Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
NZT48

Government exists to protect liberty, not to provide services or redistribute wealth.

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, Nich... said:

https://cheezburger.com/8263173/tumblr-user-breaks-down-australias-stand-against-american-corporate-greed

Curious if this is the Government enforcing laws or providing a service.  What's more libertarian than caveat emptor?

 

Believe it or not, the law enforcement and judicial systems are not the government.  Also, judges in particular take their jobs very seriously - cops might have the occasional gay-bashing or death in custody to disgrace everyone else, but judges are pretty damned uptight about sticking to the law.

 

The government (by which I mean the elected Parties, not the permanent civil services), otoh, *make* the laws, and are supposed (under democracy at least) to enact the will of the people.  They demonstrably have not been doing a lot of that lately.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Kimmo said:

Money is power, and people want it. And they're not necessarily polite about getting it...

That's a moral issue, for all individuals, not a problem with capitalism.

20 hours ago, Kimmo said:

The way you nip that shit in the bud, is you start saying not every fucking thing under the sun is for sale.

We do that with capitalism.

20 hours ago, Kimmo said:

We need an impenetrable bedrock foundation of collectivism

What's that?

20 hours ago, Kimmo said:

The income of the very wealthy grows faster than everyone else's; it's a historical fact.

Why do you think that is a problem with capitalism?

20 hours ago, Kimmo said:

This is what class war really looks like:

ib330-figureA.pngScreen%20Shot%202013-03-04%20at%2012.35.

Interesting that the big change comes in ~1971, the year Nixon took America off the last remnants of the gold standard, don't you think? It's not like there was no capitalism between 1947 and 1971.

20 hours ago, Kimmo said:

 

120910110833-chart-average-wealth-tablet

So what about before 1983? It's not like capitalism didn't exist then. And I still don't get why you think all capitalism is the problem instead of just crony capitalism. And BTW one of the problems I see with crony capitalism is central banking and existing legal tender legislation.

20 hours ago, Kimmo said:

 

Gilens1.png

It doesn't matter a damn how many people want something done, if none of them are obscenely rich.

 

Gilens2.png

Oh hello, if you're in the top ten percent, the government is about 60% responsive all of a sudden. Make that the top 1%, and that degree of responsiveness starts to look like puppet strings.

 

Murdoch is right up Shorten, and come his turn, Morrison is caressing Rupe's balls while he gags on it. It's a fucking obscene travesty, right out there in front of everyone.

 

And the reason I know it's getting worse, without even having to reference the mountains of empirical fact supporting my case, is that it's getting more and more brazen. Once, modesty demanded a fig leaf over the sordid corruption; we used to see a token head roll now and then. But now we just get the finger.

The problem is with corrupt government, not wealth.

 

I don't understand those graphs. What is the source? What is the x-axis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, NZT48 said:

That's a moral issue, for all individuals, not a problem with capitalism.

 

 

But who is capitalism run by if not individuals? Who gets the most money if not the most greedy? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Trying to work out who's more deluded.

 

The guy who wants cops to investigate businesses who harm the environment while having a government that can write no [environmental] laws because it doesn't fall into the "liberty" service.... or the guy who shows a graph of productivity vs wages that diverges in 1975 at the start of the computing era, and reckons it's class war.

 

That latter guy will probably have a lot to say In 20 years' time when productivity hits 400% because of the automation revolution we've been in for 3 years since AI and ML in IoT became real things....

 

Have 100% certainty: capitalism has enriched the world, increased economies and enabled the provisioning of services we've never had. No attempt to make an economy fairer by taking money from the rich because "inequality" has ever produced "equality". It should be that obvious... that it shouldn't even be discussed... but we live in uncertain times.

Edited by Leonid
Added [environmental] into the laws statement, to clairfy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

---

 

I will say this... as shall we say... anecdotal evidence.

 

A client of mine, spent 70 x $450 for new ergonomic chairs for their staff. They spent 140 x $280 for new 27" arm-mounted display-port monitors to replace the existing 24" desk-standing single displays every one was using. They spent a few thousand dollars on arms and labour to get them mounted.

 

Without spending an extra cent on labour or on increasing staff wages, they got an appreciable productivity boost and without a workload change, were able to let go of a staff member costing them ~$210K (they're in construction, salaries are high!).

 

The average worker, with the same skills, can do more today with a PC & internet than the same worker with a calculator and typewriter in 1970, in less time.

 

Consider something simple. You're a construction estimator. You need to estimate building costs of a refurb for a tender in a building you've never seen, in a different city, where you have no contacts in terms of subbies/contractors and don't know local suppliers.

 

In 1970s, that's a fucking mission. No internet, no digitised floor plans, no ability to find phone numbers or reference works without calling and getting things mailed to you via post.

 

Today... that information can be put together in a few medium-paced days.

 

That's why we're more productive but why are wages haven't gone up. We produce more work because we are given more resources, but we don't necessarily spend more time working to get the same result - we work less (time-wise). Hence productivity is through the fucken roof. And it'll double in the next decade with IoT AI/ML.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Leonid said:

a graph of productivity vs wages that diverges in 1975 at the start of the computing era

 

Yes, it is - and that's the point.  Increased productivity, has led to accelerated productivity gains, and that has not been reflected in either hiring or pay.  Where it has been reflected is money flowing to the top end of town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh sorry, I forgot that people exist to serve money, not the other way round

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Cybes said:

 

Yes, it is - and that's the point.  Increased productivity, has led to accelerated productivity gains, and that has not been reflected in either hiring or pay.  Where it has been reflected is money flowing to the top end of town.

 

You get paid for labour not results and benchmarked across the rest for the latter. If you want to reap the benefits of getting paid for results, quit full time work and join the gig economy. Or go full time contract.

 

Until productivity gains are provided using your funds (ie you buy your own work computer), those who invest in productivity gains will reap benefits.

 

This is 100% as it should be because I don’t think there’s a single genius among us who reckons they deserve to get paid double for finding a tiler for their construction company in another city in 15min of Internet browsing - an activity that may have taken half a day in 1975.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Kimmo said:

Oh sorry, I forgot that people exist to serve money, not the other way round

 

Three people on a help desk. An L1, and L3 and a manager.

 

The manager gets $120k. The L1 gets $60k. The L3 gets $80k.

 

The L3 does twice as many and far more complex tickets, than the L1. He thinks he should get paid $120k because he’s at least twice as productive as the L1.

 

The L1 is called Kimmo and reckons that despite being on the grass all day, he should get paid $90k because it’s not fair the L3 gets paid more and also because he is twice as productive in resolving computer issues as an L1 in 1975.

 

The manager reports to the boss that his team want $210k all up for supporting the Gartner standard of 400 endpoints.

 

Everyone gets fired because the boss can’t put himself out of business by jacking prices on his customers who expect IT costs to come down over time due to productivity gains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This song is by Split Enz and appears on the album Time and Tide (1982).
 
 

 

It's a small world, and you must agree
It's not a very big house, for a large family
People moving out or making home improvements
But the basic problem never seems to go away

It's a small world

It's common knowledge, satellite looks on
And a Russian man is sent to spy upon us
It's enough to make a man feel uncomfortable
Someone else's leader needs kill Pacific Atoll

It's a small world

Oh, well there's only just enough to go 'round
Wanna shout about it, shout about it
Small world, and it's getting smaller
There's no getting away from it all in a small world

Baby boom-town, and the population swells
There's a broken circuit no one tells the truth
Are we mammals with a future in this nutshell
When you're small it should be easier to pick things up

It's a small world

Oh, wanna hold it in my hand
Gonna roll it like a ball
Oh, we're a drop in the ocean
Gonna shout about it, shout about it

Small world, and it's getting smaller
There's no getting away from it all in a small world
Yes and it's a strange place for bringing up your children
When there's no guarantee that they'll have a future
In a small world.
 
 
 
 
i think they got it right
 
expanding "economy" while ignoring the finite reality that supports it seems, i dunno, fucking stupid isn't really derogatory enough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The economy isn’t finite. And what’s making it so is the emerging fact that it does not require human labour any more for money to make money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leonid said:

The economy isn’t finite. And what’s making it so is the emerging fact that it does not require human labour any more for money to make money.

 

Oh not this shit again.  Leo, the only places infinities exist is mathematics and black holes - and both are a great sign that you're going the wrong way.

 

*Money* is /potentially/ unlimited, because we can just print more.  Money is not the economy - that relies on resources, so it is m9st definitely finite in both short and long term.  Money is also finite in the present sense, and since it is tied to the economy probably also in the long term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the economy isn't finite because it's a completely artificial construct

 

my imagination isn't finite either, but eventually my body will die and my infinite imagination won't have a place to be

 

 

the economy is imaginary; the planet can't indulge it if it ceases to supply the vessel to hold money

 

in many ways, the economy is like that invisible friend of many,  god - a great way of "explaining" something that's not real, but so it sounds like an idea that people should serve just in case they can't make up their own reasons for being briefly in the universe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, scruffy1 said:

the economy isn't finite because it's a completely artificial construct

 

Yes, it's artificial - so is marriage.  Wanna argue that marriage is infinite?

 

Further, would you like to posit an economy that *doesn't* depend on finite resources?  Hint: anything infinite is worth precisely nothing - 1 gold brick can buy you a house; far less than gold bars and you end up paying people to take them away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

marriage may not be infinite, but it can certainly feel like it

 

i can't posit an economy without finite resources, but essentially that's because finite resources are what really exists

 

an economy can be whatever people fantasize... that's where it gets problematic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, scruffy1 said:

an economy can be whatever people fantasize... that's where it gets problematic

 

A series of finities is not an infinity. A finite parallel set of finities is also not an infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

any number of fantasies is still an economy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cybes said:

 

Oh not this shit again.  Leo, the only places infinities exist is mathematics and black holes - and both are a great sign that you're going the wrong way.

 

*Money* is /potentially/ unlimited, because we can just print more.  Money is not the economy - that relies on resources, so it is m9st definitely finite in both short and long term.  Money is also finite in the present sense, and since it is tied to the economy probably also in the long term.

 

Seriously Cybes? This BS again?

 

We need less resources to do more things these days and we’re barely bound by the atmosphere and definitely not by Human Resources.

 

Give it up man. Luddite Malthusianism doesn’t sit well on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we're barely bound by the atmosphere ?

 

no, we're entirely reliant on it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, scruffy1 said:

we're barely bound by the atmosphere ?

 

no, we're entirely reliant on it

 

Our economy isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2019 at 8:46 PM, Leonid said:

Trying to work out who's more deluded.

 

The guy who wants cops to investigate businesses who harm the environment while having a government that can write no [environmental] laws because it doesn't fall into the "liberty" service....

I did not suggest that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Leonid said:

 

Our economy isn't.

 

" Most such concepts would require a considerable long-term human presence in space and relatively low-cost access to space. "

 

and prior to that, having a stable and liveable base here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, scruffy1 said:

 

" Most such concepts would require a considerable long-term human presence in space and relatively low-cost access to space. "

 

and prior to that, having a stable and liveable base here

 

To compare evolution and technology - the Earth contained simple life forms (and I don’t mean socialists in this case) for far longer than it has had complex life forms.

 

This is because evolution has a positive feedback mechanism. Entirely new building blocks don’t need to be made because they already exist.

 

The same with technology - our technology is growing at an exponential breakneck pace. In the next 10 years more new, faster, cheaper technology will be developed than has been in the last 100. And the decade after, the same will happen.

 

Elon Musk has already slashed the previous cost of space travel from several hundred million for a 50t satellite to about $60m. NASA is replacing the shuttles with the Space Launch System and there’s a very real likelihood it’ll be used for the Deep Space Transport which has a notional fly date of 2027, for 1000-day missions to Mars. It may use The Gateway as a staging area - a more than notional Lunar ISS with a crew of four.

 

If there isn’t a colony on Mars by 2040, I’ll eat my own balding head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Leonid said:

Luddite Malthusianism

 

Either you need to look up those terms, or you need to read what I actually said and not what you imagine I said.  I am neither.  My comments apply to the situation now - and in the past, since we haven't lost any magical techniques.  Whilst we are indeed using less resources now than previously, we *are* still using them, and faster than ever before - oil (for fertiliser and plastics, not to mention fuel), and 'rare earths' primarily.

 

But that is immaterial.  The point is not that we are consuming them, it is that they are limited.  Even if you posit the discovery of FTL drives and planetary mining so that you can harness the entire quantity of the observable universe (which is beyond ludicrous), those *are* limited - just in exceedingly large quantities.

 

11 hours ago, scruffy1 said:

any number of fantasies is still an economy

 

Unlike you to troll, Scruffy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×