|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Fred WeissFred Weiss Date: Sep 29, 2007 05:31
On Sep 26, 11:01 pm, Bret Cahill aol.com> wrote:>>> The Constitution was set up for popular control of all national
>>> economic policy.
>>> Art. I, Sec 8.
>>> The vast majority will become impoverished yet they will still be able
>>> to organize on line.
>> Apparently not so "impoverished" that they can't afford computers,
>> internet connections, and electricity.
>
> Moore's law says communications will become so cheap it won't even be
> an issue for homeless people.
"Moore's Law" is only possible under capitalism and it reflects the
inexorable power of competition to constantly improve productivity
through technology and continually lower prices. It applies in varying
degrees to every aspect of the economy and has the *exact opposite
effect* of impoverishment. It is precisely what continually enriches
all segments of the population and results in the steady improvement
in the standard of living
> Already most public libraries will let anyone post here.
|
| Show full article (3.32Kb) |
|
| | 45 Comments |
|
|
Author: TimTim Date: Sep 29, 2007 06:34
> On Sep 26, 11:01 pm, Bret Cahill aol.com> wrote:>>>> The Constitution was set up for popular control of all national
>>>> economic policy.
>>>> Art. I, Sec 8.
>>>> The vast majority will become impoverished yet they will still be
>>>> able
>>>> to organize on line.
>>> Apparently not so "impoverished" that they can't afford computers,
>>> internet connections, and electricity.
>>
>> Moore's law says communications will become so cheap it won't even be
>> an issue for homeless people.
>
> "Moore's Law" is only possible under capitalism and it reflects the
> inexorable power of competition to constantly improve productivity
> through technology and continually lower prices. It applies in varying
> degrees to every aspect of the economy and has the *exact opposite
> effect* of impoverishment. It is precisely what continually enriches ...
|
| Show full article (5.05Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Bret CahillBret Cahill Date: Sep 29, 2007 09:05
>>>> The Constitution was set up for popular control of all national
>>>> economic policy.
>>>> Art. I, Sec 8.
>>>> The vast majority will become impoverished yet they will still be able
>>>> to organize on line.
>>> Apparently not so "impoverished" that they can't afford computers,
>>> internet connections, and electricity.
>> Moore's law says communications will become so cheap it won't even be
>> an issue for homeless people.
> "Moore's Law" is only possible under capitalism
How is that relevant?
Many classical writers believe that the preconditions of democracy
were only possible under aristocracy. For example, a despotism like
Iraq can never become democratic. Does that mean the west should have
stuck with aristocracy forever?
Fundytarians are frightened of change, of _evolution_. They can only
imagine some final static state of society.
|
| Show full article (6.37Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Bret CahillBret Cahill Date: Sep 29, 2007 09:32
>>>>> The Constitution was set up for popular control of all national
>>>>> economic policy.
>>>>> Art. I, Sec 8.
>>>>> The vast majority will become impoverished yet they will still be
>>>>> able
>>>>> to organize on line.
>>>> Apparently not so "impoverished" that they can't afford computers,
>>>> internet connections, and electricity.
>
>>> Moore's law says communications will become so cheap it won't even be
>>> an issue for homeless people.
>
>> "Moore's Law" is only possible under capitalism and it reflects the
>> inexorable power of competition to constantly improve productivity
>> through technology and continually lower prices. It applies in varying
>> degrees to every aspect of the economy and has the *exact opposite
>> effect* of impoverishment. It is...
|
| Show full article (6.45Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Fred WeissFred Weiss Date: Sep 29, 2007 17:14
On Sep 29, 9:34 am, "Tim" qwerty.com> wrote:
> ...Moore's law states that computational power will and has
> doubled approximately every two years due to an ability to place ever more
> transistors onto an integrated circuit. It doesn't necessarily follow that
> prices will drop.
The price drop is an inherent part of the process. Even if the price
remains the same, you are getting much more for your money. Anyone who
has bought a computer every few years or so over the last 10-15 knows
this.
> How would you demonstrate that Moores' Law depends on capitalism? It depends
> on technological innovation, and that has been around a lot longer than
> capitalism has.
But the rate of technological innovation under capitalism has been
vastly greater than in any other period in history. And there has
never been anything like "Moore's Law" prior to capitalism.
|
| Show full article (2.83Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: TimTim Date: Sep 29, 2007 21:04
> On Sep 29, 9:34 am, "Tim" qwerty.com> wrote:
>>> ...Moore's law states that computational power will and has
>> doubled approximately every two years due to an ability to place ever
>> more
>> transistors onto an integrated circuit. It doesn't necessarily follow
>> that
>> prices will drop.
>
> The price drop is an inherent part of the process. Even if the price
> remains the same, you are getting much more for your money. Anyone who
> has bought a computer every few years or so over the last 10-15 knows
> this.
>
>> How would you demonstrate that Moores' Law depends on capitalism? It
>> depends
>> on technological innovation, and that has been around a lot longer than
>> capitalism has. ...
|
| Show full article (3.85Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Bret CahillBret Cahill Date: Sep 30, 2007 04:21
>>> ...Moore's law states that computational power will and has
>>> doubled approximately every two years due to an ability to place ever
>>> more
>>> transistors onto an integrated circuit. It doesn't necessarily follow
>>> that
>>> prices will drop.
>> The price drop is an inherent part of the process. Even if the price
>> remains the same, you are getting much more for your money. Anyone who
>> has bought a computer every few years or so over the last 10-15 knows
>> this.
>>> How would you demonstrate that Moores' Law depends on capitalism? It
>>> depends
>>> on technological innovation, and that has been around a lot longer than
>>> capitalism has.
>> But the rate of technological innovation under capitalism has been
>> vastly greater than in any other period in history. And there has
>> never been anything like "Moore's Law" prior to capitalism.
> So how did the U.S.S.R beat the U.S.A. into space?
Gummint spending is necessary for basic research in any country.
|
| Show full article (4.68Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Fred WeissFred Weiss Date: Sep 30, 2007 04:35
On Sep 30, 12:04 am, "Tim" qwerty.com> wrote:
> So how did the U.S.S.R beat the U.S.A. into space?
Easy. First, letting its people stand on line for bread while devoting
all its available resources to projects with great propaganda value.
And second, stealing our technology.
Why didn't you ask me how the Russians got the A-bomb. Well, they got
their space technology - and all their advanced technology for that
matter - in the same way.
> ...How do you define standard of living - by the number of
> TV's you own?
How would you define it - by the number of hours you spend cutting
sugar cane at the point of a gun or by your ration cards for basic
necessities (when they are available) or by the number of people who
risk their lives to try and escape? Or how about the numbers of people
in the gulag?
Once people came by the boatload to get into the US. Now they sneak
in. But they still come. By the millions. Ask them how they define
standard of living.
|
| Show full article (1.80Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: tgtg Date: Sep 30, 2007 04:54
On Sep 30, 12:04 am, "Tim" qwerty.com> wrote:>> On Sep 29, 9:34 am, "Tim" qwerty.com> wrote:>
>>> ...Moore's law states that computational power will and has
>>> doubled approximately every two years due to an ability to place ever
>>> more
>>> transistors onto an integrated circuit. It doesn't necessarily follow
>>> that
>>> prices will drop.
>
>> The price drop is an inherent part of the process. Even if the price
>> remains the same, you are getting much more for your money. Anyone who
>> has bought a computer every few years or so over the last 10-15 knows
>> this. ...
|
| Show full article (4.58Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Fred WeissFred Weiss Date: Sep 30, 2007 05:13
On Sep 30, 7:54 am, tg earthlink.net> wrote:
> Standard of living can be characterized by your ability to own the
> most valued products available.
>
> People with the maximum choice (rich people), for example, do not buy
> many different colored sneakers at Walmart. Rather, they buy ranches
> in Montana, and maybe a little chalet in Tuscany.
>
> Standard of living will have improved when everyone can have what rich
> people choose.
That's bizarrely perverse. You mean that where before millions
periodically died of famine or were wiped out by plagues or where they
lived in hovels and now have indoor plumbing, central heating,
electricity, refrigerators and microwaves or own stereos, iPods, cell
phones, Nike sneakers, and dvd players, still their standard of living
hasn't improved because they don't have villas in Aspen?
Are you competing with Brat for the craziness award?
However you are inadvertently confessing the fundamental underlying
premise of socialism - crass envy.
|
| Show full article (1.69Kb) |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
