What we really need is a maximum wage; a maximum amount of annual income -- from any source -- that a person can make. This maximum amount should be tied to the median income or some such so that if the rich and powerful want to increase their earning limit, they have to do things that will benefit all of society instead of hurting all of society.
Too much of the economy's lifeblood (i.e. money) is sequestered in the bank accounts of the ultra-wealthy, which a) stalls the economy, and b) gives a disproportionate amount of socio-political power to those individuals. The current vast difference in wealth is as damaging to the human race as things like racism, homophobia, nationalism, etc. (if not more so), and people really need to realize this.
There is an entire class of people that most of society never sees, but which has a profound impact on their lives...and our current economic setup promotes sociopaths and psychopaths into this class. These people have the economic power and the self-centered focus to literally destroy the planet. This situation has to be rectified.
Re:It's Heineken, you insensitive clod
on
Klingon Beer
·
· Score: 1
I prefer Patch Adams. Not as good, but it'll put hair on your chest.
...the current system...[does not guarantee] distribution to the places best or helpful for society.
And it shouldn't, as people disagree on what that means and where those are.
They do? Don't most people want a place to live, food to eat, some entertainment, and some support, at the very least?
In situations where manipulative marketing and divisive politicking hasn't rotted people's brains, people overwhelming agree on at least the basics of where at least some resources should be distributed for the benefit of society.
Guaranteed basic income linked to national average
A cap on annual income
A cap on personal wealth
A cap on inheritance
Of course, he ended up getting assassinated and his program was purposefully run into the ground after his death.
And that's the real trick. The trouble is not coming up with great ideas that we know will work; the trouble is trying to implement them without getting murdered by the already-rich-and-powerful.
I don't get it when people dis "copycat apps", claiming they are "ripping off" the original authors. Copied games are probably the purest form of the free-market in action; they provide alternate sources for the same (or similar) product, and they encourage competition.
I think [internet] communication is such a fundamental need for society that we can't risk having internet access remain in the hands of private interests. Internet access -- from the wires in the ground to the modem in your home -- needs to become a public good. Taxes should pay for everyone to have free internet access at the highest level of quality that society can reasonably afford.
It's free in the sense that everyone can vote with their wallet
But that's not "free" as in "free market", as the parent just explained. You can't have a free market and copyright law at the same time. Copyright prevents you from "voting with your wallet" in the free market sense because it reduces the number of competitors to zero.
This generally involves three populations of individuals: those who are susceptible to disease, those who are infected and those who recover, return to the population and are no longer susceptible.
Tell me just how an artist or distributor of content is supposed to make a living regardless of the length of time given for the "limited time" as listed in the Constitution?
the world is governed by a democracy in which only those who have served in the military can vote. The argument is that voting rights are open to anybody, but only after demonstrating a willingness to sacrifice for the common good. Non-voters still obtain the same freedoms/rights/etc, but are not trusted with the operation of the government.
I used to naively think that sounded like a good idea. Senator John McCain completely shattered that illusion.
There are still people out there who think regular folks can run for office and not be instantly destroyed/disqualified by the Establishment?
You can't run as part of one of the two parties in the US if the party doesn't want you (e.g. Stephen Colbert), and you don't get serious media attention unless you belong to one of the two parties (e.g. Jill Stein) -- and even if you do belong to one of the two major parties, you don't really get any serious attention if the handful of people who own the media don't like you (e.g. Ron Paul).
99% of Americans can't just "run" for political office even if they had the time and money to do so. The system has evolved prevent that sort of thing.
It would be nice if the makeup of the professions of people who become Congressmen and Senators at least somewhat reflects the makeup of the professions of the actual people. We need scientists and accountants and grocery store clerks and laborers in the gov't, not a gov't made up of 99% lawyers.
Gartner says new technologies are decreasing jobs. In the industrial revolution â" and revolutions since â" there was an invigoration of jobs.
So, the guy didn't learn from the Industrial Revolution (and revolutions since) that all the fear of 'no more jobs for anyone' ended up being unfounded?
New technologies don't decrease the number of available jobs; wealth sequestration among the super-rich does. With the Middle Class having less and less money to spend, the demand for products -- and the jobs required to create them -- goes down. We've been seeing this over the past thirty years, which just happens to coincide with the rise of the computing industry.
Slashdot Mirror
Voters don't really have any influence on public policy in the US, according to a recent study.
What we really need is a maximum wage; a maximum amount of annual income -- from any source -- that a person can make. This maximum amount should be tied to the median income or some such so that if the rich and powerful want to increase their earning limit, they have to do things that will benefit all of society instead of hurting all of society.
Too much of the economy's lifeblood (i.e. money) is sequestered in the bank accounts of the ultra-wealthy, which a) stalls the economy, and b) gives a disproportionate amount of socio-political power to those individuals. The current vast difference in wealth is as damaging to the human race as things like racism, homophobia, nationalism, etc. (if not more so), and people really need to realize this.
There is an entire class of people that most of society never sees, but which has a profound impact on their lives...and our current economic setup promotes sociopaths and psychopaths into this class. These people have the economic power and the self-centered focus to literally destroy the planet. This situation has to be rectified.
I prefer Patch Adams. Not as good, but it'll put hair on your chest.
*sigh*
I think a better headline would have been "Radio Shack still has at least 1,100 stores".
They do? Don't most people want a place to live, food to eat, some entertainment, and some support, at the very least?
In situations where manipulative marketing and divisive politicking hasn't rotted people's brains, people overwhelming agree on at least the basics of where at least some resources should be distributed for the benefit of society.
This guy had a lot of great ideas, including:
Of course, he ended up getting assassinated and his program was purposefully run into the ground after his death.
And that's the real trick. The trouble is not coming up with great ideas that we know will work; the trouble is trying to implement them without getting murdered by the already-rich-and-powerful.
"Does using a word processor make you lazy with the language? Would you be better off programming with punch cards?"
I don't get it when people dis "copycat apps", claiming they are "ripping off" the original authors. Copied games are probably the purest form of the free-market in action; they provide alternate sources for the same (or similar) product, and they encourage competition.
I think [internet] communication is such a fundamental need for society that we can't risk having internet access remain in the hands of private interests. Internet access -- from the wires in the ground to the modem in your home -- needs to become a public good. Taxes should pay for everyone to have free internet access at the highest level of quality that society can reasonably afford.
Yawn. Wake me when they put that cloud-based world-wide-web on the internet.
But that's not "free" as in "free market", as the parent just explained. You can't have a free market and copyright law at the same time. Copyright prevents you from "voting with your wallet" in the free market sense because it reduces the number of competitors to zero.
That's Upgraydd.
Remember: the extra 'd' is for a double dose of his pimping.
Damn you, uncle Pennybags! You lied to me!
For goodness' sake, learn to comma!
By doing real work like everyone else.
I used to naively think that sounded like a good idea. Senator John McCain completely shattered that illusion.
There are still people out there who think regular folks can run for office and not be instantly destroyed/disqualified by the Establishment?
You can't run as part of one of the two parties in the US if the party doesn't want you (e.g. Stephen Colbert), and you don't get serious media attention unless you belong to one of the two parties (e.g. Jill Stein) -- and even if you do belong to one of the two major parties, you don't really get any serious attention if the handful of people who own the media don't like you (e.g. Ron Paul).
99% of Americans can't just "run" for political office even if they had the time and money to do so. The system has evolved prevent that sort of thing.
How do you choose not to believe something? A person is either convinced something is true or he isn't.
Sorry, but you're going to have to clarify your comment here because of Poe's Law.
It would be nice if the makeup of the professions of people who become Congressmen and Senators at least somewhat reflects the makeup of the professions of the actual people. We need scientists and accountants and grocery store clerks and laborers in the gov't, not a gov't made up of 99% lawyers.
So, the guy didn't learn from the Industrial Revolution (and revolutions since) that all the fear of 'no more jobs for anyone' ended up being unfounded?
New technologies don't decrease the number of available jobs; wealth sequestration among the super-rich does. With the Middle Class having less and less money to spend, the demand for products -- and the jobs required to create them -- goes down. We've been seeing this over the past thirty years, which just happens to coincide with the rise of the computing industry.
Good god, man.
Then our options are to fix this related "slips on the floor" problem or to leave all problems as-is.
Let me fix that for you: