Confidence in the American Dream has been withering for some time now. I doubt this one speech will have any impact on that trend one way or the other.
Yeah yeah, but it's an indication of the overall message of the past few administrations, and it builds up over time to do real damage.
-- _foolmo_ 'Most people at least try to say something funny. See foolmo's post as an example.' - The Real Truth
Then it's the oldest lie told by the middle class to itself. The problem is that as most people see it, it is not about the outliers. People think that if they work hard, they will be successful. But working hard does not make you an outlier, and it will not make you rich by itself.
True, but the reason that America has been the leader of innovation for a long time is because people believe it to be true. There is actually a motivation to be more than average, and to reach for more than what is given to you.
It doesn't matter if the sentiment is "reality" or not, because as long as enough people believe in it, it becomes reality. Circular logic, but that's how it is.
That's what is disappointing about the speech. There is not much a speech can do, really. It's not legally binding, it doesn't change policy, or anything. But it DOES influence beliefs and influences the confidence in concepts like the American Dream, so there really is no reason to damage that confidence unless you deliberately intended to do so.
-- _foolmo_ 'I mean, what does electricity have to do with math besides calculators?' - ZeldaFreak29
Statistically, the thing that best predicts your wealth is.....your parents' wealth.
Duh, but the American Dream isn't about the mean statistics and correlation of factors. It's about the extraordinary, and the outliers. A person will on average be as wealthy as their parents, but as long as the opportunity is there to far exceed that prediction using good ideas and hard work, the American Dream remains intact.
Big government policies tend to limit that opportunity, and strengthen the inertia of wealth (rich get richer, poor get poorer).
-- _foolmo_ 'To be foolmo'd is to be better opinion'd.' - Blairville
Also it was terrible that the message of his speech was that if you are successful, you just got lucky. That you aren't smarter or more talented than anyone else just because you are successful.
Maybe I am too young, but all my life I have noticed that I have been successful simply by virtue of the fact that I am smarter than my peers. My brothers grew up in the exact same circumstances as me, obviously, but why have I been exponentially more successful than them at every point in my life? The only explanation is that I am smarter.
But the hidden message here is one that permeates throughout our entire big government society right now - that if you're poor and unsuccessful, you're gonna stay that way. If you're not successful because you are smarter, but instead because of circumstances, what does that say about the unsuccessful people? That they should give up trying to be unsuccessful because they can't match the rich guy's circumstances? That no matter how smart they are, the best they can hope for is the rich guy paying more taxes so that you get more handouts?
The message SHOULD be that if you're smarter and more hard-working, yes, you can be successful, no matter your circumstances. That is the American Dream, isn't it?
I think his point is that the the backbone of the internet was literally invented by the government. They provided the canvas that all those private interests who came later painted upon.
I realize that, but it's a really shallow way of looking at the Internet and at technology. Would the Internet never have been created if not for the government?
It's easy to say in hindsight, that without the government it never would have been done, and I'm sure that's true for a lot of things like the interstate highway system, but it's not true for the Internet.
-- _foolmo_ 'You are obviously intelligent and insightful' - Sir Chris about me
That's not even that bad of a quote. The worst is how he was using the Internet as an example of government making something useful, when privatization is what turned it from a fancy mail system between colleges to the most versatile and important tool in all of history. The Internet is the ultimate expression of the free market, and proves that it can work globally without government involvement. Even amidst all this controversy surrounding the potential censorship of the Internet by governments, he uses this example.
In VA (northern and central) I have seen many Obama (more 08 than 12 though, strangely enough) stickers and many Romney (some McCain/Palin too) stickers, but when it comes to signs on lawns and on the side of the road and in medians, I've only seen RP.
-- _foolmo_ 'Oh please, if foolmo made that analogy you'd think it was picture perfect' - Biolizard28
My basic understanding of it is that it encourages malinvestment which leads to bubbles and the market cycle of booms and depressions.
Further, I think that the fed keeping interest rates low causes inflation and the devaluation of the currency because it's only possible to keep interest rates that low by printing more money, but I'm not sure about that one.
-- _foolmo_ 'Illegal activities is a slight misnomer, most of it is not related to material that is actually illegal.' - nintendogrl1
That's what I'm saying, though. She needs to keep up her anti-republican rhetoric because that is what they pay her for, but she is still putting out some great information to a large audience that never would have heard of this stuff before. Her stories have a positive effects on the RP campaign (and a negative on Romney's, of course, but there are many ways to do that without boosting RP), and I think she's smart enough to know what she is doing.
I love how maddow is basically an RP supporter now, but she knows how to cater to her establishment media bosses by framing her stories as a typical anti-republican thing. Pretty good playing of the game.
-- _foolmo_ 'but that statement is something only an Aspergers patient would say' - UltimaterializerX
It kinda gets me excited that such a variety of people can work together for a greater good, rather than Republicans who are seemingly mostly religious and Democrats who are seemingly mostly non-religious.
It's because the ideas highlight individual freedoms. You can unite in the fact that you are all completely different.
-- _foolmo_ 'Illegal activities is a slight misnomer, most of it is not related to material that is actually illegal.' - nintendogrl1
Well he would be right 5-10 years ago. Back when there were lots of different browsers and none of them were really standouts in the competition against IE, you had to develop for IE.
Nowadays it's less about compatibility with a browser and more about compatibility with certain add-ons that can break your site.q
Of course, all websites are made to be compatible with IE as well. With IE, you essentially never have to worry about going to a website and some functionality not working properly.
About half of modern websites have limited functionality in IE. Websites nowadays are designed for Firefox and Chrome.
The only websites I've seen that are IE-centric are government websites.
Free market logic is "better products will be made to compete with existing products." These products can fail or be successful, but they will be made.
-- _foolmo_ 'Ulti is like when your parents post something on your facebook status' - Sir Cobain
Free market logic is "the company that makes the best product destroys the companies that make awful products,"
No.... generally the product with the most advertising destroys the other companies. IE has by far the most advertising, and the fact that is it installed on every computer is an extremely powerful form of advertising since it appeals to convenience and laziness/ignorance (which is what I mean by "forcing").
The fact that a browser that has such powerful advertising is only getting 40% against browsers that have little advertising and require additional knowledge and initiative to download is a pretty good example of the free market, I would say. Though I guess Chrome has pretty good advertising too since Google links to it all the time, but Firefox has very little advertising.
This seems like semantics. An example I've used before: I'd definitely say Microsoft has the monopoly on the operating system market, considering how many people use Windows in comparison to Linux. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but to say monopolies can only exist when the government forces them to exist seems like a stretch.
You really should look up the definition of monopoly.
If Microsoft released a new update tomorrow that turned all windows desktops into a flashing goatse image (which is entirely within their power), what would all those Windows users do? I know I would install the latest Ubuntu and use that instead, because I can. That is not a monopoly.
Even if a company has 100% of the market share, if it's possible for users to stop using that company and use another at will, there is no monopoly.
Your browser example is a pretty good one. IE is built into Windows. Everyone who has Windows has IE. And yet only about 40% of people in the US use it (according to this study which seems relatively legit http://royal.pingdom.com/2012/04/23/current-status-of-the-browser-wars/). Microsoft is TRYING to create a monopoly with IE by forcing it on all of their users (there was actually a lawsuit back in the day about this), but it still doesn't work when there are better products to choose from.
-- _foolmo_ 'Ulti is like when your parents post something on your facebook status' - Sir Cobain
I'm not sure how, in principle, the government censoring the Internet is worse than corporations doing the same. You can argue "corporations don't force you to use the Internet so they aren't infringing your liberties there" (of course in quite a few jobs you are forced to use the Internet but bear with me), but... the government doesn't force you to use the Internet either.
The main difference is that government is WAY more likely and has WAY more incentive to censor and control the internet.
The second difference is that if the government makes a law that censors the internet, what can you do? I guess you could spend 10-20 years working on a grassroots campaign to elect different congressmen and such that will support freedom, though you will have to fight the influence of the MPAA and RIAA on Congress.
In a non-monopolized industry, you can just stop subscribing to the censoring company's internet. If there is enough demand for a non-censored internet (and there is), then another company will most likely be providing that service. If there is a monopoly, it's different, but people have explained how monopolies only come from government already.
-- _foolmo_ 'It's easy to get yourself in trouble if you start quoting people who don't like you in your signature' - Mods
Would be interesting. Even if it says I can't change my fate, I sure as hell would love to try. I'll set it at $1 mil because I would make sure I was rich enough to afford my "experiments" after acquiring the information.
-- _foolmo_ 'Illegal activities is a slight misnomer, most of it is not related to material that is actually illegal.' - nintendogrl1