One problem is all the stuff you apt-get that's not a library or module or something. How do you apt-get install apache2 into a private directory? Gonna get mad shit fucked up yo.
Or does apt just know what's a system thing and what's a user thing and what's in between.
This is why Docker is so appealing.
Yeah, at first I was also side-eyeing it, but I think it might be legit. Starting to mess around with it. Why couldn't BSD Jails do all this, though?
One problem is all the stuff you apt-get that's not a library or module or something. How do you apt-get install apache2 into a private directory? Gonna get mad shit fucked up yo.
Or does apt just know what's a system thing and what's a user thing and what's in between.
How would that be fucked up? root is a user that can still apt-get things. And I might want my own Apache that isn't system wide.
Daddy two Apache wouldn't cause any problems? I just picked a big application as an example, there must be stuff the system counts on to only have a single instance.
One problem is all the stuff you apt-get that's not a library or module or something. How do you apt-get install apache2 into a private directory? Gonna get mad shit fucked up yo.
Or does apt just know what's a system thing and what's a user thing and what's in between.
How would that be fucked up? root is a user that can still apt-get things. And I might want my own Apache that isn't system wide.
Daddy two Apache wouldn't cause any problems? I just picked a big application as an example, there must be stuff the system counts on to only have a single instance.
Why would it? Does it cause a problem if two different users run vim at the same time? Of course, being a non-root user, you wouldn't have permission to open up your apache on port 80. However, you could just create a group that has that permission (say www-data) and add users to that group who should be able to do that. Of course if two apaches tried to run on the same port, the second one would get denied. But one apache running on 80 and another on say, 8000, is not an issue at all.
I think the rule of thumb for who qualifies for oppression is "have they ever been relocated". Indians were relocated from their own land to Oklahoma. The Japanese were relocated from their homes in California to internment camps. Black people were taken from Africa and relocated to the New World. I realize there are some exceptions to this rule, but it seems like a good place to start.
I think the rule of thumb for who qualifies for oppression is "have they ever been relocated". Indians were relocated from their own land to Oklahoma. The Japanese were relocated from their homes in California to internment camps. Black people were taken from Africa and relocated to the New World. I realize there are some exceptions to this rule, but it seems like a good place to start.
That seems valid I can't think of a contradictory situation. What about the case of a people who's land is invaded, they stay on their own land but under significantly worse living situations / laws while the invaders live a unduly regal life in the same area?
I think the rule of thumb for who qualifies for oppression is "have they ever been relocated". Indians were relocated from their own land to Oklahoma. The Japanese were relocated from their homes in California to internment camps. Black people were taken from Africa and relocated to the New World. I realize there are some exceptions to this rule, but it seems like a good place to start.
That seems valid I can't think of a contradictory situation. What about the case of a people who's land is invaded, they stay on their own land but under significantly worse living situations / laws while the invaders live a unduly regal life in the same area?
My rule of thumb only extends to domestic oppression. Colonialism and imperialism are also forms of oppression but the context is very different.
In the long run, a balanced budget leads to one of three things: (1) Government accumulation of private assets. (2) Deflation. (3) A credit bubble which leads to sudden and severe occurrences of (1) and/or (2) when it bursts.
I suppose a deficit should average a constant fraction of GDP over time (or a constant fraction of tax income), which keeps debt stable and represents the government basically making long- and short-term investments in itself.
If the deficit grows faster than tax base, the government has to spend an increasing fraction of its budget paying down debt and things would be iffy long-term.
Basically, if you have an economy that's growing at 3% per year, and you want to target inflation of 2% per year, the government should have a structural deficit of 5% of GDP to ensure that in the long run the amount of debt/money grows in line with the real economy, plus a bit of extra for inflation.
If the deficit has a long-term upward trajectory then either the government needs to grow as a % of the overall economy, or the long-term spending trajectory needs to be cut. Similarly, if the deficit has a long-term downward trajectory that would probably also warrant intervention.
In some cases, that could justify attempts to address underlying long-term issues that cause that kind of thing. However, you might also be OK to just gradually cut spending or raise taxes as you run into those situations, rather than doing it in advance.
How long before automation and other technologies replace workers in enough industries that we just get a minimum income and people will work towards careers because they have a passion for a particular field or want fancy shit rather than to keep themselves fed and housed?
Reasonable counter-arguments also assume adherence to particular schools of economic thought, and so this is something that ought to be decided on empirical evidence.
Meanwhile, there is a moral imperative to stop credit bubbles, although perhaps if you're in the finance industry that moral imperative might be overridden by personal greed ^_~.
As for the post-labor society, I'd like to get there as soon as possible, but the less enlightened we are about economics on our way there, the more likely that post-labor society will be a dystopia rather than a utopia.
Also, if the budget deficit is actually too low, that could lead to genuine bipartisan deals where the Republicans get tax cuts (and tax reform) while the Democrats get spending increases.
How long before automation and other technologies replace workers in enough industries that we just get a minimum income and people will work towards careers because they have a passion for a particular field or want fancy shit rather than to keep themselves fed and housed?
Minimum income is already economically feasible (at least in developed countries); what's missing is the political will.
How long before automation and other technologies replace workers in enough industries that we just get a minimum income and people will work towards careers because they have a passion for a particular field or want fancy shit rather than to keep themselves fed and housed?
The United States has a not statistically irrelevant percentage of its population that would like to to the outright abolition of the minimum wage as a concept.
I leave to you the math that leads that being an answer of "A reallllly long fucking time. No need to show your work.
If you make it a basic income (which everyone gets paid regardless of how much their job pays or whether they have one) rather than a minimum income, there's a solid economic case in that it leads to less distortion, and thus freer markets and better overall outcomes when compared to unemployment benefits + minimum wages. Basic incomes have significant right-wing support, although for them it tends to go along with abolishing other kinds of welfare.
Yeah that's what I meant. If the basic income was good enough, we wouldn't need the other kinds of welfare as much anyway. And if it was enough to live off of less people might have to turn to crime, so less could potentially be spent on prisons (especially if we ended the war on drugs). If there's actually enough right-wing support on such an evil socialist idea, it might have a chance... eventually.
You have to frame the discussion correctly; i.e. it's not an "evil socialist" idea, it's "market-oriented public aid".
Nevertheless, some kinds of welfare would still be necessary with a basic income, so you'd still have to fight right-wingers on the details as they would want to repeal those.
Also, Europe has effectively been on a slightly more flexible version of the gold standard, which is the main reason the crisis has been so bad over there.
Is it coherent economics to conceptualize US dollars as shares in the entire U.S. economy (or perhaps more accurately the U.S. government's ability to stay in control of it)? One key difference is, of course, that the US can print as many US dollars as it wants to.
I'd possibly write a book called "Why I hate Andy Kaufman." Mostly for the reason that Andy Kaufman's Performance Art/Comedy was a mainstream acceptance of trolling and how that justified harmful behavior centered around the Internet, indulging in insults and emotional distress to be feigned as comedy or art. Such as all the examples of "Donald Trump isn't egotistical and hateful, he's just an Andy Kaufman genius pointing out how flawed the system is!"
People are often shit and the Internet makes you aware of it...but we're certainly becoming aware of large set online/anonymous harassment and how some people try to mask treatment as comedy or negative learning reinforcement.
Minimum income is already economically feasible (at least in developed countries); what's missing is the political will.
I'd love to believe this, but does the math back it up?
Per wiki, the US has 130 million households. Health and Human Services puts the 2016 poverty level for a household of 3 at $20,000. 130 million at 20 grand a pop gives $2.6 trillion. That's two thirds of the federal budget. Where do we come up with that kind of scratch?
Comments
Or Plan 9...
How to revive a series with a bunch of fans AND piss them all off at the same time.
What about the case of a people who's land is invaded, they stay on their own land but under significantly worse living situations / laws while the invaders live a unduly regal life in the same area?
Only budget deficits are sustainable.
(1) Government accumulation of private assets.
(2) Deflation.
(3) A credit bubble which leads to sudden and severe occurrences of (1) and/or (2) when it bursts.
If the deficit grows faster than tax base, the government has to spend an increasing fraction of its budget paying down debt and things would be iffy long-term.
Basically, if you have an economy that's growing at 3% per year, and you want to target inflation of 2% per year, the government should have a structural deficit of 5% of GDP to ensure that in the long run the amount of debt/money grows in line with the real economy, plus a bit of extra for inflation.
If the deficit has a long-term upward trajectory then either the government needs to grow as a % of the overall economy, or the long-term spending trajectory needs to be cut. Similarly, if the deficit has a long-term downward trajectory that would probably also warrant intervention.
In some cases, that could justify attempts to address underlying long-term issues that cause that kind of thing. However, you might also be OK to just gradually cut spending or raise taxes as you run into those situations, rather than doing it in advance.
Meanwhile, there is a moral imperative to stop credit bubbles, although perhaps if you're in the finance industry that moral imperative might be overridden by personal greed ^_~.
As for the post-labor society, I'd like to get there as soon as possible, but the less enlightened we are about economics on our way there, the more likely that post-labor society will be a dystopia rather than a utopia.
I leave to you the math that leads that being an answer of "A reallllly long fucking time. No need to show your work.
Nevertheless, some kinds of welfare would still be necessary with a basic income, so you'd still have to fight right-wingers on the details as they would want to repeal those.
People are often shit and the Internet makes you aware of it...but we're certainly becoming aware of large set online/anonymous harassment and how some people try to mask treatment as comedy or negative learning reinforcement.
Per wiki, the US has 130 million households. Health and Human Services puts the 2016 poverty level for a household of 3 at $20,000. 130 million at 20 grand a pop gives $2.6 trillion. That's two thirds of the federal budget. Where do we come up with that kind of scratch?