"At the moment, the trend has been to leech money out of the masses and into the hands of the few"
Yes.
" aided and abetted by productivity gains, the abolishment of many traditional trade barriers and the ability to arbitrage labor costs to countries with lower standards of living."
No, this is absolutely wrong. It has been caused 100% by central bank money printing. The corporations that are thriving right now are those with government contracts or are closely related to the banks. These are the organizations that see freshly printed money FIRST, and thus get to buy stuff before prices adjust to the new inflation. This is redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top. Total productivity per productive (private sector) worker has risen, but that productivity has been countered by the rise of a class of non-productive worker who gets paid far more than anyone else, ie bankers and government workers.
But you won't understand. Not one man in a million can. At least that is what Keynes thought:
"Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become 'profiteers,' who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.
Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose."
You do know that people don't HAVE to pay rent, right? Teens CAN live with their parents. Adults can too, or they can get roommates.
Also, if you just work for a few hours at $5 an hour, you can afford to eat for a week, if you have the time to cook.
Seriously, you think starvation is a problem in America? Are you nuts?
You can't solve the federal reserve's redistribution of wealth to banks and corporations with more wealth redistribution. If you want to solve the problem of wealth disparity, you have to END MONEY PRINTING.
Natural resource rich economies can afford socialism, for a while. Eventually the phosphate runs out, and everyone loses their high wage jobs, and that's the end of it.
Hmmm, I can afford to pay my workforce of 100 at an average of two dollars above the current minimum wage. The minimum wage doubles by decree. I can now afford to pay my workforce an average of six dollars below the minimum wage. I have to fire 40% of the workforce. But I don't have enough people to do the same work they were doing before, so I have to downsize. I lose my economy of scale. Costs rise. I have to fire another 40%, and so on, until it's just me trying to do the work of ten people, and making just enough to pay myself minimum wage.
And really? ALL studies? Like every single one? Right, Imma need a fucking citation on that one, mate.
This is an experiment. If Seattle's unemployment rate goes up, you MUST accept the fact that raising the minimum wage kills jobs. If it goes down, then you MUST accept the fact that you are living in some sort of magical fantasyland where economic laws don't apply, and should immediately set about breaking windows and starting nuclear wars with aliens to improve the economy.
Imagine if there were a minimum home price. Say, $75,000. Sounds reasonable, right? I mean, everyone should have a right to be able to sell their home for enough to buy another somewhere. But what about houses that aren't worth that much (so cruel, so judgmental!)? They just sit around, and the owners are literally stuck. Sort of like today's young workers, for whom the job market just keeps going up and up and up, leaving new household formation at all time lows. Instead of being able to get a job, they have to go to college and get a degree along with a lifetime of debt slavery, and often wind up with jobs that don't require degrees, and certainly don't pay enough to service the debt.
Right. Loads of people live without ANY wages, so the minimum wage really should reflect that and be zero. Why are we cutting off the lowest rungs on the ladder to success? We have record real unemployment, but we are going to make it harder to hire people? Absolute insanity. If you have a problem with you wages not buying enough, take it up with the Federal Reserve. They are the ones printing money to stuff into bankers pockets, who are in turn spending that money into the economy and driving up prices.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Nor do any number of leftists.
I don't think you understand how much regulatory compliance costs are for startups. I was working a startup vitamin manufacturing plant and had to get a survey in order to get a permit for a new storage building. This was to "ensure that it wouldn't flood", despite the fact that the property was basically on a cliff 50 feet above a small river, and wouldn't flood even in a million year flood, and it was totally obvious from their own flood maps. That was just a single small part of the idiocy. It wound up costing so much we just gave up and used a fucking storage container to store those chemicals. Much less safe, but it was all we could afford. Could have built a nice building with fire suppression and explosion proof fixtures and lighting if it hadn't been for regulators coming in and trying to triple the price of the thing along with their continual delays.
Funny part is, this was in "business friendly" Texas. Can't imagine what would have happened if we had tried to open in some place like California.
No, I think people are fine. It's governments and their poorly organized systems that cause things like this. Suggest you read "The Lucifer Effect". It's not just about prison guards. That same mentality has infiltrated the NSA and most other government offices.
What? How would increasing humidity free up hydrocarbons? You think people are stopping drilling because they are afraid of AGW?
I am in no position to perform a detailed study, and would simply be blacklisted for trying. I'd never be able to get a government grant again. No thanks. Leave the politics to the many parasites.
You don't understand what an equilibrium is. It is not a fixed thing. Just because the human population is an equilibrium (ie people are born and people die) doesn't mean the total number can't change. It can and does go up, and it can and will go down. I don't know what to tell you if you want to DENY that;)
You get a 20% or so increase in maximum humidity at the levels we are talking about. That is the MAXIMUM level of humidity. It isn't always 100% humid.
CO2 doesn't cause significant warming in Earth's atmosphere, and anyone who tells you it does is just lazy and takes it on faith. 99% of the people who say that have never even looked at an IR spectrum, much less taken one much less understand how it works.
Yes, it IS a huge can of worms. Once you start the government down the road of regulating people's health, it doesn't end until you have 1984 style mandatory calisthenics every morning and computer screens screaming at you that you jack off too much and you need to go make more babies for the motherland.
Not really. The moisture holding capacity of air doesn't really increase that quickly in the temperature range we are talking about: http://www.engineeringtoolbox....
And further, human addition of water vapor is a slowly moving equilibrium that will be quickly pushed back when something "breaks" and thus causes economic damage. For example, depleting a major aquifer will lead to decreased irrigation levels which leads to an economic decline that causes roads to be torn up and emissions to be reduced do the the fact that fewer people can afford stuff made in factories.
But that's not a point, because the point of vaccination programs is to prevent pandemics, which requires slowing the spread of a disease by reducing the number of people who are vulnerable to it.
You have no idea the magnitude of the can of worms you are opening there. More like a wormhole that links to a series of universes completely filled with worms. Giant space worms with nasty sharp pointy teeth.
You are correct that unvaccinated people should live in isolation from others, but that clashes with your claim that the government should be able to force people to get vaccinated.
A better solution would be to leave it up to state or local governments to come up with such laws, perhaps based on recommendations from the Feds. Then there will almost certainly be some non-vaccine area that people can go who don't want vaccinations, and vaccine mandatory places where people can go to be safe from those diseases. Eventually, those places that allow non-vaccination will experience the higher costs and increased mortality that comes with that, and people will come to their senses or die out (or it turns out to not be that big a deal and vax-mandatory places abandon the checkpoints as they are too expensive to maintain).
In practice that would be hard to implement, though, as it would require internal checkpoints. Really this is all pretty Orwellian no matter how you look at it.
Further, a mutant can choose to harm someone with their powers (and registration doesn't really do anything to stop that). An unvaccinated person can get infected and spread disease without knowing it.
That said, I am REALLY REALLY REALLY uncomfortable with government lists in general. As much good as may be done by having such a list, I think we are better off without any government lists at all. If only that were a choice we could make.
Slashdot Mirror
AKA the fastest growing economies in the world.
Oh, so they ONLY have to raise prices 25%? Yeah, that's not going to hurt anyone already barely scraping by on a fixed income.
Those Zimbabweans sure were rich then, I guess. Starving trillionaires and such.
"At the moment, the trend has been to leech money out of the masses and into the hands of the few"
Yes.
" aided and abetted by productivity gains, the abolishment of many traditional trade barriers and the ability to arbitrage labor costs to countries with lower standards of living."
No, this is absolutely wrong. It has been caused 100% by central bank money printing. The corporations that are thriving right now are those with government contracts or are closely related to the banks. These are the organizations that see freshly printed money FIRST, and thus get to buy stuff before prices adjust to the new inflation. This is redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top. Total productivity per productive (private sector) worker has risen, but that productivity has been countered by the rise of a class of non-productive worker who gets paid far more than anyone else, ie bankers and government workers.
But you won't understand. Not one man in a million can. At least that is what Keynes thought:
"Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become 'profiteers,' who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery. Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose."
You do know that people don't HAVE to pay rent, right? Teens CAN live with their parents. Adults can too, or they can get roommates.
Also, if you just work for a few hours at $5 an hour, you can afford to eat for a week, if you have the time to cook.
Seriously, you think starvation is a problem in America? Are you nuts?
You can't solve the federal reserve's redistribution of wealth to banks and corporations with more wealth redistribution. If you want to solve the problem of wealth disparity, you have to END MONEY PRINTING.
Natural resource rich economies can afford socialism, for a while. Eventually the phosphate runs out, and everyone loses their high wage jobs, and that's the end of it.
Hmmm, I can afford to pay my workforce of 100 at an average of two dollars above the current minimum wage. The minimum wage doubles by decree. I can now afford to pay my workforce an average of six dollars below the minimum wage. I have to fire 40% of the workforce. But I don't have enough people to do the same work they were doing before, so I have to downsize. I lose my economy of scale. Costs rise. I have to fire another 40%, and so on, until it's just me trying to do the work of ten people, and making just enough to pay myself minimum wage.
And really? ALL studies? Like every single one? Right, Imma need a fucking citation on that one, mate.
This is an experiment. If Seattle's unemployment rate goes up, you MUST accept the fact that raising the minimum wage kills jobs. If it goes down, then you MUST accept the fact that you are living in some sort of magical fantasyland where economic laws don't apply, and should immediately set about breaking windows and starting nuclear wars with aliens to improve the economy.
Imagine if there were a minimum home price. Say, $75,000. Sounds reasonable, right? I mean, everyone should have a right to be able to sell their home for enough to buy another somewhere. But what about houses that aren't worth that much (so cruel, so judgmental!)? They just sit around, and the owners are literally stuck. Sort of like today's young workers, for whom the job market just keeps going up and up and up, leaving new household formation at all time lows. Instead of being able to get a job, they have to go to college and get a degree along with a lifetime of debt slavery, and often wind up with jobs that don't require degrees, and certainly don't pay enough to service the debt.
Right. Loads of people live without ANY wages, so the minimum wage really should reflect that and be zero. Why are we cutting off the lowest rungs on the ladder to success? We have record real unemployment, but we are going to make it harder to hire people? Absolute insanity. If you have a problem with you wages not buying enough, take it up with the Federal Reserve. They are the ones printing money to stuff into bankers pockets, who are in turn spending that money into the economy and driving up prices.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Nor do any number of leftists.
Perhaps you should start your own business. I'm sure you could drive him out of business by offering better wages and a better working environment.
But it's not that simple, is it? Regulations prevent the appearance of new competition, because they place a disproportionate burden on them.
I don't think you understand how much regulatory compliance costs are for startups. I was working a startup vitamin manufacturing plant and had to get a survey in order to get a permit for a new storage building. This was to "ensure that it wouldn't flood", despite the fact that the property was basically on a cliff 50 feet above a small river, and wouldn't flood even in a million year flood, and it was totally obvious from their own flood maps. That was just a single small part of the idiocy. It wound up costing so much we just gave up and used a fucking storage container to store those chemicals. Much less safe, but it was all we could afford. Could have built a nice building with fire suppression and explosion proof fixtures and lighting if it hadn't been for regulators coming in and trying to triple the price of the thing along with their continual delays.
Funny part is, this was in "business friendly" Texas. Can't imagine what would have happened if we had tried to open in some place like California.
Read the book. Bad organizations will inevitably turn good people bad, unless you are inoculated against the effect with knowledge.
No, I think people are fine. It's governments and their poorly organized systems that cause things like this. Suggest you read "The Lucifer Effect". It's not just about prison guards. That same mentality has infiltrated the NSA and most other government offices.
There were a pretty good number. If only you could get the raw data from the gatekeepers.
It is, but you shouldn't overweight that data.
What? How would increasing humidity free up hydrocarbons? You think people are stopping drilling because they are afraid of AGW?
I am in no position to perform a detailed study, and would simply be blacklisted for trying. I'd never be able to get a government grant again. No thanks. Leave the politics to the many parasites.
Dat circular reasoning.
;)
You don't understand what an equilibrium is. It is not a fixed thing. Just because the human population is an equilibrium (ie people are born and people die) doesn't mean the total number can't change. It can and does go up, and it can and will go down. I don't know what to tell you if you want to DENY that
You get a 20% or so increase in maximum humidity at the levels we are talking about. That is the MAXIMUM level of humidity. It isn't always 100% humid.
CO2 doesn't cause significant warming in Earth's atmosphere, and anyone who tells you it does is just lazy and takes it on faith. 99% of the people who say that have never even looked at an IR spectrum, much less taken one much less understand how it works.
Yes, it IS a huge can of worms. Once you start the government down the road of regulating people's health, it doesn't end until you have 1984 style mandatory calisthenics every morning and computer screens screaming at you that you jack off too much and you need to go make more babies for the motherland.
Enforcing isolation is different from mandatory vaccination, which is what you called for in your original post.
Not really. The moisture holding capacity of air doesn't really increase that quickly in the temperature range we are talking about: http://www.engineeringtoolbox....
And further, human addition of water vapor is a slowly moving equilibrium that will be quickly pushed back when something "breaks" and thus causes economic damage. For example, depleting a major aquifer will lead to decreased irrigation levels which leads to an economic decline that causes roads to be torn up and emissions to be reduced do the the fact that fewer people can afford stuff made in factories.
But that's not a point, because the point of vaccination programs is to prevent pandemics, which requires slowing the spread of a disease by reducing the number of people who are vulnerable to it.
You have no idea the magnitude of the can of worms you are opening there. More like a wormhole that links to a series of universes completely filled with worms. Giant space worms with nasty sharp pointy teeth.
You are correct that unvaccinated people should live in isolation from others, but that clashes with your claim that the government should be able to force people to get vaccinated.
A better solution would be to leave it up to state or local governments to come up with such laws, perhaps based on recommendations from the Feds. Then there will almost certainly be some non-vaccine area that people can go who don't want vaccinations, and vaccine mandatory places where people can go to be safe from those diseases. Eventually, those places that allow non-vaccination will experience the higher costs and increased mortality that comes with that, and people will come to their senses or die out (or it turns out to not be that big a deal and vax-mandatory places abandon the checkpoints as they are too expensive to maintain).
In practice that would be hard to implement, though, as it would require internal checkpoints. Really this is all pretty Orwellian no matter how you look at it.
I don't think you understand the concept of criminal negligence, anon.
Further, a mutant can choose to harm someone with their powers (and registration doesn't really do anything to stop that). An unvaccinated person can get infected and spread disease without knowing it.
That said, I am REALLY REALLY REALLY uncomfortable with government lists in general. As much good as may be done by having such a list, I think we are better off without any government lists at all. If only that were a choice we could make.