The US government is putting its manned access to space in the hands of private entities. When those entities go broke, will they be deemed "to important to fail"?
“Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone.”
Let me start by saying I am happy to talk to someone who has the balls to admit that they are pushing Marxism and even more balls in defending it. I have no inherit problem with your ideas. I am ruled by reason, and, if there is a rationality to your ideas I will come around to it.
1. Let me try to illustrate the problem another way:
From Google: World GDP: $60.6 Trillion World Population: 6.7 billion
If we confiscated all the wealth in the world and divided it up amongst us all that would be:
$9,045 per person
The poverty line for a 1 person household is:
$10,830
If we redistributed all the wealth in the world we would all live below the poverty line.
2. Your whole premise is based on the assumption that the rich have acquired their wealth via selfish, greedy, competitive exploitation. How would seizing wealth suddenly turn a greedy person into an altruistic one?
3. Marxist economies have historically failed to provide for the basic needs of their people leading to mass starvation and eventual collapse of the economy.
On the other hand, refer to the work of Amartya Kumar Sen, who famously suggested that Democracies do not experience famine.
Hugo Chavez is doing exactly what you propose and the country is disintegrating around him. Would you trade your citizenship to live out your ideals in South America?
"Instead, competence and talent are considered symbolic of one's social standing"
Sounds a lot like the Meritocracy I proposed.
While you have correctly identified the problem your solution has three insurmountable problems:
1. We do not live in a world of abundance, fusion and self replicating machines do not exist. 2. The solution you propose (neo-Marxism) idealizes man, it ignores the fact that man is selfish, greedy, and competitive. 3. Marxism has had 150 years to prove itself and has failed at each and every implementation.
Anyway, I have tried, and perhaps failed, to say that these issues, many of which sci-fi authors have talked about for two generations (the word Robot goes back to sci-fi by Karel Capek in 1920), these issues transcend typical left/right divides.
Please don't think that I have failed to parse, analyze, and consider each and every one of your points. No link has gone un-followed, no reference un-researched.
This is no surprise, as libertarianism is basically the Marxism of the Right.
I put that quote in because it is true, but also to see how closely you are examining my ideas. A Meritocracy is not a libertarian ideal, it is realistic approximation of one. Public schooling is far from libertarian.
"We will liberate our culture from the stranglehold of the profit-chasers. We will build a society dedicated to higher ideals, and we will replace the aristocracy of money by-- the aristocracy of pull" - Ayn Rand
Of course everything Ayn says isn't a Golden Nugget, but this one is right on the head. "Human the animal" will always form hierarchies. Without money to set the hierarchy, popularity will. God help us when popularity determines the hierarchy.
What will determine the hierarchy when money is disposed?
Yes, I agree, I have enjoyed this discussion very much.
Fresco does have very good values, but does not seem to admit they are essentially a secular religion
Here is the crux of my argument, the difference between you and me. You have identified a set of values that you think are good. Call it love, sharing, kindness, equality, whatever, they are values. I also have values. Some of my values are the same as yours (love), some are different (laziness).
Where we differ is this: I don't believe the Government should be in the business of enforcing values. Values are the domain of religion (secular or non-secular). In fact, the Government should exist to keep other people's "values" from affecting my "values".
As the Libertarians put it "we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives."
Some examples:
In the US some people have a "value" that gays are evil. They, like you, believe the government should enforce their values. So they pass a law that diminishes gay rights, like Proposition 8.
In Soviet Russia some people had a "value" that all people should have equal access to wealth. They, unlike me, believe the government should enforce their values. Wealth was confiscated, redistributed, and people starved.
In Saudi Arabia some people have a "value" that women are second class citizens. They, like you, believe the government should enforce their values. Woman have less rights than men and are often killed for no good reason.
Whenever the government enforces values it oversteps its bounds into the domain of religion (secular or non-secular). The only "value" the government should enforce is that no-one can force their values on someone else.
Besides, what is the proper way to judge "merit"?
Metrics. Objective metrics, to be precise, is the key to everything in a Meritocracy.
The problem with metrics is you get what you measure, and it is hard to measure some really important things like love or caring.... Who gets to set the values of the system?
Bingo. Values are incompatible with objective metrics. Only outcomes are measurable. You can measure how many people die of starvation. You can measure a student's comprehension of Algebra. You can measure a CEO's contribution to his company's bottom line. You can measure the environmental impact of a coal plant.
This is the beauty of the Meritocracy, values get left to the individual. A Meritocracy only care about results.
Education and Objective Metrics:
"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government." - Thomas Jefferson
"Inglis, for whom a lecture in education at Harvard is named, makes it perfectly clear that compulsory schooling on this continent was intended to be just what it had been for Prussia in the 1820s: a fifth column into the burgeoning democratic movement that threatened to give the peasants and the proletarians a voice at the bargaining table" - From John Taylor Gatto
Thomas Jefferson and Ignlis lay out the metric: educating the masses to preserve Democracy.
"it is in the interest of complex management, economic or political, to dumb people down, to demoralize them, to divide them from one another, and to discard them if they don't conform. " - John Taylor Gatto
John complains that education does not live up to Ignlis or Jefferson's ideals. I agree that education is failing.
Primary education - It doesn't makes sense to me that every child should progress at the rate of the dumbest in the class. Those than can't keep up, at every level, should be left behind. Those that excel should have the opportunity to advance their education at a rate limited only by their own capabilities. While standardized tests aren't perfect, they are way better than dividing students up strictly by age. I see no reason why a 6 year old and 12 year old with the same intelligence should be separated by 6 grades.
They'd much rather have a secure, stable society than appease to every little whim.
This is a fallacy. Authoritarian government do not promote secure, stable societies. They repress. They oppress. They don't allow people with grievances to air them or to hold the government accountable for their actions.
Authoritarian governments CREATE instability because they eliminate the safety valves that prevent small grievances from becoming revolts.
By the way, please make sure you are getting enough vitamin D if you work a lot indoors
I moved to Orlando last year. I am a firm believer in the power of Vitamin D (also B12) so I go running or swimming every day, outside. Thankfully I saved up enough money by investing in the stock market so that I could quit the cubicle and work from home on a contract basis. Maybe that is why I am such a stanch defender of capitalism -- working hard has made my life so much better thanks to the ability to accumulate wealth.
I was a lot more impressed with your ideas when I thought they were your own. I didn't realize they were just regurgitations of stuff you've read on the Internet.
If goverments were so bad, why is much of Western Europe with more intervention but more democracy overall generally happier than the USA?
I'll turn it around and ask, if governments are so good why does the USA have a higher standard of living?
In the developing cybernated system, potentially unlimited output can be achieved by systems of machines which will require little cooperation from human beings.
This is the exact same argument Karl Marx made over a 100 years ago. We haven't reached a point, yet, where machines produce everything. When we do those menial jobs will disappear on their own.
To paraphrase Deleuze and Guattari, never believe that a meshwork will suffice to save us.
This is the exact opposite of what was said, in fact "one must resist the temptation to make hierarchies into villains and meshworks into heroes". Moreover, hierarchies are embedded in the human DNA. You idealize "human the man" but forget about "human the animal". We are mammals, primates to be exact, who live in a herd with a strong hierarchy. We are like dogs, horses, or reindeer. We need and look for hierarchies to solve problems.
First of all, notice that the hierarchical social order is back
The hierarchy never went away. Anyone who believes we, at some point, broke free of the hierarchy is not student of history. You mention Thomas Jefferson as the man who destroyed the hierarchy but forget that he was slave owner -- the top of his own hierarchy. Words are not actions.
I support the right to be lazy
I know these aren't your words, but they confirm everything I suspect and hate about socialists. A bunch of lazy freeloaders. I can't express my disdain in strong enough terms for people that think laziness is a virtue. Fuck that.
When machines take over all production humans still will have a role in the workplace:
- Caregivers. People will still act as nurses, hospice workers, etc. The disgusting tasks will be taken car of by machines but there will still be people to hold the hands of the sick or dying. We see the shift of employment from production to health care now. Every year the health industry takes a greater share of GDP and employment as this process progresses.
- Artists and Designers. People will still be artists and designers, even if computers can do something similar. People will still be materialistic in the future and want the latest design and fashion. Coach, LV, D&B, will all have counterparts in the future and women will still vie for their goods.
- Leaders and Politicians. People will never, ever surrender the hierarchy to a computer. It is too deep in our DNA, too much of our being.
This is the difference between say, George W. Bush and you. Dubya went to prep school. You went to the public high school. Dubya went to Yale...
Here is something we agree on 100%. You have identified the root of the problem correctly and I couldn't agree more. But, laziness is not the solution, nor is robots. We have to fix the system to make sure this sort of aristocracy disappears. How to do that?
Problem statement: The current economy allows those with wealth to perpetuate their wealth indefinitely. Corollary: Wealth is not entirely distributed based on merit. End Goal: Distribute wealth base
If the Sea Shepherds used terrorism they would be a lot more effective. One RPG would put an end to the whaling for at least a season. In words of South Park, they are a bunch of vegan pussies.
The problem is, will this sort of 'agreement without authority' extend to other parties? That is what I mean by continual opt-out.
Good point. Since there is only one agreement right now I can't say if they would have to continually opt-out. I would imagine any future agreements would need to take this into consideration to prevent repeated opt-outs.
you just have to wait out the copyright expiration before you can distribute new copies of it.
Isn't that something like a 126 years? Again, I see your point. But, it is a trade off. I don't think the benefits of protecting a few lazy/dead authors is worth the trade off.
If Google had no mechanism to opt-out, or if the opt-out process was extremely difficult, or if the Author's Guild / American Association of Publishers had not given them a blanket opt-in I could see why authors would be upset. To me, it seems like Microsoft or Amazon or somebody else paid a few authors to raise a non-existent issue just to keep Google from making money.
They never ask where the wealth of the "worthy" people who have "made it" with their "hard work" are getting their money. "I work hard. I go to work everyday" - like the rest of us don't
OK, this is what I was hoping you would say. Deep down you feel like the rich don't deserve their money. You feel like the rich got rich through exploitation, not production.
I definitely see where you are coming from. I mean, cleaning toilets sucks ass and sitting in an executive suite is easy. So why does the executive make $26 million a year and the toilet cleaner makes minimum wage? Totally unfair.
Honestly, I don't think I'm going to convince you that this is a misguided point of view since it is so ingrained in us as humans to covet and resent those who have more -- especially when it seems so undeserved.
Maybe the best I can do is to point out that some wealth is undeserved and some wealth is deserved. Albert Einstein, for example, contributed ideas to this world that are worth billions, maybe trillions. Whatever wealth he died with he earned and we are all better off for it. The amount of money we could have taken from him in taxes is tiny compared to the wealth his ideas created. He made us all richer without requiring any government intervention to "spread the wealth".
Wall Street bankers, on the other hand, have made billions off the bailouts. Totally undeserved. I look forward to the day global warming causes sea levels to rise and sweep their undeserved beach front properties into the sea. In this case it was the government stepping in that screwed us all.
Government stays out of it, we're all better off. Government gets involved and someone exploits it.
Every argument we could have about this topic has been covered by Karl Marx, Ayn Rand, Michael Moore, Milton Freidman, etc. All I can add is a conversation I had with my mom's boyfriend. He is 50, works as a security guard and makes about $12 / hr. I'm a software consultant and make considerable more. Conversation paraphrased below:
Brian: "Don't you think it is unfair that you make so much more than me when you are so much younger?" Me: "What were you doing at my age?" Brian: "I was bartender in Miami." Me: "Cool, was it fun? Did you meet a lot of girls?" Brian: "It was great, these strippers used to come in all the time just to see me." Me: "I work in a cubicle, barely get the see the light of day let alone a woman, and my job is so boring I spend half the day posting on Slashdot." Brian: "What is your point?" Me: "You can have some of my money if I can have some of that sex you got to have at my age."
Everything is a trade off. Not all wealth is undeserved, not all poverty is undeserved, and the government is not always the answer.
a copyright owner should not have to continually opt out of distributing due to these schemes.
They do not have to continually opt-out. The opt-out is one time, it is online and it takes less than 5 minutes to fill out. Google couldn't make this process easier.
I know what you are thinking "They shouldn't have to opt-out at all".
If the book is older and the copyright owner is unknown then there is a chance that person is dead. What now? Perhaps the heirs will claim the work, or there may not be any heirs. If not, the book is lost. The only way to find a copy of it will be to travel to a library that has a physical copy. Once that physical copy deteriorates, gets destroyed, or stolen, then it is gone forever. To me, it seems like a terrible trade-off to protect the copyrights of people who are too lazy to spend 5 minutes to protect their own works.
I appreciate the linked document as I had a difficult time finding historical information on poverty rate. I guess economic statistics really get you worked up if you're at the point of calling names. Personally, I find it hard to get emotional about statistics, but I'll try to address your argument again:
standard of living was also quite higher than now
Standard of Living is defined as:
"The level of well-being (of an individual, group or the population of a country) as measured by the level of income (for example, GNP per capita) or by the quantity of various goods and services consumed (for example, the number of cars per 1,000 people or the number of television sets per capita)" - World Bank
While the definition above doesn't mention anything about poverty rate in calculating standard of living, I was able to find a definition on Wikipedia (I know, not the most reliable source) that says "Standard of living is generally measured by standards such as real (i.e. inflation adjusted) income per person and poverty rate".
If we use the Worldbank's definition of standard of living then there is no argument. The standard of living has increased since 1990 as measured by the real and nominal GDP figures. If you can find stats on car or TV ownership I would find them interesting but I doubt that they will support your case.
If we use the Wikipedia definition then we can add poverty rate to the metric. So lets do that:
Real per capita GDP between 1990 and 2009 increased by about 95%. The number of people in poverty has increased by 1.5%. A 1.5% increase in poverty compared to a 95% increase in income isn't a very convincing argument for a "quite higher" standard of living in 1990. In fact, it says the opposite: most people are a lot better off.
Also, lets not forget that the poverty line is defined by the number of people making less than 60% of the median income. If the real per capita income increased by 95% then the poverty line also increased. In other words, even the poor enjoy a higher real income than they did in 1990.
The average German is way better off now than in 1990 thanks to capitalist reforms (on average 95% better off). But some people are poorer. Why? Well, the document you posted has the answer: the Gini coefficient. There is a more unequal distribution of wealth now than in 1990. The rich have a greater share of the wealth. That's to be expected in any switch from a socialist to a capitalist market.
"This is the measure most economists prefer when looking at per-capita welfare and when comparing living conditions or use of resources across countries."
Germany was much more socialist in early nineties. And the standard of living was also quite higher than now
"During the past ten years, quality of life improved in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR), but such came with some self-inflicted problems."
Those problems are explained:
"Germany's structural problems today are a reflection of unsound fiscal and monetary policies of the 1990s."
So, not only are Germans better of by every measure I can find, the socialist fiscal and monetary policies of the 1990's are to blame for any structural problems today.
Not to make you feel bad but I started college at the same time, start at close to 50k on graduation and have made a 20% increase in salary every single year since then (not going to say my income but solve 50k * 1.2^6). Maybe you should reexamine the technologies you are studying.
Maybe, but politics cares about science. Politics shapes business and business funds science.
Lets say, for example, a Chinese scientist invents a disruptive new technology that happens to marginalize one of China's many large state owned entities. The thugs in power aren't going to allow that technology to put millions out of work for the sake of scientific advancement.
Out of their 70 year history, Russia had a technological lead only for a few years (Sputnik) and then quickly fell behind because of their closed attitude towards the world. Authoritarian regimes often go through a quick period of growth as the thugs in power squeeze every bit of value out of the system, but eventually they come crashing to Earth. Also, Russia advantage had less to do with Russia and more to do with its gains from Germany at the end of WWII.
Slashdot Mirror
The US government is putting its manned access to space in the hands of private entities. When those entities go broke, will they be deemed "to important to fail"?
“Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone.”
Let me start by saying I am happy to talk to someone who has the balls to admit that they are pushing Marxism and even more balls in defending it. I have no inherit problem with your ideas. I am ruled by reason, and, if there is a rationality to your ideas I will come around to it.
1. Let me try to illustrate the problem another way:
From Google:
World GDP: $60.6 Trillion
World Population: 6.7 billion
If we confiscated all the wealth in the world and divided it up amongst us all that would be:
$9,045 per person
The poverty line for a 1 person household is:
$10,830
If we redistributed all the wealth in the world we would all live below the poverty line.
2. Your whole premise is based on the assumption that the rich have acquired their wealth via selfish, greedy, competitive exploitation. How would seizing wealth suddenly turn a greedy person into an altruistic one?
3. Marxist economies have historically failed to provide for the basic needs of their people leading to mass starvation and eventual collapse of the economy.
On the other hand, refer to the work of Amartya Kumar Sen, who famously suggested that Democracies do not experience famine.
Hugo Chavez is doing exactly what you propose and the country is disintegrating around him. Would you trade your citizenship to live out your ideals in South America?
"Instead, competence and talent are considered symbolic of one's social standing"
Sounds a lot like the Meritocracy I proposed.
While you have correctly identified the problem your solution has three insurmountable problems:
1. We do not live in a world of abundance, fusion and self replicating machines do not exist.
2. The solution you propose (neo-Marxism) idealizes man, it ignores the fact that man is selfish, greedy, and competitive.
3. Marxism has had 150 years to prove itself and has failed at each and every implementation.
Anyway, I have tried, and perhaps failed, to say that these issues, many of which sci-fi authors have talked about for two generations (the word Robot goes back to sci-fi by Karel Capek in 1920), these issues transcend typical left/right divides.
Please don't think that I have failed to parse, analyze, and consider each and every one of your points. No link has gone un-followed, no reference un-researched.
This is no surprise, as libertarianism is basically the Marxism of the Right.
I put that quote in because it is true, but also to see how closely you are examining my ideas. A Meritocracy is not a libertarian ideal, it is realistic approximation of one. Public schooling is far from libertarian.
"We will liberate our culture from the stranglehold of the profit-chasers. We will build a society dedicated to higher ideals, and we will replace the aristocracy of money by--
the aristocracy of pull"
- Ayn Rand
Of course everything Ayn says isn't a Golden Nugget, but this one is right on the head. "Human the animal" will always form hierarchies. Without money to set the hierarchy, popularity will. God help us when popularity determines the hierarchy.
What will determine the hierarchy when money is disposed?
Yes, I agree, I have enjoyed this discussion very much.
Fresco does have very good values, but does not seem to admit they are essentially a secular religion
Here is the crux of my argument, the difference between you and me. You have identified a set of values that you think are good. Call it love, sharing, kindness, equality, whatever, they are values. I also have values. Some of my values are the same as yours (love), some are different (laziness).
Where we differ is this: I don't believe the Government should be in the business of enforcing values. Values are the domain of religion (secular or non-secular). In fact, the Government should exist to keep other people's "values" from affecting my "values".
As the Libertarians put it "we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives."
Some examples:
In the US some people have a "value" that gays are evil. They, like you, believe the government should enforce their values. So they pass a law that diminishes gay rights, like Proposition 8.
In Soviet Russia some people had a "value" that all people should have equal access to wealth. They, unlike me, believe the government should enforce their values. Wealth was confiscated, redistributed, and people starved.
In Saudi Arabia some people have a "value" that women are second class citizens. They, like you, believe the government should enforce their values. Woman have less rights than men and are often killed for no good reason.
Whenever the government enforces values it oversteps its bounds into the domain of religion (secular or non-secular). The only "value" the government should enforce is that no-one can force their values on someone else.
Besides, what is the proper way to judge "merit"?
Metrics. Objective metrics, to be precise, is the key to everything in a Meritocracy.
The problem with metrics is you get what you measure, and it is hard to measure some really important things like love or caring.... Who gets to set the values of the system?
Bingo. Values are incompatible with objective metrics. Only outcomes are measurable. You can measure how many people die of starvation. You can measure a student's comprehension of Algebra. You can measure a CEO's contribution to his company's bottom line. You can measure the environmental impact of a coal plant.
This is the beauty of the Meritocracy, values get left to the individual. A Meritocracy only care about results.
Education and Objective Metrics:
"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government." - Thomas Jefferson
"Inglis, for whom a lecture in education at Harvard is named, makes it perfectly clear that compulsory schooling on this continent was intended to be just what it had been for Prussia in the 1820s: a fifth column into the burgeoning democratic movement that threatened to give the peasants and the proletarians a voice at the bargaining table" - From John Taylor Gatto
Thomas Jefferson and Ignlis lay out the metric: educating the masses to preserve Democracy.
"it is in the interest of complex management, economic or political, to dumb people down, to demoralize them, to divide them from one another, and to discard them if they don't conform. " - John Taylor Gatto
John complains that education does not live up to Ignlis or Jefferson's ideals. I agree that education is failing.
Primary education - It doesn't makes sense to me that every child should progress at the rate of the dumbest in the class. Those than can't keep up, at every level, should be left behind. Those that excel should have the opportunity to advance their education at a rate limited only by their own capabilities. While standardized tests aren't perfect, they are way better than dividing students up strictly by age. I see no reason why a 6 year old and 12 year old with the same intelligence should be separated by 6 grades.
Secondary Education - Once a student ge
Jon Stewart hasn't told me how I feel about this. Can we hold off on this conversation until later?
They'd much rather have a secure, stable society than appease to every little whim.
This is a fallacy. Authoritarian government do not promote secure, stable societies. They repress. They oppress. They don't allow people with grievances to air them or to hold the government accountable for their actions.
Authoritarian governments CREATE instability because they eliminate the safety valves that prevent small grievances from becoming revolts.
By the way, please make sure you are getting enough vitamin D if you work a lot indoors
I moved to Orlando last year. I am a firm believer in the power of Vitamin D (also B12) so I go running or swimming every day, outside. Thankfully I saved up enough money by investing in the stock market so that I could quit the cubicle and work from home on a contract basis. Maybe that is why I am such a stanch defender of capitalism -- working hard has made my life so much better thanks to the ability to accumulate wealth.
I was a lot more impressed with your ideas when I thought they were your own. I didn't realize they were just regurgitations of stuff you've read on the Internet.
If goverments were so bad, why is much of Western Europe with more intervention but more democracy overall generally happier than the USA?
I'll turn it around and ask, if governments are so good why does the USA have a higher standard of living?
In the developing cybernated system, potentially unlimited output can be achieved by systems of machines which will require little cooperation from human beings.
This is the exact same argument Karl Marx made over a 100 years ago. We haven't reached a point, yet, where machines produce everything. When we do those menial jobs will disappear on their own.
To paraphrase Deleuze and Guattari, never believe that a meshwork will suffice to save us.
This is the exact opposite of what was said, in fact "one must resist the temptation to make hierarchies into villains and meshworks into heroes". Moreover, hierarchies are embedded in the human DNA. You idealize "human the man" but forget about "human the animal". We are mammals, primates to be exact, who live in a herd with a strong hierarchy. We are like dogs, horses, or reindeer. We need and look for hierarchies to solve problems.
First of all, notice that the hierarchical social order is back
The hierarchy never went away. Anyone who believes we, at some point, broke free of the hierarchy is not student of history. You mention Thomas Jefferson as the man who destroyed the hierarchy but forget that he was slave owner -- the top of his own hierarchy. Words are not actions.
I support the right to be lazy
I know these aren't your words, but they confirm everything I suspect and hate about socialists. A bunch of lazy freeloaders. I can't express my disdain in strong enough terms for people that think laziness is a virtue. Fuck that.
When machines take over all production humans still will have a role in the workplace:
- Caregivers. People will still act as nurses, hospice workers, etc. The disgusting tasks will be taken car of by machines but there will still be people to hold the hands of the sick or dying. We see the shift of employment from production to health care now. Every year the health industry takes a greater share of GDP and employment as this process progresses.
- Artists and Designers. People will still be artists and designers, even if computers can do something similar. People will still be materialistic in the future and want the latest design and fashion. Coach, LV, D&B, will all have counterparts in the future and women will still vie for their goods.
- Leaders and Politicians. People will never, ever surrender the hierarchy to a computer. It is too deep in our DNA, too much of our being.
This is the difference between say, George W. Bush and you. Dubya went to prep school. You went to the public high school. Dubya went to Yale...
Here is something we agree on 100%. You have identified the root of the problem correctly and I couldn't agree more. But, laziness is not the solution, nor is robots. We have to fix the system to make sure this sort of aristocracy disappears. How to do that?
Problem statement: The current economy allows those with wealth to perpetuate their wealth indefinitely.
Corollary: Wealth is not entirely distributed based on merit.
End Goal: Distribute wealth base
Great, we will replace an oil shortage with a lithium shortage.
Some experts believe the huge increase in electric cars will actually strain the world’s lithium supplies in a few years; as with peak oil
I have to give credit to Beijing as well
Bullshit. India is growing as fast as China with a Democratic system. Please don't defend those genocidal thugs.
The Sea Shepherds practice terrorism
If the Sea Shepherds used terrorism they would be a lot more effective. One RPG would put an end to the whaling for at least a season. In words of South Park, they are a bunch of vegan pussies.
There is no comparison between US censorship and Chinese or Iranian. If there was Jon Stewart would be dead.
The problem is, will this sort of 'agreement without authority' extend to other parties? That is what I mean by continual opt-out.
Good point. Since there is only one agreement right now I can't say if they would have to continually opt-out. I would imagine any future agreements would need to take this into consideration to prevent repeated opt-outs.
you just have to wait out the copyright expiration before you can distribute new copies of it.
Isn't that something like a 126 years? Again, I see your point. But, it is a trade off. I don't think the benefits of protecting a few lazy /dead authors is worth the trade off.
If Google had no mechanism to opt-out, or if the opt-out process was extremely difficult, or if the Author's Guild / American Association of Publishers had not given them a blanket opt-in I could see why authors would be upset. To me, it seems like Microsoft or Amazon or somebody else paid a few authors to raise a non-existent issue just to keep Google from making money.
They never ask where the wealth of the "worthy" people who have "made it" with their "hard work" are getting their money. "I work hard. I go to work everyday" - like the rest of us don't
OK, this is what I was hoping you would say. Deep down you feel like the rich don't deserve their money. You feel like the rich got rich through exploitation, not production.
I definitely see where you are coming from. I mean, cleaning toilets sucks ass and sitting in an executive suite is easy. So why does the executive make $26 million a year and the toilet cleaner makes minimum wage? Totally unfair.
Honestly, I don't think I'm going to convince you that this is a misguided point of view since it is so ingrained in us as humans to covet and resent those who have more -- especially when it seems so undeserved.
Maybe the best I can do is to point out that some wealth is undeserved and some wealth is deserved. Albert Einstein, for example, contributed ideas to this world that are worth billions, maybe trillions. Whatever wealth he died with he earned and we are all better off for it. The amount of money we could have taken from him in taxes is tiny compared to the wealth his ideas created. He made us all richer without requiring any government intervention to "spread the wealth".
Wall Street bankers, on the other hand, have made billions off the bailouts. Totally undeserved. I look forward to the day global warming causes sea levels to rise and sweep their undeserved beach front properties into the sea. In this case it was the government stepping in that screwed us all.
Government stays out of it, we're all better off. Government gets involved and someone exploits it.
Every argument we could have about this topic has been covered by Karl Marx, Ayn Rand, Michael Moore, Milton Freidman, etc. All I can add is a conversation I had with my mom's boyfriend. He is 50, works as a security guard and makes about $12 / hr. I'm a software consultant and make considerable more. Conversation paraphrased below:
Brian: "Don't you think it is unfair that you make so much more than me when you are so much younger?"
Me: "What were you doing at my age?"
Brian: "I was bartender in Miami."
Me: "Cool, was it fun? Did you meet a lot of girls?"
Brian: "It was great, these strippers used to come in all the time just to see me."
Me: "I work in a cubicle, barely get the see the light of day let alone a woman, and my job is so boring I spend half the day posting on Slashdot."
Brian: "What is your point?"
Me: "You can have some of my money if I can have some of that sex you got to have at my age."
Everything is a trade off. Not all wealth is undeserved, not all poverty is undeserved, and the government is not always the answer.
a copyright owner should not have to continually opt out of distributing due to these schemes.
They do not have to continually opt-out. The opt-out is one time, it is online and it takes less than 5 minutes to fill out. Google couldn't make this process easier.
I know what you are thinking "They shouldn't have to opt-out at all".
If the book is older and the copyright owner is unknown then there is a chance that person is dead. What now? Perhaps the heirs will claim the work, or there may not be any heirs. If not, the book is lost. The only way to find a copy of it will be to travel to a library that has a physical copy. Once that physical copy deteriorates, gets destroyed, or stolen, then it is gone forever. To me, it seems like a terrible trade-off to protect the copyrights of people who are too lazy to spend 5 minutes to protect their own works.
I appreciate the linked document as I had a difficult time finding historical information on poverty rate. I guess economic statistics really get you worked up if you're at the point of calling names. Personally, I find it hard to get emotional about statistics, but I'll try to address your argument again:
standard of living was also quite higher than now
Standard of Living is defined as:
"The level of well-being (of an individual, group or the population of a country) as measured by the level of income (for example, GNP per capita) or by the quantity of various goods and services consumed (for example, the number of cars per 1,000 people or the number of television sets per capita)" - World Bank
While the definition above doesn't mention anything about poverty rate in calculating standard of living, I was able to find a definition on Wikipedia (I know, not the most reliable source) that says "Standard of living is generally measured by standards such as real (i.e. inflation adjusted) income per person and poverty rate".
If we use the Worldbank's definition of standard of living then there is no argument. The standard of living has increased since 1990 as measured by the real and nominal GDP figures. If you can find stats on car or TV ownership I would find them interesting but I doubt that they will support your case.
If we use the Wikipedia definition then we can add poverty rate to the metric. So lets do that:
Real per capita GDP between 1990 and 2009 increased by about 95%. The number of people in poverty has increased by 1.5%. A 1.5% increase in poverty compared to a 95% increase in income isn't a very convincing argument for a "quite higher" standard of living in 1990. In fact, it says the opposite: most people are a lot better off.
Also, lets not forget that the poverty line is defined by the number of people making less than 60% of the median income. If the real per capita income increased by 95% then the poverty line also increased. In other words, even the poor enjoy a higher real income than they did in 1990.
The average German is way better off now than in 1990 thanks to capitalist reforms (on average 95% better off). But some people are poorer. Why? Well, the document you posted has the answer: the Gini coefficient. There is a more unequal distribution of wealth now than in 1990. The rich have a greater share of the wealth. That's to be expected in any switch from a socialist to a capitalist market.
A rising tide lifts all boats, or Germans.
You and I definitely see humans differently. You have a much more positive outlook by assuming people can ever get over being materialistic.
But, to address the original post, why exactly do you feel that millionaires should have to support everyone else?
Russian scientists obviously accomplished a lot. Imagine how much more they could have done under and open system.
Purchase Power Parity from CIA Factbook-
"This is the measure most economists prefer when looking at per-capita welfare and when comparing living conditions or use of resources across countries."
Germany was much more socialist in early nineties. And the standard of living was also quite higher than now
Nominal GDP per person contradicts your statement. As does real GDP per person. For good measure here is a study done in 2003:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p634gl14222451n1/
An excerpt:
"During the past ten years, quality of life improved in the former German Democratic
Republic (GDR), but such came with some self-inflicted problems."
Those problems are explained:
"Germany's structural problems today are a reflection of unsound fiscal and monetary policies of the 1990s."
So, not only are Germans better of by every measure I can find, the socialist fiscal and monetary policies of the 1990's are to blame for any structural problems today.
Fine, here's one that is adjusted on PPP:
http://www.indexmundi.com/germany/gdp_(purchasing_power_parity).html
Not to make you feel bad but I started college at the same time, start at close to 50k on graduation and have made a 20% increase in salary every single year since then (not going to say my income but solve 50k * 1.2^6). Maybe you should reexamine the technologies you are studying.
And the standard of living was also quite higher than now
Lies, damned lies, and statistics
Scientists don't care about politics.
Maybe, but politics cares about science. Politics shapes business and business funds science.
Lets say, for example, a Chinese scientist invents a disruptive new technology that happens to marginalize one of China's many large state owned entities. The thugs in power aren't going to allow that technology to put millions out of work for the sake of scientific advancement.
Out of their 70 year history, Russia had a technological lead only for a few years (Sputnik) and then quickly fell behind because of their closed attitude towards the world. Authoritarian regimes often go through a quick period of growth as the thugs in power squeeze every bit of value out of the system, but eventually they come crashing to Earth. Also, Russia advantage had less to do with Russia and more to do with its gains from Germany at the end of WWII.
It's not a racist myth, it is history. China had a sizable technological lead in the early 1400's but screwed it up by suppressing free thought.