Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Communism. Right. (Score 1) 365

With any hint of self interest (enlightened or otherwise), and the system eventually breaks down.

So has every other system so far. Capitalism itself only managed to survive it's previous near-fatal crisis by taking a huge step to the left. And it seems to be undergoing a slow-motion collapse of ever worse conditions for ever greater amounts of people stuck at the bottom as those at the top confiscate all the resources for their own use.

Comment Re: competition (Score 1) 365

The point of a basic income is to get power over those receiving it.

How do you use unconditional, inalienable entitlement to wield power over someone? You can't revoke it because it's unconditional and inalienable, after all.

If anything, basic income will make it harder to wield power over anyone, especially the poor. And that, of course, is the real reason why it's opposed.

The idea that its purpose is to help the weak is propaganda for suckers.

"Sucker" here meaning anyone who cares about the fate of the weak, or entertains the notion that they might ever be one.

Of course, in a more socialist society - such as one with basic income - it just plain doesn't matter as much whether you're a "sucker" or not, because the consequences of losing aren't as severe. You'll have a roof over you head, clothes on your back and food on your table no matter what. And that'll make it harder to use FUD for propaganda purposes, like you're doing here.

Comment Re:Welp, I know what I'm going to do. (Score 1) 365

So you're telling me I can get ~everything~ I want and need to consume. Even if I put the bare minimum effort (or no effort.) However no matter what I do, I can not become more than "middle class."

No, you'll get a guaranteed minimum share of the whole pie. If you want that share to be larger in absolute terms, you'll have to grow the whole pie. You can't benefit yourself at other people's expense, you can only benefit yourself by benefiting everyone else as well. On the other hand, all effort you put into growing the pie actually grows the pie, rather than get confiscated and moved to a tax haven by a fat cat.

You can't become more than middle class, but you can make "middle class" mean "my own star system".

In the long term, no one will work, and the whole thing will collapse on itself. As socialism and communism always does.

Russia seems to be failing at capitalism and democracy just as hard as it failed at communism, or perhaps even harder since at least the Bolsheviks did succeed at industrializing the country and beating the Nazis. Should we declare those things hopeless pipe dreams too?

Comment Re:over-simplification of economy (Score 1) 365

Money is NOT "control over other people", and it differs from a whip and shackles in that I can tell you to take your money and stuff it.

Of course you can tell your slavemaster to take his whip and shackles and stuff it. You'll simply get whipped for that. In the case of chattel slavery the whip is made of leather, in the case of our glorious capitalist system it's made of poverty. Either way you'll keep your mouth shut and do what you're told, after a few sessions at the whipping post if not from the start.

Comment Re:Question (Score 1) 365

Countries covered with snow a large part of the year have an annual reminder that sloth leads to death, and it's strongly ingrained in the cultures of many It's harder to destroy their work ethic, but nevertheless it's still happening.

I live in Finland, and I've never even heard of this association. No, the reason for Nordic work ethic is simply that society is seen as a shared project where everyone does what they can for the common good. If you're lazy and do just the bare minimum you must, you aren't stiffing just your employer, you're stiffing your country and everyone who lives in it. That's also why Nordic countries are relatively non-corrupted.

And yes, this work ethic is dying, not because of socialism but because intrusion of the right-wing idea that everyone is responsible only for themselves, not for other people or for their society.

Comment Re: Question (Score 1) 365

Oh really? So Joe gets paid $500 on Sunday as wages from his job. He spends $300 on booze and lobster at a strip club on Monday. He then gets mugged attempting to by weed on Tuesday and loses $200. He's starting to get pretty hungry by Thursday, and on Friday his landlord is getting pretty anxious about his rent. Question: do we let Joe go die? No? Then letting people make economic choices is a pipe dream.

Fixed that for you.

Pass UBI without the backbone to let people Darwin themselves and Joes might come out of the woodwork. Hell, I might be one.

Right. So how comes you are not dead yet? Or do strip clubs only admit people on welfare where you live?

Comment Re:Prove it! (Score 1) 365

If given a choice between sitting on your ass and getting paid and working and getting paid, the _majority_ will sit on their ass.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that that's true. Let's further assume that it makes a difference, that the economy needs these unmotivated people to do jobs they hate and will do worse without them. With those assumptions made... Which one is more important, Freedom or economic efficiency? Because you can't have them both.

Comment What makes you think I'm trolling? Losing the arg? (Score 1) 40

It's a fact that over and over again device-specific add-ons are ignored. They wind up in bargain bins whether it's tablet-specific keyboard docks or R.O.B. for the N.E.S. Ignore the lessons of history at your peril. Moto G 2nd owner here, in case you think I'm in love with Samsung or something. Anybody else notice they're now stooping to infomercials?

Comment Re:over-simplification of economy (Score 1) 365

Nonsense. Economics is the study of how people exchange goods and services.

Yes, but apparently a 'successful' economy is one which is always growing...

Sure it is. But the AC assumes that growth inevitably means increasing consumption of natural resources. It can mean that, but that actually only works in a context where the natural resources in question are abundant. Once they become scarce (perhaps artificially), then growth comes from finding ways to use resources more efficiently.

A successful economy is one which is improving the standard of living of the people in it. There is no reason why that process cannot be endless... though the definition of what constitutes improvement absolutely will change over time.

Comment Re:Question (Score 1) 365

So unlike what Marxist said central planning actually works best to quickly grow backwards, agrarian even, economies rather than improving advanced economies.

That actually makes perfect sense if you study Marx's core economic theory, the labor theory of value. In that view, all production is about organization of labor, with some attention to the sources of raw materials. There is no discussion at all of the role of innovation, or information, and the theory is focused on a world in stasis, in which the materials, processes and outputs are all well-known, and unchanging.

But progress comes from the creation of new ideas, ways to make new goods, or make old goods with less labor or less, or different, raw materials. An economy organized on communist principles has few mechanisms for encouraging innovation. The Soviet Union made a big deal of identifying and nurturing smart people and giving them the resources to invent new science and technology, but that is perhaps the least important part of the innovation that moves an economy forward. Not that new science and technology isn't hugely important, but the aggregate impact of millions upon millions of small improvements in processes and business models is larger, especially on the general standard of living. So, the Soviet Union was able to stay in shouting distance, more or less, of the United States in terms of technological progress... but was unable to keep the grocery store shelves stocked. That is in the inevitable result of a system that doesn't incentivize and reward small-scale innovation.

Comment Re:VISA program is GOOD. H1B is NOT. It is a joke (Score 1) 235

I work for Google and there are constantly great Ph.D. theses where we hire the inventor to integrate their thesis work into our products. Here's an example of an area that can have major impact on our products and at the same time there is typically one person out there (the Ph.D. student) who knows the topic well and understands all small nuances of it.

Google has offices all over the world, so this is a ridiculous argument at best. Even if you did need them to be face to face, there's no need for anything more than a temporary work visa for that purpose. Got any better explanations than that one?

Slashdot Top Deals

Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.