Capitalism is a form of social warfare, it's not always 'conscious' most of us simply absorb the behaviour and values of our time unknowingly contributing to overall bad things happening in the world. You also have people who have insane amounts of capital vs people who can't even afford to live in the same country. You have people commit suicide for economic related reasons (stress, etc), when there is more then enough money to go around in many instances. But access to that money is a matter of culture and values of the people of the time.
The issue is enough access to 'just enoough' money that the person(s) can relieve that stress. The truth is the world is not a fair place, did IRAQ 'deserve' to be invaded by the US? If you have the time, inclination or interest study ancient history and histor in general, no one is 'the good guy' really. It's all about power. There's a reason I respect americans despite their warlike nature: They understand that history is littered with good people who got killed because they let their defenses down and became too enrapt by 'peace', it's not peoples fault for wanting peace... the real problem is thus: With every generation of children we bring into this world we bring in new people who start from scratch all over again and have to learn the same stupid lessons again and again. We live in an unstable world mostly because we can never get a stable population of superior people in ability and values.
I'm reminded of quotes by General Patton, I can't remember in exact detail the one about him commenting about people talking about hiw "x war was going to be the "the last" war", but basically his thought was this: "Will they ever learn?" Implying that mankind is too immature to do away with competitiveness and the true full competition -- no holds bar, no rules, or simply warfare, economic, diplomatic, physical, psychological, etc.
Americans play to win at all times. I wouldn't give a hoot and hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor ever lose a war. --George S. Patton
Piracy is a valid economic warfare tactic. Countries steal/spy/etc from one another for economic advantage and diplomatic leverage, should we be surprised? After all market capitalism emphasizes competition, no one said it had to be *fair*.
"In the age of Google Earth, Virtual Earth, etc. (not to mention Google), there are no secrets. Welcome to the new world."
It's been like this for decades for government agencies, it's only in the age of the internet that public availability of sattelite photos shows us we have no privacy. I would imagine they have or are working on software to track the movements of individuals in society as well using sattelite data if they haven't already.
"Goals are over rated. Some of us still value the process and the effort."
The problem is not with goals, it's with the market ** ducks **. The truth is if profit was not such a factor, many creative and great ideas would finally come to fruition, the problem is we don't have infinite resources. I'd like to be the first to say that: Our quest for profit distorts and also hinders our quest for progress in some areas as much as it helps in others.
"but I think the mouse's reign as best input device is at an end."
The end is not quite yet there sparky, the mouse has advantages in being on a flat stationary surface. When you're waving a wand around your arm and hand is wobbling. Next time you boot up your Wii just simply hold the wii-mote aimer at the menu screen and you'll see it wobble. The Wii-mote is a big improvement over analog stick, but the fact has to be faced that the best FPS games everyone wants are on the Xbox 360. Next the motion-sensing technology isn't that accurate yet, in the next console release they'll probably have improved the motion sensing by then.
There are lots of cool technologies that exist today that are not ready for the mass market just yet due to costs or technological immaturity, lack of knowledge with immature implementations.
"Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow, for instance. While a wonderful game, its inclusion of touch screen mechanics did nothing to improve the gameplay. However, because it was coming out on the DS they "had to innovate"."
This sounds like a case of incompetence, if the touch screen added nothing or was not an agile easy to use input controller they should have avoided it. This "innovation" simply sounds like it was RUSHED, if game developers had more time to think things through they could have found a valid use for it perhaps.
... flawed to begin with. I can go around asking nurses and Dr's questions in my highschool math and science textbooks they can't answer. This whole idea they are going to remember much of anything they do not DIRECTLY use or is relevant is pretty stupid to begin with. As far as I'm concerned if you're not using it or were insanely interested in it when you were learning it you're not going to remember much, period.
The average IQ is for many populations is roughly ~100, not exactly stellar. The truth is many schools just don't have the high quality students to do many of the harder classes, so they make harder classes easier to digest for kids who are slower or cannot cope with remembering loads of information (provided they are even that interested to begin with).
IMHO education is totally fucked up, the whole rote learning thing while useful for basics sucks for advanced stuff, advanced stuff you have to USE or you'll lose it. Lastly most kids should be learning what they are actually INTERESTED in, instead of stuff they aren't going to even remember 5-10 years down the line. After 5-10 years what was the point in the beginning? I'd really like to know.
I'd really like to see adults 3,6,8 years out of highschool or college re-tested (without any studying allowed) and see how much they 'remember' that is not directly related to their jobs, I mean seriuosly. We'd save a lot of money and time instead of just filling slots and teachers and administrators pockets with money at both primary and post-secondary education.
"It comes down to good writing. The reason most horror movies aren't particularly effective is because the writing is such garbage."
I wouldn't say that exactly, it's not always about good writing. Sometimes it's about presentation, and really driving home the visuals and horror of violence to people. It depends on what the PURPOSE or INTENT of the author is, I saw "Saw 3" and I was pretty damn impressed (not having seen the previous two), it took peoples worse fears and made them real and put man against man, in a kind of sick torture changer-esque way that gave me new respect for what happens to people who are tortured by Intelligence agencies and other unknown agencies and groups (terrorist, criminal, or not) around the world.
"here's only so many zombies that can come through so many windows before it loses its impact. "
That's the same reason why Doom 3 stopped being scary, Doom 3 nailed darkness and atmosphere but they over-used monster closets, they never made a lot of *rational* use of using monsters intelligently sneaking up on you. It's better when you're scared shitless looking around for sneaky bastards, then knowing the sneaky bastards are just hidden in "closets" behind walls until you hit a trigger. I have to admit though it did work for a while it's too bad they over-used it.
And I corrected myself in my former post, saying you didn't read my INTENT correctly. You're being beyond anal retentive and not getting the gist of my overall post reading it in context.
Wealth IS transferred, period, end of story, whether or not wealth creation happens, it does not mean that those who are the losers (jobs, etc) are going to be able to make up for their losses in their short life. The whole post was about SOCIAL EFFECTS of markets and human psychology, something lost lost on FMF (Free market fundies), and you chose to harp on that one point because it was a short post, not an essay on the finer points of markets. I could go on about wealth creation is not equally distributed or how wealth creation pools in certain market segments causing stratification or a whole bunch of other arguments. The wealth-transfer and wealth-creation ceilings do not all move equally open up or move the same speed, there are expansions and contractions and you have to relate this to the individuals who must survive in the market (get food, shelter, etc).
The concept of DISPLACEMENT seems to be lost on free market fundies, what you get in wealth creation is TAKEN from another segment of the population within an economy, it does not come out of thin air. I don't believe in perepetual motion machines but many free market proponents seem to, bordering on pseudo-scientific nonsense. Apply a little physics to the economy sometime.
"Again, flat wrong. There are over 15,000 results for wealth creation on Google Scholar alone. It's an exceedingly well-studied and well-defined economic concept."
You'll have to forgive me for my 'half thought' there (not expressing what I really wanted to say). 'Wealth creation' must submit to the limits and boundaries of physics. I just didn't qualify my statement with a more detailed explanation of what I was thinking so you only got 'half my thoughts' (due time constraints). Wealth is created but it's in a half-hazard bubble like fashion with "ceilings" that expand or contract in different areas.
See your reply here is a more well thought out reply.
We could talk about this forever, and I'm sure we would have enlightening conversations. The fact of the matter is this though: Markets have serious problems with social effects that aren't going away. You only have to go over government and military reports of strategic trends to see this.
UK Ministry of Defence published a ninety-page report, entitled Global Strategic Trends, 2007-2036, highlighting a wide array of potential dangers to the prevailing order over the next thirty years. The report is organized around three "Ring Road Issues": (1) climate change, (2) globalization, and (3) global inequality (p. xiii). Global warming and the possibility of abrupt climate change, together with the end of "the golden age of cheap energy," are seen as placing increasing strains on populations throughout the planet (p. 31). The globalization of the world economy, embodying "particularly ruthless laws of supply and demand," is viewed as creating new interdependencies, contradictions, and conflicts. Expanding global inequality, the UK Ministry of Defence insists, could lead to "a resurgence of not only anti-capitalist ideologies . . . but also to populism and the revival of Marxism" (p. 3).
But the main emphases of the report are structural contradictions of the world economy, unsustainable development, and the social insurgencies that these may give rise to. One grave concern is the possibility of the reemergence of great power rivalry as a result of: (1) the economic development of China (along with India, Iran, Russia, Brazil, and other states), (2) the continuing decline of U.S. hegemony, and (3) the "decoupling" of the United States from Europe and the "stagnation" of the latter (pp. 49-51). Related to this is the destabilizing influence of a turn to unilateralism by a major (unspecified) state if it sees itself as blocked in its control of key strategic resources (p. 71). Another concern is the possibility of a social explosion in China due to the extraordinary class polarization emerging in that country. Global economic crisis, most likely induced by a financial meltdown, is portrayed as a persistent danger. Third world insurgencies of all kinds, led by populist and Marxist movements, are viewed as threatening the stability of the global status quo.
The most threatening "strategic shocks" of a social character depicted by the report are possible revolts by the "middle class proletariat" and youth. Utilizing the dominant class vocabulary, which treats as "middle class" all those who are not wealthy and yet who are gainfully employed and thus not part of the destitute underclass (thereby including under the rubric of "middle class" the greater portion of the working-class majority), the Ministry of Defence report warns:
The middle classes could become a revolutionary class, taking the role envisaged for the proletariat by Marx. The globalization of labour markets and reducing levels of national welfare provision and employment could reduce peoples' attachment to particular states. The growing gap between themselves and a small number of highly visible super-rich individuals might fuel disillusion with meritocracy, while the growing urban under-classes are likely to pose an increasing threat to social order and stability, as the burden of acquired debt and the failure of pension provision begins to bite. Faced by these twi
Re:Just like HIPAA or Sarbanes-Oxley...
on
PCI Compliance
·
· Score: 1
"From what I've seen, PCI's just a consultant-employment excuse. Anyone can still write down credit card numbers and sell them."
The truth of the matter is, criminals will always find a way. You can setup hidden cameras in strategic locations inside businesses now-a-days, and use software to rip CC #'s. There's been a problem with retailers and other places that use credit cards for payment having their employee's (and sometimes employers) enabling fraud.
The truth of the matter is, any electronic payment that uses a plastic card with you full name on it can leak information. That's what I like about cold hard cash - it may be annoying to many businesses today, but you don't have to worry about your name, or electronic identification information being harvested.
"You said wealth is only transferred. That links 100% to whether it's zero sum or not. If it isn't, then wealth can be created."
Wealth transfer and wealth creation are not mutually exclusive. So I am in no way bullshitting, you just took what I said as an absolutist (across the board) statement.
"Arguments from authority are logical fallacies and prove nothing."
You are right, but they are certainly better from someone who posts one lined or oversimplified statements on slashdot. Today's modern market propagandists can't stand criticism apparently about how markets effect peoples lives and the social fabric. The fact that post-autistic economics exists says a lot about the state of understanding economics as it relates to the real world itself. These people are not small-fry or fringe groups. The size, breadth and depth of what is published there is evidence of strong dissent.
"This is just flat wrong. Some wealth is transferred"
A non sequitor if I ever read one. If wealth is being transfered IT IS BEING TRANSFERRED. You're taking my comment in an absolutist sense, not in a context dependent sense, their areCEILINGS that have limits do not expand in a universal fashion, and until that happens all you have is pure unadulterated wealth transfer in those areas. The argument would be too technical to get into here on slashdot.
The "wealth creation" argument is exceedingly vague concept and is not even well understood. So many economists with PHD's and more education then you went and banded together to do their own research on markets and economies in general. A whole slew of research and commentary can be found over @:
Next of course everyone who "knee jerked" ignored my link to soros post elaborating in detail many problems in 'the free market'. This is why you're not rated 'insightful'
"You capitalism haters are all the same. You'll go on and on bitching about capitalism, but you'll never propose anything better. It isn't perfect, but it beats the shit out of every other economic system that's been devised. "
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who haven't got it." George Bernard Shaw
It's not about hating capitalism, it's about ANALYZING how 'capitalism' in the real world functions and preventing it from causing serious problems. Maybe if you had read what Mr. George soros, a man who's lived under and in many different economic systems, and is one of the wealthiest men on the planet hsa to say just maybe your opinion might mean something.
It's not about hating capitalism, since "capitalism" in many of its supporters heads is an idealogy without understanding. There is very little in their heads about observing how people and their institutions in the system function.
My statements are about observing how people and economies function in the real world and making accurate observations and coming up with solutions. I am not a 'capitalist hater', no one understands how markets or economies truly function.
You're missing the point of course: The Zero-sumness or non-zero sumness is simply irrelevant to the facts of low wages, and psychological discomfort and discontent of people who's jobs and incomes are increasingly unstable, you're trying to use a simple theoretical statement without the facts (and statistics) at hand, and the danger this poses to social stability and overall health of the economy. Most people want to unionize at wal-mart to prevent bad business practices and slave wages, so that their wages can keep up with inflation, and so that they can have some measure of financial buffer against hard times. If wages don't keep up with inflation and these people can't save anything guess what you get? Increasing crime, welfare recipients, or in the worst case scenarios of people who are tired of it - protests, riots, revolt, etc.
It is painfully obvious you're knee jerking here. The costs of these people do not go away they will just shift around from one group or entity to another.
"Maybe it's not economically feasible for Walmart to pay rates that union employees demand. If that's their business model, then fine."
What a crock of shit, in modern market society many "business models" are little more then mathematical slavery. People do not have an independent resource base (food,shelter, etc) outside of the market. If people were truly resource independent many businesses would go belly up, or not even be possible. Right now private industry and families hold all the carrots and for many depending on where they are they simply must work or produce value to get things that are not local, we've created machine that never stops, never stopping to question how this effects society and the quality human life.
You can devalue human life towards zero because businesses do not bear the full cost and risk of producing people and supporting them. Imagine having truckloads of free bread simply show up at your business everyday. That's what it's like to be an employer in regards to people.
People do not like making wage progress only to have it backslide and taken away from them and have their time and abilities devalued. We're talking about human lives here, not things, not objects. Not to mention the psychological principle of investment: People hate investing all their time and life into their workplace only to be treated a disposable unit of production. And it's not just the bottom feeding industries like wal-mart, there's a reason many early US presidents were protectionist, as not to get into trade-wars of attrition that suck the wealth out of their economies and fuel unrest.
Most modern economic liberals forget that wealth is just transferred, and if you're one of the millions that wealth is being transferred from because you've been replaced or have been FORCED into redundancy, that's hardly 'the persons fault'. The system has many negative aspects and that's why George Soros is doing what he can because of the threats capitalism poses to itself.
"Conclusion? 4 cores right now need much software support."
It goes beyond just that IMHO, right now the PC industry needs to get it's act together as a PLATFORM. And also for applications that don't break. One of the big things that is pissing me off right now is closed-source programs who's compatability breaks and because it's closed source no one can fix it/update it, etc to get it running when OS's and other technologies change. I think there really needs to be a legal framework for people (end users) who own software and in the Open souce community for accessing closed-source code (that they technically own/ have invested in or have some ownersip stake in really) especially when those applications are long past their sell-date to get them fixed and up and running. You don't buy a car and expect to be prevented from fixing it when something goes wrong.
Next, growth IMHO for certain industries like the game industry is being held back by not subsidizing the cost of some kind of mid-range performance standard graphics *for everyone*. I find it ironic that companies like Nintendo, Sony, and MS can subsidize their consoles, but when it comes to the PC, MS just sit's there.
I think one of the big reasons PC gaming is flagging was in large part due to the incessant march of the graphics card industry. Starcraft and Diablo 1 & 2 were both 2D games, it makes sense that these games got as widespread as they did because they'd run everywhere.
"The problem with Flash (~$12:GB) drives as replacements for rotating magnetic hard drives (~$0.18:GB) is that Flash is a lot more expensive, and Flash wears out after relatively few rewrites. RAM (~$35:GB) is even more expensive, but it doesn't wear out and has much faster performance."
You are correct that flash is expensive. But as for the re-writes, I'm sure many of us would not use much of the re-writes, there are ways to get around wearing out a flash drive. Not to mention the fact that the # of writes before wear out will most likely increase at least to some extent.
I know I am a hard drive maniac and lots of the time I simply use that space to STORE things. Things like games and applications are usually write-once and then you forget about them and you don't really do much re-writing.
The biggest worries would be: Heavy big file transfers that fill up the disk, (i.e. DVD ripping) and heavy downloading of other files from the internet that you burn and archive. And big memory heavy application's and windows swap file usage.
We were just misunderstanding one another that's all...
You were using 'synthetic' in one context, I was using it in another (since many words have different meanings based on not only USAGE in different CONTEXTS) we just got our contexts mixed up that's all.
As for your colleagues they're just being anal retentive, it's one thing to one perfectionistic accuracy it's another to have the social tact and not be so quick to run our mouths when we are just having a misunderstanding.
Remember each persons mind is a universe unto itself, that's one thing I've learned in my life and to be aware of interpretive context (i.e. If someone says such and such, one thinks of one valid meaning in one context, and the other person in another, not that they are "incorrect" it's just the vaguary and vulgarity of language).
Just so you know: Tell your colleagues that language is vulgar, visualization trumps language any day of the weak. Einstein was such a genius because he was a visual thinker "If I can't visualize it I can't understand it".
The point your missing of course is the HISTORY of that particular slice or reality, that organism has a synthetic history (i.e. it would not have occurred without us mucking about).
Juts because I take a natural twig and glue it to a rock, does not make history of it's combination a naturally occurring phenomena.
Unless the bacteria transplanted a genome into itself, it is not a naturally occurring phenomena (in this context), it is ARTIFICIAL (in this context).
When a person gets a heart transplant he is using an artificial (man made) process to replace his heart, if his heart would replace itself then we can argue for it's naturalness' (whatever that really means, truly, the word 'natural' is a weasal word imho, it does more to obfuscate then clarify).
"Does this mean that the better the economic system is, the more fun the game is? You tell me; I don't know."
The the real world you are doing things you don't like to survive, with some people finding work they 'do like' but even work you do like has times and aspects you don't like, but in a gaming world you are doing things you DO LIKE but you want some resistance, but also you don't want it to be TOO real, you want to have some control.
This is why games like world of warcraft, etc, there is no permanent death (i.e. you are capable of losing days/weeks/years of time invested) because THAT is not fun, in real economies that is more then possible, and while a few masochists like that. They are by and far away not the vast majority of the gaming population (not to mention the population as a whole).
The whole issue of scarcity is totally context dependent, most games revolve around balancing infinite resources by making those infinite resources hard to access through low drop probability, or high monster difficulty, or other barriers, not because they are truly scarce, just to give just enough resistance to make a person feel like it's an accomplishment.
We all like challenge because it's a part of learning, it's based on our psychology, for instance, when someone repeats themselves you'll start to get annoyed because he's repeating that information (thereby causing your mind to become agitated) because he's not giving you new information (whether it is interesting or not, etc). Now obviously in real life it's 'more complicated' but you get the idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Capitalism is a form of social warfare, it's not always 'conscious' most of us simply absorb the behaviour and values of our time unknowingly contributing to overall bad things happening in the world. You also have people who have insane amounts of capital vs people who can't even afford to live in the same country. You have people commit suicide for economic related reasons (stress, etc), when there is more then enough money to go around in many instances. But access to that money is a matter of culture and values of the people of the time.
The issue is enough access to 'just enoough' money that the person(s) can relieve that stress. The truth is the world is not a fair place, did IRAQ 'deserve' to be invaded by the US? If you have the time, inclination or interest study ancient history and histor in general, no one is 'the good guy' really. It's all about power. There's a reason I respect americans despite their warlike nature: They understand that history is littered with good people who got killed because they let their defenses down and became too enrapt by 'peace', it's not peoples fault for wanting peace... the real problem is thus: With every generation of children we bring into this world we bring in new people who start from scratch all over again and have to learn the same stupid lessons again and again. We live in an unstable world mostly because we can never get a stable population of superior people in ability and values.
I'm reminded of quotes by General Patton, I can't remember in exact detail the one about him commenting about people talking about hiw "x war was going to be the "the last" war", but basically his thought was this: "Will they ever learn?" Implying that mankind is too immature to do away with competitiveness and the true full competition -- no holds bar, no rules, or simply warfare, economic, diplomatic, physical, psychological, etc.
Americans play to win at all times. I wouldn't give a hoot and hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor ever lose a war. --George S. Patton
Piracy is a valid economic warfare tactic. Countries steal/spy/etc from one another for economic advantage and diplomatic leverage, should we be surprised? After all market capitalism emphasizes competition, no one said it had to be *fair*.
"In the age of Google Earth, Virtual Earth, etc. (not to mention Google), there are no secrets. Welcome to the new world."
It's been like this for decades for government agencies, it's only in the age of the internet that public availability of sattelite photos shows us we have no privacy. I would imagine they have or are working on software to track the movements of individuals in society as well using sattelite data if they haven't already.
"Goals are over rated. Some of us still value the process and the effort."
The problem is not with goals, it's with the market ** ducks **. The truth is if profit was not such a factor, many creative and great ideas would finally come to fruition, the problem is we don't have infinite resources. I'd like to be the first to say that: Our quest for profit distorts and also hinders our quest for progress in some areas as much as it helps in others.
"but I think the mouse's reign as best input device is at an end."
The end is not quite yet there sparky, the mouse has advantages in being on a flat stationary surface. When you're waving a wand around your arm and hand is wobbling. Next time you boot up your Wii just simply hold the wii-mote aimer at the menu screen and you'll see it wobble. The Wii-mote is a big improvement over analog stick, but the fact has to be faced that the best FPS games everyone wants are on the Xbox 360. Next the motion-sensing technology isn't that accurate yet, in the next console release they'll probably have improved the motion sensing by then.
There are lots of cool technologies that exist today that are not ready for the mass market just yet due to costs or technological immaturity, lack of knowledge with immature implementations.
"Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow, for instance. While a wonderful game, its inclusion of touch screen mechanics did nothing to improve the gameplay. However, because it was coming out on the DS they "had to innovate"."
This sounds like a case of incompetence, if the touch screen added nothing or was not an agile easy to use input controller they should have avoided it. This "innovation" simply sounds like it was RUSHED, if game developers had more time to think things through they could have found a valid use for it perhaps.
... flawed to begin with. I can go around asking nurses and Dr's questions in my highschool math and science textbooks they can't answer. This whole idea they are going to remember much of anything they do not DIRECTLY use or is relevant is pretty stupid to begin with. As far as I'm concerned if you're not using it or were insanely interested in it when you were learning it you're not going to remember much, period.
The average IQ is for many populations is roughly ~100, not exactly stellar. The truth is many schools just don't have the high quality students to do many of the harder classes, so they make harder classes easier to digest for kids who are slower or cannot cope with remembering loads of information (provided they are even that interested to begin with).
IMHO education is totally fucked up, the whole rote learning thing while useful for basics sucks for advanced stuff, advanced stuff you have to USE or you'll lose it. Lastly most kids should be learning what they are actually INTERESTED in, instead of stuff they aren't going to even remember 5-10 years down the line. After 5-10 years what was the point in the beginning? I'd really like to know.
I'd really like to see adults 3,6,8 years out of highschool or college re-tested (without any studying allowed) and see how much they 'remember' that is not directly related to their jobs, I mean seriuosly. We'd save a lot of money and time instead of just filling slots and teachers and administrators pockets with money at both primary and post-secondary education.
"It comes down to good writing. The reason most horror movies aren't particularly effective is because the writing is such garbage."
I wouldn't say that exactly, it's not always about good writing. Sometimes it's about presentation, and really driving home the visuals and horror of violence to people. It depends on what the PURPOSE or INTENT of the author is, I saw "Saw 3" and I was pretty damn impressed (not having seen the previous two), it took peoples worse fears and made them real and put man against man, in a kind of sick torture changer-esque way that gave me new respect for what happens to people who are tortured by Intelligence agencies and other unknown agencies and groups (terrorist, criminal, or not) around the world.
"here's only so many zombies that can come through so many windows before it loses its impact. "
That's the same reason why Doom 3 stopped being scary, Doom 3 nailed darkness and atmosphere but they over-used monster closets, they never made a lot of *rational* use of using monsters intelligently sneaking up on you. It's better when you're scared shitless looking around for sneaky bastards, then knowing the sneaky bastards are just hidden in "closets" behind walls until you hit a trigger. I have to admit though it did work for a while it's too bad they over-used it.
"I know with the rootkit, many people will justifiably pirate/refuse to purchase the game."
You're damn right, the rootkit is I imagine is there to collect piracy stats subversively.
"You said "wealth is just transferred"."
And I corrected myself in my former post, saying you didn't read my INTENT correctly. You're being beyond anal retentive and not getting the gist of my overall post reading it in context.
Wealth IS transferred, period, end of story, whether or not wealth creation happens, it does not mean that those who are the losers (jobs, etc) are going to be able to make up for their losses in their short life. The whole post was about SOCIAL EFFECTS of markets and human psychology, something lost lost on FMF (Free market fundies), and you chose to harp on that one point because it was a short post, not an essay on the finer points of markets. I could go on about wealth creation is not equally distributed or how wealth creation pools in certain market segments causing stratification or a whole bunch of other arguments. The wealth-transfer and wealth-creation ceilings do not all move equally open up or move the same speed, there are expansions and contractions and you have to relate this to the individuals who must survive in the market (get food, shelter, etc).
The concept of DISPLACEMENT seems to be lost on free market fundies, what you get in wealth creation is TAKEN from another segment of the population within an economy, it does not come out of thin air. I don't believe in perepetual motion machines but many free market proponents seem to, bordering on pseudo-scientific nonsense. Apply a little physics to the economy sometime.
"Again, flat wrong. There are over 15,000 results for wealth creation on Google Scholar alone. It's an exceedingly well-studied and well-defined economic concept."
You'll have to forgive me for my 'half thought' there (not expressing what I really wanted to say). 'Wealth creation' must submit to the limits and boundaries of physics. I just didn't qualify my statement with a more detailed explanation of what I was thinking so you only got 'half my thoughts' (due time constraints). Wealth is created but it's in a half-hazard bubble like fashion with "ceilings" that expand or contract in different areas.
See your reply here is a more well thought out reply.
We could talk about this forever, and I'm sure we would have enlightening conversations. The fact of the matter is this though: Markets have serious problems with social effects that aren't going away. You only have to go over government and military reports of strategic trends to see this.
UK Ministry of Defence published a ninety-page report, entitled Global Strategic Trends, 2007-2036, highlighting a wide array of potential dangers to the prevailing order over the next thirty years. The report is organized around three "Ring Road Issues": (1) climate change, (2) globalization, and (3) global inequality (p. xiii). Global warming and the possibility of abrupt climate change, together with the end of "the golden age of cheap energy," are seen as placing increasing strains on populations throughout the planet (p. 31). The globalization of the world economy, embodying "particularly ruthless laws of supply and demand," is viewed as creating new interdependencies, contradictions, and conflicts. Expanding global inequality, the UK Ministry of Defence insists, could lead to "a resurgence of not only anti-capitalist ideologies . . . but also to populism and the revival of Marxism" (p. 3).
But the main emphases of the report are structural contradictions of the world economy, unsustainable development, and the social insurgencies that these may give rise to. One grave concern is the possibility of the reemergence of great power rivalry as a result of: (1) the economic development of China (along with India, Iran, Russia, Brazil, and other states), (2) the continuing decline of U.S. hegemony, and (3) the "decoupling" of the United States from Europe and the "stagnation" of the latter (pp. 49-51). Related to this is the destabilizing influence of a turn to unilateralism by a major (unspecified) state if it sees itself as blocked in its control of key strategic resources (p. 71). Another concern is the possibility of a social explosion in China due to the extraordinary class polarization emerging in that country. Global economic crisis, most likely induced by a financial meltdown, is portrayed as a persistent danger. Third world insurgencies of all kinds, led by populist and Marxist movements, are viewed as threatening the stability of the global status quo.
The most threatening "strategic shocks" of a social character depicted by the report are possible revolts by the "middle class proletariat" and youth. Utilizing the dominant class vocabulary, which treats as "middle class" all those who are not wealthy and yet who are gainfully employed and thus not part of the destitute underclass (thereby including under the rubric of "middle class" the greater portion of the working-class majority), the Ministry of Defence report warns:
The middle classes could become a revolutionary class, taking the role envisaged for the proletariat by Marx. The globalization of labour markets and reducing levels of national welfare provision and employment could reduce peoples' attachment to particular states. The growing gap between themselves and a small number of highly visible super-rich individuals might fuel disillusion with meritocracy, while the growing urban under-classes are likely to pose an increasing threat to social order and stability, as the burden of acquired debt and the failure of pension provision begins to bite. Faced by these twi
"From what I've seen, PCI's just a consultant-employment excuse. Anyone can still write down credit card numbers and sell them."
The truth of the matter is, criminals will always find a way. You can setup hidden cameras in strategic locations inside businesses now-a-days, and use software to rip CC #'s. There's been a problem with retailers and other places that use credit cards for payment having their employee's (and sometimes employers) enabling fraud.
The truth of the matter is, any electronic payment that uses a plastic card with you full name on it can leak information. That's what I like about cold hard cash - it may be annoying to many businesses today, but you don't have to worry about your name, or electronic identification information being harvested.
"You said wealth is only transferred. That links 100% to whether it's zero sum or not. If it isn't, then wealth can be created."
Wealth transfer and wealth creation are not mutually exclusive. So I am in no way bullshitting, you just took what I said as an absolutist (across the board) statement.
"Arguments from authority are logical fallacies and prove nothing."
You are right, but they are certainly better from someone who posts one lined or oversimplified statements on slashdot. Today's modern market propagandists can't stand criticism apparently about how markets effect peoples lives and the social fabric. The fact that post-autistic economics exists says a lot about the state of understanding economics as it relates to the real world itself. These people are not small-fry or fringe groups. The size, breadth and depth of what is published there is evidence of strong dissent.
"This is just flat wrong. Some wealth is transferred"
A non sequitor if I ever read one. If wealth is being transfered IT IS BEING TRANSFERRED. You're taking my comment in an absolutist sense, not in a context dependent sense, their areCEILINGS that have limits do not expand in a universal fashion, and until that happens all you have is pure unadulterated wealth transfer in those areas. The argument would be too technical to get into here on slashdot.
The "wealth creation" argument is exceedingly vague concept and is not even well understood. So many economists with PHD's and more education then you went and banded together to do their own research on markets and economies in general. A whole slew of research and commentary can be found over @:
Post autistic economics -- http://www.paecon.net/
Next of course everyone who "knee jerked" ignored my link to soros post elaborating in detail many problems in 'the free market'. This is why you're not rated 'insightful'
"You capitalism haters are all the same. You'll go on and on bitching about capitalism, but you'll never propose anything better. It isn't perfect, but it beats the shit out of every other economic system that's been devised. "
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who haven't got it." George Bernard Shaw
It's not about hating capitalism, it's about ANALYZING how 'capitalism' in the real world functions and preventing it from causing serious problems. Maybe if you had read what Mr. George soros, a man who's lived under and in many different economic systems, and is one of the wealthiest men on the planet hsa to say just maybe your opinion might mean something.
It's not about hating capitalism, since "capitalism" in many of its supporters heads is an idealogy without understanding. There is very little in their heads about observing how people and their institutions in the system function.
My statements are about observing how people and economies function in the real world and making accurate observations and coming up with solutions. I am not a 'capitalist hater', no one understands how markets or economies truly function.
Go have a read over @ http://www.paecon.net/
These people have PHD's in economics and they are far from 'capitalist haters'.
"If someone is willing to do work for you for less, why isn't it moral to choose that person?"
Tell that to large groups of people who can't afford to live on what you pay them.
"Economics is not a zero-sum game."
You're missing the point of course: The Zero-sumness or non-zero sumness is simply irrelevant to the facts of low wages, and psychological discomfort and discontent of people who's jobs and incomes are increasingly unstable, you're trying to use a simple theoretical statement without the facts (and statistics) at hand, and the danger this poses to social stability and overall health of the economy. Most people want to unionize at wal-mart to prevent bad business practices and slave wages, so that their wages can keep up with inflation, and so that they can have some measure of financial buffer against hard times. If wages don't keep up with inflation and these people can't save anything guess what you get? Increasing crime, welfare recipients, or in the worst case scenarios of people who are tired of it - protests, riots, revolt, etc.
It is painfully obvious you're knee jerking here. The costs of these people do not go away they will just shift around from one group or entity to another.
"Maybe it's not economically feasible for Walmart to pay rates that union employees demand. If that's their business model, then fine."
What a crock of shit, in modern market society many "business models" are little more then mathematical slavery. People do not have an independent resource base (food,shelter, etc) outside of the market. If people were truly resource independent many businesses would go belly up, or not even be possible. Right now private industry and families hold all the carrots and for many depending on where they are they simply must work or produce value to get things that are not local, we've created machine that never stops, never stopping to question how this effects society and the quality human life.
You can devalue human life towards zero because businesses do not bear the full cost and risk of producing people and supporting them. Imagine having truckloads of free bread simply show up at your business everyday. That's what it's like to be an employer in regards to people.
People do not like making wage progress only to have it backslide and taken away from them and have their time and abilities devalued. We're talking about human lives here, not things, not objects. Not to mention the psychological principle of investment: People hate investing all their time and life into their workplace only to be treated a disposable unit of production. And it's not just the bottom feeding industries like wal-mart, there's a reason many early US presidents were protectionist, as not to get into trade-wars of attrition that suck the wealth out of their economies and fuel unrest.
Most modern economic liberals forget that wealth is just transferred, and if you're one of the millions that wealth is being transferred from because you've been replaced or have been FORCED into redundancy, that's hardly 'the persons fault'. The system has many negative aspects and that's why George Soros is doing what he can because of the threats capitalism poses to itself.
"The Capitalist threat"
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/soros.htm
"Conclusion? 4 cores right now need much software support."
It goes beyond just that IMHO, right now the PC industry needs to get it's act together as a PLATFORM. And also for applications that don't break. One of the big things that is pissing me off right now is closed-source programs who's compatability breaks and because it's closed source no one can fix it/update it, etc to get it running when OS's and other technologies change. I think there really needs to be a legal framework for people (end users) who own software and in the Open souce community for accessing closed-source code (that they technically own/ have invested in or have some ownersip stake in really) especially when those applications are long past their sell-date to get them fixed and up and running. You don't buy a car and expect to be prevented from fixing it when something goes wrong.
Next, growth IMHO for certain industries like the game industry is being held back by not subsidizing the cost of some kind of mid-range performance standard graphics *for everyone*. I find it ironic that companies like Nintendo, Sony, and MS can subsidize their consoles, but when it comes to the PC, MS just sit's there.
I think one of the big reasons PC gaming is flagging was in large part due to the incessant march of the graphics card industry. Starcraft and Diablo 1 & 2 were both 2D games, it makes sense that these games got as widespread as they did because they'd run everywhere.
"The problem with Flash (~$12:GB) drives as replacements for rotating magnetic hard drives (~$0.18:GB) is that Flash is a lot more expensive, and Flash wears out after relatively few rewrites. RAM (~$35:GB) is even more expensive, but it doesn't wear out and has much faster performance."
You are correct that flash is expensive. But as for the re-writes, I'm sure many of us would not use much of the re-writes, there are ways to get around wearing out a flash drive. Not to mention the fact that the # of writes before wear out will most likely increase at least to some extent.
I know I am a hard drive maniac and lots of the time I simply use that space to STORE things. Things like games and applications are usually write-once and then you forget about them and you don't really do much re-writing.
The biggest worries would be: Heavy big file transfers that fill up the disk, (i.e. DVD ripping) and heavy downloading of other files from the internet that you burn and archive. And big memory heavy application's and windows swap file usage.
We were just misunderstanding one another that's all...
You were using 'synthetic' in one context, I was using it in another (since many words have different meanings based on not only USAGE in different CONTEXTS) we just got our contexts mixed up that's all.
As for your colleagues they're just being anal retentive, it's one thing to one perfectionistic accuracy it's another to have the social tact and not be so quick to run our mouths when we are just having a misunderstanding.
Remember each persons mind is a universe unto itself, that's one thing I've learned in my life and to be aware of interpretive context (i.e. If someone says such and such, one thinks of one valid meaning in one context, and the other person in another, not that they are "incorrect" it's just the vaguary and vulgarity of language).
Just so you know: Tell your colleagues that language is vulgar, visualization trumps language any day of the weak. Einstein was such a genius because he was a visual thinker "If I can't visualize it I can't understand it".
The point your missing of course is the HISTORY of that particular slice or reality, that organism has a synthetic history (i.e. it would not have occurred without us mucking about).
Juts because I take a natural twig and glue it to a rock, does not make history of it's combination a naturally occurring phenomena.
Unless the bacteria transplanted a genome into itself, it is not a naturally occurring phenomena (in this context), it is ARTIFICIAL (in this context).
When a person gets a heart transplant he is using an artificial (man made) process to replace his heart, if his heart would replace itself then we can argue for it's naturalness' (whatever that really means, truly, the word 'natural' is a weasal word imho, it does more to obfuscate then clarify).
"Does this mean that the better the economic system is, the more fun the game is? You tell me; I don't know."
The the real world you are doing things you don't like to survive, with some people finding work they 'do like' but even work you do like has times and aspects you don't like, but in a gaming world you are doing things you DO LIKE but you want some resistance, but also you don't want it to be TOO real, you want to have some control.
This is why games like world of warcraft, etc, there is no permanent death (i.e. you are capable of losing days/weeks/years of time invested) because THAT is not fun, in real economies that is more then possible, and while a few masochists like that. They are by and far away not the vast majority of the gaming population (not to mention the population as a whole).
The whole issue of scarcity is totally context dependent, most games revolve around balancing infinite resources by making those infinite resources hard to access through low drop probability, or high monster difficulty, or other barriers, not because they are truly scarce, just to give just enough resistance to make a person feel like it's an accomplishment.
We all like challenge because it's a part of learning, it's based on our psychology, for instance, when someone repeats themselves you'll start to get annoyed because he's repeating that information (thereby causing your mind to become agitated) because he's not giving you new information (whether it is interesting or not, etc). Now obviously in real life it's 'more complicated' but you get the idea.