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:Old stuff "discovered" by the ignorant (Score 1) 217

While I don't necessarily disagree with you, let me point out that orthodox economic models are also based on assumptions that are not entirely true. For example you don't necessarily assume that any one agent (e.g. the central planner) has all the information relevant to making decisions, but you do assume that all relevant information is available to parties making decisions about transactions they'll take part in. That's not true, but it's close enough to being true that the models have practical utility. Oh, and there's the bit about people being rational in their decision-making.

Comment Re:Question (Score 1) 217

That is the wrong question. The problem isn't about having people leaching the system there are other attributes towards wealth than raw survivaval we want to feel special and worth while, those who freeloading willingly really have some mental problem that should be addressed. The real question is on the other side if there are no corporations or rich people what will prevent people going that extra mile where it really suffers.
Let's use Musk as an example against all odds he is pushing clean energy and making money off of it. A government really would still stick with fossil fuel just because the risk of failure is low and the jobs for it are well defined.
The social imbalance is needed for progress.
But we need to make sure those at the bottom are not stuck. That is where the problem is.

Comment Re:Question (Score 1) 217

Because believe it or not, while working sucks, not working also sucks. You don't know how much you get out of work until you don't have it anymore, and I mean stuff beside money: social interaction, purpose, challenge, someplace to go and someplace to look forward to take a vacation from.

In Sweden they're offering an intriguing compromise: work less, or more precisely work for fewer hours, which isn't precisely the same thing.

Comment Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. (Score 1) 313

Hey, look! Leading off with more deflection and ad hominem! At least you're right on track with with not caring that she lies, though. Any guilt you may feel about helping her to get elected, though - that's entirely on you. Your phony umbrage isn't very convincing. You want her to be elected, and you're just faking it with the noble third party nonsense. You know perfectly well that the alternatives are completely unelectable. So you are taking actions that will put Hillary Clinton in power. Simple as that. If you actually have the ethics to feel guilty about that, perhaps you have some redeeming qualities after all and just need to work out your baked-in mixed premises and contradictions. Otherwise, your delusion that voting for a guaranteed loser will somehow help things is, well, delusional.

I take all of your vitriol and ad hominem in the context of that delusional perspective, of course. If you're going to be irrational with your vote, it's not surprising that you have an irrational understanding of how to persuade others embrace your world view.

Your entire shtick is so revealing. Thanks for letting other people see and confirm it. And man! you are such a baby! I thought the other guy was bad. I really wish you could step out and see yourself. It would make you gag.

Hey, look! More substance-less ad hominem that lacks even one example of what's "revealed" or any specificity of any kind. Just more hand-waving vague distraction in an attempt to get away from the matter at hand. Thanks for wrapping up the same way you started, just for consistency's sake.

Comment Re:Anything incriminating? (Score 1) 423

Context is important here, and left vs. right is relative. Here in America, Democrats are "left" because there's only two parties with any real strength, so one's right and one's left, and it's undeniable that the Dems are to the left of the Reps (the degree is what's debatable). But yes, compared to politics in Europe, or even compared to the Green Party which is active here in the US, the Dems are definitely right-wing.

So no, not everyone who votes Democrat is a right-winger; anyone who's seriously left but wants to vote for a candidate who actually has a shot at winning has to vote Dem. Of course, this is what leads us to the current predicament too.... There really isn't any way around it though, thanks to Duverger's Law; it's very rare (though it does happen once in a while) that a 3rd party can rise up and gain power in a system that uses first-past-the-post (plurality) voting. The last time it happened here was when the Whig party died out and the Democratic-Republicans split into two.

Comment Re:Soviet Union tried it (Score 1) 217

You're right that the Soviets already tried it, but modern day communists will reject your observation, and claim that the communists of yesteryear simply weren't smart enough.

I'm willing to accept that, but tell me how; and this blog post that merely repeats the mistakes of the past is not succeeding to do that.

Comment Re:Standard Ruling Party shit. (Score 1) 313

Me? No. I'm watching you unable to express a single salient point on your own. Here's one you can work from: Hillary Clinton, if she were anyone else, would now at the very least be unable to get a security clearance, and she's been steadily lying to you about the circumstances around her handling, hiding and destruction of government records. This pleases you. You like that she lies to you, because you're smug enough to think that even though you know better, you're hoping that everyone else in the world is too dumb not to fall for it. Your own response, rather than being your own factual rebuttal of that characterization of her actions, will be to say that I haven't sufficiently read other material.

This is because you know she's indefensible, and you know that if you use your own words here to say that she (for example) hasn't been lying about such things, you'll be confirmed as a fool. So, of course you're deflecting and attempting to avoid going on the record. Predictable, typical, nothing new. But still entertaining in its transparency.

Comment Re: Free movement of labor for other jobs... (Score 1) 222

On the contrary.

If you properly impose a tariff, which includes yearly limits on quotas of imported goods, you put the imported good artificially at the same or very similar market price as the locally produced product.

EG, in your example of 4$ per pound cotton textiles, the government artificially raises the price of that import via the tariff, making it say-- 19$ per pound once it gets to the market.

People don't stop wearing clothes just because the price goes up. Instead, they start looking more strongly at quality. They don't have the disposable income (everything costs more) to waste on crap clothing that they have to replace every year. Instead, they see the value in purchasing the clothing made with the higher production quality that lasts longer, This increases the demand for the higher quality product, and with increased demand, go increased opportunities for investment--- aka, JOBS.

Comment Re:It's obvious it won't accelerate offshoring (Score 1) 222

When you demand impossible education requirements for basic employment, you impose a significant cost on your potential applicants.

Specifically, the cost of the education level you are demanding. It can easily enter triple digits, and take a third or more of a worker's lifetime to pay off, and is non-dischargeable.

That cost is real. It does not go away when you hire H1B laborers. The local economy is still saddled with the debt created by this wasted educational burden. (Wasted, because you never had any intention of hiring those applicants anyway.)

When you put a want ad out in the local job market, then purposefully ignore all applications that are local, so that you can hire a cheaper H1B, you are saddling the local economy with the difference in the cost of education, since the people that you caused to be trained by putting out your fake demand, now are unemployable, AND IN DEBT.

Comment Re:Free movement of labor for other jobs... (Score 1) 222

So, let me get this straight AC--

A country that imports more than it exports is "Great!" in your estimation, and pointing out that the actual quote from ricardo concerning his theory is as follows, with a little added emphasis of my own:

"If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them [b]with some part of the produce of our own industry employed in a way in which we have some advantage.[/b] The general industry of the country, being always in proportion to the capital which employs it, will not thereby be diminished ... but only left to find out the way in which it can be employed with the greatest advantage."

Note, his thesis does not work at all when the bolded part is not met.

While the US does have the second largest export market, A significant proportion of the US's labor force is not tied to manufacturing or exports, most of it is service industry. Further, the manufacturing capacity of the US is currently struggling.

Reuters attributes the low manufacturing performance to a high valued dollar, and low oil costs (globally)-- resulting in labor for manufacturing being too expensive in the USA-- THE EXACT THING WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, and that tariffs are intended to help avert.

Their opinion is not alone-- The economic policy institute has a rather lengthly report about it.

To which they credit " nearly two decades of policy failures that have damaged its international competitiveness" as the primary causal factor behind the massive reduction in US manufacturing. What policy decisions have been enacted in the past 20 years? Various free trade agreements that removed trade tariffs.

It further states that manufacturing accounts for only 8.8% of the US's labor force. Meaning that most americans are not employed doing manufacturing, but in some other industry.

Yet somehow, despite the massively disproportionate segment of the US labor force that is allocated to service providing, industries seeking service workers (No, software is NOT a manufacturing job. it is a service job.) "Simply cannot find qualified applicants!" Perhaps we aren't training enough people to meet those needs? No-- the NYT seems to feel otherwise.

The costs of attaining a college degree are spiraling out of control, while the benefits of getting one diminish, due to labor force saturation. This is because there is out of control demand for college education, coupled with lackluster pay once it is attained. Basically, the service industry in the US does not want to pay for the education requirements it is demanding, and is leaving hopeful applicants holding the bag.

Instead, the service industry leadership wants only the cream of the crop, so to speak, of the potential applicant pool. It demands only the very finest caviar, and wants to pay cheesewiz prices. (Why not, it can get caviar for the price of cheezewiz elsewhere!)

This comparative difference in labor rates is ALSO controlled innately by tariffs, and prevents this kind of labor shopping-- at least as far as outsourced labor is concerned.

Now that I have buried you under a pretty substantively sized wall of text with some citations and opinion pieces by bonafide economists, perhaps you can be a little more forthcoming in how my interpretation of your rhetorical question is so clearly "Wrong", yes?

Slashdot Top Deals

Center meeting at 4pm in 2C-543.