Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:wars destroy wealth (Score 1) 199

Now that I know you are from Russia, I can start to understand your viewpoint. You saw the absolute worst-case scenario for how communism could turn out, so it's only natural you would embrace the exact opposite of the spectrum.

The real joke of it all is that the US is the worst-case scenario for capitalism.

All the evils you saw in communism growing up, I see those same evils in capitalism. Both systems served to enrich the powerful at the expense of the weak, the only difference was the particular lie they used.

Instead of a small group of men controlling the means of production in the name of the greater good (the communist lie) it's a small group of men doing the exact same thing in the name of individualism and self-betterment (the capitalist lie)

No system of government or economy that humans can create will ever be immune to the slow rot of corruption, the only solution is to tear it down and start over every once in a while (or wait for a war to tear it down for you, which was the whole point of the original article)

however, it is consumption of goods that were *not paid for* that causes the trade deficit.

I'm not sure you understand what a trade deficit is. It doesn't mean China sent the US stuff and the US never paid for it (like some gigantic unpaid bar tab). It just means that the US bought more stuff from China than China bought from the US, leading to a steady flow of money into China that never comes back. http://www.investopedia.com/te....

The debt that the US owes to China is a totally separate issue, where the US federal government has been constantly borrowing money from China to cover the yearly budget deficit, and is now stuck paying tons of interest on that loan because they can't even begin to pay it off.

As far as taxes being theft like you said before, a government needs money somehow. Every government in the world either collects taxes (Europe, US/Canada, etc) or confiscates natural resources such as oil and gold to sell to other countries. (Middle east and parts of Africa). There is also the 3rd option, which is to just spend nothing on government and let the warlords figure it out (parts of South America and Africa)

If you know of a way a government can pay for itself without collecting taxes or taking natural resources from the people (or simply descending into anarchy), I would love to hear your solution.

Comment Re:wars destroy wealth (Score 1) 199

Which stimulates an economy more, yachts or groceries?

- neither. The fact that you are using this logic is enough for me to know that I am dealing with somebody who has no understanding of economics, which is the point of modern 'education', to produce population that is incapable of understanding most basic things.

Yes, start with insults, that's always a good way to prove that you have the intellectual high-ground

Consumption does not stimulate the economy, production stimulates the economy. Consumption is a trivial consequence of production. A person with a million dollars stimulates the economy by investing that money into new/existing businesses to make profit, this in turn allows the business to start/expand and the productive output of that business is what stimulates the economy while providing the people working for the business with income (and unfortunately providing various levels of government with money as well through the theft of taxation).

Spending money on consumable goods is not stimulating the economy at all, it is irrelevant to the economy. Economy is all production and exchange of produced goods/services.

What happens to these goods after they have been produced and exchanged, if there is nobody to consume them.?


USA cannot stimulate the economy by any extra level of spending because it lives on borrowed money and (500 Billion / year for the last 25 years or so). This borrowing goes towards consumption of foreign produced goods, which is why it is a trade deficit.

1 man with 1 million dollars is more stimulative to the economy because that is wealth that's concentrated and actually can be used to start/run/expand a business. A million people with 1 dollar each is wealth dissipation, it will do nothing to improve the economy, it will only worsen it if the dollar came from the theft of taxation *because* it deprived the 1 man of his million.

It's consumption of non-domestic products that cause a trade deficit, not consumption by itself. You are right that if more money was available, more of it would go to China, but only a very small portion of what you pay for a Chinese-made product actually goes to the Chinese company that produced it, most of it goes to middle-man markup and shipping fees (which is money that stays in the US).

I'm curious which school YOU went to, where you were taught that taxation is theft. It would be ironic if it was a taxpayer funded public school, but judging by your disdain for public schooling, it was probably some fancy-ass private school.

Comment Re:wars destroy wealth (Score 2) 199

Having most of the wealth concentrated in a few hands is stifling to the economy. There are only so many TVs and cars and houses and food one person can buy.

Having more people with disposable income (even if there is less total wealth) is what grows an economy.

If you give 1 man 1 million dollars, he will spend it on something silly like a yacht, but give 1 million people 1 dollar, and most of them will spend it on groceries or rent.

Which stimulates an economy more, yachts or groceries?

Comment Re:The Leftists have Lost (Score 1) 199

The more forward thinking recognized, about a decade ago, that the poor weren't that poor, and that the intelligent weren't buying their bullshit power grab anymore.

Your right, those homeless people you see begging for money on the street corners are totally paid actors sponsored by the evil left. And those Detroit/NYC/Philly slums they show on TV are all movie sets.

A cardboard box is still technically a roof over their head, and the leftovers from the local dumpster is technically food, so why should they have the right to demand more?

As long as we have a nice house and a nice car, why should we care about anyone else? We got ours. /s

Comment Re:Everyone is different (Score 1) 115

If it's anything like my experiences, local anesthetic removes the feeling of pain, but doesn't remove sensation entirely, so you can still feel what the doctor is doing somewhat. Normally your only options are to either watch what they are doing, or close your eyes and try to ignore it all (or the more dangerous 3rd option, sleep through it via general anesthetic). VR fits into the second category, by both blocking hearing and vision, and by making it far easier to ignore everything going on in the outside world.

Comment Re:Half baked (Score 1) 69

Have you actually tried the vive or the rift?

If you tried one of the two, and it made you sick, especially if it was immediate sickness, then it's not the headset's fault, you are just one of the small percentage of people that simply can't handle VR (my mom is like this, she gets sick with 30 seconds). You will probably never be able to use VR in your lifetime, regardless of how far the technology advances, unless you either take medication or start building up a tolerance.

It's pretty extreme to say that VR should be banned by the government just because YOU personally don't like it.

Comment Re:I've seen it in action (Score 1) 196

A lot of places are like this now. They don't even average the score anymore, they just count the number of 5/5s or 10/10s.

Under this rating, someone who totally sucks (would get a 4/10 on average), would beat someone who is really good most of the time (8/10 average), as long as the first guy gets a few of his friends involved to generate fake 10/10 reviews.

Comment Airbus is the one to do it. (Score 1) 140

No company has more experience with computer controlled flight than Airbus. The A380 is already capable of tarmac-to-tarmac autonomous flight, treating the human pilots more as a fail-safe than as real pilots. (For example, if the human pilot tries to do something stupid, like fly upside down or intentionally crash, the autopilot is designed to fight back).

Slashdot Top Deals

Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature. -- Rich Kulawiec