Your statement about "profit" is very inaccurate.

"Once a single e-book is created by the publisher. You can distribute it an unlimited number of times. So the publishers make nearly a 100% profit on electronic sales. "

Yes, costs are lower because of electronic distribution. But no accountant in his right mind would calculate the profit after the first copy in the manner you have. The costs of editing, proofing, legal, writing and marketing are always distributed over the total number of books sold when determining the profitability. Some of these costs, like marketing are ongoing over the product life of the title. They don't stop when the first copy of the book is done.

Are you sure it wasn't Photoshop that got reverse engineered?

Everyone has some bias. Yours is so far over the top it is ridiculous.

Blaming an ex-President for legislation passed by the opposing party with a veto proof majority, and referring to a sitting president in third person pejorative terms every time he is referenced, and NOT recognizing that the current economy is largely the result of the sins of the country as a whole are signs that you my friend are off the deep end.

By modern standards, yes. By comparison to it's immediate past the industrial revolution was all about decreasing the labor content of a unit of manufactured product. What do you think the steam engine was for? By increasing the productivity of man the standard of living, FOR THE FIRST TIME began to increase.

From Wikipedia

Starting in the later part of the 18th century, there began a transition in parts of Great Britain's previously manual labour and draft-animalâ"based economy towards machine-based manufacturing. It started with the mechanisation of the textile industries, the development of iron-making techniques and the increased use of refined coal. Trade expansion was enabled by the introduction of canals, improved roads and railways. With the transition away from an agricultural-based economy and towards machine-based manufacturing came a great influx of population from the countryside and into the towns and cities, which swelled in population.

The introduction of steam power fuelled primarily by coal, wider utilisation of water wheels and powered machinery (mainly in textile manufacturing) underpinned the dramatic increases in production capacity. The development of all-metal machine tools in the first two decades of the 19th century facilitated the manufacture of more production machines for manufacturing in other industries. The effects spread throughout Western Europe and North America during the 19th century, eventually affecting most of the world, a process that continues as industrialisation. The impact of this change on society was enormous.

In the words of Nobel Prize winner Robert E. Lucas, Jr., "For the first time in history, the living standards of the masses of ordinary people have begun to undergo sustained growth ... Nothing remotely like this economic behavior has happened before"

Utter Rubbish. England used the colonies as a source of raw materials and shipped back manufactured goods. Why do you think Jefferson wrote about America as a rural agricultural nation? The few small cities that existed were ports for collection of farm products and distribution of manufactured products from England.

From History.com

"A few towns developed in the eighteenth century--Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Charleston--but they served mostly to collect agricultural goods from the countryside and disperse English manufactured goods to farmers. Such commercial activity, bounded by rural needs, not only employed merchants but also such artisans as coopers and shipbuilders. As trade grew, town populations increased, and the internal life of towns (newspapers, government, petty shopkeepers) rose as well. But since most manufacturing and credit came from England, towns stayed small. Philadelphia, the largest town, and its suburbs counted less than forty thousand people on the eve of the Revolution."

Why do you think one of Ghandi's big efforts to disrupt England's economy was to get his followers to spin their own thread from Indian grown cotton?

Your version of history is total baloney. You REALLY need to take a good history course.

Your political bias is showing.

A Republican Congress repealed Glass Steagall with a veto proof majority. Clinton wasn't a legislator AFAIK.

As far as Hope and Change, well do you expect somebody to come in and cure the ills building in the political system for the past 30 years in one term?

Let's be realistic here.

Is Paris Hilton is your worst case example?

Yes she has an extravagant lifestyle. However she also has a significant number of active business ventures including publishing, fashion, her own hotel chain and mobile gaming.

Far more of her money is going into productive investment than you seem to be assuming.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-06-01/entertainment/30076238_1_piers-morgan-paris-hilton-product-lines

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/entertainment-articles/paris-hilton-invades-asia/

Nope.. taxes on America's wealthy (and everybody for that matter) were far lower in the past. There were effectively no taxes at all until the Civil war.

Up until WWII and even just post WWII during the Truman administration the tax burden in the US was lower than it is today.

And by the way there is no "trickle down theory of economics". Anyone referring to that has no knowledge of economics and is just parroting political commentators.

As far as what the ultra rich do with their money - it's pretty obvious. They don't spend it, they invest it. Capital formation is the sine qua non of economic growth. Spending is not. This is why many economic studies have shown that a consumption tax is better policy than an income tax, because it encourages savings. The US system that focuses on income is broken.

The US economy is in the crapper now because of exactly what I'm talking about. Too much consumption and not enough savings on the part of individuals and institutions. This in addition to poor government policies and ineffective regulation led to a classic debt bubble.

Titanium is exceptionally UNSTABLE, and yes writ large.

Paradoxically that instability can make it resistant to corrosion because under normal atmospheric conditions it reacts immediately with in the air to form a strong durable, impenetrable titanium oxide layer.

Put it in an environment where the oxide layer can't form and watch out.

I've seen titanium used in chemical processes where elemental chlorine with water vapor present - hellaciously corrosive to most things, and Ti just laughs it off. Take out the water and the Ti will burn in chlorine like crazy. Regular cast iron though is fine in dry chlorine because it just isn't that reactive - it needs water to set up a corrosion cell.

Same thing with nitrogen - unlike everything else Ti is so reactive it will burn in dry N. A little water and it won't.

Hating money is a nice way to express your hatred of the bad aspects of our capitalistic system,

Nearly half of US households now receive some sort of assistance/income from government and the interstate commerce clause gives the Federal government ultimate control of the economy.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to call our system a mixed economy?