Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
Breaking News
posted by takyon on Sunday June 12 2016, @06:00PM   Printer-friendly

A suspected Islamic terrorist opened fire at a gay nightclub in Florida, killing 50 people and wounding another 53 before he was killed by police. While authorities continue to investigate to determine whether this man had ties to ISIS, the terror organization has not been quiet in praising the attack. This comes three days after ISIS announced they would attack somewhere in Florida. Today's attack marks the largest act of terrorism on US soil since 9/11.

takyon: The gunman reportedly called 911 emergency services to pledge allegiance to ISIS. The President will hold a briefing momentarily. Compare this article to the original submission.


Original Submission   Late submission by physicsmajor

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @04:47AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @04:47AM (#359162)

    destruction of food in the middle of a depression to create demand

    Have a cite for that?

    is a socialist dream

    Socialists wouldn't have overproduced in the first place.
    I don't see how "socialist" applies at all. Fnord? [google.com]

    What you're talking about is Supply-Side Economics aka the boom-and-bust cycle aka Capitalism (in its most perverse form).

    ...and, if wealth isn't concentrated in the hands of a few (who don't spend much of it), hijinx isn't needed.

    -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @09:39AM

    If significant wealth isn't concentrated in the hands of a relative few, most of the comforts you take for granted today do not exist. Nothing that takes a large initial investment ever happens unless the government wants it to and they're not known for taking risks or having vision. Well, unless their pockets have been appropriately lined by those with concentrated wealth. The only exception I can name is the space program and it's currently suffering under a lack of vision and an abundance of risk aversion.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @12:42PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @12:42PM (#359335)

      And here we go...

      If significant wealth isn't concentrated in the hands of a relative few, most of the comforts you take for granted today do not exist

      Is that specific to wealth or how markets are set up? I mean you could have mentioned Pareto distribution as being fairly consistent across different economies, that some people are skilled in building wealth, but that is an effect and not a condition, and the corollary is that absolutely NOTHING takes places without work. Your pile of gold doesn't magically turn into a house, but labor is free to act in the absence of capital.

      Nothing that takes a large initial investment ever happens unless

      Their Patreon sounds good? People form a co-op? Payment is offered as shares in lieu of wages?

      There are multitudes of ways of organizing markets that don't rely on having piles of money lying around.

      Even Hayek understood that coordination was key. That is capital, labor, and need all have to occupy the same space-time. The genius is bringing those elements together, not the elements themselves.

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @07:31PM

        There are multitudes of ways of organizing markets that don't rely on having piles of money lying around.

        Not for anything that requires significant up-front capital there aren't. Try and design and produce a prototype of a new car if you doubt it. Must be street legal in all fifty states. Not everything can be beg-sourced.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @07:56PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @07:56PM (#359564)

          There are multitudes of ways of organizing markets that don't rely on having piles of money lying around.

          Not for anything that requires significant up-front capital there aren't.

          Ah, tautology. Good for you.

          Prior to capitalism being mistaken for markets, sailing voyages were frequently paid through shares. Were talking equivalent to multi-million dollar endeavors that got started with little seed money and a promissory IOU after the fact.

          It's called market innovation. In the face of not enough money, the work still needs to get done.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @05:57PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @05:57PM (#359483)

      Huge amounts of money that just sit around and aren't used to produce new goods|services may as well be a rock that is buried and forgotten.

      From FDR's time until after Ike left the Oval Office, the marginal tax rate on the billionaire class was over 90 percent.
      That money was used by the gov't to build infrastructure and develop a space program.
      In that time, USA transitioned from a place with 25 percent unemployment to become the envy of the world.

      It's clear that collective activity by millions of people can easily match and even surpass what a few wealthy individuals can and will do.

      Once again, you show your unwillingness to embrace (or even recognize) paradigms which aren't rooted in the dark past.
      The AC above me mentioned, as an example, Patreon (A Kickstarter sort of thing for artists).

      -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 13 2016, @07:19PM

        You'd be correct if the rich left their money in mattresses. Unfortunately for your theory, they invest nearly every penny where it will make them more money. Which is putting it back in circulation and blows your entire line of reasoning out of the water.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @08:28PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13 2016, @08:28PM (#359588)

          Buying a stock certificate doesn't create anything.
          It simply moves that existing thing from one set of hands to another.
          What you are talking about is EXTRACTING wealth from the economy while producing nothing.

          The rich buying each others' mansions and yachts at ever-inflated prices doesn't improve the economy either.
          At best, the economic activities of the uberrich creates economic bubbles and drives up prices for Joe Average.

          Now, if that money was spent hiring a worker or building a factory, -THAT- would actually be useful for the economy.

          ...then there's the 1 Percenters using their excessive wealth to buy up gov't.

          -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 14 2016, @02:10AM

            You've obviously never worked in the business end of any publicly traded company to say something that foolish. Your stock price (which increases when people buy your stock) directly effects your ability to take out loans. Which directly effects your ability to grow, hire more employees, and pay the ones you have better. No, my friend, trading stock does in fact make a damned big difference to someone other than the two people trading.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 14 2016, @02:36AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 14 2016, @02:36AM (#359716)

              Your stock price (which increases when people buy your stock

              Take off your rose-colored glasses and put down your pom-poms.
              Stock prices also go down.
              (That's when the smartest Capitalists buy.)

              Again, nothing new is created when stock is sold.
              Ownership of that simply exchanges hands.
              It's no different from moving your wallet from your right pocket to your left pocket.

              ...and, with fewer and fewer actual customers for actual goods each week, you guys who think that unearned income, aggregated by people with more money than they can spend, is useful to the economy are a hoot.

              -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 14 2016, @03:09AM

                Yes, stock prices do go down. Until someone buys the stock. Then it stops going down. Which means buying stock kept a company from being utterly unable to get a loan and having to fold its doors and put people out of work.

                Oversimplifying something as complex as the meta level of our economy is foolish. I expected better of you. Your reasoning generally tries to at least be not blatantly and provably false.

                --
                My rights don't end where your fear begins.