Google's privileged position and the wealth it has provided them, I would argue, makes them have a special duty to society to CONTINUE to provide us with free, effective search engines.
So you're saying that if someone works hard and is successful, society automatically has a claim on that? Looks like everyone will have to get used to that kind of thinking for the next few years (just like we did in the last few years).
stands to become the Internet-age version of Standard Oil.
You mean they'll reduce the price of their product so low that consumers will flock to them putting their competitors out of business?
Oh no, maybe their competitors should get Congress involved.
That's true, but those people, as many people are the world over, are richer because they are able to export to the United States.
The people (in India at least) are not richer solely because they are able to export. They are richer because each of them can produce and trade without artificial constraints imposed by the government.
As there's no "bigger economy" the USA can dump exports on, the USA has to backstop itself and the world to meet its own needs,....
I think you've concluded that exporting is the only way a nation creates wealth.
the goal of having everyone own their own home is so admirable that I think the American people would at least understand if not accept the argument that it was worth the financial crisis to put 40 million people into new homes.
You are making as assumption that for 40 million people to be in new homes, the financial crisis *had* to happen.
Millions of people all over the world have cell phones, computers, better cars, better health care tech, etc over the same period. Yet, none of those required a financial crisis. Millions of people in India have risen from poverty and are richer - that did not require any governmental assistance (except to get out of the way).
Why do you think that housing is such a special case that the normal forces that bring prosperity would not work?
Find me anyone who can predict the market and knows how it works
Knowing how the market works has nothing to do with predicting where the stock market will go. Just like knowing about gravity, magnetism and other forces doesn't mean that you can predict the future.
The fundamental forces of the market are known to most people who take the time to learn - people want stuff, people are greedy and trading makes both parties richer.
The people to fear are the ones who claim they will 'fix the economy' or 'take care of the economy' - they are the ones who plan to tinker with a complex system.
So, if I know of a new tool that will increase crop yield by 200%, what should I do? There is no demand for this now so I can only estimate demand. And, I'll need $X to implement this.
If investment is easily available I can borrow the $X and implement my project. If it is a bust, well everyone took a chance and lost, but it was all voluntary. If it succeeds, I make a lot of money, the cost of food comes down for everyone and everyone has more money now (because they are spending less for food). This is the only way wealth is created in this world - by productivity gains.
Now, with your idea, the govt. takes money from investors and gives it to consumers. The $X would be spent on food and stuff from China. As a result, I don't have the $X now to make my miracle tool.
The judge is part of the Judiciary, that slowly made litigation a very expensive option
The legal system is the mafiaa here.
The ABA refuses to accredit schools which do not spend enough money (hence charge students a lot of money) on professors and libraries - even though more students of these schools pass the bar exam in the first sitting that even Harvard (I forget the name of the school - it was out of Utah or Colarado).
It is a crime for someone with enough knowledge to help you by giving legal advice - can't allow competition you know. Basically, the lawyers write the laws to make themselves richer. And you are going to elect another one to the highest office now.
And what's amazing, and completely against capitalism, none of these web browser makers are charging any money for their products! All this great software is being developed and given away for free!
Capitalism and free markets are about the free exchange of goods and ideas, with the people involved in the exchange (and only them) setting the terms of the exchange.
Whether the terms of the exchange involve money or not does not have much to do with the idea of free exchange.
Financial markets work the same way consumer markets do. When people save more money than is demanded, the interest rates plummet.
Which leads to people saving less. Which leads to people spending more. Which will lead to a rise in interest rates offered for investments (except in places like the USA where the all-knowing Fed plays around with interest rates).
Increasing productivity without insuring (sic) people have a disposable income with which to buy the goods results in inventory which cannot be moved.
Do you honestly think that companies would just build goods and offer services without estimating the demand for such goods and services? Some businesses do and they go out of business. And the magic of the price system lets even very small businesses, who might not have the resources to conduct extensive market research, build the right product for the right price.
Even if we assume a society where everyone saves all the money they don't spend on essentials and a society that does not trade with anyone else, the saved money would still be used to bring down the price of essentials - by better fertilizer, a better tractor, better storage facilities, supply chain management, etc.
If we take your view and discourage savings (whether that was the intent or not), people may have more to spend, but the better fertilizer or tractor will not be invented. So, the society as a whole is poorer for not having the new tools.
The farmer who consumes all his seed is actually increasing his production.
I was not clear in my earlier post about what I meant - I meant the farmer who eats all the seed corn which he is supposed to plant the next year.
How was I to know that President Bush would take my challenge so seriously? And, give the man credit, I didn't think there was *any* way he could pull it off.
So these guys seriously thought that the President of the country has control over gas prices? Maybe they thought they were in Soviet Russia.
If everyone is saving, then someone is willing to pay interest/returns for that saving. Otherwise, "everyone" would have no place to invest their savings.
It is funny that you accuse me of being a republican, but you are the one making the assumption that bush made after 9/11 when he urged everyone to go spend.
Spending or consumption does not create wealth. Increasing productivity does.
The farmer who consumes all his seed corn may increase consumption, but he does not increase his wealth. The farmer who starves and saves to buy a new tractor is the one who increases wealth. And he does so by saving, not by consuming.
I was taught economics by the combined faculty of a top 20 undergrad institution and a business school ranked 6th in the world.
Standing in a garage does not make you a car. Maybe your teachers never heard of a man named Bastiat - he could've saved you all that money you spent on your education.
Personally, I think you're just a republican who is pissed at what I say.
I'm a citizen of India (a country in Asia in case they did not teach that in your prestigious school).
What would I gain by being a supporter of the republican party (or the democratic party for that matter)?
" Among the articles of faith of "progressivism" is the theory - which never yields to experience - that you can fill the sea with enormous quantities of fresh red meat and then, Moses-like, successfully command the sharks not to devour it."
"As long as Uncle Sam continues to stock the Potomac by ripping from the body politic such enormous quantities of flesh and muscle - now more than three trillion dollars worth annually - sharks and vultures will inevitably swarm throughout Washington in a competitive struggle to gorge themselves on this unfortunate feast."
Last I checked India was still in the caste system
Yep, we are all "in" the caste system here. Everyday, when I wake up my grandfather asks me if I've been "in" the caste system. On most days I do and I can answer honestly. But on some days, I'm late to the office and I have to lie to my grandfather. Of course, my office has its own caste system so I make up during the day.
Does it make you feel better about yourself when you open your mouth to blab about stuff that you have no clue about? Let me guess, you:
Saw a 30 min documentary about India
Read an article about India in 'Pickle connosueir monthly'.
Spoke to an Indian person while buying a sandwich at Subway.
Spent 15 days in India.
And you thought that that qualifies you to speak about a complex social problem that has existed for 1000s of years.
Do you have any numbers to back that statement up?
Everyone who made money - the bankers, the home buyers, etc - made money off of somebody who was looking to make even more money in that industry. Ultimately, the people who lost money were the ones who believed that home prices would increase in value all the time (a view promoted by many people in government).
If you are angry about the market rewarding CEO with huge pay (a purely voluntary act that you or I can opt not to participate in), are you also angry that the government now is rewarding the CEO, the investors & the debtors with no way for you or me to not participate?
I saw the problem with the banks & opted not to participate. I even bet against them and made money - the market allowed me to take the course I thought was correct. Now, I'm forced by the government to give money to the same crooks.
And somehow it is the market's fault. And btw, for those who blame the crash on deregulation, the regulations in the financial sector only grew in the last 20 years.
I'm referring to capital as in "money available for investment." Traditionally, this money came from savings. As the level of investment rises, more businesses are competing for my (finite) savings, and I can charge a higher interest rate for the use of my money.
Well, it is supply and demand isn't it? And without the government trying to predict what the "right" rate of interest it, it would be decided by millions of decisions made by people with a stake in the game.
I thought you meant that the total available capital would remain constant.
The invisible hand of the market would not let us down like that.
It didn't. It punished everyone who made bad decisions - the people who loaned money, the people who borrowed money to buy a home they could never afford and the people who invested in companies that loaned the money.
Of course, it is not the free-market that is giving 700-billion to the people who made reckless loans. Maybe you can figure who that is...
Slashdot Mirror
Google's privileged position and the wealth it has provided them, I would argue, makes them have a special duty to society to CONTINUE to provide us with free, effective search engines.
So you're saying that if someone works hard and is successful, society automatically has a claim on that? Looks like everyone will have to get used to that kind of thinking for the next few years (just like we did in the last few years).
Show me risk-free interest rates
They don't exist. If they were zero-risk, you will not earn interest.
You might be interested in low-risk instruments like US Treasury bills.
If govt. can lower the price of health care by a single payer system, it should also introduce a single payer system for food.
I would have loved to release the coin under the GPL, which could maybe solve the financial crisis.
... issuing more credit).
Actually, people printing too much money was how this crisis started in the first place.
(and they are going to solve it by
There is a guy standing in the street corner who thinks he is Jesus - according to your logic, he must be Jesus.
stands to become the Internet-age version of Standard Oil.
You mean they'll reduce the price of their product so low that consumers will flock to them putting their competitors out of business?
Oh no, maybe their competitors should get Congress involved.
That's true, but those people, as many people are the world over, are richer because they are able to export to the United States.
The people (in India at least) are not richer solely because they are able to export. They are richer because each of them can produce and trade without artificial constraints imposed by the government.
As there's no "bigger economy" the USA can dump exports on, the USA has to backstop itself and the world to meet its own needs,....
I think you've concluded that exporting is the only way a nation creates wealth.
the goal of having everyone own their own home is so admirable that I think the American people would at least understand if not accept the argument that it was worth the financial crisis to put 40 million people into new homes.
You are making as assumption that for 40 million people to be in new homes, the financial crisis *had* to happen.
Millions of people all over the world have cell phones, computers, better cars, better health care tech, etc over the same period. Yet, none of those required a financial crisis. Millions of people in India have risen from poverty and are richer - that did not require any governmental assistance (except to get out of the way).
Why do you think that housing is such a special case that the normal forces that bring prosperity would not work?
So, Greenspan who ran the government monopoly of money supply, was a libertarian? I had no idea.
Find me anyone who can predict the market and knows how it works
Knowing how the market works has nothing to do with predicting where the stock market will go. Just like knowing about gravity, magnetism and other forces doesn't mean that you can predict the future.
The fundamental forces of the market are known to most people who take the time to learn - people want stuff, people are greedy and trading makes both parties richer.
The people to fear are the ones who claim they will 'fix the economy' or 'take care of the economy' - they are the ones who plan to tinker with a complex system.
So, if I know of a new tool that will increase crop yield by 200%, what should I do? There is no demand for this now so I can only estimate demand. And, I'll need $X to implement this.
If investment is easily available I can borrow the $X and implement my project. If it is a bust, well everyone took a chance and lost, but it was all voluntary. If it succeeds, I make a lot of money, the cost of food comes down for everyone and everyone has more money now (because they are spending less for food). This is the only way wealth is created in this world - by productivity gains.
Now, with your idea, the govt. takes money from investors and gives it to consumers. The $X would be spent on food and stuff from China. As a result, I don't have the $X now to make my miracle tool.
What am I missing?
The judge is part of the Judiciary, that slowly made litigation a very expensive option
The legal system is the mafiaa here.
The ABA refuses to accredit schools which do not spend enough money (hence charge students a lot of money) on professors and libraries - even though more students of these schools pass the bar exam in the first sitting that even Harvard (I forget the name of the school - it was out of Utah or Colarado).
It is a crime for someone with enough knowledge to help you by giving legal advice - can't allow competition you know. Basically, the lawyers write the laws to make themselves richer. And you are going to elect another one to the highest office now.
And what's amazing, and completely against capitalism, none of these web browser makers are charging any money for their products! All this great software is being developed and given away for free!
Capitalism and free markets are about the free exchange of goods and ideas, with the people involved in the exchange (and only them) setting the terms of the exchange.
Whether the terms of the exchange involve money or not does not have much to do with the idea of free exchange.
Nah, like any good slashdotter, I just refuse to read the TFA.
Financial markets work the same way consumer markets do. When people save more money than is demanded, the interest rates plummet.
Which leads to people saving less. Which leads to people spending more. Which will lead to a rise in interest rates offered for investments (except in places like the USA where the all-knowing Fed plays around with interest rates).
Increasing productivity without insuring (sic) people have a disposable income with which to buy the goods results in inventory which cannot be moved.
Do you honestly think that companies would just build goods and offer services without estimating the demand for such goods and services? Some businesses do and they go out of business. And the magic of the price system lets even very small businesses, who might not have the resources to conduct extensive market research, build the right product for the right price.
Even if we assume a society where everyone saves all the money they don't spend on essentials and a society that does not trade with anyone else, the saved money would still be used to bring down the price of essentials - by better fertilizer, a better tractor, better storage facilities, supply chain management, etc.
If we take your view and discourage savings (whether that was the intent or not), people may have more to spend, but the better fertilizer or tractor will not be invented. So, the society as a whole is poorer for not having the new tools.
The farmer who consumes all his seed is actually increasing his production.
I was not clear in my earlier post about what I meant - I meant the farmer who eats all the seed corn which he is supposed to plant the next year.
Okay, if we need to start producing, then I guess the first thing we'd better do is pull all those jobs from India, yes?
We should also block out the Sun and ban computers - then everyone will be employed and producing.
Don't confuse productivity with production.
How was I to know that President Bush would take my challenge so seriously? And, give the man credit, I didn't think there was *any* way he could pull it off.
So these guys seriously thought that the President of the country has control over gas prices? Maybe they thought they were in Soviet Russia.
...if everyone is saving, nobody is consuming...
If everyone is saving, then someone is willing to pay interest/returns for that saving. Otherwise, "everyone" would have no place to invest their savings.
It is funny that you accuse me of being a republican, but you are the one making the assumption that bush made after 9/11 when he urged everyone to go spend.
Spending or consumption does not create wealth. Increasing productivity does.
The farmer who consumes all his seed corn may increase consumption, but he does not increase his wealth. The farmer who starves and saves to buy a new tractor is the one who increases wealth. And he does so by saving, not by consuming.
I was taught economics by the combined faculty of a top 20 undergrad institution and a business school ranked 6th in the world.
Standing in a garage does not make you a car. Maybe your teachers never heard of a man named Bastiat - he could've saved you all that money you spent on your education.
Personally, I think you're just a republican who is pissed at what I say.
I'm a citizen of India (a country in Asia in case they did not teach that in your prestigious school).
What would I gain by being a supporter of the republican party (or the democratic party for that matter)?
Typical Rovian tactic, accuse me of what you've already done.
We don't have Rovian tactics in India, but we are good at spotting charlatans who speak about things they have no business talking about.
, if everyone is saving, nobody is consuming,
Wrong.
and consumption is a far greater factor in our GDP.
And blue is a great factor in the sky.
The trouble with reaganomics is, if everyone is saving, nobody is consuming, and consumption is a far greater factor in our GDP.
You fail Economics 101.
From here:
" Among the articles of faith of "progressivism" is the theory - which never yields to experience - that you can fill the sea with enormous quantities of fresh red meat and then, Moses-like, successfully command the sharks not to devour it."
"As long as Uncle Sam continues to stock the Potomac by ripping from the body politic such enormous quantities of flesh and muscle - now more than three trillion dollars worth annually - sharks and vultures will inevitably swarm throughout Washington in a competitive struggle to gorge themselves on this unfortunate feast."
Yep, we are all "in" the caste system here. Everyday, when I wake up my grandfather asks me if I've been "in" the caste system. On most days I do and I can answer honestly. But on some days, I'm late to the office and I have to lie to my grandfather. Of course, my office has its own caste system so I make up during the day.
Does it make you feel better about yourself when you open your mouth to blab about stuff that you have no clue about? Let me guess, you:
And you thought that that qualifies you to speak about a complex social problem that has existed for 1000s of years.
The majority of those executives ...
Do you have any numbers to back that statement up?
Everyone who made money - the bankers, the home buyers, etc - made money off of somebody who was looking to make even more money in that industry. Ultimately, the people who lost money were the ones who believed that home prices would increase in value all the time (a view promoted by many people in government).
If you are angry about the market rewarding CEO with huge pay (a purely voluntary act that you or I can opt not to participate in), are you also angry that the government now is rewarding the CEO, the investors & the debtors with no way for you or me to not participate?
I saw the problem with the banks & opted not to participate. I even bet against them and made money - the market allowed me to take the course I thought was correct. Now, I'm forced by the government to give money to the same crooks.
And somehow it is the market's fault. And btw, for those who blame the crash on deregulation, the regulations in the financial sector only grew in the last 20 years.
I'm referring to capital as in "money available for investment." Traditionally, this money came from savings. As the level of investment rises, more businesses are competing for my (finite) savings, and I can charge a higher interest rate for the use of my money.
Well, it is supply and demand isn't it? And without the government trying to predict what the "right" rate of interest it, it would be decided by millions of decisions made by people with a stake in the game.
I thought you meant that the total available capital would remain constant.
The invisible hand of the market would not let us down like that.
It didn't. It punished everyone who made bad decisions - the people who loaned money, the people who borrowed money to buy a home they could never afford and the people who invested in companies that loaned the money.
Of course, it is not the free-market that is giving 700-billion to the people who made reckless loans. Maybe you can figure who that is...