It is better than a lottery because you are getting paid a good salary while you do it. I don't see the problem. You are getting a salary like any other job, and you have the chance of becoming rich on top of that, without any more investment. Doesn't seem like a lie to me.
Well, yes, but presumably the lies come when they use stock options as "jam tomorrow".
No, value can be created, something that Marxist theory conveniently ignores, just like you did above.
I thought in Marxist theory the workers' surplus labour created this added value, which capitalists took as profits?
It's not my understanding that Marx meant that there was some fixed amount of money which was just being moved from workers to capitalists. It was obvious from the Industrial Revolution that over all economic growth was happening.
We went from cars to landing on the moon in less than 60 years.
It's now been almost another 60 years. What significant progress has been made
We invented the internet instead. You young people can't even begin to imagine what life was like before unlimited free porn.
Or, you know, you could just not use Windows 10.
Oh come on, how else is he going to play a game of solitaire?
You need a powerful and up to date Windows gaming machine to get one of those babies running sweetly.
It's so weird... I go to the bank, I get cash, I buy stuff. I use my credit card, I buy stuff. I send checks to pay bills. All with this worthless fiat currency that you rant about. Remind me, what's wrong here? The fact that what it can buy tomorrow may be different from what it can buy today? If you can point me to ANYTHING whose worth hasn't changed over time, I'd love to see it.
No, no, the thing is if we still had the gold standard, then you could withdraw all your money in gold (when the nuclear/zombie apocalypse happens) and it would have absolute value in gold when you went to buy some food and ammunition because it's gold.
See? By definition, gold is gold, whereas fiat currency is just paper. You will always be able to use gold to, um, make jewellery and high quality electrical connectors and stuff.
In Japan, getting arrested is pretty much like getting convicted.
Wow, you're not wrong. According to Wikipedia there is a 99% conviction rate.
You don't get a right to get paid for your work. You have to market it and hope someone will pay for it.
You have a right to put a copy for sale at a certain price. Other people can either pay that price, or decline. If they decline, they do not suddenly get the right to a free copy.
Other people create stuff, too, and some people even distribute their work for free.
So what? Some people volunteer to do charity work, does that mean no one should get paid a salary?
The natural state of a creative work is to be in the public domain.
The natural state of a piece of land is to belong to no one, so yes, it is only man-made laws that allow you to "own" a piece of real estate.
How about forcing these descendents to donate their parents' assets to the public domain, just like copyrighted works?
We do. We impose taxes on inheritances, because inheritance of substantial wealth is harmful to society. We impose taxes on property, because ownership of large, unproductive estates is harmful to society
We don't impose 100% inheritance taxes though. If my billionaire dad only leaves me three quarters of a billion instead of the full billion, does it really make any difference?
There are many descendents of people who owned real estate, farms, businesses, hotels and restaurants that are enjoying the fruits of their parents' hard work and investments. How about forcing these descendents to donate their parents' assets to the public domain, just like copyrighted works?
People here usually weasel out of this by banging on about "natural property rights" as though there were any such thing.
Oh, and of course, you can steal physical property, but copyright infringement isn't theft.
Can you explain how innovation is stifled if copyright duration is infinite? Bill Gates and Steve Jobs didn't quit their company after making their first billion. A billion dollars is a lot for one person and his family. So why did they continue to work?
I think a lot of people on slashdot think of creative artists in the romantic "starving poet in a garret" way. They're not doing real work (like creating giant advertising companies such as Facebook and Google) so they don't really deserve to make any money from it.
This is what people mean by "rent seeking" - using the law to secure perpetual control of revenue for which you do nothing.
Until you abolish private ownership of land, you will always have literal rent seeking. It is part of the fabric of capitalism.
Now, last thing I heard about "happy birthday" was that it makes 5 grand a DAY for Warner. Now, imagine you made "happy birthday". And got 5 grand a day from it. Where the fuck is your incentive to EVER create anything again? 5 grand a day? Fuck, I couldn't be assed to do anything but sit there and rake in the money for the rest of my life. Why bother work ever again if you already get more money than you can sensibly spend without doing anything?
Which is why all income over, let's say, two million a year should be taxed at 100% - no one needs that much money.
Or should hard working software entrepreneurs (for example) have a different standard applied to them?
I can bet with some certainty that autonomous cars won't go over the speed limit. I find it highly doubtful that a majority of the population that now enjoys driving 5-10mph over the speed limit will allow that. And I doubt if autonomous cars are going to include a 'drive over the speed limit' function.
At least in theory, autonomous cars will allow higher average speeds. First, their reaction time will be quicker than a human driver, so you will be able to bunch together closer. Second, with some sort of AI, you could get an over all flow control that avoided stop-start driving.
Although, frankly, this all seems unlikely in the near future.