Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Cthulhu]

Oooorrr, we could just sell laptops, and sell internet, instead of nationalizing several large branches of the economy because interweb mak pepl smarts

[HideousBeing]

Oooorrr, we could just sell laptops, and sell internet, instead of nationalizing several large branches of the economy because interweb mak pepl smarts

Blasphemy! Capatalism in my America!? But seriously. Yes.

EDIT: We need to stop intervening in industries that don't need it. Sometimes we need minimal regulation to stop monopolies from forming and ensure that there is real competition or to stop absolutely abhorrent working conditions, but our economic system seems to work. I feel we've been going a tad overboard with regulation lately. And giving out free shit... wtf...

[Grakelin]

That sociology Ph. D student I'm always talking to claims that the literacy rate is actually bolstered by the presence of the internet.

Judging from my own experiences of the past ten or so years of internet use, wherein I see arguments consisting of "ITS JST INTRNETZ I CN TLK HWEVR I WANT" popping up less and less often, I'm inclined to agree.

Most people have computer access in their homes nowadays anyways, even people in low income brackets. If we're giving out free computers, there are already programs to send them to Africa (I think they discontinued it in Nigeria because kids were using it to look up porn, though).

[Duuvian]

Maybe we should give everyone laptops, then they could just walk down to their local starbucks. The internet by itself will probably not make a significant impact on the average intelligence of people because the average person probably spends the majority of their time on silly forums, facebook, 4chan, watching porn, etc. If people don't actually use the internet to pursue knowledge, then they will not benefit significantly from it even though they've joined 20 facebook groups for saving whales. As another poster said, college would be a much wiser investment (hell, I prefer college over health care).

As for what I think we should do now since everyone is saying it (as if I'm an expert...) we should make large social security and medicare cuts and use that to focus on the economy, reduce our debt and generally get our shit together (lowering taxes is nice...).

I agree. I'm not proposing we do it right away. I was just wondering how people felt about it as a goal for 2100 or something. Global internet access.

I'll modify my orignal post, I forgot to include the fact that I don't expect them to jump right on it.  I must have come off as crazy.

[smigenboger]

'The Economy' doesn't seem to be a self-sustaining free mind, when left to it's own devices. Giving it loose reins is just as bad as completely controlling it.

[Cthulhu]

Giving it no reins is as bad as completely controlling it.  You keep it in line to keep people from monopolizing and calling hits on Union Leaders, but you give them plenty of room to do their own thing as long as that thing isn't abhorrent.  One of the problems is that the People have a seesaw thing going on where they seem to want the exact opposite of whatever is going wrong.  There's no middle-ground.

[Nikov]

Maybe we should give everyone laptops, then they could just walk down to their local starbucks. The internet by itself will probably not make a significant impact on the average intelligence of people because the average person probably spends the majority of their time on silly forums, facebook, 4chan, watching porn, etc. If people don't actually use the internet to pursue knowledge, then they will not benefit significantly from it even though they've joined 20 facebook groups for saving whales. As another poster said, college would be a much wiser investment (hell, I prefer college over health care).

As for what I think we should do now since everyone is saying it (as if I'm an expert...) we should make large social security and medicare cuts and use that to focus on the economy, reduce our debt and generally get our shit together (lowering taxes is nice...).

I agree. I'm not proposing we do it right away. I was just wondering how people felt about it as a goal for 2100 or something. Global internet access.

I'll modify my orignal post, I forgot to include the fact that I don't expect them to jump right on it.  I must have come off as crazy.

Why does Nulu Jomaka in Chad need internet access? So he can check global futures prices on his goat milk?

[Renault]

Would people be smarter if internet was free?

Most people I meet on the internet don't seem 'smart enough' to know how to breathe, so probably not.

I think this got far less applause than it deserved.

[Lumbajak]

I think this got far less applause than it deserved.

Would it count if I applauded myself?

[HideousBeing]

Giving it no reins is as bad as completely controlling it.  You keep it in line to keep people from monopolizing and calling hits on Union Leaders, but you give them plenty of room to do their own thing as long as that thing isn't abhorrent.  One of the problems is that the People have a seesaw thing going on where they seem to want the exact opposite of whatever is going wrong.  There's no middle-ground.

Sounds about right on all counts. I blame politics for the seesaw... and human nature...

[Nikov]

http://www.youtube.com/user/HooverInstitution#p/u/80/ERj3QeGw9Ok

Watch and learn how you can't make big decisions to save the world.

[Duuvian]

'The Economy' doesn't seem to be a self-sustaining free mind, when left to it's own devices. Giving it loose reins is just as bad as completely controlling it.

I would say it WAS, up until you add the various ways the foundation, the stock market, can be manipulated through near instantaneous mass, organized buys and selloffs at the right times through computer precision being faster than the market can react in the natural way. So, over a course of lets say 3 months, 2 weeks, whatever the span between a news story that could theoretically affect the market. They buy a bunch of cheap stock through a bunch of different accounts, that are easy to set up through the internet. Because it's 7$ per trade the trading companies make more profit, so it's sort of like hush money. The story breaks, and before the market can react there is a mass, coordinated selling, which makes a huge profit because nothing's been able to affect the market yet. Then, normal investor people see the stock index "suddenly drop" (how many times have you heard on TV "The DOW index suddenly dropped today...) and that influences them to scramble to save whatever profit since the last gain. That will make the stocks continue to dip, (newscaster says "And stock prices continue to fall today in another bad day for the market") until at some point the whole thing starts over again at a slightly higher point than the last low. That's what's probably been causing the market spikes and declines that seem random or tied to events. The people who can do massive transactions in such a scale to influence the market before the current system can register it. The world governments aren't telling us because they have no idea how to fix it without pissing everyone off. Or at least that's what I think. Thoughts on feasibility from those with experience or links?

[Duuvian]

Maybe we should give everyone laptops, then they could just walk down to their local starbucks. The internet by itself will probably not make a significant impact on the average intelligence of people because the average person probably spends the majority of their time on silly forums, facebook, 4chan, watching porn, etc. If people don't actually use the internet to pursue knowledge, then they will not benefit significantly from it even though they've joined 20 facebook groups for saving whales. As another poster said, college would be a much wiser investment (hell, I prefer college over health care).

As for what I think we should do now since everyone is saying it (as if I'm an expert...) we should make large social security and medicare cuts and use that to focus on the economy, reduce our debt and generally get our shit together (lowering taxes is nice...).

I agree. I'm not proposing we do it right away. I was just wondering how people felt about it as a goal for 2100 or something. Global internet access.

I'll modify my orignal post, I forgot to include the fact that I don't expect them to jump right on it.  I must have come off as crazy.

Why does Nulu Jomaka in Chad need internet access? So he can check global futures prices on his goat milk?

I'd say it's so he can tell someone that there's some corrupt bastards over here in charge of his town?

[Renault]

'The Economy' doesn't seem to be a self-sustaining free mind, when left to it's own devices. Giving it loose reins is just as bad as completely controlling it.

I would say it WAS, up until you add the various ways the foundation, the stock market, can be manipulated through near instantaneous mass, organized buys and selloffs at the right times through computer precision being faster than the market can react in the natural way. So, over a course of lets say 3 months, 2 weeks, whatever the span between a news story that could theoretically affect the market. They buy a bunch of cheap stock through a bunch of different accounts, that are easy to set up through the internet. Because it's 7$ per trade the trading companies make more profit, so it's sort of like hush money. The story breaks, and before the market can react there is a mass, coordinated selling, which makes a huge profit because nothing's been able to affect the market yet. Then, normal investor people see the stock index "suddenly drop" (how many times have you heard on TV "The DOW index suddenly dropped today...) and that influences them to scramble to save whatever profit since the last gain. That will make the stocks continue to dip, (newscaster says "And stock prices continue to fall today in another bad day for the market") until at some point the whole thing starts over again at a slightly higher point than the last low. That's what's probably been causing the market spikes and declines that seem random or tied to events. The people who can do massive transactions in such a scale to influence the market before the current system can register it. The world governments aren't telling us because they have no idea how to fix it without pissing everyone off. Or at least that's what I think. Thoughts on feasibility from those with experience or links?

Not to be rude, but you really don't know much about how stocks are sold, do you?

[Duuvian]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

'The Economy' doesn't seem to be a self-sustaining free mind, when left to it's own devices. Giving it loose reins is just as bad as completely controlling it.

I would say it WAS, up until you add the various ways the foundation, the stock market, can be manipulated through near instantaneous mass, organized buys and selloffs at the right times through computer precision being faster than the market can react in the natural way. So, over a course of lets say 3 months, 2 weeks, whatever the span between a news story that could theoretically affect the market. They buy a bunch of cheap stock through a bunch of different accounts, that are easy to set up through the internet. Because it's 7$ per trade the trading companies make more profit, so it's sort of like hush money. The story breaks, and before the market can react there is a mass, coordinated selling, which makes a huge profit because nothing's been able to affect the market yet. Then, normal investor people see the stock index "suddenly drop" (how many times have you heard on TV "The DOW index suddenly dropped today...) and that influences them to scramble to save whatever profit since the last gain. That will make the stocks continue to dip, (newscaster says "And stock prices continue to fall today in another bad day for the market") until at some point the whole thing starts over again at a slightly higher point than the last low. That's what's probably been causing the market spikes and declines that seem random or tied to events. The people who can do massive transactions in such a scale to influence the market before the current system can register it. The world governments aren't telling us because they have no idea how to fix it without pissing everyone off. Or at least that's what I think. Thoughts on feasibility from those with experience or links?

Not to be rude, but you really don't know much about how stocks are sold, do you?

Enlighten me? You could try doing it through PM's if I made an especially boneheaded mistake and I'll graciously accept it.

I only say try because PM's have been weird on the forum lately.