He's referring to the fact that in the 70's and 80's everyone thought Japan was going to dominate but their economy wasn't (and still isn't) built on the most solid foundation. The Japanese were buying everything on debt, include Pebble Beach, but they didn't have much backing up those payments.
China has a ton of hidden debt that's masked by the government. No one knows how much is there. When added to their cultural and demographic problems I doubt we are seeing China's ascendancy.
Thanks for your reply. I was thinking he means something else. That topic has been very hot in China as well.(At least before 2012, AFAIK. I gave up reading those since then.) They have similar symptoms. But the foundations are way different. China is playing with its structure, moving some parts to make certain parts look good and strong. It's a matter of time the structure's balance crashes or there is simply nothing left in the structure any more. Well, most of us only need to focus on now than the future. Today's cash for some kills the future of rest of us.
Yes, I'm fully aware of that as well. Both of them basically learned from the same teacher. However, even given the approaches are 100% identical, different bodies get different outcomes. They have different metabolisms.
Have you thought about placing it on third party gaming sites? Kongregate.com is a great example (disclaimer I work there), they have a built in audience, handle marketing, payments, customer support, etc so you can focus on development. Solo game development, even in small teams, can be quite the struggle and there are communities that are happy to help.
The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.
So growing and consuming just about anything locally falls under this interpretation, because otherwise you'd buy it in a market that crosses state lines.
Well, that decision was also conducted under the aegis of a wartime America with a President that actually did have much more expansive Article I powers due to the nation being in a state of war.
I could be hopelessly optimistic and naïve but I simply don't see a similar argument holding in a decision today since there's no National Food Board (or whatever the agency was) to set rationing levels or resource priorities for wartime industrial production.
Except the case preceded the war except in its winding its way through the courts, it's New Deal law, after the "switch in time that saved nine" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switch_in_time_that_saved_nine... from later in the Wikipedia article on the case:
"In July 1940, pursuant to the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) of 1938, Filburn's 1941 allotment was established at 11.1 acres (4.5 ha) and a normal yield of 20.1 bushels of wheat per acre. Filburn was given notice of the allotment in July 1940 before the Fall planting of his 1941 crop of wheat, and again in July 1941, before it was harvested. Despite these notices, Filburn planted 23 acres (9.3 ha) and harvested 239 bushels from his 11.9 acres (4.8 ha) of excess area."
If they meant to limit it only to keep the states from taxing each other then that's exactly what would have been in the Constitution. For instance Art. I. Sect. 10 is very clear about how states may impose duties and tariffs on imports/exports, it was very much not left to chance.
Knowing the intent of a given clause is helpful for the courts in determining how to interpret the law or Constitution when the written text of the same is unclear. But when the Constitution or law is perfectly clear then that's what the law is.
In this case the relevant clause is "The Congress shall have the Power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States."
That's it... unlike Art. I. Sect. 10, there are no specific constraints or restrains embedded there, certainly nothing about taxes (since it would be easy enough to simply declare that states could not tax each other, similar to how Art I. Sect. 10 does it).
I didn't go to Rose-Hulman but was recruited to do so. I have a very high opinion of the school and I'm here in the bay. Just a data point from a UofI alum.
From experience spending extremely large amounts of money: If done right Facebook will win every time. Use targeted mobile app install campaigns, Facebook's bread-and-butter.
Your main problem is going to be that the game is sci-fi themed. They are very hard to marketing. If any perspective developers are reading this, don't make sci-fi themed mobile games.
After I figured out OkCupid I had about a 30%-40% message to date success rate. I've shown friends and while they haven't had quite my success they've drastically increased the number of responses they receive. The key is to keep it simple, 3-4 sentences. First is a funny line about something in her profile to grab her attention, next comment on something shared, finally a funny open ended question. One or two messages later ask her out for drinks.
Don't just say "hi" or write a book, that just doesn't work.
Now I've been off the market for a couple years so things might have changed but more than likely they haven't.
Agreed, I've used other sites, not OkCupid, but ended up with the same result. I keep it dead simple, write a couple of lines, and if they respond with a hint of interest, I just ask them out for something casual. It works really well. Approaches that failed...
1. Short messages like you said, 'hi, how are you?'. They basically get deleted instantly.
2. Long, thoughtful messages. I'd write a few paragraphs trying to make some jokes, and talk about what we have in common, and then ask a handful of questions about their interests. First problem, it's a lot of time on my end. Secondly, they need to invest a lot of time to respond. It's like those e-mails that you'll get to tomorrow, and then the day after, because you know they're going to be time consuming. Same thing, and eventually, they just say forget it, and never reply. Meanwhile, ask one fun question, and they can reply within a few seconds, and you're more liking to get a response.
3. Trying to keep a conversation rolling before asking them out. It goes downhill fast, and with every message, you risk them disappearing, or someone else grabbing their attention. I've lost count at the number of people I was talking with, everything sounded great after a handful of messages, then they fell off the face of the earth. Once again, ask them out after the first reply, and you don't have to worry about that happening.
In short, simple message, ask them out fast, and don't try too hard. Easy for you to write, easy for them to respond.
I should collate all these responses like yours and the parent comment and compile an eBook I can market like Nathan Barry - "OkCupid for Geeks". And then retire on the proceeds.
Bad. Would you like to get a coffee together sometime?
Good. I'm heading into town on Saturday, do you want to grab a quick drink at XYZ cafe early afternoon? They make a mean espresso. Anyway, I need to run for now, but let me know!
Something along those lines usually works for me. I might be analyzing things too much, but with the second example...
1. You're already going into town, it doesn't sound like you just sit at home, but instead you actually get out. Also, this coffee isn't the focus of the day, it's just a quick get together, and not a big deal for anyone.
2. You make decisive plans, which sounds confident.
3. You said you need to run, once again showing you're a busy person, with a life.
Also, keep in mind you're going to get turned down. You can be Brat Pitt, and you'll still get turned down more times than you can count. Don't take it personally, just tweak up your profile, photos, and messages so you get a little better response rate, and that's all you can do.
Good advice, I don't mind beeing rejected as much as earlier first times are worst :) When I grew some confidence I got better response rate so for anyone reading this: break anxiety loop, don't mind that much.
People seem to forget that democracy and freedom are relatively new to the world. The Soviet Union collapsed 20 years ago, many European countries have been free for less than 40 years. Don't take freedom for granted, it's not the steady state system, tyranny is.
I'm sorry to say but a lot of countries will degrade back to authoritarianism within the next 10-20 years due to economy and political problems.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin
Since we're quoting Franklin, this one is also relevant:
(...) I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.
The USA has been like a successful startup. The first people in were the superstars who had vision and made things happen. The next arrivals were strong performers not scared of hard work who could at least understand the vision and keep the momentum going.
Eventually at any new successful company, the hangers-on arrive. The "work hard, play hard" mantra that drove the first generations gives way to just a "play hard" one. The benefits created by the original visionaries are siphoned off mercilessly by those who didn't create them, can't create anything new, and don't seem to care that they're so destructive. With the decline of the company and jerks in power, anyone worth a damn goes elsewhere to find a better environment or if they do stay they tend to work around the system to get their jobs done or just content themselves operating at 1/4 speed for a paycheck. As more good people leave because of frustration, a death spiral ensues since upper management clowns no longer have anyone who can problem solve.
We had a nice run. It's really too bad that we lost our way as a nation.
This is a poor analogy when you consider that people don't live for hundreds of years and thus there is no such thing as "hangers-on" arriving to a country.
It also ignores all of the things that the founders did that we find reprehensible today (slave-owning), along with how far this country has come racially and in regards to civil rights in the past 50 years.
It also ignores the fact that the size of the US economy has never been larger, and whatever "decline" you are referring to is purely subjective and mostly rosy retrospection.
I wonder what it is about the USA that has made this type of "our good run is over, oh well" sentiment popular for several generations. People have been making complaints like this for several hundred years in this country.
> People have been making complaints like this for several hundred years in this country.
People have been making complaints like this for several thousand years, in pretty much every country. I suspect that its largely because people tend to see things in an overly optimistic way as children and progressively see more of the messy bits as they mature, and this creates a common impression (irrespective of the truth) that things are actually getting worse, and this is magnified by people trying to advance agendas by demogoguery centering around the idea of a past happier age created by exaggerating positive qualities and ignoring negative ones of the past.
"I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on
frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond
words... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and
respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise
[disrespectful] and impatient of restraint" (Hesiod, 8th century BC).
no such thing as "hangers-on" arriving to a country
No analogy is exact. Otherwise, it would be called the exact same thing. It's the building and creation of the food stamp culture that is analogous to the hangers on of startups.
founders did that we find reprehensible today
No massive social welfare programs that bankrupt society == slavery. Sure.
US economy has never been larger
Revenue does not equal health of a company or of a country.
People have been making complaints like this for several hundred years in this country
I think it has more to do with people not having realized what they've lost of their freedoms and the core strengths of the country due to the slow but inexorable encroachment of tyranny in our everyday lives.
> People seem to forget that democracy and freedom are relatively new to the world.
What? Would you like a detailed list of counterexamples ranging from local farmer councils accepting or vetoing kings in early medieval Norway to the Greco-Roman governmental systems on which ours are based?
Additionally, it is the case that up until the last 100 years or so, tyranny was constrained by the amount of enforcement effort required. Drones in particular I see as a very major threat here for that reason.
I guess he does not consider systems in which esclavitude/serfdom existed as "democratic": your examples are more -in his mind, I guess- "aristochracies/oligarchies" than the "democracies" we now have.
Athens is probably a mild exception (but with esclavitude).
I agree with you, though. I am only trying to clarify what the parent was referring to.
Well, Norway wasn't really serfdom (serfdom basically evolved from Roman slavery). It was rather a matter where free farmer districts endorsing one king or another. Keep in mind that the troop levies were locally managed but not on the continental feudal model, and these local assemblies were the primary legal bodies of their areas. I don't think it was any less democratic than the US today.
Additionally keep in mind that during much of the time, if there was a dispute (and this was common before the Conversion), these districts could and did lead to the rise and fall of kings.
But even if you say monarchies are out (in which case the UK today is not democratic), you still have Iceland, Gottland, and much more.
>People seem to forget that democracy and freedom are relatively new to the world.
Democracy was practiced by Greeks 2 thousand years ago. The system of couple of hundred people from the top of society gathered in one room making the decisions for the rest of society hasn't changed since than.
And Magna Carta which codified the idea of freedom as a limit on government power is 800 years old.
A good bet would be all those places with a long history and tradition of authoritarianism, which have only recently become less authoritarian: Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Tunisia, Burma, Indonesia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia, etc.
And growing authoritarianism everywhere too where there are economical and social problems. This probably includes many, if not all western countries to varying degree.
China is an oligarchy or crony capitalist country. The wealthy and powerful use the government to get what they want. In a true free-market system you can't use the government to destroy the competition and make yourself money. This is the problem with the US today, we've given so much power to the central government that we've created a drastically distorted market.
>In a true free-market system you can't use the government to destroy the competition and make yourself money.
The US has that - look at the telecom companies. I'm sure there's many more prime examples, but Companies do indeed use the government, at least to help them make money, by stopping competition, getting bailouts and grants for things like infrastructure and just pocketing the money and sticking us with higher costs and no improvements on our service.
Texas is just plain run well. The state barely had a recession because they had common sense regulations that stop the housing from skyrocketing in the first place. It takes days not months or years to get building permits. Texas is a perfect example of how the country should be run as a whole.
A large part of it is because Texas had extraordinarily strict lending standards, enacted after the oil bust of the 1980's. That, plus our already affordable housing, meant that Texas didn't have a property bubble burst in 2008.
China has a ton of hidden debt that's masked by the government. No one knows how much is there. When added to their cultural and demographic problems I doubt we are seeing China's ascendancy.