Many of the above comments are about how brand name companies make the same thing under different names, and sell them for different prices, sometimes with different marketing schemes.
There's a bunch of marketing stories about how if there are two products, one cheaper, one more expensive, that are about the same, most people will go for the cheaper one. Add a new one more expensive than the top one, however, and the old top (the new middle) dramatically increases in sales.
And there's the story about Taco Bell (a fast food chain here in America, for you barbarians;) ) getting advice to raise their prices- Americans believed that the prices were so low that the quality had to be lower. They rose prices and took in cash.
Most of the time these stories are basically saying "THESE COMPANIES ARE LYING TO US!!!". Some times they are commenting on percieved human stupidity, which is what we call it when an emotional system finely honed for survival in the wild proves mildly susceptible to some new cunning analysis and we don't take the most logical path.
I want to give another point: you are, in some cases, watching the free market help the little guy. This is private industry giving "welfare", a strong discount to those who can't afford the pretty name. Buying batteries and poor? Well, you aren't getting worse batteries, you're just paying less. The only real currency we have is emotion, and we are witnessing poor people "paying" with emotion in comparison with rich people- they can't necessarily get the cool name, and good packaging and the warm feeling it produces. But, they aren't getting screwed with a product that blows up or fails or is just crap!
I used to hate this, but then I realized that if it bugged me so much, I could just buy non brand name products all the time. Or I could just shut up and buy Duracells and help support an industry standard that actually has beneficial side effects to those with less money, without making me feel like it's picking my pocket.
This could be a lot worse. This is in many ways noble.
Parent is way beyond just a good point. Because of popular portrayal of computers as nerd-things, people feel that it's something that is allowed to be beyond them, and that maybe they *couldn't* learn how to use them competently without partially becoming something that they aren't (a nerd, for instance).
Ever here a woman say something like "Well, I don't understand that..." when it is aimed at something vaguely mechanical but easily grasped by all of high school shop class? Usually when I hear that, and it's uncommon, it's an older woman. In her world view, it's not feminine to understand even basic things that are "guy things", so she blocks them off. I think this is the same sort of thing- computers are things that only antisocial people really know how to use, I'm not antisocial, therefore, I cannot use a computer well.
Does this effect us too (on average)? After all, social popularity is for people who don't know a lot about computers, and I know a lot about computers...
I have rewritten the relevant portion of your post:
All of the above are altruistic pursuits. While technological development only serves to inflate your ego. You may think you are doing a good thing but companies which can afford to pay laborers would hire them as a matter of regular business and treat it as a business expense. If you create technology which does the work of physical laborers, you eliminate the following jobs: cotton cleaner (eliminated by the cotton gin), various textile jobs (Flying Shuttle, Spinning Jenny, using horses, water, or steam instead of people for power), craftsmen of all sorts (interchangeable parts, assembly lines), taskmasters, slaves, delivery/shipping jobs (mass transportation versus custom courier), as well as all of the trickle down jobs in the community.
Oh and that non-labor company that saves money with technology will most likely will not buy support from you and the principles will pocket the money instead of creating even Mc Jobs to support it.
Remember that charity idea? Most single parent families cannot afford any kind of unwieldy newfangled technological device (spinning jenny, cotton gin) so the most vulnerable in society will not gain any benefit from your largess but only the rich. Then there are the street people.
Why not contribute to society instead of contributing to its problems by putting more people on the street?
Go ahead and mod me down but you will only serve to reenforce the view that america is heartless when it comes to the poor.
--------------
Shouldn't this have been -1, Troll instead of +5 Insightful? I mean, maybe "Interesting" at the most, but this arguement is entirely full of holes. Seriously, the core argument is "more jobs are better, even if they aren't needed". Even a novice economist should be able to devastate this logic.
I guess his real point may have been "Go out and help the truly poor instead of providing charity for the middle class and up", but that's not what comes across.
badnarik.org is the website of the Libertarian Party candidate, Michael Badnarik.
Generally speaking, Libertarians are financially conservative and socially liberal. Last election, I voted for Harry Browne (the Libertarian candidate). If forced to choose between the Big Two, I would have voted for Bush, who was selling himself as a social moderate and a financial conservative. This election, if forced to choose between the Big Two, I would go for Kerry.
He *might* be worse, but after watching Bush and company expand the war on drugs (hey, the USA PATRIOT act chimes in: manufacture certain drugs and now you are a terrorist with a CHEMICAL WEAPONS FACILITY!), while ballooning the federal government and waging a war in Iraq that didn't seem to be justified in the eyes of many (for instance, Europe), I couldn't really imagine how.
Of course, I'll actually be voting for Badnarik.
On the bright side, Bush just might let the "assault weapons" ban sunset.
So what's "spyware"? It's like porn- we know it when we see it- but that means that you'll have a hard time putting exactly what it *is* into law.
For instance, is Opera adware because they serve ads to my machine?
Your idea is:
1- Identify spyware. 2- *If* spyware is inside the Right Country, then analyze activity of spyware company. 3- Using analysis, tax the company.... and you then imply that you would take step (3) to the logical conclusion of making it impossible for spyware to do business.
The purpose of economic regulation is not to destroy an industry. Especially not that, if you are able to do steps (1) and (2), you can just make (3) be "... and now, since they have broken the law, throw them in jail / assess them with huge civil penalties.
The problem people complain about isn't "Oh, there is just too much bad spyware in the world.", which taxing it *might* be aimed at fixing. It's "Why does this deceptive program install itself when I clicked yes once (or just visited a website once)". In other words, if you and I agree that it is spyware, we probably would like it better if it didn't exist, not we instead gave the government an agendy for keeping it around (it lines their coffers, and soon there'd be some powerful spyware lobbyist grooming his Congressdude for some "Protect Our Children" bill that incidentally outlaws Mozilla).
Or, don't set the system up to give the guard dog a steak automatically whenever a burglar enters.
Another thing: once you start taxing computer activities, you open the door to something that means a per-installation fee that must be paid to the government- this is highly incompatible with free software, and this is the very thing we'll see being pressed for if free software ever really gets the noose around the neck of enough powerful software companies.
That Constitution Party page you link to has "God" in it eight times.
I don't recall that being in the Consitution.
I mean, it starts with "We, the members of the Constitution Party, gratefully acknowledge the blessing of the Lord God as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of this Nation."
What? So, a political party that by their own admission statement bars atheists (at least, honest ones). Not very inclusive.
Growing up, I approved of the Republicans- being a fiscal conservative and all. I didn't really like their social issues, but all the talk was about what the Democrats were doing to take away our rights (remember it was the Clinton administration that talked about 3rd part escrow encyption [Clipper / Capstone], the DMCA, etc.) The implication was that the Republicans would preserve them- basically, Rush and friends sold the Republicans as if they were Libertarians on many social issues. Heck, during the Clinton administration the Republicans were the party of We Are Not The World's Policeman, so they were the antiwar party.
When I talk with any Republican friend of mine, they usually speak of a belief in financial conservatism, and a disapproval of the current administration on spending too much (not fiscally conservative). They also don't like most of the freedom restricting things that we on slashdot don't like (in general, of course), but since all third parties are so kooky and radical and can never win they'll never vote for any of them.
Long term implications? I bet within 20 years the current Republican party will be a lot more liberal on social issues. But for now a lot of people who would never vote for a third party are now looking at the Democrats a little more seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
Many of the above comments are about how brand name companies make the same thing under different names, and sell them for different prices, sometimes with different marketing schemes.
;) ) getting advice to raise their prices- Americans believed that the prices were so low that the quality had to be lower. They rose prices and took in cash.
There's a bunch of marketing stories about how if there are two products, one cheaper, one more expensive, that are about the same, most people will go for the cheaper one. Add a new one more expensive than the top one, however, and the old top (the new middle) dramatically increases in sales.
And there's the story about Taco Bell (a fast food chain here in America, for you barbarians
Most of the time these stories are basically saying "THESE COMPANIES ARE LYING TO US!!!". Some times they are commenting on percieved human stupidity, which is what we call it when an emotional system finely honed for survival in the wild proves mildly susceptible to some new cunning analysis and we don't take the most logical path.
I want to give another point: you are, in some cases, watching the free market help the little guy. This is private industry giving "welfare", a strong discount to those who can't afford the pretty name. Buying batteries and poor? Well, you aren't getting worse batteries, you're just paying less. The only real currency we have is emotion, and we are witnessing poor people "paying" with emotion in comparison with rich people- they can't necessarily get the cool name, and good packaging and the warm feeling it produces. But, they aren't getting screwed with a product that blows up or fails or is just crap!
I used to hate this, but then I realized that if it bugged me so much, I could just buy non brand name products all the time. Or I could just shut up and buy Duracells and help support an industry standard that actually has beneficial side effects to those with less money, without making me feel like it's picking my pocket.
This could be a lot worse. This is in many ways noble.
Parent is way beyond just a good point. Because of popular portrayal of computers as nerd-things, people feel that it's something that is allowed to be beyond them, and that maybe they *couldn't* learn how to use them competently without partially becoming something that they aren't (a nerd, for instance).
Ever here a woman say something like "Well, I don't understand that..." when it is aimed at something vaguely mechanical but easily grasped by all of high school shop class? Usually when I hear that, and it's uncommon, it's an older woman. In her world view, it's not feminine to understand even basic things that are "guy things", so she blocks them off. I think this is the same sort of thing- computers are things that only antisocial people really know how to use, I'm not antisocial, therefore, I cannot use a computer well.
Does this effect us too (on average)? After all, social popularity is for people who don't know a lot about computers, and I know a lot about computers...
I have rewritten the relevant portion of your post:
All of the above are altruistic pursuits. While technological development only serves to inflate your ego.
You may think you are doing a good thing but companies which can afford to pay laborers would hire them as a matter of regular business and treat it as a business expense.
If you create technology which does the work of physical laborers, you eliminate the following jobs: cotton cleaner (eliminated by the cotton gin), various textile jobs (Flying Shuttle, Spinning Jenny, using horses, water, or steam instead of people for power), craftsmen of all sorts (interchangeable parts, assembly lines), taskmasters, slaves, delivery/shipping jobs (mass transportation versus custom courier), as well as all of the trickle down jobs in the community.
Oh and that non-labor company that saves money with technology will most likely will not buy support from you and the principles will pocket the money instead of creating even Mc Jobs to support it.
Remember that charity idea? Most single parent families cannot afford any kind of unwieldy newfangled technological device (spinning jenny, cotton gin) so the most vulnerable in society will not gain any benefit from your largess but only the rich. Then there are the street people.
Why not contribute to society instead of contributing to its problems by putting more people on the street?
Go ahead and mod me down but you will only serve to reenforce the view that america is heartless when it comes to the poor.
--------------
Shouldn't this have been -1, Troll instead of +5 Insightful? I mean, maybe "Interesting" at the most, but this arguement is entirely full of holes. Seriously, the core argument is "more jobs are better, even if they aren't needed". Even a novice economist should be able to devastate this logic.
I guess his real point may have been "Go out and help the truly poor instead of providing charity for the middle class and up", but that's not what comes across.
badnarik.org is the website of the Libertarian Party candidate, Michael Badnarik.
Generally speaking, Libertarians are financially conservative and socially liberal. Last election, I voted for Harry Browne (the Libertarian candidate). If forced to choose between the Big Two, I would have voted for Bush, who was selling himself as a social moderate and a financial conservative. This election, if forced to choose between the Big Two, I would go for Kerry.
He *might* be worse, but after watching Bush and company expand the war on drugs (hey, the USA PATRIOT act chimes in: manufacture certain drugs and now you are a terrorist with a CHEMICAL WEAPONS FACILITY!), while ballooning the federal government and waging a war in Iraq that didn't seem to be justified in the eyes of many (for instance, Europe), I couldn't really imagine how.
Of course, I'll actually be voting for Badnarik.
On the bright side, Bush just might let the "assault weapons" ban sunset.
Because you're thirsty? No, I bet it's because there's no female chimpanzee's behind in view...
So what's "spyware"? It's like porn- we know it when we see it- but that means that you'll have a hard time putting exactly what it *is* into law.
... and you then imply that you would take step (3) to the logical conclusion of making it impossible for spyware to do business.
For instance, is Opera adware because they serve ads to my machine?
Your idea is:
1- Identify spyware.
2- *If* spyware is inside the Right Country, then analyze activity of spyware company.
3- Using analysis, tax the company.
The purpose of economic regulation is not to destroy an industry. Especially not that, if you are able to do steps (1) and (2), you can just make (3) be "... and now, since they have broken the law, throw them in jail / assess them with huge civil penalties.
The problem people complain about isn't "Oh, there is just too much bad spyware in the world.", which taxing it *might* be aimed at fixing. It's "Why does this deceptive program install itself when I clicked yes once (or just visited a website once)". In other words, if you and I agree that it is spyware, we probably would like it better if it didn't exist, not we instead gave the government an agendy for keeping it around (it lines their coffers, and soon there'd be some powerful spyware lobbyist grooming his Congressdude for some "Protect Our Children" bill that incidentally outlaws Mozilla).
Or, don't set the system up to give the guard dog a steak automatically whenever a burglar enters.
Another thing: once you start taxing computer activities, you open the door to something that means a per-installation fee that must be paid to the government- this is highly incompatible with free software, and this is the very thing we'll see being pressed for if free software ever really gets the noose around the neck of enough powerful software companies.
That Constitution Party page you link to has "God" in it eight times.
I don't recall that being in the Consitution.
I mean, it starts with "We, the members of the Constitution Party, gratefully acknowledge the blessing of the Lord God as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of this Nation."
What? So, a political party that by their own admission statement bars atheists (at least, honest ones). Not very inclusive.
Growing up, I approved of the Republicans- being a fiscal conservative and all. I didn't really like their social issues, but all the talk was about what the Democrats were doing to take away our rights (remember it was the Clinton administration that talked about 3rd part escrow encyption [Clipper / Capstone], the DMCA, etc.) The implication was that the Republicans would preserve them- basically, Rush and friends sold the Republicans as if they were Libertarians on many social issues. Heck, during the Clinton administration the Republicans were the party of We Are Not The World's Policeman, so they were the antiwar party. When I talk with any Republican friend of mine, they usually speak of a belief in financial conservatism, and a disapproval of the current administration on spending too much (not fiscally conservative). They also don't like most of the freedom restricting things that we on slashdot don't like (in general, of course), but since all third parties are so kooky and radical and can never win they'll never vote for any of them. Long term implications? I bet within 20 years the current Republican party will be a lot more liberal on social issues. But for now a lot of people who would never vote for a third party are now looking at the Democrats a little more seriously.