vote at all?
Granted, this is a private school, and if they are funded strictly by private funds, then they can legitimately make this a requirement (students can go to other universities if they disagree with the requirement). But if the university receives government funding in any way - for research, etc. - then they are not wholly-privately-funded, they are funded in part by the public as well, and thus should be subject to the same 1st Amendment rights that government entities are.
Though all in all that's still better than colleges. Which now charges $65,000 easily in two years.
You're an idiot if you're paying $32,500/year for an undergraduate college education.
State schools are worse than private schools, but for the $22,500/year (or thereabouts) difference you're suggesting, at the undergrad level, they aren't *that* much worse (now, at the graduate level, it may make a real difference. But at the undergrad level, I generally don't think so, unless your comparison is Harvard to Bumfuck U. in Montana or something).
Now India can educate its populace too, relatively-cheaply. Surely the anti-outsourcing crowd isn't opposed to people being educated -- right?
(except, that is, for those who don't mind publicly stating that their having a monopoly on being educated is a good thing b/c it raises their wages. Some of us like to think that having everybody educated beyond caveman levels has been good for the world; we also believe that further education is likewise, logically, a good thing. But some people don't agree, I know...)
I love how in TFA, they say (under " Professional "Guest Workers.""):
"Since the employer pays a token fee for a guest worker visa, the employer is essentially using the public resource of immigration rights as a partial compensation--a practice even pro-business economists like Milton Friedman admit is a de facto corporate "subsidy"."
Friedman is *not* a "pro-business" economist. He is a pro-free-market economist -- and there is a difference. Pro-business economists prefer policy that explicitly favors businesses. Pro-free-market economists favor policy (or more-often, a deliberate lack of policy) that favors a freer, more-open marketplace, or the elimination of policies which oppose the goal of a free-market -- even if that more-open marketplace comes at the expense of the desires of some businesses.
Friedman would support fewer regulations on the financial industry, for instance. Yet, having worked in a big financial firm myself (which shall remain nameless), some of these companies actually support increased regulation -- because they know it benefits their cause of making a profit. In this way, Friedman could be alternately described as anti-business -- or, more-correctly, a neutral onlooker who prefers a free-market to outright pro-business policies.
Not that I would expect the illiterates of free-market economics (i.e. "progressives" or "socialists" or "Greens" or whatever they're calling themselves this week) to actually understand the difference between "markets" and "business"...
Is MS going to let IE in the Win2k server series go unpatched then?
Sounds like a r00ting waiting to happen.
If the Dems and Reps don't look out, the next election could be between Greens and Libertarians, with the former major parties groveling for signatures to get on the ballot.
Bwahahahahaa!!!
Thanks for the laugh buddy, that was hilarious.
Join us back in reality for lunch once your acid trip is over.
Also, I support strong labor unions and environmental regulations.
Do you support coercive labor unions?
I'm generally-libertarian, and I very much support the idea of labor unions. Just not *coercive* (read: if you work for X company, you are required to join, or, "if you don't vote for so-and-so, we'll bust your kneecaps") labor unions.
Labor unions are just organizations of people on the labor side of the economic equation; corporations are organizations of people on the capital side.
Enviro regs -- I waffle on those. It depends on the reg...
Bush's economic policies have been mostly retarded by all credible accounts.
Most economists agree that a little deficit spending is OK, but Bush has done so to such an extent that it worries people about the future of the economy, i.e. "why should I start a business now if my taxes are likely to be raised by the next President to cover for these deficits?" It affects international investment in the U.S. in particular.
Also, war is not good for the public's belief in the stability of a nation; war tends to worry people about whether they are going to get killed. That nervousness keeps people from making major business decisions as well.
Massive tax cuts have produced increased job-creation in the past. Reagan's tax cuts are the classic example of this happening. Why isn't it working for Bush? Because of external factors (war, terrorism, big govn't spending rather than more time spent cutting regulation, etc.) and Bush's own incompetence and inability to inspire people as a leader.
"Jobs haven't bounced back?" In what way? We aren't creating 150k jobs/month as we'd like to, true, but jobs-creation has been a positive value every month for over a year now. Still, that trend isn't much to be excited about.
But Arnie has a lot he can do in CA.
So the gap between the rich and the poor grows - so what? Suppose you earn $10,000 a year and I earn $100,000 year, working for the same company. The boss comes in and says that due to increased sales, you and I both get a raise. I'm now making $10,000,000 a year, while you make $100,000 a year. You used to be earning 1/10 of what I made, but now it's 1/100th. The gap between us got bigger, but so what ? You're still a hell of a lot better off than you were.
Disagree. You're looking at wages from a nominal standpoint, not a real (inflation-adjusted) standpoint.
Because if I were a businessman and knew that both of you were making more money, I would raise the price of my products. Especially if they were luxury goods, which you would be inclined to buy, but the lesser-paid guy might not (due to a lower income).
And thus, we get inflation. Once that occurs, the real value of your money declines; you're able to buy fewer goods/services.
It's the same effect you see with minimum wage levels (and which is why minimum wage laws are stupid) -- if everybody's wage is known to be $5.25/hour, then why should McDonald's sell burgers at an old price based (at least in part, via their demographic analyses) on the old minimum-wage rate?
Anyway, were I a businessman in your town, I would likely notice that you are spending more with your newfound wealth. I may not know for certain that you are much-richer now, or by how much, but I can detect an increased level of wealth based on your spending habits, and as a result, I will find that I can raise my prices...
That said, I agree w/ you and Schwarzenegger wholeheartedly, that people should not be "economic girly-men." He is quite right to promote policies of economic growth rather than government handouts.
And you are dead-on in your comparison of the modern life of the poor to where people used to be (the comparison to Roman Emporers is a good one).
Sounds like the Mob: "pay us some 'protection' money, or else you might have an 'accident'!"
Somebody throw the RICO statute at them.
1. Winning 19 percent of the vote in a three way election is a significant portion. You only need 34% to win. (in a election decided by popular vote). If 15% more of the voters were convinced to vote for Perot a third party would have taken the majority of the votes. That is pretty damn close for a third party in my book.
He still lost, didn't he? Why, yes he did.
2. By winning over 5%? of the popular vote the reform party recieved federal funding for the 2000 election and automatically appeared on the ballet on all of the states.
Except that the Libertarians would refuse federal funding on principle that the government shouldn't be funding political campaigns. That would be the utter height of hypocrisy for them to accept federal funding.
There is room for a third party in America, and people do want one. They just aren't standing up and fighting for one, and are missing the fact that those in power are doing everything they can to maintain power.
That's right -- and that's precisely why a third party will never take hold.
From what I can determine, Libertarianism embraces the central tenets of Capitalism -- that people are lazy, and that people are greedy. I ask you: Are those really healthy core values to be driving your politics?
They are healthy tenets to realize when you want to build an economic system that leverages those traits for the benefit of all the people in that economy.
Socialism (and Soviet socialism, a.k.a. "communism") fail because those systems do not recognize laziness and greed as fundamental human traits.
But I can tell you right now: if I lived in a society where the government handed me a check for being a citizen, without doing any work, I sure as hell wouldn't be in college. I'd be kicking back, waiting for some other schmuck to do my work; after all, the world owes me a living, right? Why work if some other communist-idealist will do it for me?
Of course, if I am to be forced to work so as not to take advantage of the system, then where is the freedom in being forced to work at the barrel of the government's gun? Isn't that just another description for slavery? Socialized slavery?
Hey, that sounds like North Korea!
See, it's this problem of gradualism where the LP falls down hard.
Milton Friedman - himself a libertarian (but a RINO because he believed he would be more-effective within the GOP, because he saw the LP as incompetent as it has since proven to be) - recognized this problem. He is my favorite libertarian (and economist, and philosopher) because he has on one hand his ideals, and on the other hand, solutions which are practically-implementable which tend *towards* his ideals. He argues for both, but put more work into the latter, b/c the former were not realistic and hence, mostly a waste of his time.
I wish the LP would realize that sudden shocks to any economy or society (like it often suggests) would be disastrous, but frankly, I believe the LP is run by dogmatic Randroids left over from the 1960s; people who are completely-unwilling to budge from their principles in order to effect a change that would more-suitably fit their principles...
That's why the LP is an ineffective party, and Friedman saw as much back in the 1970s and 80s when he was at his peak of public personality, and is why Friedman avoided aligning himself with the LP.
Mr. Badnarik,
I have several questions.
(1) As a Republican-turned-Democrat-turned-very-briefly-Soc ialist-turned-Libertarian-turned-libertarian (all changes occurring throughout my undergrad years as a Comp. Sci major, Economics minor), in the 2 years since I've become a convert to the libertarian mindset, (specifically to Milton Friedman's very-rational, very-reasonable brand of libertarianism - I am a diehard Friedmanite), I've seriously considered starting a Libertarian organization at my university. But I am faced with the realization of a few problems:
1) It is difficult for me personally in good conscience to found a big-'L' Libertarian organization which would promote the Libertarian Party, a party which I have always seen as having at least 2 distinct problems:
A) The "Ralph Nader Effect." No matter the few advances the LP makes, it is not going to be very effective. Nor has the LP ever been effective; the highest popular vote for any LP Presidential was for Ed Crane, back in 1980 -- and he received about 1% of the popular vote. Even Socialist Eugene Debs did better during the 1912 and 1920 elections (6% and 3.2%, respectively, the latter of which he received while sitting in jail).
Love it or hate it, the LP is a 3rd party, and no 3rd party in the 228 year history of the U.S. has ever had any real significance. Ross Perot ran as an independent, once winning some 18% or so of the popular vote. But he was pulling votes from the left and right, so he wasn't blamed for "stealing" votes from the GOP or Dems (as though by rightful barony they should be given those votes).
And where is Perot now? Sitting on an oil rig somewhere, surely still listening for that "giant sucking sound" he thought he heard with those big ears.
B) The extremism and Randian doggedness to stick to principle. Love it or hate it, politics in a democracy is necessarily a game of compromise, because the votes of a diverse set of individuals remove the extrema of points from most actions in government. The LP takes a no-compromise, highly-principled stance on all its issues; this makes working with the LP in a practical sense rather difficult. This problem, I believe, contributes strongly back to problem A.
2) The LP is filled with nuts, and I'm sorry, but to be bluntly honest, you fit that stereotype like an expensive suit. Who else but a big-'L' Libertarian would be caught dead saying they would blow up the U.N. building on their eighth day of office, or avoiding registering for a driver's license?
Look, I agree with your principles 100%. I agree we should keep the U.N. at arm's-length and not let them make any decisions whatsoever about the direction of this country. And I agree that driver's licenses shouldn't require a fingerprint or SSN; nor should they have a barcode or really any other identifying info besides one's name, DOB, and license expiration date. But let's be serious -- these things exist whether we like them or not, and unless you take the issue to the courts, they are not going to be changed anytime soon, and childish daydreams of blowing up the property of those we don't like and running from the cops don't help your case in the eyes of most of the public.
Hence, do I want to start an organization promoting people whose intentions and general views I sympathize with very strongly, but the principles of which I realize cannot reasonably be fulfilled without compromise? Why, as a rational user of my time, should I waste my time starting such an organization in that case?
Mr. Badnarik, it is in my view that organizations such as the Cato Institute and The Economist magazine, and Reason magazine do a vastly-superior job of promoting libertarian philosophy than the LP ever has. Why should I start an organization which p
And what exactly happens when they "put it in the bank" as you claim? (which they generally do not, but let's say you are right)
:-)
Banks loan that money out to people who need loans. That's how banks make a profit -- they receive interest on those loans they were able to make using money people have deposited with them.
So, the money increases in velocity by sheer fact that the bank isn't going to sit on it either; they're going to make the money work for them.
I said earlier that you were wrong though. Most wealthy people do not stuff their money into a bunch of savings accounts earning 0.30%-2.20% APY. Anybody with a clue (and say what you will about the rich, most rich people didn't get where they are by being *complete* morons, President Bush aside) invests that money in higher-returning ventures -- stocks or bonds are the typical example, but many play in real estate or foreign-exchange too. All of those have potentially higher returns than merely keeping money in a bank.
Most of the middle-upper class of America (those in the 2nd quintile of income, roughly), for example, have too much personal liquid wealth from their jobs to save it in a bank, because the FDIC only insures up to $100,000 of savings; most middle-upper income folks have more than that to their names. After that $100k, you're on your own, and for most people in that class, losing their hard-earned wealth is not an option. So they invest in mutual funds or their own private portfolio of stocks instead, in hopes to earn a greater ROI than they would by letting it sit in a bank, since either way, their wealth isn't insured by the FDIC...
But of course, you know all about rich people. They just put their money in the bank and let it do... nothing???... I'm no expert on what the rich do, but I know they don't let their money just sit and rot.
Our economy depends on their re-investment, and so does their personal desire to make more money. The relationship works both for the economy as a whole and for those who invest in it. Welcome to Economics, champ.
Oh, and you might want to check your assumption that the rich aren't taxed very much (see "share of tax liability" for the highest quintile of Americans in individual income taxes. Note that these are percentages, and the value in that cell reads "78"...).
Being an ardent pro-gun "nut", I think this is excellent advice.
One should always be instructed first in the safe handling of any tool, be it a saw, an automobile, or a gun. Firearms safety and effectiveness courses = great idea!
And practice. Like riding a bicycle or martial arts or writing software, if you want to be *good* at it, you have to have regular practice.
Yours is wonderful, well-reasoned advice sir, without the usual impassioned "buy a gun and cap tha' mofo!" or "guns are tools of the devil!" cries so often heard in gun-related discussions.
*claps*
.45 or a shotgun's deer slug...
That's one of the reasons why my dad prefers a shotgun for home-defense -- the mere sound of a pump shotgun being pumped would be damn heart-stopping to somebody who knows they're intended to be on the wrong end.
Also nice is that a shotgun's spray is unlikely to go through the invader (and thus possibly risk going through walls, etc. into unintended targets), unlike, say, a
Because if your gun is running Linux, you know you won't miss!