If you can spend $20 on a cable, or spend $45 on the same cable but have the extra $25 go to other local vendors, improving their selection and the taxes improving your schools, it may not be as bad as you think.
What could *you* have done with the extra $25 you saved in you bought the cheaper cable? Could you have possibly invested it and made something better/faster/cheaper and hence increased wealth? Maybe you would've put that money in a bank, which then lends it out to the guy who ends up inventing a car that runs on water.
Instead, you've spent it on something that was produced inefficiently (hence the higher price, assuming same quality). Now that money went to maintaining an older cable making machine or an inefficient management team.
There isn't a shortage at all, in any industry - if you're willing to pay a fair and competitive wage.
Care to define what a "fair and competitive wage" is? What is the magic formula you have that spits out the "correct" number?
Where the US worker is getting fucked over is by countries that lack our labor protections and environmental protections, that treat their people like slaves, who then sell "services" to fat-cat CEOs and undercut what ought to be a fair market wage. And of course, this actually amounts to the real inflation we've been feeling for years - instead of monetary, we get shit for services when jobs are moved to third-world crap countries.
How does reducing the cost of goods contribute to inflation? You are letting you blind hate overshadow whatever little economic sense you have.
I remember when slashdot was full of smart people with a liberal philosophy, not a bunch douchebag flag waving capitalists.
'Liberal' as in "let people interact freely & voluntarily without restrictions" or Liberal as in "let's make people conform to our value system and worldview"?
And why do you assume that life has to be fair?
Is it fair that I don't have the programming skills of Linus? Or I don't have the athletic ability of M.Jordan?
diamonds are perhaps the best example of "conspicuous consumption" wherein buyers actively seek high prices with minimal utility in order to flamboyantly demonstrate their wealth, power and status by way of flagrant wasteful spending.
If buying diamonds is wasteful spending, shouldn't colored, fashionable clothing also be wasteful spending? I mean, a plain white piece of cloth that protects people's modesty should be sufficient. Anything else is just wasteful, isn't it?
And btw, marginal utility has almost nothing to do with competition or lack thereof - it simply deals with the additional satisfaction/dissatisfaction someone derives from the consumption/loss of one extra unit of something.
What if I say something which I *thought* was true but which turned out to be false? What about things which are just a matter of opinion - is that defamation or slander?
It is amazing - most people do not believe that the earth is flat or that bloodletting cures anything, but when it comes to economics, knowledge gained centuries ago is tossed aside and the same non-sensical ideas are thrown around.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to fight the evil oil-speculators & the oil companies who're raping the consumer.
Re:Thanks for playing, please try again.
on
The Pragmatic CSO
·
· Score: 1
We have computers because geeks like toys. In order to afford more toys, we whore ourselves out to the business world.
Most of the IT world is a bit more mature than you seem to be.
Another tell-tale sign that they wouldn't raise raters is that their competitors (terrestrial radio) are objecting to the merger.
Why would a competitor object to the merger if the new entity planned to raise rates and hence drive away customers? They object only because they know that the new entity will lower prices and attract new customers.
because they don't think colleges have that verification responsibility.
Some schools might want the most stringent controls to ensure students do not cheat. Others might not care. Some schools may provide the option and charge accordingly (and probably have different certificates).
Why should this be the business of anyone but the school & the student?
I read the article you've linked and still cannot understand why the op was wrong - can you paste the relevant section?
(And btw, labeling someone a 'denier' says more about you and the GW hysteria than about the op).
Conversely, every 'implementation' is nothing more than an idea. If I try to patent a device that does FOO, the only thing of value in that is the idea to put together the metal,plastic,silicon,etc in a novel way to do FOO.
The metal,plastic & silicon always existed and hence have zero value.
The solution to this mess must come from a deeper level than just 'implementation' vs 'idea'.
I notice that you've lost your original enthusiasm to defend Ehrlich's work.
So why are you so eager to be a global climate change denier?
Please re-read my original post and point to the exact sentence where I deny anything.
And I happen to be fairly well educated in economics
Then surely you know about the Simon-Ehrlich wager and the pitfalls of ignoring technological innovations to solve problems?
And maybe you also know something about optimal resource allocation.
, are you bordering on personal insult too?
I thought I was just keeping up the original tone of your post. Apologies if I misread your original reply.
I think I wasn't clear about this statement (or maybe you did get it & I don't understand your response): (b) I can pay someone at Dell $500 & fire someone making $5000 here.
I meant, I can buy a computer for $500 from Dell and fire someone making $5000 here. And this is real - a friend of mine automated medical claims processing for a TPA and they've reduced their payroll by about 80 people. Now they're selling this technology to other TPAs.
The main point I'm trying to make is this:
There is no difference in the productivity gains obtained by off-shoring & the gains you get by automating something with computers. The gains are both identical & beneficial.
Well, what I'm referring to is Ricardo's original conclusion. What he seems to be saying is the modern notion that Ricardo's theory does not hold under certain conditions (that curiously seem to come up in election years only).
It has, and it persists. Consider that 140 people will die of starvation *today* in Darfur, for example.
And how many people died before 1960 when this fine piece of work was written? Did you read anything about Ehrlich's work before you decided to reply?
India is a net importer of food, petroleum and steel.
And yet, we manage to feed ourselves much better now than in the 60s. (Which was the original point. Did you read *my post* before writing this fine riposte?).
Do you know much about environmental science, by the way?
Definitely more than what you seem to know about economics (or logic for that matter).
Here is one prediction from the 60s that the world would face mass starvation and hunger by the year 2000. He also predicted that 'India cannot possibly feed itself after 1971', that 'Britain as we know it would not exist around 2000'.
I think the same kind of crazy calculations drive the global warming hysteria. They make absolutely no allowance for new technologies to solve problems. And people call us the ones with our heads in the sand!
(a) I can pay someone in India $500 & fire someone making $5000 here.
(b) I can pay someone at Dell $500 & fire someone making $5000 here.
-and from your original post- In other words, the wealth of society as a whole remains the same. It is a zero sum action.
So, (a) is zero sum and (b) is not. But in both (a) and (b), the 'wealth of society' remains the same. Your logic does not hold.
Yes. I don't find how I did that however.
My argument is that any rule saying that society owns your wealth is wrong. Your response seems to be "society owns your wealth...hence they own your wealth".
Real wealth is created by making wanted/nescessary things more efficent.
I assume you meant "making essential things more efficiently". That is correct.
Hiring a cheaper person is not creating wealth.
Why not?
If a cheaper person produces the same thing/service, it definitely makes me more wealthy by having him do a task than having someone else do it.
and more importantly how the wealth society creates should be distributed.
Nobody needs jobs - people want income, or more generally, an increase in income. Income increases when you receive more money or when you get more for the same amount of money.
If jobs were an asset instead of a cost, you wouldn't want to 'outsource' anything. You would want to build your own car, build your own house & plant your own crops.
It more efficient to let others do those things and concentrate on what you do best. The same principle applies to cities, states & countries.
To me, the more interesting thing is when he claims that he has 'considered and rejected complex economic theories'. But then he confuses jobs (which are a cost) with income and hence wealth.
He reminds me of those people who claim that spending billions of fighting global warming 'will create jobs'.
Slashdot Mirror
Argue for energy independence. I'm on board.
You might find this interesting.
If you can spend $20 on a cable, or spend $45 on the same cable but have the extra $25 go to other local vendors, improving their selection and the taxes improving your schools, it may not be as bad as you think.
What could *you* have done with the extra $25 you saved in you bought the cheaper cable? Could you have possibly invested it and made something better/faster/cheaper and hence increased wealth? Maybe you would've put that money in a bank, which then lends it out to the guy who ends up inventing a car that runs on water.
Instead, you've spent it on something that was produced inefficiently (hence the higher price, assuming same quality). Now that money went to maintaining an older cable making machine or an inefficient management team.
There isn't a shortage at all, in any industry - if you're willing to pay a fair and competitive wage.
Care to define what a "fair and competitive wage" is? What is the magic formula you have that spits out the "correct" number?
Where the US worker is getting fucked over is by countries that lack our labor protections and environmental protections, that treat their people like slaves, who then sell "services" to fat-cat CEOs and undercut what ought to be a fair market wage. And of course, this actually amounts to the real inflation we've been feeling for years - instead of monetary, we get shit for services when jobs are moved to third-world crap countries.
How does reducing the cost of goods contribute to inflation? You are letting you blind hate overshadow whatever little economic sense you have.
I remember when slashdot was full of smart people with a liberal philosophy, not a bunch douchebag flag waving capitalists.
'Liberal' as in "let people interact freely & voluntarily without restrictions" or Liberal as in "let's make people conform to our value system and worldview"?
And why do you assume that life has to be fair?
Is it fair that I don't have the programming skills of Linus? Or I don't have the athletic ability of M.Jordan?
diamonds are perhaps the best example of "conspicuous consumption" wherein buyers actively seek high prices with minimal utility in order to flamboyantly demonstrate their wealth, power and status by way of flagrant wasteful spending.
If buying diamonds is wasteful spending, shouldn't colored, fashionable clothing also be wasteful spending? I mean, a plain white piece of cloth that protects people's modesty should be sufficient. Anything else is just wasteful, isn't it?
And btw, marginal utility has almost nothing to do with competition or lack thereof - it simply deals with the additional satisfaction/dissatisfaction someone derives from the consumption/loss of one extra unit of something.
What if I say something which I *thought* was true but which turned out to be false? What about things which are just a matter of opinion - is that defamation or slander?
Where is your Economic God now?
Here.
It is amazing - most people do not believe that the earth is flat or that bloodletting cures anything, but when it comes to economics, knowledge gained centuries ago is tossed aside and the same non-sensical ideas are thrown around.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to fight the evil oil-speculators & the oil companies who're raping the consumer.
We have computers because geeks like toys. In order to afford more toys, we whore ourselves out to the business world.
Most of the IT world is a bit more mature than you seem to be.
Another tell-tale sign that they wouldn't raise raters is that their competitors (terrestrial radio) are objecting to the merger.
Why would a competitor object to the merger if the new entity planned to raise rates and hence drive away customers? They object only because they know that the new entity will lower prices and attract new customers.
because they don't think colleges have that verification responsibility.
Some schools might want the most stringent controls to ensure students do not cheat. Others might not care. Some schools may provide the option and charge accordingly (and probably have different certificates).
Why should this be the business of anyone but the school & the student?
Developing countries were known to be growing rapidly since at least '04, yet it didn't seem to justify $100+ oil then.
Oil prices did rise though. They rose according to the demand-supply conditions then. Why would it need to hit the magical $100 to validate anything?
I read the article you've linked and still cannot understand why the op was wrong - can you paste the relevant section?
(And btw, labeling someone a 'denier' says more about you and the GW hysteria than about the op).
To be fair, the libertarian rants on Slashdot typically center around how the weak should be left to die
And the Democrats want to eat babies and the Republicans want to drink blood.
Conversely, every 'implementation' is nothing more than an idea. If I try to patent a device that does FOO, the only thing of value in that is the idea to put together the metal,plastic,silicon,etc in a novel way to do FOO. The metal,plastic & silicon always existed and hence have zero value.
The solution to this mess must come from a deeper level than just 'implementation' vs 'idea'.
I notice that you've lost your original enthusiasm to defend Ehrlich's work.
So why are you so eager to be a global climate change denier?
Please re-read my original post and point to the exact sentence where I deny anything.
And I happen to be fairly well educated in economics
Then surely you know about the Simon-Ehrlich wager and the pitfalls of ignoring technological innovations to solve problems?
And maybe you also know something about optimal resource allocation.
, are you bordering on personal insult too?
I thought I was just keeping up the original tone of your post. Apologies if I misread your original reply.
I think I wasn't clear about this statement (or maybe you did get it & I don't understand your response):
(b) I can pay someone at Dell $500 & fire someone making $5000 here.
I meant, I can buy a computer for $500 from Dell and fire someone making $5000 here. And this is real - a friend of mine automated medical claims processing for a TPA and they've reduced their payroll by about 80 people. Now they're selling this technology to other TPAs.
The main point I'm trying to make is this:
There is no difference in the productivity gains obtained by off-shoring & the gains you get by automating something with computers. The gains are both identical & beneficial.
Well, what I'm referring to is Ricardo's original conclusion. What he seems to be saying is the modern notion that Ricardo's theory does not hold under certain conditions (that curiously seem to come up in election years only).
It has, and it persists. Consider that 140 people will die of starvation *today* in Darfur, for example.
And how many people died before 1960 when this fine piece of work was written? Did you read anything about Ehrlich's work before you decided to reply?
India is a net importer of food, petroleum and steel.
And yet, we manage to feed ourselves much better now than in the 60s. (Which was the original point. Did you read *my post* before writing this fine riposte?).
Do you know much about environmental science, by the way?
Definitely more than what you seem to know about economics (or logic for that matter).
Here is one prediction from the 60s that the world would face mass starvation and hunger by the year 2000. He also predicted that 'India cannot possibly feed itself after 1971', that 'Britain as we know it would not exist around 2000'.
I think the same kind of crazy calculations drive the global warming hysteria. They make absolutely no allowance for new technologies to solve problems. And people call us the ones with our heads in the sand!
(a) I can pay someone in India $500 & fire someone making $5000 here.
(b) I can pay someone at Dell $500 & fire someone making $5000 here.
-and from your original post-
In other words, the wealth of society as a whole remains the same. It is a zero sum action.
So, (a) is zero sum and (b) is not. But in both (a) and (b), the 'wealth of society' remains the same. Your logic does not hold.
Yes. I don't find how I did that however.
My argument is that any rule saying that society owns your wealth is wrong. Your response seems to be "society owns your wealth...hence they own your wealth".
If a cheaper person produces the same thing/service, it definitely makes me more wealthy by having him do a task than having someone else do it.
It makes you more wealthy, but at the cost of someone else less wealthy.
Computers make me wealthy at the cost of someone else - by your logic, computers have made society poorer.
So? Who creates the wealth isn't important. As long as you live in a society you play by the society's rules.
Do you know what petitio principii means?
Real wealth is created by making wanted/nescessary things more efficent.
I assume you meant "making essential things more efficiently". That is correct.
Hiring a cheaper person is not creating wealth.
Why not?
If a cheaper person produces the same thing/service, it definitely makes me more wealthy by having him do a task than having someone else do it.
and more importantly how the wealth society creates should be distributed.
Society doesn't create wealth. People do.
Yes, I agree that India needs the jobs. So do we.
Nobody needs jobs - people want income, or more generally, an increase in income. Income increases when you receive more money or when you get more for the same amount of money.
If jobs were an asset instead of a cost, you wouldn't want to 'outsource' anything. You would want to build your own car, build your own house & plant your own crops.
It more efficient to let others do those things and concentrate on what you do best. The same principle applies to cities, states & countries.
To me, the more interesting thing is when he claims that he has 'considered and rejected complex economic theories'. But then he confuses jobs (which are a cost) with income and hence wealth.
He reminds me of those people who claim that spending billions of fighting global warming 'will create jobs'.