Here in the US, unemployment went up by 600k jobs, to 7.6% this month. That's the most jobs lost in a single month in 40 years. By comparison, the great depression's unemployment rate was 25%.
But wait! They used a different method to measure unemployment back then!
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_da
According to that site, the unemployment, if measured by the standards we used in the great depression, is at 18%.
But wait! They used a different method to measure unemployment back then!
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_da
According to that site, the unemployment, if measured by the standards we used in the great depression, is at 18%.
Paulson: Hey Bernanke, what does the Blackberry say about the stock market level?
Bernanke: IT'S UNDER NINE-THOUSAAAAAAAAAAAND!!!! *crushes Blackberry*
Paulson: WHAT NINE-THOUSAND!
http://finance.google.com/finance?cid=9
Bernanke: IT'S UNDER NINE-THOUSAAAAAAAAAAAND!!!! *crushes Blackberry*
Paulson: WHAT NINE-THOUSAND!
http://finance.google.com/finance?cid=9
This is Zeitgeist 2. It's a "conspiracy theory" video, but like the first one very entertaining, and I don't disagree with all of it :)
It is 2 hours long, but I liked it, and you will too if you like things like this. Its central premise is fairly original to me: that corruption is not a side effect of the the monetary/economic system we live under, but that it itself is the cause of the monetary system, and that money, religion, politics, and war without their essential root cause of corruption is impossible, and that to change the world you have to get at the root cause of the problem, corruption (which broadly speaking is acting in an unfair way, a way which harms or cheat someone, in order to get personal gain or gain for one's friends or family).
If you haven't yet seen the first one, I actually think this one is superior (even though it's called "addendum"), because it's more optimistic and offers a plan for change.
A plan for the US changing to mostly renewable energy by 2020, written by an investment banker in the energy sector.
Would cost about 100 billion if you do it through wind (less than a tenth of the cost of the Iraq War), and would only involve increasing our current wind power by 30x, and would lower the cost of electricity by 30%-70%, and can be done within 12 years.
Would cost about 100 billion if you do it through wind (less than a tenth of the cost of the Iraq War), and would only involve increasing our current wind power by 30x, and would lower the cost of electricity by 30%-70%, and can be done within 12 years.
I've been re-reading Michio Kaku's book Visions. Most accounts of futurism focus on changes in technology: computers, robots, AI, genetic engineering, medicine, nanotechnology, immortality, space travel, etc. -- but as I think I've written before, there are more important aspects to futurology: political, cultural, and economic changes will be more important and interesting than mere technological changes. And trying to predict the future by focusing merely on technological progress is a bad idea, which is what the book is mostly about.
I think that's why I liked the game Alpha Centauri -- although it too focused too much on technological changes, it also dealt with a lot of social, political, and cultural changes. For instance there's a part in the game where you can "develop" intellectual integrity in your people, which is a cultural development which reduces the rationalization: confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, and the like. (I do hope that occurs because it's one of the major problems and drawbacks of our brains, even if it's a necessary side effect of how they work.)
Of course you could say that the social/political/cultural changes follow and are made necessary by scientific/technological changes, and that's true in part, but a lot of the time scientific/technological changes follow and are allowed by social/political/cultural changes. For instance, it was the social, political, and cultural conditions of the dark ages which kept science and technology from progressing very much -- technology in Europe in the Middle Ages wasn't that much more advanced than under the Roman Empire a thousand years earlier, and in many cases conditions were worse. Yet when culture changed during the Renaissance, improvements in technology, politics, and economics soon followed.
Quick thoughts on what I think will change. ( Read more... )
I think that's why I liked the game Alpha Centauri -- although it too focused too much on technological changes, it also dealt with a lot of social, political, and cultural changes. For instance there's a part in the game where you can "develop" intellectual integrity in your people, which is a cultural development which reduces the rationalization: confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, and the like. (I do hope that occurs because it's one of the major problems and drawbacks of our brains, even if it's a necessary side effect of how they work.)
Of course you could say that the social/political/cultural changes follow and are made necessary by scientific/technological changes, and that's true in part, but a lot of the time scientific/technological changes follow and are allowed by social/political/cultural changes. For instance, it was the social, political, and cultural conditions of the dark ages which kept science and technology from progressing very much -- technology in Europe in the Middle Ages wasn't that much more advanced than under the Roman Empire a thousand years earlier, and in many cases conditions were worse. Yet when culture changed during the Renaissance, improvements in technology, politics, and economics soon followed.
Quick thoughts on what I think will change. ( Read more... )
Why the US recession isn't as bad as it looks.
Points out that if you cut out the two hardest-hit areas -- housing and automobiles -- the economy has continued at a normal 2.5% growth rate, instead of the 0.9% growth rate you get if you include those two (which doesn't even hit the US population growth rate of 1.1% a year). So the problem is fairly isolated to those two. People are buying fewer houses (probably because of the housing loan crisis), and people are buying fewer cars (perhaps because working from home and public transportation is on the rise), but no other part of the economy is really slowing.
Points out that if you cut out the two hardest-hit areas -- housing and automobiles -- the economy has continued at a normal 2.5% growth rate, instead of the 0.9% growth rate you get if you include those two (which doesn't even hit the US population growth rate of 1.1% a year). So the problem is fairly isolated to those two. People are buying fewer houses (probably because of the housing loan crisis), and people are buying fewer cars (perhaps because working from home and public transportation is on the rise), but no other part of the economy is really slowing.
I still wish I had invested more in Nintendo back when I did -- the $100 that I put into it in 2004 or so is now around $600. I kind of want to sell it now and be happy with a x6 return, but I think it'll go up even more over the next year as the Wii and DS continue to outsell Sony and Microsoft.
If real life were a fantasy RPG, monetary policy and economics would be the black magic.
This is looking pretty bad.
More on the dollar: "The decline is accelerating. The USD has shed -12.5% of its value in the last year, -3.5% in the last month, and -1.5% in the last week alone."
Not yet hyperinflation (which requires a monthly inflation rate of 20% or more, not 3.5%), but getting there.
Not yet hyperinflation (which requires a monthly inflation rate of 20% or more, not 3.5%), but getting there.
One thing I noticed (both in "viral marketing" and the Ron Paul campaign) is that word of mouth is slow; extremely slow in fact, and it's a lot weaker than all those books on it would have you believe. Bits of information, traveling by word of mouth, often take a week or two to spread through a group even under the best conditions (conditions when it's an important bit of news and there is strong reason to tell others about it). Mass media is much faster and usually more powerful. It has its disadvantages: for instance it can only deal with things people know about and can't really say anything new or anything that goes against common belief, but for the most part it's more powerful.
I think this is why grassroots candidates like Paul and Kucinich, even with the internet, are at a disadvantage: word of mouth is too slow for an election, even a relatively long election where people are talking about it years before it actually happens. Media covers Clinton and Giuliani, people talk about Paul and Kucinich and tell others, but the first is much faster.
This is also why independent games are at a disadvantage to mainstream games. They may be more original and more fun a lot of the time, and they may cause people to talk about them more and tell all their friends about them more than mainstream games do, but that is still much less powerful than the cover of EGM or an entry in Joystiq or something.
There is a moderation between these two also: things like Digg or Reddit or the blogosphere are not word of mouth and they are not mass media, they have characteristics of both. They use word of mouth and user-contributions as a source of information, but use media-like ways as the output of information.
Spam is the obverse of both: it uses word-of-mouth like output (email and comments) and media-like (centrally controlled press release) input, which is why everyone hates it, it combines the worst parts of both. What's bad about spam is something that's bad about mass media too: both are centrally controlled press releases by people who are trying to sell you something. And what's bad about spam is something that's bad about word of mouth too: it doesn't communicate effectively and it's easy to ignore (how many times has someone recommended something to you and you've ignored their recommendation or put it on hold forever? It happens a lot.)
I don't think I satisfactorily understand this issue though.
I think this is why grassroots candidates like Paul and Kucinich, even with the internet, are at a disadvantage: word of mouth is too slow for an election, even a relatively long election where people are talking about it years before it actually happens. Media covers Clinton and Giuliani, people talk about Paul and Kucinich and tell others, but the first is much faster.
This is also why independent games are at a disadvantage to mainstream games. They may be more original and more fun a lot of the time, and they may cause people to talk about them more and tell all their friends about them more than mainstream games do, but that is still much less powerful than the cover of EGM or an entry in Joystiq or something.
There is a moderation between these two also: things like Digg or Reddit or the blogosphere are not word of mouth and they are not mass media, they have characteristics of both. They use word of mouth and user-contributions as a source of information, but use media-like ways as the output of information.
Spam is the obverse of both: it uses word-of-mouth like output (email and comments) and media-like (centrally controlled press release) input, which is why everyone hates it, it combines the worst parts of both. What's bad about spam is something that's bad about mass media too: both are centrally controlled press releases by people who are trying to sell you something. And what's bad about spam is something that's bad about word of mouth too: it doesn't communicate effectively and it's easy to ignore (how many times has someone recommended something to you and you've ignored their recommendation or put it on hold forever? It happens a lot.)
I don't think I satisfactorily understand this issue though.
Because the dollar is losing so much value (well, maybe not because of that, but it seems suspicious) they are now releasing a new series of $1 and $10 coins. Each of the $1 ones will have a dead president on it, all of the presidents who have been dead for more than 2 years will get one. Each of the $10 ones will have a dead president's wife; each wife will get one.
Because Jefferson had no wife (while in office), they actually have a made up one for him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jeff
Because Jefferson had no wife (while in office), they actually have a made up one for him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jeff
Recording those small video clips takes a lot of HD space; I realize that if I want to make game trailers for my games I'll need a lot more space to do it in (I only have a ~80 GB hard drive), so I ordered a 500 GB external hard drive for $99 from newegg.com. I'm amazed the price of hard drives has gone down so much recently; just last year it seemed like it was about a dollar per GB, now it's a dollar for five GB?
Especially impressive considering that the US dollar is at record lows; for instance it's at the lowest it's been compared to the Canadian dollar since the U.S. Civil War.
Especially impressive considering that the US dollar is at record lows; for instance it's at the lowest it's been compared to the Canadian dollar since the U.S. Civil War.
Farm subsidies are more sinister than I previously thought. I just looked into them, and they aren't blanket gifts of money to the agricultural industry, they're fairly detailed and specific and operate as a kind of reverse regulation: instead of penalizing certain things as normal economic regulation does, they reward certain things.
One of those things is the types of food that are rewarded: we subsidize some types of food more than others. The effect of that is to encourage farmers to grow particular types of food. Indirectly, the government then controls our diet.
These are the main things we subsidize (in order of how much money we spend on it): corn, animal feed (eventually to become meat), cotton (eventually to become clothes), wheat (to become bread), rice, soy, dairy, peanuts, sugar, oilseeds, tobacco, wool, vegetable oil. Who knows what foods would be dominant under a free market.
Second, we pay farmers not to grow things -- we pay about 1.3 billion a year to farmers for them *not* to grow any food on their land. Weirder is that even the rare "non-farmers" who don't want to accept that money and want to give the money back because they don't feel it's right to live off of not growing food are refused, they have to keep it, or else move somewhere else.
One of those things is the types of food that are rewarded: we subsidize some types of food more than others. The effect of that is to encourage farmers to grow particular types of food. Indirectly, the government then controls our diet.
These are the main things we subsidize (in order of how much money we spend on it): corn, animal feed (eventually to become meat), cotton (eventually to become clothes), wheat (to become bread), rice, soy, dairy, peanuts, sugar, oilseeds, tobacco, wool, vegetable oil. Who knows what foods would be dominant under a free market.
Second, we pay farmers not to grow things -- we pay about 1.3 billion a year to farmers for them *not* to grow any food on their land. Weirder is that even the rare "non-farmers" who don't want to accept that money and want to give the money back because they don't feel it's right to live off of not growing food are refused, they have to keep it, or else move somewhere else.
"Paul has also been an advocate of Employee-owned corporations (ESOP).[81] In 1999, he co-sponsored a bill titled The Employee Ownership Act of 1999 which would have created a new type of employee owned and controlled corporation (EOCC)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_
"The three primary characteristics of these EOCCs would have been:
* Employees would own at least 50% of all voting stock in the form of an employee trust. At least 90% percent of employees who worked more than 1000 hours a year would have to be allowed to participate in this trust.
* Employees would be allowed to vote on all corporate issues, including board elections.
* Distribution and valuation rules correspond to existing ESOP rules."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Employ
I think this is a good idea. The primary complaint about capitalism is that often the people who do the least work get the most money, and that a large segment of the population (people who have money to invest) need do no work at all. I think a big reason that's true is because it's so difficult to have an employee-owned company or corporation under current law; it has nothing to do with the free market itself, it has to do with government laws about what types of companies are allowed to exist, how corporations should be set up, and so on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_
"The three primary characteristics of these EOCCs would have been:
* Employees would own at least 50% of all voting stock in the form of an employee trust. At least 90% percent of employees who worked more than 1000 hours a year would have to be allowed to participate in this trust.
* Employees would be allowed to vote on all corporate issues, including board elections.
* Distribution and valuation rules correspond to existing ESOP rules."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Employ
I think this is a good idea. The primary complaint about capitalism is that often the people who do the least work get the most money, and that a large segment of the population (people who have money to invest) need do no work at all. I think a big reason that's true is because it's so difficult to have an employee-owned company or corporation under current law; it has nothing to do with the free market itself, it has to do with government laws about what types of companies are allowed to exist, how corporations should be set up, and so on.
One thing I don't like about Ron Paul supporters, though, is that they have the tendency to use pretty straw-men arguments. For instance, they call any politician who isn't in favor of laissez faire economics a socialist: not only Hillary Clinton is called that, but even Giuliani, McCain, Bush (??), etc. -- they're all regularly called socialists by Ron Paul supporters.
Now I'm not defending socialism exactly, but socialism does *not* simply mean government economic regulation. It doesn't even mean redistribution of wealth. Socialism is control of the workers over the means of production -- that's it! The original goal of the socialist movement was to make it so that there isn't a class of people who make a living simply by owning businesses (or investing in them) and not working.
But socialism has been expanded by people to mean any government involvement in anything. I'm a minarchist so I too want government to be as small as possible, but socialism is not another name for government involvement or big government, they're *not* synonyms by any means. There exist libertarian socialists, like Noam Chomsky, who are both socialist and in favor of limited government.
This is a general tendency though; people often criticize things they don't know about. I don't really respect anyone who criticizes a school of thought without having an intimate knowledge of its theoretical structure, it's just ideological warfare otherwise.
Now I'm not defending socialism exactly, but socialism does *not* simply mean government economic regulation. It doesn't even mean redistribution of wealth. Socialism is control of the workers over the means of production -- that's it! The original goal of the socialist movement was to make it so that there isn't a class of people who make a living simply by owning businesses (or investing in them) and not working.
But socialism has been expanded by people to mean any government involvement in anything. I'm a minarchist so I too want government to be as small as possible, but socialism is not another name for government involvement or big government, they're *not* synonyms by any means. There exist libertarian socialists, like Noam Chomsky, who are both socialist and in favor of limited government.
This is a general tendency though; people often criticize things they don't know about. I don't really respect anyone who criticizes a school of thought without having an intimate knowledge of its theoretical structure, it's just ideological warfare otherwise.
Just wanted to write a summary of my current view of economics. Most of these are arguable but I like making blanket statements once in awhile, especially when I'm too tired to nuance it. Remember this if you intend to comment.
1. Laissez faire would not lead to stronger corporations, it'd lead to weaker corporations. The main reason corporations are so strong is because of the government (through corporate lobbyists) passing laws which favor them.
2. Workers should and would own the means of production (the cornerstone of socialism) under a laissez faire system. Less government control of business would mean more control over businesses by the people who work for them and purchase from them.
3. Wage slavery is a symptom of government intrusion on the economy, not of private enterprise. The proportion of people who are paid by the hour (vs the proportion of people who freelance and own their own small business) is correlated with the amount of government regulation of the economy.
4. The government itself is a corporation, it's just one that pretends to be above the rest and has powers none should have. Being anti-big-government without being anti-big-business, or vice versa, is a contradiction (which both Communists and Objectivists make), because one would not exist without the other.
5. A monetary policy of fiat money is what allows the current situation (as opposed to what I described above), but it leads inevitably to economic collapse. It may take 100 years, but it always happens. The difference now is that virtually all currencies are fiat, which has not been the case at any previous era in history, so who knows what will happen: either they will all collapse and the world economy will return to laissez faire and recover after a 150-year depression, or it will continue indefinitely, 1984 style.
Which is better: a world of perpetual slavery and war with ever-decreasing freedom but with comfort and wealth (as we have now), or alternatively, a hundred plus years of a depression including tribal wars and poverty and disease and probably mass death and little to no wealth, but free? Who knows? "I'd rather be free and alive!" -Ron Paul
1. Laissez faire would not lead to stronger corporations, it'd lead to weaker corporations. The main reason corporations are so strong is because of the government (through corporate lobbyists) passing laws which favor them.
2. Workers should and would own the means of production (the cornerstone of socialism) under a laissez faire system. Less government control of business would mean more control over businesses by the people who work for them and purchase from them.
3. Wage slavery is a symptom of government intrusion on the economy, not of private enterprise. The proportion of people who are paid by the hour (vs the proportion of people who freelance and own their own small business) is correlated with the amount of government regulation of the economy.
4. The government itself is a corporation, it's just one that pretends to be above the rest and has powers none should have. Being anti-big-government without being anti-big-business, or vice versa, is a contradiction (which both Communists and Objectivists make), because one would not exist without the other.
5. A monetary policy of fiat money is what allows the current situation (as opposed to what I described above), but it leads inevitably to economic collapse. It may take 100 years, but it always happens. The difference now is that virtually all currencies are fiat, which has not been the case at any previous era in history, so who knows what will happen: either they will all collapse and the world economy will return to laissez faire and recover after a 150-year depression, or it will continue indefinitely, 1984 style.
Which is better: a world of perpetual slavery and war with ever-decreasing freedom but with comfort and wealth (as we have now), or alternatively, a hundred plus years of a depression including tribal wars and poverty and disease and probably mass death and little to no wealth, but free? Who knows? "I'd rather be free and alive!" -Ron Paul
This guy (who made the documentary above) is pretty talented.
I'm thinking that the public education system would work about five hundred times as well as it does now if it got rid of that textbook and chalkboard and homework nonsense and all it did was have kids watch one documentary a day.
*
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world, no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." ~Woodrow Wilson, president of the United States
"All of the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arises, not from the defects of the Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation." ~John Adams, Founding Father of the American Constitution
"The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George the III and the international bankers was the prime reason for the Revolutionary War." ~Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father of the American Constitution
"Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce...and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate." ~James A. Garfield, assassinated president of the United States
"The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of government, but it is the government’s greatest creative opportunity." ~Abraham Lincoln, assassinated president of the United States
(Note that JFK, too, was taking action against the Fed and wanted to limit its powers.)
Like 100 conspiracy theories all in one movie! I agree with about a third, a third I'm unsure of, and I don't think the other third are true.
http://zeitgeistmovie.com
If you watch it, I recommend you skip the first 8 minutes, because there's nothing but a montage of explosions and visuals which I don't think add much to it.
http://zeitgeistmovie.com
If you watch it, I recommend you skip the first 8 minutes, because there's nothing but a montage of explosions and visuals which I don't think add much to it.
Virtual-world workers (aka Chinese "gold farmers") now employ 100,000 people in China, mostly in the game World of Warcraft. These are people who play games 12 hours a day, every day of the week, and who sell the virtual items and virtual money they earn for real-world money, and live on that. On average, they earn 30 cents an hour.
By comparison, the game industry itself (mainstream, casual, and independent) doesn't even employ 100,000 people total in the world.
By comparison, the game industry itself (mainstream, casual, and independent) doesn't even employ 100,000 people total in the world.
Explains why High Fructose Corn Syrup is in basically every product in the US despite being more dangerous, more expensive to grow, and tasting worse than sugar (hint: sugar tariffs and protectionism for corn farmers): http://www.lewrockwell.com/alston/alsto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi
(03:09:40) Paul Eres: "Georgism, named after Henry George (1839-1897), is a philosophy and economic ideology that follows from the belief that everyone owns what they create, but everything supplied by nature, most importantly land, belongs equally to all humanity."
(03:09:44) Paul Eres: it's pretty simple
(03:10:04) Paul Eres: but it's interesting in that
(03:11:01) Paul Eres: it combines elements of the right (private property and laissez faire), the marxists (wage slavery, that the poor are being oppressed), and the environmentalists (all land should be owned by everyone)
(03:13:30) Paul Eres: rather
(03:13:38) Paul Eres: not that land should be owned in common, but that land cannot be owned
(03:15:31) Paul Eres: interestingly
(03:15:38) Paul Eres: his theory is basically in practise in china
(03:15:47) Paul Eres: china technically owns all the land
(03:15:54) Paul Eres: individuals can't own land there, they pay rent on it to the gov
(03:16:11) Paul Eres: and china has private property, people do keep what they create
(03:09:40) Paul Eres: "Georgism, named after Henry George (1839-1897), is a philosophy and economic ideology that follows from the belief that everyone owns what they create, but everything supplied by nature, most importantly land, belongs equally to all humanity."
(03:09:44) Paul Eres: it's pretty simple
(03:10:04) Paul Eres: but it's interesting in that
(03:11:01) Paul Eres: it combines elements of the right (private property and laissez faire), the marxists (wage slavery, that the poor are being oppressed), and the environmentalists (all land should be owned by everyone)
(03:13:30) Paul Eres: rather
(03:13:38) Paul Eres: not that land should be owned in common, but that land cannot be owned
(03:15:31) Paul Eres: interestingly
(03:15:38) Paul Eres: his theory is basically in practise in china
(03:15:47) Paul Eres: china technically owns all the land
(03:15:54) Paul Eres: individuals can't own land there, they pay rent on it to the gov
(03:16:11) Paul Eres: and china has private property, people do keep what they create
http://www.thebudgetgraph.com/view.h
Detailed chart on where all tax money goes. For instance, the State Department spends 0.7 billion a year on an Andean counter-drug initiative (mostly targeted at Columbia), whereas the money spent on natural disaster prevention and recovery (also a responsibility of that department, though there's some overlap with FEMA) totals only 0.3 billion.
Detailed chart on where all tax money goes. For instance, the State Department spends 0.7 billion a year on an Andean counter-drug initiative (mostly targeted at Columbia), whereas the money spent on natural disaster prevention and recovery (also a responsibility of that department, though there's some overlap with FEMA) totals only 0.3 billion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/busin
“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
I actually agree that the capital gains tax should be more equivalent to the salary tax, I don't see why one is so much lower than the other. A flat tax would be much better.
“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
I actually agree that the capital gains tax should be more equivalent to the salary tax, I don't see why one is so much lower than the other. A flat tax would be much better.
I came across this quote in a news story about the slower-than-average GDP growth in the US for the last quarter-year, and liked it because I noticed that it could be extended to embrace the entire optimistic mindset:
"It's a reflection of the new economy. We don't have recessions anymore. We just have growth slowdowns." -Peter Morici, professor at University of Maryland School of Business
"It's a reflection of the new economy. We don't have recessions anymore. We just have growth slowdowns." -Peter Morici, professor at University of Maryland School of Business
http://www.youtube.com/v/PHhdNEKwN50
http://www.gapminder.org/
"Arthur Rosenfeld is a former professor of physics at the University of California at Berkeley, founder of Berkeley's Center for Building Sciences, a former senior advisor to the Department of Energy on energy efficiency, and currently a California energy commissioner. He is one of the world's true experts on conservation, and in a recent study of the history of energy use, he made a rather remarkable discovery. From 1845 to the present, the amount of energy required to produce the same amount of gross national product has steadily decreased at the rate of about 1 percent per year. This is not quite as spectacular as Moore's Law of integrated circuits, but it has been tested over a longer period of time. One percent per year yields a factor of 2.7 when compounded over 100 years. It took 56 BTUs (59,000 joules) of energy consumption to produce one (1992) dollar of GNP in 1845. By 1998, the same dollar required only 12.5 BTUs (13,200 joules)."
http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/05_Conse
EDITOR'S NOTE: One food calorie is about 4 BTU's, so it takes roughly 3 food calories of energy to make a dollar of GDP.
http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/05_Conse
EDITOR'S NOTE: One food calorie is about 4 BTU's, so it takes roughly 3 food calories of energy to make a dollar of GDP.
Shortly after I wrote this comment I got a package in the mail. A few years ago I was using a wired mechanical mouse, the kind with that ball that you need to take out and clean periodically. For the last eight months I've been using an optical mouse that ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
konami bought me for a Human Day gift. And... now! I bought a wireless optical mouse (non-rechargable type, uses 2 AA batteries) and it's wonderful. What's even better is that each one cost less than the one before it (I got this one off of ebay, but still). DIE THANATOS DIE
konami bought me for a Human Day gift. And... now! I bought a wireless optical mouse (non-rechargable type, uses 2 AA batteries) and it's wonderful. What's even better is that each one cost less than the one before it (I got this one off of ebay, but still). DIE THANATOS DIEThis is from a comment I posted in bastardzero, in reply him saying he won't see his movies as successful unless he hears something like "I used to be a suicidal hedonite but this movie set me straight. Now I'm a successful lawyer, vigilante and bounty hunter specializing in the protection of artist's rights and abolishing censorship, and once I've accomplished that, I'll move on to the next great battle!"
That'd be good, but you're not going to get that kind of reaction on your first movie, really. I mean, even all SoJ visibly did was improve the motivation and desire to do great things in who played it, and usually only temporarily, but that was enough.
So I suggest you begin with changing small aspects of a person. Not his career, but perhaps how he spends his time. Think of art as a way to do what you normally do with your friends, but to a larger audience, but at the cost of a less important effect on them. With a friend, you might have the effect you describe -- a change in career, a change from hedonist to noble, but even then, that's rare. I've changed a few people that I know, such as you (compare yourself on the Zantetsuken MB to how you are now), but it hasn't been as great as the example you describe (similar in type, but still not as great, not similar in strength). And I recognize that my art will have about 10 to 100 times less impact on a person's life than my friendship would have. So think of art as "a little bit of friendship with someone you'll never meet", and aim for small changes in a person. Not a complete renunciation of being a hedonist, but perhaps a change from spending 2 hours masturbating each day to spending 1 hour instead. Not a change in career from McDonald's to Bounty Hunter, but perhaps a change in career from WalMart to Costco. Not a change from being an overweight slob to running a marathon, but a change from exercising never to exercising once a week.
You might be thinking "what's Rinku thinking, to aim this low??" but this isn't low. Because add it up: if your artwork affects 10,000 people, and your friendship affects 10, and your artwork has 100x as weak of an effect as your friendship, you are still doing more good with your art than with your friendship.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I recognize that the purpose of art is not to altruistically help the people who consume it, nor is it to give advice. This is an analogy only. It was in the context of a rebuttal to the idea that an artwork isn't successful / has no value unless it has a drastic, long-term effect on someone.
bastardzero, in reply him saying he won't see his movies as successful unless he hears something like "I used to be a suicidal hedonite but this movie set me straight. Now I'm a successful lawyer, vigilante and bounty hunter specializing in the protection of artist's rights and abolishing censorship, and once I've accomplished that, I'll move on to the next great battle!"That'd be good, but you're not going to get that kind of reaction on your first movie, really. I mean, even all SoJ visibly did was improve the motivation and desire to do great things in who played it, and usually only temporarily, but that was enough.
So I suggest you begin with changing small aspects of a person. Not his career, but perhaps how he spends his time. Think of art as a way to do what you normally do with your friends, but to a larger audience, but at the cost of a less important effect on them. With a friend, you might have the effect you describe -- a change in career, a change from hedonist to noble, but even then, that's rare. I've changed a few people that I know, such as you (compare yourself on the Zantetsuken MB to how you are now), but it hasn't been as great as the example you describe (similar in type, but still not as great, not similar in strength). And I recognize that my art will have about 10 to 100 times less impact on a person's life than my friendship would have. So think of art as "a little bit of friendship with someone you'll never meet", and aim for small changes in a person. Not a complete renunciation of being a hedonist, but perhaps a change from spending 2 hours masturbating each day to spending 1 hour instead. Not a change in career from McDonald's to Bounty Hunter, but perhaps a change in career from WalMart to Costco. Not a change from being an overweight slob to running a marathon, but a change from exercising never to exercising once a week.
You might be thinking "what's Rinku thinking, to aim this low??" but this isn't low. Because add it up: if your artwork affects 10,000 people, and your friendship affects 10, and your artwork has 100x as weak of an effect as your friendship, you are still doing more good with your art than with your friendship.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I recognize that the purpose of art is not to altruistically help the people who consume it, nor is it to give advice. This is an analogy only. It was in the context of a rebuttal to the idea that an artwork isn't successful / has no value unless it has a drastic, long-term effect on someone.
(09:04:59) Atheism: Corporations actually aren't as naive as I initially anticipated
(09:05:09) Paul Eres: yes
(09:05:10) Atheism: At least, those who gain massive political power
(09:05:12) Paul Eres: nor as homogenous
(09:05:31) Paul Eres: different industries have different interests
(09:05:33) Paul Eres: for example
(09:05:58) Paul Eres: the drug companies have very different interests than the life insurance companies
(09:06:08) Paul Eres: life insurance companies have an interest in extending human life
(09:06:14) Paul Eres: whereas drug companies [and processed foods companies] have an interest in shortening it
(09:06:37) Paul Eres: the more diseases people suffer from, the more drugs they will buy
(09:06:58) Paul Eres: so vitamin and medical prevention and cure groups are often supported by life insurance companies
(09:07:32) Paul Eres: another example is a larger conflict
(09:07:45) Paul Eres: between 'sin' type corporations and 'technology' type
(09:08:02) Paul Eres: i.e. prostutition, illegal drugs, pornography, arms traders, tobacco, alcohol companies
(09:08:10) Paul Eres: are allied together
(09:08:23) Paul Eres: and desire humans to become more degenerate in general
(09:08:31) Paul Eres: whereas corporations like microsoft, google, ebay, amazon.com
(09:08:38) Paul Eres: desire humans to become more educated
(09:08:58) Paul Eres: to buy more books, spend more time researching information, etc.
(09:09:14) Atheism: You're not implying a dualism between ethical activity and intellectual activity are you?
(09:09:22) Paul Eres: hahaha
(09:09:26) Paul Eres: yes and no
(09:09:41) Paul Eres: there are exceptions
(09:09:43) Paul Eres: like ubermensch
(09:09:57) Atheism: I know of plenty very exceptional intellectuals that manage both equally
(09:10:00) Paul Eres: haha
(09:10:10) Paul Eres: yes, but exceptional
(09:11:17) Paul Eres: anyway, my point is that people often see corporations as this mass of allied power elite
(09:11:24) Paul Eres: but their interests more often conflict than correspond
*
ADDENDUM from an email to quarkysoul in response to an email about this entry:
I'm thinking of the profit from the number of new customers a drug
company would get by increasing the prevalence of diseases which drugs
must be taken for. I'm not saying it's in the drug companies'
interests to shorten the lives of their customers of course. I meant
that it is in their interest to increase the number of people who
suffer from diseases which are treated by drugs and decrease the
number of (percieved) treatments which are not drugs, and to decrease
disease prevention. Of course they want the people on their drugs to
live as long as possible, but they want the people who don't need
drugs to get diseases which will shorten their lives.
If drug companies cared about curing diseases (which is what they
claim to care about), wouldn't they look into non-drug cures and into
prevention as well? Those can't be as easily marketed, but it'd work
much better if the goal is to fight disease. Instead they suppress
information on non-drug cures; for example, by sponsoring studies
showing that vitamins or medicinal herbs are dangerous or useless, by
lobbying to reduce the % RDA's the FDA recommends (which are way too
low as it is), etc.
Also, each year about as many people die from the side effects of
drugs as from cancer or as from heart disease, according to a paper I
posted in LJ a week or two ago which you could find by checking
through it (if you can't find it email me and I'll look).
Anyway, I'm not saying that drug companies are totally anti-health --
they did help eradicate smallpox for example (although they weren't
the only ones involved with that), but consider that the amount and
number of drugs prescribed has gone up many factors over the past few
decades, as have drug company profits (of the Fortune 500 companies,
the 10 drug companies in it make more money than all the other 490
Fortune 500 companies combined!), and yet life expectancy has actually
slightly dropped over those years.
(09:05:09) Paul Eres: yes
(09:05:10) Atheism: At least, those who gain massive political power
(09:05:12) Paul Eres: nor as homogenous
(09:05:31) Paul Eres: different industries have different interests
(09:05:33) Paul Eres: for example
(09:05:58) Paul Eres: the drug companies have very different interests than the life insurance companies
(09:06:08) Paul Eres: life insurance companies have an interest in extending human life
(09:06:14) Paul Eres: whereas drug companies [and processed foods companies] have an interest in shortening it
(09:06:37) Paul Eres: the more diseases people suffer from, the more drugs they will buy
(09:06:58) Paul Eres: so vitamin and medical prevention and cure groups are often supported by life insurance companies
(09:07:32) Paul Eres: another example is a larger conflict
(09:07:45) Paul Eres: between 'sin' type corporations and 'technology' type
(09:08:02) Paul Eres: i.e. prostutition, illegal drugs, pornography, arms traders, tobacco, alcohol companies
(09:08:10) Paul Eres: are allied together
(09:08:23) Paul Eres: and desire humans to become more degenerate in general
(09:08:31) Paul Eres: whereas corporations like microsoft, google, ebay, amazon.com
(09:08:38) Paul Eres: desire humans to become more educated
(09:08:58) Paul Eres: to buy more books, spend more time researching information, etc.
(09:09:14) Atheism: You're not implying a dualism between ethical activity and intellectual activity are you?
(09:09:22) Paul Eres: hahaha
(09:09:26) Paul Eres: yes and no
(09:09:41) Paul Eres: there are exceptions
(09:09:43) Paul Eres: like ubermensch
(09:09:57) Atheism: I know of plenty very exceptional intellectuals that manage both equally
(09:10:00) Paul Eres: haha
(09:10:10) Paul Eres: yes, but exceptional
(09:11:17) Paul Eres: anyway, my point is that people often see corporations as this mass of allied power elite
(09:11:24) Paul Eres: but their interests more often conflict than correspond
*
ADDENDUM from an email to quarkysoul in response to an email about this entry:
I'm thinking of the profit from the number of new customers a drug
company would get by increasing the prevalence of diseases which drugs
must be taken for. I'm not saying it's in the drug companies'
interests to shorten the lives of their customers of course. I meant
that it is in their interest to increase the number of people who
suffer from diseases which are treated by drugs and decrease the
number of (percieved) treatments which are not drugs, and to decrease
disease prevention. Of course they want the people on their drugs to
live as long as possible, but they want the people who don't need
drugs to get diseases which will shorten their lives.
If drug companies cared about curing diseases (which is what they
claim to care about), wouldn't they look into non-drug cures and into
prevention as well? Those can't be as easily marketed, but it'd work
much better if the goal is to fight disease. Instead they suppress
information on non-drug cures; for example, by sponsoring studies
showing that vitamins or medicinal herbs are dangerous or useless, by
lobbying to reduce the % RDA's the FDA recommends (which are way too
low as it is), etc.
Also, each year about as many people die from the side effects of
drugs as from cancer or as from heart disease, according to a paper I
posted in LJ a week or two ago which you could find by checking
through it (if you can't find it email me and I'll look).
Anyway, I'm not saying that drug companies are totally anti-health --
they did help eradicate smallpox for example (although they weren't
the only ones involved with that), but consider that the amount and
number of drugs prescribed has gone up many factors over the past few
decades, as have drug company profits (of the Fortune 500 companies,
the 10 drug companies in it make more money than all the other 490
Fortune 500 companies combined!), and yet life expectancy has actually
slightly dropped over those years.
From two comments I wrote in aynrandforum:
"
I'm against all taxes, however I believe the death tax to be a more benign form of tax than other taxes. Basically my ranking goes like this: (in order from most evil tax to least evil tax)
Social security tax
Income taxes and corporation taxes
Taxes on the sales of specific products, excises
Sales tax and capital gains tax
Tariffs
Property taxes
Inheritance (death) tax
If we can reduce the ones first in the list by increasing the ones latter in the list (so that the overall tax remains the same but its means of collection changes) that's a positive step. The reason being that, if the government has to tax at all, it's better for the economy to be taxed in certain ways rather than other ways, to keep the system as laissez faire as possible. Taxing certain products and not taxing other products is less laissez faire than taxing all products equally with a sales tax. And taxing someone at their death harms them less than taxing them during their life or when they're born.
"
"
I don't think it technically harms someone to tax them after their death. They're dead, they can't be hurt anymore. It harms the people who that person names in his or her will, and even in those cases, it's not taking money they earned or own away from them, it's taking money they would have recieved as a free gift away from them.
"
"
I'm against all taxes, however I believe the death tax to be a more benign form of tax than other taxes. Basically my ranking goes like this: (in order from most evil tax to least evil tax)
Social security tax
Income taxes and corporation taxes
Taxes on the sales of specific products, excises
Sales tax and capital gains tax
Tariffs
Property taxes
Inheritance (death) tax
If we can reduce the ones first in the list by increasing the ones latter in the list (so that the overall tax remains the same but its means of collection changes) that's a positive step. The reason being that, if the government has to tax at all, it's better for the economy to be taxed in certain ways rather than other ways, to keep the system as laissez faire as possible. Taxing certain products and not taxing other products is less laissez faire than taxing all products equally with a sales tax. And taxing someone at their death harms them less than taxing them during their life or when they're born.
"
"
I don't think it technically harms someone to tax them after their death. They're dead, they can't be hurt anymore. It harms the people who that person names in his or her will, and even in those cases, it's not taking money they earned or own away from them, it's taking money they would have recieved as a free gift away from them.
"
Most of you have probably heard this, but Warren Buffett just gave away about 44 billion dollars -- almost all of his wealth -- to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, making this the single largest gift to charity in earth's history. Buffett was (until that day, obviously) the second-richest person in the world. Bill Gates, the richest person in the world, has given more than half of his money to charity as well.
A lot of Objectivists and Noble Hedonists (though not all) are probably against the rich giving most of their wealth away to charity, but I personally am not: I, and they, see giving to charity as an "investment in the world" -- you invest in the world itself and it will increase the value of the world for the giver in the long run. It's the ultimate purchase. You are trading money for an increased world development. It's much more self-interested and rational to spend money on making the world a place of value than it is to just save the money or spend it on luxuries and vacations for family and friends or whatever it is non-charitiable rich people do with their money.
You can see an interview with all three of them (Buffett and Bill and Melinda Gates) by Charlie Rose at http://video.google.com/videoplay?d
A lot of Objectivists and Noble Hedonists (though not all) are probably against the rich giving most of their wealth away to charity, but I personally am not: I, and they, see giving to charity as an "investment in the world" -- you invest in the world itself and it will increase the value of the world for the giver in the long run. It's the ultimate purchase. You are trading money for an increased world development. It's much more self-interested and rational to spend money on making the world a place of value than it is to just save the money or spend it on luxuries and vacations for family and friends or whatever it is non-charitiable rich people do with their money.
You can see an interview with all three of them (Buffett and Bill and Melinda Gates) by Charlie Rose at http://video.google.com/videoplay?d
Genius invents best car in the world just after World War 2, including many innovations such as the seat belt and a third headlight, called the CYCLOPS, which turns with you as you turn the car. Other car companies, scared that his car is cheaper, safer, faster, more reliable, longer-lasting, and just plain better than their cars, get the government to arrest him on trumped up charges and seize his factory. He died of cancer soon after. Only 47 of his cars were ever built, but all of those are still in working condition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Tu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Tucke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker:_Th
Tucker wasn't the only one who suffered. It's estimated that the number of people who died in automobile crashes which could have been prevented, if the government had not destroyed his factory, and if his cars had been as successful as the other car companies feared, is in the hundreds of thousands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Tu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Tucke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker:_Th
Tucker wasn't the only one who suffered. It's estimated that the number of people who died in automobile crashes which could have been prevented, if the government had not destroyed his factory, and if his cars had been as successful as the other car companies feared, is in the hundreds of thousands.
Found via One Small Voice. According to January 2006 report on The Role of Metro Areas in the U.S. Economy...
Compare these numbers -- these are gross domestic product / gross metropolitan product. Here are some of the more interesting contrasts.
New York, USA -- $901 billion
vs.
Canada -- $991 billion
Los Angeles, USA -- $703 billion
vs.
India -- $700 billion
Chicago, USA -- $392 billion
vs.
Switzerland -- $358 billion
San Francisco, USA -- $296 billion
vs.
Austria -- $294 billion
Washington D.C., USA -- $276 billion
vs.
Indonesia -- $258 billion
Dallas, USA -- $256 billion
vs.
Norway -- $254 billion
Philadelphia, USA -- $253 billion
vs.
Poland -- $252 billion
Boston, USA -- $233 billion
vs.
South Africa -- $215 billion
Houston, USA -- $214 billion
vs.
Greece -- $204 billion
Atlanta, USA -- $198 billion
vs.
Finland -- $185 billion
Miami, USA -- $184 billion
vs.
Ireland -- $184 billion
Detroit, USA -- $176 billion
vs.
Portugal -- $175 billion
Phoenix, USA -- $140 billion
vs.
Israel -- $116 billion
Compare these numbers -- these are gross domestic product / gross metropolitan product. Here are some of the more interesting contrasts.
New York, USA -- $901 billion
vs.
Canada -- $991 billion
Los Angeles, USA -- $703 billion
vs.
India -- $700 billion
Chicago, USA -- $392 billion
vs.
Switzerland -- $358 billion
San Francisco, USA -- $296 billion
vs.
Austria -- $294 billion
Washington D.C., USA -- $276 billion
vs.
Indonesia -- $258 billion
Dallas, USA -- $256 billion
vs.
Norway -- $254 billion
Philadelphia, USA -- $253 billion
vs.
Poland -- $252 billion
Boston, USA -- $233 billion
vs.
South Africa -- $215 billion
Houston, USA -- $214 billion
vs.
Greece -- $204 billion
Atlanta, USA -- $198 billion
vs.
Finland -- $185 billion
Miami, USA -- $184 billion
vs.
Ireland -- $184 billion
Detroit, USA -- $176 billion
vs.
Portugal -- $175 billion
Phoenix, USA -- $140 billion
vs.
Israel -- $116 billion
Here are (without further explanation) a few comments that I've posted recently in LJ and want to save, because I've not expressed these ideas in LJ before.
*
An interesting thing about porn that I've recently discovered is that it basically *didn't exist* in the 60s and early 70s. I mean the entire industry didn't exist, there were of course the odd pornographic novel and video here and there, but there were no porn shops, no porn companies, no porn actors/actresses, no porn magazines, no porn publishing houses, and so on. It's a very new industry, and today it's one of the top five industries in the world in terms of earnings (the other four are oil, recreational drugs, medical drugs, and the arms trade).
*
I don't really think voting in general is a good idea (the best presidents were almost never very popular during their presidency, for example, and the worst presidents were sometimes very popular), so I wouldn't use that system if I had to build a country myself. I suspect voting should be used for two things, and only those two things: electing local officials (mayors and city councils, who would then elect higher officials), and constitutional ammendment.
The reason for the locality is that if you *never meet* someone, as most people who vote for their governor, senators, house members, presidents, etc., never meet those people, you are merely going on media propoganda and hearsay, you are not and can not be going on actual knowledge of a person. In other words, I don't think anybody should vote for someone they don't personally know, because knowledge of others is very limited when you don't know someone personally.
*
One can unconsciously deliberate. For example, when you are talking or writing (such as when you are teaching a class), your word choice is almost totally unconscious. You do not fully deliberate over what word to use for every single word you say, your unconscious decides which word you will use, and it uses delibration, and it chooses from alternatives.
Likewise, when you are eating -- let's say you're eating some grapes. You don't consciously decide which grape you will eat next, your unconscious decides. There is some deliberation, it is choosing from alternatives and selecting the best one (based on automatic rules, such as which one looks the nicest, which is the closest to your hand, and so on). Likewise, when you are combing your hair, you don't consciously decide exactly where each stroke will fall, your unconscious delibrates and then makes a decision about it.
*
No, the justificatin for immigration is not economic nor is it ethical, and it makes no sense to talk of a "justification" for immigration in any case. The point is simply that if you send all illegal immigrants back to their countries of origin, it would not only be unethical (you'd be sending people back into slave labor camps in many cases) it would be self-destructive (the economy would collapse). This is not, however, a justification.
*
Implied in the idea of award is that there are others who also recieved the award. That's why I don't like awards -- by definition, someone has already done something about as good as what you did, and also by definition, the person or people giving out the awards are recognized as being able to judge the best at something -- implying they are better. For example, a professor who claims that you are the best student they've ever had is not saying you are better than they themselves.
*
The difference between what you call good people and bad people is simply in a) how much they desire life / alertness / activity vs. how much they desire death / sleep / passivity, b) how long-term vs. short term thinking they are (which related to how capable they are of abstract thought and how strong their imagination is and how ends-oriented they are vs. means-oriented they are), and c) how strongly they've been attacked by mind-control environmental factors, such as the education system and so on. But it's a mistake to call the masses evil; they are not, they are simply weak and stupid, which although that overlaps evil, is not exactly the same thing. As for whether they were determined to be the way they are, yes, but they were determined to be the way they based on many factors, including their own choices.
*
Whether determinism is true or not has absolutely no effect on morality. Being heroic means doing heroic acts and making heroic choices, both of which would be possible under either determinism or free will. You still don't seem to understand that just because a choice had to happen does not mean that it was not a choice. I don't know how many other ways to say it or how else I can clearly express it. Determinism simply means that you could not have chosen otherwise, it does *not* mean that you did not consciously choose what you thought best. And it's true that your behavior had to happen, but it had to happen *because* the person chose what they did. A person is still fully responsible for his choices, even if those choices could not metaphysically have been other than they were. Thus, one can still praise or blame a person for his choices, because he was responsible for them and chose them.
*
I also want to save this study: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/h
*
An interesting thing about porn that I've recently discovered is that it basically *didn't exist* in the 60s and early 70s. I mean the entire industry didn't exist, there were of course the odd pornographic novel and video here and there, but there were no porn shops, no porn companies, no porn actors/actresses, no porn magazines, no porn publishing houses, and so on. It's a very new industry, and today it's one of the top five industries in the world in terms of earnings (the other four are oil, recreational drugs, medical drugs, and the arms trade).
*
I don't really think voting in general is a good idea (the best presidents were almost never very popular during their presidency, for example, and the worst presidents were sometimes very popular), so I wouldn't use that system if I had to build a country myself. I suspect voting should be used for two things, and only those two things: electing local officials (mayors and city councils, who would then elect higher officials), and constitutional ammendment.
The reason for the locality is that if you *never meet* someone, as most people who vote for their governor, senators, house members, presidents, etc., never meet those people, you are merely going on media propoganda and hearsay, you are not and can not be going on actual knowledge of a person. In other words, I don't think anybody should vote for someone they don't personally know, because knowledge of others is very limited when you don't know someone personally.
*
One can unconsciously deliberate. For example, when you are talking or writing (such as when you are teaching a class), your word choice is almost totally unconscious. You do not fully deliberate over what word to use for every single word you say, your unconscious decides which word you will use, and it uses delibration, and it chooses from alternatives.
Likewise, when you are eating -- let's say you're eating some grapes. You don't consciously decide which grape you will eat next, your unconscious decides. There is some deliberation, it is choosing from alternatives and selecting the best one (based on automatic rules, such as which one looks the nicest, which is the closest to your hand, and so on). Likewise, when you are combing your hair, you don't consciously decide exactly where each stroke will fall, your unconscious delibrates and then makes a decision about it.
*
No, the justificatin for immigration is not economic nor is it ethical, and it makes no sense to talk of a "justification" for immigration in any case. The point is simply that if you send all illegal immigrants back to their countries of origin, it would not only be unethical (you'd be sending people back into slave labor camps in many cases) it would be self-destructive (the economy would collapse). This is not, however, a justification.
*
Implied in the idea of award is that there are others who also recieved the award. That's why I don't like awards -- by definition, someone has already done something about as good as what you did, and also by definition, the person or people giving out the awards are recognized as being able to judge the best at something -- implying they are better. For example, a professor who claims that you are the best student they've ever had is not saying you are better than they themselves.
*
The difference between what you call good people and bad people is simply in a) how much they desire life / alertness / activity vs. how much they desire death / sleep / passivity, b) how long-term vs. short term thinking they are (which related to how capable they are of abstract thought and how strong their imagination is and how ends-oriented they are vs. means-oriented they are), and c) how strongly they've been attacked by mind-control environmental factors, such as the education system and so on. But it's a mistake to call the masses evil; they are not, they are simply weak and stupid, which although that overlaps evil, is not exactly the same thing. As for whether they were determined to be the way they are, yes, but they were determined to be the way they based on many factors, including their own choices.
*
Whether determinism is true or not has absolutely no effect on morality. Being heroic means doing heroic acts and making heroic choices, both of which would be possible under either determinism or free will. You still don't seem to understand that just because a choice had to happen does not mean that it was not a choice. I don't know how many other ways to say it or how else I can clearly express it. Determinism simply means that you could not have chosen otherwise, it does *not* mean that you did not consciously choose what you thought best. And it's true that your behavior had to happen, but it had to happen *because* the person chose what they did. A person is still fully responsible for his choices, even if those choices could not metaphysically have been other than they were. Thus, one can still praise or blame a person for his choices, because he was responsible for them and chose them.
*
I also want to save this study: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/h
* Urban and suburban high schools are virtually identical in terms of widespread sexual activity. Two thirds of all suburban and urban 12th graders have had sex; 43% of suburban 12th graders and 39% of urban 12th graders have had sex with a person with whom they did not have a romantic relationship.
* Pregnancy rates are high in both suburban and urban schools, although they are higher in urban schools; 14% of suburban 12th grade girls and 20% of urban 12th grade girls have been pregnant.
* Over 60% of suburban 12th graders have tried cigarette smoking, compared to 54% of urban 12th graders; 37% of suburban 12th graders have smoked at least once a day for at least 30 days, compared to 30% of urban 12th graders.
* Alcohol use followed a similar pattern; 74% of suburban 12th graders and 71% of urban 12th graders have tried alcohol more than two or three times; 63% of suburban 12th graders and 57% of urban 12th graders drink without family members present; 22% of suburban 12th graders and 16% of urban 12th graders have driven while drunk.
* About four out of ten 12th graders in both urban and suburban schools have used illegal drugs; 20% of suburban 12th graders and 13% of urban 12th graders have driven while high on drugs.
* Urban and suburban students are about equally likely to engage in other delinquent behaviors such as fighting and stealing.
I've always looked at the ducks as caricatured human beings. In rereading the stories, I realized that I had gotten kind of deep in some of them: there was philosophy in there that I hadn't realized I was putting in. It was an added feature that went along with the stories. I think a lot of the philosophy in my stories is conservative—conservative in the sense that I feel our civilization peaked around 1910. Since then we've been going downhill. Much of the older culture had basic qualities that the new stuff we keep hatching can never match.
Look at the magnificent cathedrals and palaces that were built. Nobody can build that sort of thing nowadays. Also, I believe that we should preserve many old ideals and methods of working: honor, honesty, allowing other people to believe in their own ideas, not trying to force everyone into one form. The thing I have against the present political system is that it tries to make everybody exactly alike. We should have a million different patterns.
They say that wealthy people like the Vanderbilts and Rockefellers are sinful because they accumulated fortunes by exploiting the poor. I feel that everybody should be able to rise as high as they can or want to, provided they don't kill anybody or actually oppress other people on the way up. A little exploitation is something you come by in nature. We see it in the pecking order of animals—everybody has to be exploited or to exploit someone else to a certain extent. I don't resent those things.
-Carl Barks, creator of Scrooge McDuck
I read a bit about Steve Jobs today -- the founder of Apple and Pixar, and the largest single stockholder of Disney.
In some ways he's impressive, but in most ways I was disappointed. He apparently cheated his partner Steve Wozniak (who I like much more) out of 4000$ or so while the two of them were working on a game (Breakout) at Atari. He also believes the greatest invention of life is death, and that we should aim to be foolish and hungry, and that the journey is an end in itself (in other words, that winning doesn't matter). He also reportedly slept with someone solely because that person slept with Bob Dylon, and is known for throwing temper tantrums when disagreed with.
Yet he's created some very great things; although he didn't personally create anything (seems he's not really the engineer, inventor, or director of anything himself), he helped bring the Macintosh, the iPod, Toy Story, etc., into the world. He also believes that one should do the work one loves, and he's quite individualist and ideosyncratic.
So, my verdict is he's not a totally evil person, but he's definately not beyond reproach. The stealing from his partner is what really bothers me, and sure, he was in his early 20s at the time and "everyone makes mistakes" (hah), but, really! Not to sound likenewedition, but I think the reason that Apple hasn't been as successful as PC/Windows is that Jobs is less personally moral than Gates is.
Here's a treat for you guys, Apple's 1984 commercial, wonderfully well-done, which introduced the Macintosh and was played during the 1984 Superbowl: http://youtube.com/watch?v=d29mff8mEeo
In some ways he's impressive, but in most ways I was disappointed. He apparently cheated his partner Steve Wozniak (who I like much more) out of 4000$ or so while the two of them were working on a game (Breakout) at Atari. He also believes the greatest invention of life is death, and that we should aim to be foolish and hungry, and that the journey is an end in itself (in other words, that winning doesn't matter). He also reportedly slept with someone solely because that person slept with Bob Dylon, and is known for throwing temper tantrums when disagreed with.
Yet he's created some very great things; although he didn't personally create anything (seems he's not really the engineer, inventor, or director of anything himself), he helped bring the Macintosh, the iPod, Toy Story, etc., into the world. He also believes that one should do the work one loves, and he's quite individualist and ideosyncratic.
So, my verdict is he's not a totally evil person, but he's definately not beyond reproach. The stealing from his partner is what really bothers me, and sure, he was in his early 20s at the time and "everyone makes mistakes" (hah), but, really! Not to sound like
newedition, but I think the reason that Apple hasn't been as successful as PC/Windows is that Jobs is less personally moral than Gates is.Here's a treat for you guys, Apple's 1984 commercial, wonderfully well-done, which introduced the Macintosh and was played during the 1984 Superbowl: http://youtube.com/watch?v=d29mff8mEeo
I've never heard of this company/store but it sounds great. It could be a Walmart killer!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costco
Remember newedition's idea that we should only shop from virtuous places? Everyone who agrees with that should buy from Costco; it also has an online store if there isn't one local to you. See also this New York Times article: How Costco Became the Anti-Wal-Mart -- it further shows how great this company (and the individual who runs it) is.
Costco is able to charge sometimes astonishingly low prices by keeping overhead low, returning savings to consumers. In fact, many senior executives, including Costco's CEO, use office furniture that was purchased from the Boeing Company when Costco was started. Costco doesn't have a public relations department either, believing it is unnecessary. The corporate jet is not used unless it is filled to capacity. The company's warehouses are sparsely decorated, with the exception of colorful marketing banners. Most products are delivered to the store on shipping pallets, and the pallets are used to display products for sale on the retail floor. This contrasts with other retailers who take the additional trouble to break down pallets and stock individual products on shelves.
Costco concentrates more on overall value than the lowest possible price for its product range. Many of the products it stocks are high quality at a reasonable cost instead of inferior quality at a low price.
Costco is noted for providing full benefits and comparatively generous compensation to its employees. For instance, a cashier with four years of experience can earn more than $40,000 with full benefits, including medical, dental, Rx, disability, and life, and is even entitled to participate in a 401k program and purchase stock options.
Wall Street analyst Bill Dreher of Deutsche Bank criticized Mr. Sinegal in 2004, saying "it's better to be an employee or a customer than a shareholder." Sinegal counters that good wages and benefits more than pay for themselves by holding down employee turnover, reducing employee theft and by appealing to a certain percentage of affluent customers who appreciate that the low prices do not come at the workers' expense.
Costco has a very generous product return policy that allows customers to return most products indefinitely. Unlike other stores, Costco allows returns of opened media.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costco
Remember newedition's idea that we should only shop from virtuous places? Everyone who agrees with that should buy from Costco; it also has an online store if there isn't one local to you. See also this New York Times article: How Costco Became the Anti-Wal-Mart -- it further shows how great this company (and the individual who runs it) is.
Mr. Sinegal, whose father was a coal miner and steelworker, gave a simple explanation. "On Wall Street, they're in the business of making money between now and next Thursday," he said. "I don't say that with any bitterness, but we can't take that view. We want to build a company that will still be here 50 and 60 years from now."
"This is not altruistic," he said. "This is good business."
Costco's stock price has risen more than 10 percent in the last 12 months, while Wal-Mart's has slipped 5 percent. Costco shares sell for almost 23 times expected earnings; at Wal-Mart the multiple is about 19.
Mr. Sinegal, who is 69 but looks a decade younger, also delights in not tilting Costco too far into cheap merchandise, even at his warehouse stores. He loves the idea of the "treasure hunt" - occasional, temporary specials on exotic cheeses, Coach bags, plasma screen televisions, Waterford crystal, French wine and $5,000 necklaces - scattered among staples like toilet paper by the case and institutional-size jars of mayonnaise.
The treasure hunts, Mr. Sinegal says, create a sense of excitement and customer loyalty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segmented_
Interesting -- I now suspect that segmented sleep (not polyphasic and not the normal one-period sleep thing) is the natural way humans sleep; this says that segmented provides superior wakefulness than single periods of sleep. This pattern -- sleeping twice per day -- was common in the middle ages in Europe and is still common in much of the world.
Notice how one-period sleep is only really prevalent in industrialized nations -- that is, nations which have a work day. Also notice how segmented sleep, and polyphasic sleep, when they occur in industralized nations are often made out to be a disease: insomnia. Now I'm the last person who'd make a socialist argument, but I believe this has a lot to do with the employment structure most corporations favor. This is not something necessary to capitalism however, a capitalism of self-employed freelance workers would be work much better than what we have now.
Interesting -- I now suspect that segmented sleep (not polyphasic and not the normal one-period sleep thing) is the natural way humans sleep; this says that segmented provides superior wakefulness than single periods of sleep. This pattern -- sleeping twice per day -- was common in the middle ages in Europe and is still common in much of the world.
Notice how one-period sleep is only really prevalent in industrialized nations -- that is, nations which have a work day. Also notice how segmented sleep, and polyphasic sleep, when they occur in industralized nations are often made out to be a disease: insomnia. Now I'm the last person who'd make a socialist argument, but I believe this has a lot to do with the employment structure most corporations favor. This is not something necessary to capitalism however, a capitalism of self-employed freelance workers would be work much better than what we have now.
from http://news.com.com/2100-1040-823260.ht
Most MMORPGs have a free-market economy; it's funny that free markets are so powerful that even fake ones in videogames generate more money per person than the economies of non-free-market countries.
EDIT: Virtual home sold for $100,000 in real money.
Based on a review of thousands of completed auctions for "EverQuest" items and in-game currency, Castronova concluded that players earn an average wage of $3.42 for every hour they play the game and collectively produce annual gross "exports" of more than $5 million.
And if the "EverQuest" universe of Norrath were a country, its per-capita gross national product would be $2,266--comparable to the 77th richest country on Earth and ranking it between Russia and Bulgaria. Platinum pieces, the in-game currency known as pp, end up with an exchange rate of about a penny per pp, making "EverQuest" currency more valuable than the Japanese yen and the Spanish peseta.
Most MMORPGs have a free-market economy; it's funny that free markets are so powerful that even fake ones in videogames generate more money per person than the economies of non-free-market countries.
EDIT: Virtual home sold for $100,000 in real money.
Good article on how important oil is to basically everything. Uses a breakfast of oatmeal w/ raspberries & coffee as an example.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c
A more extensive article on the same subject, which also talks about a lot besides:
http://www.harpers.org/TheOilWeEat.h
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c
A lot of fossil-fuel energy goes into the production of food:
-- Bowl of oatmeal porridge: 4 ounces of crude oil.
-- Serving of red raspberries: 1 ounce of crude oil.
-- Butter, milk and salt: 1 ounce of crude oil.
-- That cup of java: 2 ounces of crude oil.
-- Energy required to produce 1 pound of coffee: a quart of crude oil, 30 cubic feet of natural gas, or about 2 1/2 pounds of coal.
-- Energy required to produce one week's worth of breakfast for one person: More than 2 quarts of crude oil.
A more extensive article on the same subject, which also talks about a lot besides:
http://www.harpers.org/TheOilWeEat.h
About two thirds of U.S. grain corn is labeled “processed,” meaning it is milled and otherwise refined for food or industrial uses. More than 45 percent of that becomes sugar, especially high-fructose corn sweeteners, the keystone ingredient in three quarters of all processed foods.
All together the food-processing industry in the United States uses about ten calories of fossil-fuel energy for every calorie of food energy it produces.
Even though I don't have enough money to invest (I have a total of like, 6 shares in Nintendo or something; not very much) I like watching Mad Money occasionally. Not only because it's a great show and Cramer is an interesting character, but because he knows a lot about the world and bases his judgements of companies on a wide range of knowledge, much of it detailed and specialized. He's a lot smarter than he looks; the range of his knowledge of all the different industries is remarkable. And his sheer energy (he runs around, throws chairs into the wall in excitement, etc.) is a wonder to watch. The show reached its 1 year anniversary yesterday.
For those who haven't seen it, here's a good description:
"Cramer is usually standing up with the fisheye lens Steadicam close to his face, zooming in and out, all the while providing his stock picks and his reasoning (with his voice inflection known to suddenly change from calm to shouting). Cramer also throws various objects on the set (papers, pencils, etc.) and even smashed up a model plane when explaining his thoughts on Boeing stock; on another episode he used a telephone receiver to destroy a computer keyboard. Whenever his book - Jim Cramer's Real Money: Sane Investing in an Insane World - is mentioned by a caller, he scurries to grab the book, flashes it for a split-second, and promptly tosses it to the floor as a cheap plug gag. He also has small, plastic bulls (and bears) that he either throws around, squeezes or decapitates - not necessarily with his hands, but usually a ball-point pen, knife, or even his teeth."
He even has a challenge: if a caller calls in with a public company he doesn't know anything about, that caller gets a free signed copy of his book. I've never seen anyone pass that challenge, though.
For those who haven't seen it, here's a good description:
"Cramer is usually standing up with the fisheye lens Steadicam close to his face, zooming in and out, all the while providing his stock picks and his reasoning (with his voice inflection known to suddenly change from calm to shouting). Cramer also throws various objects on the set (papers, pencils, etc.) and even smashed up a model plane when explaining his thoughts on Boeing stock; on another episode he used a telephone receiver to destroy a computer keyboard. Whenever his book - Jim Cramer's Real Money: Sane Investing in an Insane World - is mentioned by a caller, he scurries to grab the book, flashes it for a split-second, and promptly tosses it to the floor as a cheap plug gag. He also has small, plastic bulls (and bears) that he either throws around, squeezes or decapitates - not necessarily with his hands, but usually a ball-point pen, knife, or even his teeth."
He even has a challenge: if a caller calls in with a public company he doesn't know anything about, that caller gets a free signed copy of his book. I've never seen anyone pass that challenge, though.
Have any of you seen that Volvo commercial that claims that overpopulation is Volvo's fault? It claims it's so safe it's preventing so many deaths that the world is beginning to be overpopulated. It's a great commercial; it goes on: "Volvo remains unapologetic. If you know our slogan, you know why." Slogan appears: "Volvo for life."
Greatest car commercial ever! I don't know how good the cars because I know nothing about cars, but it makes me want to buy one. That's what makes it the greatest car commercial ever.
I must think up even better advertisements for my games.
Greatest car commercial ever! I don't know how good the cars because I know nothing about cars, but it makes me want to buy one. That's what makes it the greatest car commercial ever.
I must think up even better advertisements for my games.
Pierre Joseph Proudhon was one the most famous philosophers to have articulated thoughts on the nature of property. He is known for exclaiming "property is theft!", but is less known for also exclaiming "property is freedom," and "property is impossible." (Wikipedia)
"Sales of physical formats [music CDs] declined by 1.3% in value (and by 0.4% in units) to US$33.6 billion. (The growth calculation is net of exchange rate fluctuations, comparing with US$34.1 billion in 2004)." [1]
"Overall home [movie] video revenue rose to nearly $24.5 billion, up 9% from 2003."[2]
"Total book industry sales rose 4.6% in 2003, to an estimated $23.4 billion, according to estimates released by the Association of American Publishers." [3]
"Amid concern this could have been a down year for sales, total U.S. sales of video game hardware, software and accessories hit $9.9 billion [in 2004]." [4]
*
You know, there's a lot of talk about how videogames make more money than movies or music or whatever, but look and compare the actual numbers. These are not exactly from the same years, but all within 2 years of eachother, and they don't really change that fast. I repeat:
Music: 33.6 billion (and this doesn't include digital music sales)
Movies: 24.5 billion (and this only includes movie sales, not rentals or the box office)
Books: 23.4 billion (this includes both nonfiction and fiction books, I couldn't find one for just novels)
Videogames: 9.9 billion (and this also includes videogame hardware)
The idea that videogames are now mass market is wishful thinking. They still have a long way to go before they are equal to the other three major art mediums.
"Overall home [movie] video revenue rose to nearly $24.5 billion, up 9% from 2003."[2]
"Total book industry sales rose 4.6% in 2003, to an estimated $23.4 billion, according to estimates released by the Association of American Publishers." [3]
"Amid concern this could have been a down year for sales, total U.S. sales of video game hardware, software and accessories hit $9.9 billion [in 2004]." [4]
*
You know, there's a lot of talk about how videogames make more money than movies or music or whatever, but look and compare the actual numbers. These are not exactly from the same years, but all within 2 years of eachother, and they don't really change that fast. I repeat:
Music: 33.6 billion (and this doesn't include digital music sales)
Movies: 24.5 billion (and this only includes movie sales, not rentals or the box office)
Books: 23.4 billion (this includes both nonfiction and fiction books, I couldn't find one for just novels)
Videogames: 9.9 billion (and this also includes videogame hardware)
The idea that videogames are now mass market is wishful thinking. They still have a long way to go before they are equal to the other three major art mediums.
Syndicate
