Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Here's an idea (Score 1) 57

I haven't found music through marketing since I was a teen. Sure, marketing in any industry will always be able to sell inferior crap to the ignorant, and that may never change, but there are plenty of ways to discover music these days. Heck, do labels even bother with payola any more (do kids still listen to the radio?).

These days I usually discover new artists through the various "people who bought/listened to X also bought/listened to Y" algorithms on Amazon, YouTube, etc. I think a lot of people find new music through Spotify's algorithms (has there been a Spotify payola scandal yet?).

Marketing was just more important in the days of broadcast media and limited distribution channels for records. Now there's no scarcity of airtime or shelf space.

Comment Re:Wrong even if correct (Score 1) 133

If both increase at the same rate, there is no inflation, you economically ignorant fuck

Ah, such reasoned discourse is what makes Slashdot special. In the simplest model, sure, we have 4% more money and 4% more stuff, so prices should be stable, right? But instead demand leads supply in a growing economy, so prices go up.

Plus, economic growth tends to be more in areas where people have a choice whether or not to buy (or purchases can at least be delayed), while measuring inflation is weighted towards basic staples where people buy more-or-less the same amount in good times and in bad. So we have 2% more money, but the same amount of deodorant being produced and consumed.

So, yeah, we don't get 4% inflation - it's not a direct measure of the derivative of the money supply - but we get typically 2-3% inflation when the economy growths 4%.

Comment Re:Here's an idea (Score 1) 60

This is absolutely nothing new.

Before he became a homicidal maniac, Phil Spector was a maniac responsible for the sound that many acts had. He was not ever considered part of the bands that he was ostensibly a Producer for, but he made lineup choices, made arrangements of the tunes brought by bands, and worked extensively in the editing booth after the tracks were laid-down.

If anything the only change is that modern technology lets the producer involve far fewer other people in crafting an act's sound, and makes it possible for the act to tour with what used to be only achievable as a studio sound.

It almost doesn't matter how an act is discovered, what the people in the group must be willing to let their act be subjected-to is what will define where the label is willing to market them and how much effort they're willing to spend.

Comment Re:Need a change of leadership (Score 1) 35

Jack Valenti, who shaped the modern era of the MPAA as its President for 38 years, was not Jewish. His parents were Italian immigrants, so it's fairly likely that he was Catholic.

On Valenti's stepping-down in 2004, Dan Glickman was made President of the MPAA. He admittedly was Jewish, but he doesn't appear to have changes Valenti's policies too dramatically.

Glickman left the MPAA in 2010 after only six years, to be replaced by Chuck Dodd, who is not Jewish.

So for the last fifty years, someone whose religion can be described as Jewish was the head of the MPAA only 12% of the time. This seems to rather invalidate your argument.

Comment Re:Inflation or Rally? (Score 1) 133

They would not even seek to stop it, considering the value of 1-2% per year "normal" (that's a tax on wealth, BTW).

Inflation is not a tax on wealth. Wealth is the ownership of the means of production, which has it's own value. If dollars have less value, the number of dollars needed to buy the means of production increases. However, deflation, or over-high inflation, can hurt the economy and thereby reduce the value of the means of production, but that's a very indirect effect (and usually temporary).

Inflation hurts existing (fixed-rate) debt-holders. If you have bonds, or CDs, or some other fixed-rate instrument, you're hurt when interest rates rise. But that's not wealth - it's either parked money or speculation (depending on how safe).

Comment Re:Inflation or Rally? (Score 1) 134

One way or the other, only one of the two reasons proposed for BitCoin surge can be valid — it is an equivalent of a Climate Scientist "predicting", it may become hotter or colder in 10 years.

TFA and/or the submission are a blatant attempt to make money on BitCoint speculation, while blaming Trump for whatever he ends up causing: a drop or a rise in dollar's value.

Comment Re:Honest answers (Score 1) 7

"Scientist Victor Venema provides answers" is the link

If you saw fit to put Scott Adams' name in the title of your submission, your link should've pointed at his text, rather than at some unknown responding to it. You could've included the latter in the write-up as well, but Scott's post should've been there as prominently as his name is.

see based on your posting history

Seriously? Ad hominem? Your dishonesty has nothing to do with my posting history...

Comment Re:Wrong even if correct (Score 2) 133

Inflation is a symptom of a healthy economy. The money supply should be increasing as the economy increases. The causation doesn't work the other way though - no one has ever spurred economy growth by trying to cause inflation (though Japan tried for 20+ years without success). You can't push on a rope.

Another nice feature of low inflation is that it avoids annoying negatives. Safe ways to park your money (e.g., savings account) pay a bit less than inflation, which gets very awkward if inflation is 0 or negative. Similarly, the graceful way to handle employees paid more than the market value of their work is to give them a raise smaller than inflation, and let it equalize over time - which, again, stops being graceful if inflation is 0 or negative.

Comment Re:Wrong even if correct (Score 5, Insightful) 134

Deflation is worse than inflation. Inflation devalues your savings, thus encouraging (forcing) you to go out there are do more work to earn more money (generate more productivity). Deflation increases the value of your savings, thus discouraging you from working - why bother doing something productive when the money you have stuffed under your mattress is increasing in value enough to pay for your living expenses?

Currencies are stable when the money supply expands at about the same rate as the productivity of the country's citizens (basically GDP - a combination of population growth and increased productivity due to technological advances). That causes prices to remain stable when measured in the currency. Ideally, a government with a fiat currency moderates their money supply to slightly exceed this productivity growth rate, which causes a slight amount of inflation (prices slowly climb). Yes it's true that when a government screws things up (e.g. Venezuela right now), it can cause massive problems. But like regular oil changes for your car, there's a huge incentive for all governments to maintain their own economy.

The whole reason we abandoned the gold standard is that it's really stupid to base your economy's health on the gamble that the amount of gold miners dug out of the ground each year would match the rate of growth of your country's GDP. Historically, the amount of gold mined each year did not keep pace with economic growth, resulting in deflation, which led to higher economic instability. If you look at the history of recessions in the U.S., in the 45 years since 1971 when we went off the gold standard, there have been 6 recessions, or 1 per 7.5 years. In the 45 years prior (1926-1971) there were 9 recessions, or 1 per 5 years. The 50 years before that (1875-1925) saw 13 recessions, or 1 per 3.8 years. And the 50 years before that (1825-1875) saw 13 recessions as well. The amount of economic contraction during recessions has also been smaller since we went off the gold standard.

Unfortunately, bitcoin perpetuates this stupidity. Its value is based on (1) the rate at which people are able to "mine" bitcoins by solving increasingly difficult math problems, and (2) its total supply is capped at about 21 million coins. The very fact that bitcoins are appreciating in value is evidence that it's a terrible choice of a currency. You want the prices of staple goods to remain relatively stable in a currency. Instead, bitcoins are so deflationary that early adopters are literally able to live off of bitcoins they've stuffed under the mattress, instead of actually doing any productive work. A currency which enables that behavior is fatal to an economy. I'm not saying all crypto-currencies are flawed, or that there's no benefit to taking a currency out of government control. Only that bitcoin is fatally flawed in that it accomplishes the latter in the worst possible way. The huge increase in the value of bitcoins since its inception is not an indicator of its strength, it's an indicator of its unsuitability as a currency. It proves that bitcoin is incapable of scaling properly with the number of people using it (productivity growth due to population increase). In that respect it's more like real estate - where people who were born earlier were able to buy up most of it cheaply, leaving the current generation unable to afford to buy a home.

Slashdot Top Deals

Real wealth can only increase. -- R. Buckminster Fuller