what is so special about those boxes?

Mass hysteria,.

Good for profit tho.

America is broken.

Update: I just remembered about an acquaintance of mine from Spokane that was shot in the back of the head in Florida earlier this year. Joey Fuller was his name...

Whoever wrote that Weekly Standard article isn't too bright.

1 hour ago, Proton2 wrote

Bus crash in Egypt kills 47 children. I'll take American problems any day.

Update: I just remembered about an acquaintance of mine from Spokane that was shot in the back of the head in Florida earlier this year. Joey Fuller was his name...

I'll take no tragic bus crashes AND no riots in stores. It's not an either or proposition.

1 hour ago, Proton2 wrote

So if CNN's statistics are to be believed, that means everyone over 14 went shopping between the Friday after Thanksgiving and the Sunday two days later. That includes 4,371,357 who are between 75-79, 3,110,470 between 80-84, 1,913,317 between 85-89, 830,206 between 90-94, 228,669 between 95-99, and 40,397 over 100.

Well apart from the fact there's a massive strawman in there too.

The analysis suggests that nobody out of the 20 million 10-14 year olds went shopping on those two days which is patently not true.

In fact, if only half of those 10-14 year olds went shopping with their parents, then the analysis could have rejigged the numbers to say note that there is no requirement in the figures that 40,000 centenarians needed to be scrambling for a new PS3. In fact, half of the 10-14 year olds add up to all of the over 75s in your figures.

It's funny how so many of these outraged analysis posts read. "Look at X! X is big! discounting A B and C (which I discount for poorly explained reasons) it means that P% of Q must be doing Z. Since P is huge and since hardly any of Q are doing Z (again, I'll just state that without justification), clearly X is false!"

The record is driven by inflation, not by actual spending. I'm sure if you expressed the record in a global currency, like gold or silver, it would be a very moderate value.

http://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/related/inflation-calculator/

 There is also probably a US version.

Bill Gates             ‏@BillGates                         

                    Everyone knows about #BlackFriday & #CyberMonday. Now help me spread the word about #GivingTuesday: http://b-gat.es/Uoybz2 

When you give away something for nothing, people value it at nothing. Only way forward is to trade with them. Let them become self sufficient, instead of dependent on handouts.

Black Friday and Cyber Monday are helping the world become a better place more than Giving Tuesday, IMO.

7 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

Black Friday and Cyber Monday are helping the world become a better place more then Giving Tuesday, IMO.

More than Giving Tuesday. "Then" denotes a sequence of events (I did X then after that Y), "than" is used for comparisons (X is better than Y). This annoys me almost as much as the "als"/"dan" mistake many people make in Dutch.

If Bill G really wanted to make a difference, he should take up arms against the status quo that is keeping Africa poor. Subsidies on agriculture in the EU for instance and other foreign aid projects, building roads that no African will ever drive on.

If Bill G really wanted to help, he should have stayed at Microsoft. He created more value for more people, then he ever can with his foundation. Every Microsoft employee is better off because of his ideas and work. Ultimately, windows even made Africa better off.

While we detest the forms of consumerism like we see in that video, it is also the system that brought us so much wealth.

Address the immediate concerns with charitable giving and then invest to raise them out of long-term poverty. That is what Bill Gates is doing, and it's what most of the charitable organisations are doing because it is the best course to address the two separate short and long term problems.

Herbie

27 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@Ian2:  giving for the sake of giving, in my opinion, only serves to soothe the consience of the giver and does not help the receiver.

So given the above I would say that 'giving for the sake of giving' is a part of stage 1 (per my previous post), and definitely of value.  Stage 2 is then ensuring that the gift is used appropriately (and , if you like, is perceived as being valuable and empowering to the receiver.)

24 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

While we detest the forms of consumerism like we see in that video, it is also the system that brought us so much wealth.

Brought wealth to whom? Besides the "wealth" we can derive from pillaging the Earth's resources, everything else is a zero-sum game. When somebody gets richer, somebody else is getting poorer. Consumerism does nothing more than shuffle money around, and this movement of money is only good insofar as it provides the basis in which money CAN flow from those with more of it to those with less of it. But just because it can flow in the right direction doesn't mean that it actually does. The main problem is that those with more money do not spend nearly as much on a percentage basis as those with less.

13 hours ago, Dr Herbie wrote

@Maddus Mattus: If the receiver is literally starting to death, then receipt of money is their immediate concern.  If the receiver's children are at risk of death through dysentery  then receipt of money is their immediate concern.

Address the immediate concerns with charitable giving and then invest to raise them out of long-term poverty. That is what Bill Gates is doing, and it's what most of the charitable organisations are doing because it is the best course to address the two separate short and long term problems.

Herbie

50 years of history is telling us that we never reach stage 2. While I see the need for aid, it just baffles me that we can't get past stage one.

Africa has more resources and farmland then any continent in the world, I'm baffled why they do not run the world and while other third world countries are able to get there on their own.

12 hours ago, cbae wrote

When somebody gets richer, somebody else is getting poorer.

No, clearly, no, hell no! This is so wrong on so many levels.

Am I worse off buying bread from a baker? If the answer is yes, I must be a baker!

When someone gets richer, society is telling them he's doing a good job.

12 hours ago, JohnAskew wrote

Wealth accumulation is overrated.

Wealth accumulation is the only way out of poverty.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/11/21/jesse-kline-the-american-dream-is-alive-and-well-in-canada/

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/11/20/poor-getting-richer/

"Stated another way, in two decades, nine of every 10 of the lowest income earners were able to improve their lot in life; two in five of them ended up in the top 40% of income earners. Those who started in the middle were also able to command larger salaries as time went on: Approximately 70% of people in the second-lowest group were also able to move up at least one income group, and those who experienced a decrease in income mobility were most likely to have started in the top 20%.

The results of the study make sense: As people grow older, acquiring knowledge and skills along the way, they are able to garner a higher income. What this study shows is that contrary to those on the [redacted] who say the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, the gap actually gets smaller over time."

Equal Opportunity Wednesday?

2 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@Proton2:

Equal Opportunity Wednesday?

Either that or Hump day.

9 hours ago, Proton2 wrote

The results of the study make sense: As people grow older, acquiring knowledge and skills along the way, they are able to garner a higher income.

And as time moves on, prices increase and the cost of living goes up.  So what?

What this study shows is that contrary to those on the [redacted] who say the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, the gap actually gets smaller over time."

No, that is not what the study shows, and frankly, it does a good job of hiding the exact opposite.  When the income disparity jumps from 1:40 to 1:189, that is very easy to read as 'getting larger'.

11 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

Wealth accumulation is the only way out of poverty.

I'm not poor. I will restate the obvious: Wealth accumulation is overrated. I call it materialism.

11 hours ago, ScanIAm wrote

And as time moves on, prices increase and the cost of living goes up.  So what?

Inflation is accounted for in the study.

11 hours ago, JohnAskew wrote

*snip*

I'm not poor. I will restate the obvious: Wealth accumulation is overrated. I call it materialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

Could you provide me with some examples of this "pillaging the Earth's resources".

5 hours ago, Proton2 wrote

Could you provide me with some examples of this "pillaging the Earth's resources".

In Brazil, loggers burn or fell more than 2.7 million acres each year. More than 20 percent of rainforest in the Amazon has been razed and is gone forever since 1900 - equivalent to a land mass the size of Australia.

3 days ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

No, clearly, no, hell no! This is so wrong on so many levels.

Am I worse off buying bread from a baker? If the answer is yes, I must be a baker!

As expected, the point flew right over your head. All you're doing is point out the benefits of division of labor, but I'll indulge you with your baker analogy vis-a-vis wealth distribution. You, personally, are better off buying from a baker, but that baker is named "Sara Lee" and the only ones getting rich are the executives at Sara Lee--not the "real" bakers that work there. And for every penny that you gave Sara Lee, it was a penny that the now-defunct Wonder Bread (once owned by Hostess) didn't make.

When someone gets richer, society is telling them he's doing a good job.

Uh, no.

If you want to see where people are better off, it's in the areas where societies have embraced, relatively, free trade. The unrestrictive dance of capital and labor, where people get payed close to what they produce, is what is driving these countries forward. People have the option to say no to any transaction. So if two parties have dealings, both benefit. This is the way forward. By coercing people into transactions, one benefits at the expense of the other, wealth is destroyed this way.

The Bakers could have left Sara Lee and started baking somewhere else. But they didn't. So it must have brought them some advantage. So they allowed the manager his multi mullion dollar salary, who the hell are you to judge that transaction was injust? It was out of their own free will the bakers participated!

2 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@cbae: These are Marxist theories and history has proved them wrong time and time again. You are free to believe in them nonetheless.

For someone who routinely suggests that we close free markets and that some forms of property (for example intellectual property) should be owned by the state or by everybody for the "greater good", that's an astonishing accusation, Maddus.

At least I can see that providing a service to your community and being paid for that service, doesn't make the community poorer but richer! You add value and are rewarded close to that value, how is that a bad thing?

So if I manufacture a certain type of cookie, that gets sold in the billions, I can make a butt load of money and everybody is better off. Me and the guy who bought my cookie. Because they could have bought another cookie!

I want to shut down the 'free' markets in which government coerces you into buying your cookie from a government licensed cookie salesmen. Or pay some licensed idea holder part of your earnings, because government gave him ownership of the idea of putting dough in the oven.

12 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@evildictaitor:

At least I can see that providing a service to your community and being paid for that service, doesn't make the community poorer but richer!

See - abolishing patents also abolishes the bit highlighted in bold above.

 You add value and are rewarded close to that value, how is that a bad thing?

It's not. And patents are a better way of achieving it than any alternative you've suggested.

I want to shut down the 'free' markets in which government coerces you into buying your cookie from a government licensed cookie salesmen.

That scenario exists only in your head Maddus.

Or pay some licensed idea holder part of your earnings, because government gave him ownership of the idea of putting dough in the oven.

Putting dough in oven is not a patentable idea because it was invented more than 50 years ago, isn't novel, and is obvious to an expert in the field.

Try again Maddus.

What value have I added to society that I should get paid for?

1 hour ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@evildictaitor: So, let's say I've come up with an idea, I go to the patent office and have it patented.

What value have I added to society that I should get paid for?

None. That's why you don't get any money for filing a patent. In fact, it actually costs money to file a patent, so if you patented a "beard-extensions - like hair extensions for your beard!" or a "cheese-powered lamp", you're probably going to be poorer for patenting it. And since patents expire, you can make yourself very poor by patenting stupid inventions and sitting on them.

Patents are not a magical money machine. They have no value unless they have patented an idea that someone wants to build and expects to sell for profit. And the government does not "assign" them a value.

Your patent only has value if someone else wants to buy it off you in order to make the invention (or in order to sell it on further). And the specific value? Whatever the buyer and seller agree is the price.

That's the free-market way

15 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@cbae: These are Marxist theories and history has proved them wrong time and time again. You are free to believe in them nonetheless.

What I described is neither a theory nor Marxist. I gave you a scenario--a very real one. Prove that it doesn't happen.

If you want to see where people are better off, it's in the areas where societies have embraced, relatively, free trade. The unrestrictive dance of capital and labor, where people get payed close to what they produce, is what is driving these countries forward. People have the option to say no to any transaction. So if two parties have dealings, both benefit. This is the way forward. By coercing people into transactions, one benefits at the expense of the other, wealth is destroyed this way.

LMAO @ "dance of capital and labor".  It's so funny that you take your own drivel so seriously too. Waxing poetic as if you think you have some higher-order understanding of capitalism. LOL

The Bakers could have left Sara Lee and started baking somewhere else. But they didn't. So it must have brought them some advantage. So they allowed the manager his multi mullion dollar salary, who the hell are you to judge that transaction was injust? It was out of their own free will the bakers participated!

You just said a whole lot of nothing. The company that filed for bankruptcy was Hostess. If Sara Lee workers wanted to go somewhere else, they now have even fewer places to go.

8 hours ago, cbae wrote

What I described is neither a theory nor Marxist. I gave you a scenario--a very real one. Prove that it doesn't happen.

I write software for a living. People come to me to write software for them. Why?

Because I write software at a lower cost then they do, I'm more efficient. They are not software engineers, but a hospital for instance and their core business is operating on people.

Now, when the hospital hires me, do I get richer at their expense? Not really, because the hospital could have done it themselves at higher cost. So I'm saving the hospital money, we are both better off.

This is how the real world works, this is how value is created. No one is worse off in voluntary transactions. Where you have coerced transactions, like income taxation, you see that wealth actually gets destroyed.

LMAO @ "dance of capital and labor".  It's so funny that you take your own drivel so seriously too. Waxing poetic as if you think you have some higher-order understanding of capitalism. LOL

Without labor, capital is useless. Without capital, labor is useless. Capital seeks out labor and labor seeks out capital. Together they dance all over the world. From the USA, to the EU, to China. It is the great equalizer and bringer of wealth and happiness.

We call this system laissez faire capitalism.

You just said a whole lot of nothing. The company that filed for bankruptcy was Hostess. If Sara Lee workers wanted to go somewhere else, they now have even fewer places to go.

Last time I looked, there is still a market for twinkies, so why don't they get off their backside and start baking some?

32 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

Where you have coerced transactions, like income taxation, you see that wealth actually gets destroyed.

I don't follow. Without that income transaction the hospital wouldn't have been able to hire you, because the money that the hospital is spending originated from income tax.

So either the hospital spending money hiring you is creating wealth, or it's destroying it. Choose one.

Last time I looked, there is still a market for twinkies, so why don't they get off their backside and start baking some?

Hostess will no longer make twinkies != there will be no more twinkies made.

During bankrupcy the assets of Hostess will be sold to the highest bidder. One of those assets is the brand name "twinkies". The new owner will continue to make twinkies if there is public demand for it.

13 minutes ago, evildictait​or wrote

I don't follow. Without that income transaction the hospital wouldn't have been able to hire you, because the money that the hospital is spending originated from income tax.

So either the hospital spending money hiring you is creating wealth, or it's destroying it. Choose one.

Hospital was just an example, could have been any company. Last project I did was for a large fashion company, same principle applies.

Hospitals destroy wealth by spending tax money inefficiently. If it was the patient's money, they would spend it more wisely. The four ways of spending money, remember?

1. Your own money on yourself, you seek the most value for your money
2. Your own money on somebody else, you seek the least cost
3. Other guy's money on yourself, you seek the most quality
4. Other guy's money on another guy, you are not motivated to watch cost and quality

Hospital spending tax dollars would fall in the 3rd category. We need to bring it back to the 1st category, to make health care affordable.

Hostess will no longer make twinkies != there will be no more twinkies made.

During bankrupcy the assets of Hostess will be sold to the highest bidder. One of those assets is the brand name "twinkies". The new owner will continue to make twinkies if there is public demand for it.

My point exactly. Hostess business model failed, time for someone new to do it differently. Nothing is actually lost, some capital, but that is it.

1 hour ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

I write software for a living. People come to me to write software for them. Why?

Because I write software at a lower cost then they do, I'm more efficient. They are not software engineers, but a hospital for instance and their core business is operating on people.

Now, when the hospital hires me, do I get richer at their expense? Not really, because the hospital could have done it themselves at higher cost. So I'm saving the hospital money, we are both better off.

*snip*

Are you really that dense? I'm not talking about the hospital getting poorer because it pays you. I'm talking about the money that's spent on you that isn't going to be spent on buying beds, medical devices, as well as paying doctors, nurses, and candystripers. It's also money that can't be earned by their internal IT people, if they have such a staff.

If this hospital runs great as a result of your software, that means that they'll be getting more business and making more money at the expense of another hospital.

There's only a fixed amount of wealth in the world. Sure, countries can print money all they want if they run out, but the value of that currency drops relative to other currencies.

Again, unless you can dig wealth straight out of the ground, all consumerism does is shuffle money around.

The idea that capitalism can cause all boats to float is a fallacy. The average standard of living of society as a whole has increased due to advancement of science and technology, although you want to give credit to capitalism for that LOL, but standard of living is not wealth. Wealth is not measured as an absolute value. It's relative.

18 hours ago, evildictait​or wrote

None. That's why you don't get any money for filing a patent. In fact, it actually costs money to file a patent, so if you patented a "beard-extensions - like hair extensions for your beard!" or a "cheese-powered lamp", you're probably going to be poorer for patenting it. And since patents expire, you can make yourself very poor by patenting stupid inventions and sitting on them.

I've added no value, but I leave the patent office with a permit to use legal force against everybody that wants to use my idea. Nice, a real advantage for society.

Patents are not a magical money machine. They have no value unless they have patented an idea that someone wants to build and expects to sell for profit. And the government does not "assign" them a value.

Yeah, you need to apply that legal force for it to make money, I agree.

Your patent only has value if someone else wants to buy it off you in order to make the invention (or in order to sell it on further). And the specific value? Whatever the buyer and seller agree is the price.

That's the free-market way

It is not the free market way to grant privileges to a happy few. Government grants you ownership of something you clearly cannot own. You cannot physically own design concepts, as nothing is lost when I copy them. So stealing someones ideas, cannot actually happen in the real world.

2 minutes ago, cbae wrote

Are you really that dense? I'm not talking about the hospital getting poorer because it pays you. I'm talking about the money that's spent on you that isn't going to be spent on buying beds, medical devices, as well as paying doctors, nurses, and candystripers. It's also money that can't be earned by their internal IT people, if they have such a staff.

So, the managers should work for less then the value that they add? What gives you the right to be the judge in that?

If this hospital runs great as a result of your software, that means that they'll be getting more business and making more money at the expense of another hospital.

Same applies to the value that the manager adds, he gets paid for it. If it's a couple of million, that's up to the company to decide.

There's only a fixed amount of wealth in the world. Sure, countries can print money all they want if they run out, but the value of that currency drops relative to other currencies.

No, not really. Look at barrels of oil, gold reserve, wealth is going up up up! It's not finite, that's another Marxist theory. As we advance, more resources will become available to use at less cost.

Again, unless you can dig wealth straight out of the ground, all consumerism does is shuffle money around.

You can actually. You dig oil, gold, copper, silver, water, etc. from the ground and create wealth.

The idea that capitalism can cause all boats to float is a fallacy. The average standard of living of society as a whole has increased due to advancement of science and technology, although you want to give credit to capitalism for that LOL, but standard of living is not wealth. Wealth is not measured as an absolute value. It's relative.

And why do we advance in science and technology? Because of a capitalist system! It pays off to invest (darn capital!) in more efficient ways of doing the same work. That's the dance of labor and capital I'm referring to!

edit;

some light reading for you; https://mises.org/daily/5654/The-Social-Function-of-ProfitandLoss-Accounting

14 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

*snip*

No, not really. Look at barrels of oil, gold reserve, wealth is going up up up! It's not finite, that's another Marxist theory. As we advance, more resources will become available to use at less cost.

*snip*

You can actually. You dig oil, gold, copper, silver, water, etc. from the ground and create wealth.

*snip*

What in the f*ck do you think my original point was? Did you not read my original post about pillaging the world's resources? Sheesh.

Man, do you realize how mind-blowingly BORING it is having a discussion with you? Instead of nitpicking every sentence as an opportunity to give us a diatribe about the virtues of being able to get stinking rich, go back and try to glean the main point I was making--about the flow of money. I made no judgments about what is right and what is wrong with what happens. My point is about WHAT IS happening, and nothing more.