That lowers the efficiency of the whole system, meaning less gets done altogether. Quoting TV Tropes: "In truth, some countries have a relative productive advantage in some areas, while other countries have different relative productive advantages. Trade allows countries to specialize in whatever production they have an advantage in, thus producing more in total, and then trade with each other. This makes both countries better off. For example, perhaps Country A can produce 4 cans of butter, or 2 cans of butter and 1 carton of eggs, or 2 cartons of eggs. Country B can produce 4 cartons of eggs, or 2 cartons of eggs and 1 can of butter, or 2 cans of butter. With trade, they can produce at their advantages of 4 cans of butter in A and 4 cartons of eggs in B and then trade so they each have 2 cartons and 2 cans. Making them both better off than if they produced everything in their own country."

As I recall, the price of the goods dropping will make it easier for poor people to get the goods, therefore increasing relative wealth, and will create more jobs in the end.

Starting trade wars with other nations by requiring that jobs stay in the US, while probably satisfying populist sentiment, is probably a bad idea.

Isn't that an economic fallacy?

My knowledge of the dismal science is sketchy at best, but I'm pretty sure the imports = good, exports = bad idea that was pushed by mercantilism was roundly trashed and replaced with the modern view that trade is good.

This'd be a good time for an economist to jump in, by the way.

Yeah, I'm gonna take a leap here and not blame it on capitalism, or on the fact that all executives are immoral. The issue is that you're laboring under the deluded belief that intelligence, and a very narrowly defined type, is what gets you ahead in business. It isn't. Being charismatic, a generalist rather than a specialist, and generally likable is what gets you ahead. You can have an IQ of 200 and still work as a janitor if you're a complete asshole.

In my experience, while you do get the occasional raging sociopath amongst the "complete idiots," for the most part they are people who are good at getting people to like them.
And humans have always preferred charisma to intelligence, with good reason.

Something that I've noticed recently is a trend towards virulently anti-capitalist comments in Slashdot. And I'm not talking just the generic "rich people suck" comments that have permeated mankind since the beginning of time. It really hit me hard when I saw a post declaring that tariffs were awesome and every country should close their economies off from each other rated +5 insightful. I assume that a combination of the recession and outsourcing of IT and CS jobs, previously secure from foreign competition, has alot to do with it.

Crazy rant is crazy.

I thought his "A Colder War" was quite good. Blended two favorite subjects of mine, the Cold War and Lovecraft, quite well.

You can find it all over the net. If what you're saying is true, Stross is a far better short story writer than he is a novelist.

Most people become terrified upon entering situations where both death and helplessness are present, like being fired at by an individual with a gun when you have none. This is nothing to be ashamed of, this is just being human. You might be a superman capable of charging across the room and kung-fuing the gun out of a madman's hand, and I'm glad for you that you are, but don't heap disdain on those that have frozen in such situations.

I'm confused, wouldn't more hostile and aggressive governments result in a more vicious Singularity-race? I don't get what you're saying here.

Right, so you're saying that the market for augmentations will inevitably be gripped by an innovation-crushing monopoly? Bear in mind that Moore's Law has held steady, and this is what is usually used to chart the Singularity.

You can't use "my opponents are egotistic" as an argument. That is an ad-hominem. You're not supposed to use those. Ever.

I'm not that bright compared to many people on here, I know that. But that is no reason for disrespect. You may disagree with my arguments, but attacking me personally is not appropriate. I've tried to extend a respectful attitude, and I expect the same in return.

Disclaimer - I am not a Kurzweil-ite, but I am interested in some of their claims.

1. Humans won't have a damn choice. Our political and economic systems are based on competition, and the competing entities will do anything for an advantage. Think a government will turn down augmented super-soldiers, or a corporation will willingly allow its competitors to get faster computers? Like the arms race, we're caught in a loop that it's tough to break out of.

2. Bases on Venus never made economic sense. Neither did flying cars. Making your computers more flexible and powerful does. Money walks, everything else talks. Look at what capitalism needs and what it's investing in to see where technological progress will occur, IMO.

3. This just seems like a standard ad-hominem.

I'm looking forward to the launch. Anyone know when that is? I've heard everything from January to March from several people. Anywho,let's hope that SpaceX succeeds. Otherwise we'll end up depending on Russia from 2010 to 2015 for our man-capable launch systems with all the political consequences that entails.