Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



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

Comment Re:That can't be right (Score 1) 529

It's funny you should bring that up. I've always been amazed at how the economy and the state of the union in general immediately aligns with the ideology and policies of the presiding president. One would naturally suspect that the former term president's influence would carry on for a bit but its striking how wrong people consistently tell me I am.

Comment Re:Fake news (Score 1) 529

Have you performed a calculation and comparison of what kind of income would be required to live at the standards of the 50's and 60's in the modern age? Until you normalize standards of living you really cannot perform an honest comparison. Hint: the bourgeoisie of the 50's and 60's would more closely fall in alongside those in many of the modern developing nations.

Comment Re: Trump! (Score 5, Insightful) 529

I know it's true that you do, but I still find it hard to grasp that people like you exist. You'll believe and repeat everything you hear from your favorite talking heads with no regard for how much it defies logic. How is an interest bearing loan repaid in full a taxpayer handout while a tax break which is to say, they get to put fewer dollars into the government coffers, not a handout?

Comment Re:Surprised (Score 5, Insightful) 529

Why people like to compare past households with present day households to suggest the economy was better in the 50's, 60's is incomprehensible. They're apples and oranges. The economy was not better, the standard of living was lower. At no time in the history of the United States has there been a time when the average citizen has been as materially wealthy as they are now. We don't build 1000sq. ft. mid-century modest homes, we build 2000+ sq. ft. McMansions. We don't drive those unreliable, antiquated tanks on wheels, nor is there just one per family. Today the average passenger car would be seen as fit for the 1/10th of the 1% back then. Today the average person owns vastly more cloths and of that those of materials that would have been exclusive to the elite. Imagine sitting down in the evening to a 15" manual-tune grayscale VHF tube TV the size of a significant chest of drawers today. People back then couldn't even comprehend the existence of the personal electronics the average person owns today let alone possessing them themselves. The quality and kinds of food readily available and affordable today would be seen as scandalously extravagant. The service industry of which everyone presently avails themselves was bit a tiny mote of what it is today. These comparisons can be made for nearly all facets of life with great similarity of result.

To suggest that people would be better off with the economy of the 50's and 60's is preposterous. If we lived now as we did then, then Walmart would absolutely be the employer of bourgeoisie.

Comment Re:500 AD and watch deforestation in action (Score 1) 85

Correct, we even have a shortage now of many prairie types. Do we have too many trees? After reading your comment, my first thought was, "i wonder how much carbon we have sequestered with these trees?". Did we alleviate any significant C02 burden with this? Maybe we simply masked a bigger problem? Maybe we need to bury all these trees and start some fresh ones to capture more C02. Everyone should bury their christmas tree!

Comment Re:Wrong (Score 1) 333

Meet Bob, gross annual income $0, net -$50,000 (medical bills). He took a product promoted by the producer of some of his favorite videos promising to add an extra 3 inches. Now he's suffering from an embolism and renal failure and is unable to work due to his condition. Meet company Long Member LLC., gross annual income $250M, net $180M makers of the product Bob took.

Care to guess what'd happen should Bob decide to get frisky in between dialysis visits and try to lawyer up.

Comment Re:Regulation (Score 1) 333

So a competitor is going to spend {x} on the testing of competitors, {y} on a marketing campaign to convince the masses that their cheap commodity good actually has aloe and others don't, and {z} on defending libel suits brought against them by the competitors they just slandered? You sir have a peculiar sense of reality.

Comment Re:government regulations (Score 2) 333

To hell with regulations. The last thing we need is some government bureaucracy telling us luminescent green goo in a bottle with a picture of a leafy plant on it can't be sold as aloe. It captures the spirit of what Americans think aloe is and that should be good enough. This all comes down to personal responsibility, not more nanny state regulations. I say we let the markets sort this out. Next thing you know they'll be conducting raids on wasabi factories. Where does it end?

Slashdot Top Deals

Never say you know a man until you have divided an inheritance with him.

Working...