>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:

>> ^deathcow:
How have shooters not evolved? if they haven't... can they?? I don't feel like I am playing the same game at all. I am in a giant open terrain in vehicles armed to the tooth, or I dive out and go on foot sniping from the bushes, or I plant C4 bombs and hide in the bushes waiting... or I dive off a wall and stab someone below. Quake-1 was an utterly different experience. It is evolving into very real situations from the surreal cartoon world.

The multiplayer FPS has certainly evolved since Quake. No dispute there. My contention is that they STOPPED evolving and have hit what I call an "innovation plateau" circa 1999. No major strides have been made since then, just the refinement/streamlining (which much of the time amounts to down-sizing) of already existing mechanics/capabilities (which isn't necessarily a bad thing in of itself, as games like TF2 prove).
Starsiege: Tribes was doing futuristic class-based gameplay with 128-256 player matches in huge, wide-open expanses with a full suite of vehicles and commander/command station/team bases and defense structures (which all rely on an energy source that must be defended to function) and a variety of player role customization options in 1999! Where are the successors who would take the core of this legacy and expand upon it? I don't doubt it'll happen eventually but damn, I'd have never guessed it'd have taken this long if asked at the turn of the century.
Had Tribes set the world on fire sales-wise I'm guessing the landscape of the MP FPS would look very different today. Instead it serves as another example to publishers that innovation on that scale, as incredible a game it may produce, simply isn't worth the risk.


would have a hard time arguing against that

maybe that upcoming star wars whatever the hell it is will innovate

>> ^deathcow:

How have shooters not evolved? if they haven't... can they?? I don't feel like I am playing the same game at all. I am in a giant open terrain in vehicles armed to the tooth, or I dive out and go on foot sniping from the bushes, or I plant C4 bombs and hide in the bushes waiting... or I dive off a wall and stab someone below. Quake-1 was an utterly different experience. It is evolving into very real situations from the surreal cartoon world.


The multiplayer FPS has certainly evolved since Quake. No dispute there. My contention is that they STOPPED evolving and have hit what I call an "innovation plateau" circa 1999. No major strides have been made since then, just the refinement/streamlining (which much of the time amounts to down-sizing) of already existing mechanics/capabilities (which isn't necessarily a bad thing in of itself, as games like TF2 prove).

Starsiege: Tribes was doing futuristic class-based gameplay with 128-256 player matches in huge, wide-open expanses with a full suite of vehicles and commander/command station/team bases/sensor arrays and defense structures (which all rely on an energy source that must be defended to function) and a variety of player role customization options in 1999! Where are the successors who would take the core of this legacy and expand upon it? I don't doubt it'll happen eventually but damn, I'd have never guessed it'd have taken this long if asked at the turn of the century.

Had Tribes set the world on fire sales-wise I'm guessing the landscape of the MP FPS would look very different today. Instead it serves as another example to publishers that innovation on that scale, as incredible a game it may produce, simply isn't worth the risk.

@NetRunner Honestly, I'm unimpressed. Peter Schiff may not be John Nash, but you sound like Chris Matthews. Do you get your economic wisdom from Mother Jones or HuffPo?


So the response to "I doubt he's really paying 50% in taxes" is not to recount even a hypothetical example of how someone could wind up paying a sum total of 50% in taxes, but instead to just argue that the dubious statement might feel true because there are many various taxes someone might be paying?

Hypothetical example (which I thought I outlined for you): Peter Schiff owns/runs a business as his primary mode of income. That business pays a 35% corporate tax rate on their profits. The remaining profits translate into capital gains, which are then taxed at 15%. While obviously the tax rates aren't perfectly additive (15% of 65% is smaller than 15% of 100%), you can still see how one could quickly approach 50% in taxes. I haven't even included any local taxes or consumption taxes. These aren't dubious statements. These are facts about the tax code which progressives should learn to wise up to. There is a valid point there about streamlining the tax code. Like you said... Meh.


The response to my argument about the impact of marginal tax increases on employment is to make some argument about Schiff's personal labor/leisure preferences? That has nothing to do with it at all. If Schiff is the entrepreneurial capitalist he claims to be (and not just the F-list media personality he seems to be), then he doesn't really do any direct labor, he just makes choices about allocations of capital -- he makes investment decisions, and business deals where all the real work is done by other people.

He's making the case that if he has to pay a few more percentage points in taxes, he's going to start walking away from making investment deals that would have made his company money and employed people. Hell, he goes so far as to say that he would dissolve his ostensibly profitable business and fire all his employees, rather than sell it to someone else who still likes making money, even if they have to pay taxes.

Making investment deals and business decisions isn't quite like arguing on the internet and playing video games. You have to meet people, negotiate, spend basically all day on the phone or in a plane. You don't have much time for your family (though I don't know if he has one). While it may not be coal mining, it's certainly work. It's at least as much work as the people typing things into excel between trips to the water cooler are doing. It's quite possible that if he were to decide to leave, or cut back his hours worked (because of government disincentive), the firm would downsize or even fail. All those workers whose paychecks depended on his profitable decision making could be out of work. Now like I said, someone else might hire back those same workers (e.g. if he sold the firm), however there is no guarantee the business will be as profitable without their greatest profit engine (Schiff himself). Like I further argued, if there were someone equally capable of running the firm as profitably, they would likely already be a competitor.


As for the "buying labor low" argument, which sector is doing that? Right now what they're doing is shedding lots of employees, not paying out raises, cutting health benefits, and hoping that if/when they need more labor, the extended period of unemployment will provide them with a pool of desperate talent willing to work for far less than they would have pre-2007.

Right, because the government won't let the labor market correct. They keep propping everybody up with prolonged unemployment (I've known somewhat skilled people that wouldn't take jobs because unemployment pays better), and direct government employment. It is happening within some sectors, particularly highly skilled labor. Perhaps you've heard of the skills gap in the current employment picture? For example, the university I'm at is shedding lecturers, and poaching high-valued researchers from struggling institutions. There have been plenty of proposals to bridge this skills gap in more industrial sectors as well, e.g. turning unemployment benefits into vocational training. But instead you took a left turn towards "the mean corporations won't do things that are against their interests."


It's true that once upon a time, back when we had a lot of unionization, a lot of companies hoarded talent in exactly the manner you describe, so they could potentially enter into the expansion with a competitive advantage. But that's the old way of thinking, back when labor was broadly considered a valuable company resource, and not simply a fungible commodity to be purchased or discarded as needed. Offshore contractors, anyone?

Now you're a protectionist? Have you heard of "cost centers" and "profit centers?" Profit centers (valued labor) don't get outsourced. Cost centers (commoditized, fungible, unskilled, expensive labor) do. With regard to unions, it has often been their own inflexibility with their contracts (not that executives aren't equally guilty with bonuses) that has resulted in layoffs as opposed to shared pain (evenly spread hour reductions).


Lastly about the "leave the money where the market put it" -- that's a good one! You seamlessly pivoted from "economics as a theory for understanding the world" to "economics as a system of moral justice". Nicely done, you're pretty good at talking like a conservative!

Thanks. I think it's important to be able to see all sides rather than just cheerlead. Also, "economics" is theory, "the market" is the most efficient system for allocating resources with respect to individual preferences known to man. We can talk about our favorite flawed microeconomic assumptions if you want, but it's a tough case that "because I said so" is going to be more efficient than voluntary exchange.


Still it doesn't address my basic economic argument at all -- that our high unemployment is fundamentally a function of a lack of demand. Lots of people don't have money to spend, even on things they desperately need. The handfuls of people who do have money don't see any way to employ that money in a profitable way, so they're just sitting on it. There's a few ways to try to solve that problem, but cutting (or maintaining existing) taxes on the top income earners won't help.

(I get nauseous arguing against the Keynesian point so I won't directly). What I'll say is that it isn't clear drastically raising taxes on the rich will help either. What might help is a more efficient allocation of the government revenue we already have (like the vocational training instead of unemployment I outlined above). The other thing that I, and I think many others would like to see is an increase in the standard of living of individual business proprietors. They've been doing worse than "traditional labor" over the past few decades in case you haven't noticed.


A simple, but radical solution would be for the Fed to simply buy up everyone's mortgages, and then release the leins on everyone's deeds. In other words, just have Uncle Sam pay off everyone's mortgage with freshly-printed money. I suspect consumer spending would return if we did that!

I do too! I bet everyone would go leverage themselves to the gills buying houses knowing full well that when they can't cover the debt the government will bail them out! Sure, stopgap coverage, renegotiation, all that would be great (much better than bailing out the banks directly IMO), but a full fledged free money party only exacerbates the delusion. It's a recipe for currency debasement. People need to be allowed to demonstrate and feel the consequences of their lack of creditworthiness. Also, those that were creditworthy should be appropriately rewarded. It's sort of like the OWS girl that wants rich people to pay back her 100gs in student loans, but all those people that saved for college, worked for scholarships, held a job through school, well they're probably just fine the way they are.


As for my closing quip, I'm quite serious -- Schiff doesn't deserve any respect or deference. It's not classy to be deferential to the expertise of people who don't actually have any; it's foolish.

You don't find common ground, build coalitions, or change minds with ridicule.

@NetRunner @dystopianfuturetoday

I'm looking for debate too, but I'm not going to find it if I argue the progressive angle. I'll be Lucifer's lawyer on this one.


A few things. First, I'm with those of you who doubt the truth of Schiff's statement that he's paying 50% of his income in taxes. I demand to see his tax return!

I'm potentially sympathetic to Schiff here. As we all know income taxes, and even capital gains taxes aren't the only taxes that exist. Schiff is a business owner. I suspect his issue is with the "double taxing" of profits. His business makes a profit which is then taxed. That taxation thus reduces the value of his business. Further, the remaining profits are taxed again (in the form of capital gains) when he decides to liquidate his stake in the company. So if you basically make your money by creating value in businesses in exchange for an ownership stake, that value is taxed twice before you even see it. Now of course this comes from someone that frequently makes disingenuous claims like the majority of Americans "don't pay taxes," considering the substantial share of their income they pay in consumption taxes; but his point stands on its own. I wish we had a more streamlined tax system that did away with loopholes as well as double taxation of value creation (like a VAT).


Secondly, even if it were 50%, and it went up to 65%, in what universe is it ever in Schiff's interest to stop making money? In fact, wouldn't it be an incentive for him to work harder? If he's used to a lifestyle of consumption of $1 million a year, and suddenly he's only able to consume $800k/yr, wouldn't that mean he'd redouble his efforts and try to make more money if he couldn't accept such austerity? He certainly wouldn't dismantle his businesses and cut off the source of his income.

You clearly don't value your time. Schiff's input/brand is probably the core asset of his ventures (in fact that's something you always have to remember about the guy, he's selling himself). That means he probably leads a fairly stressful life, and might choose to exchange some of his labor for the leisure time he could clearly afford in either case. That means generating less business, and thus requiring fewer "cost centers" (like staff). One argument might be that if he does dismantle his business, someone else will just fill the void in the marketplace, and hire (possibly that same) staff. However, if it was the case that there was someone willing to do what Schiff does for substantially less than Schiff, it's likely they'd already be competing with him under the favorable tax rates.


Thirdly, on jobs, like dft said, employers hire exactly as many people as they need to produce the amount of goods (or services) they're able to sell, and not a single person more. They're not going to hire more people to produce more goods if they can't sell all of what they're currently producing, that would just be pure loss to them.

This isn't always true. Businesses often use recessions to "buy labor low" to prepare a competitive advantage for the next cycle. Propping up the labor market arguably never lets the labor market reach a valuation in which this market based counter-cyclic mechanism can take place. It's further arguable that if you allowed that mechanism to take place, the resulting employment allocation may be more efficient/sustainable than, e.g. taking a census. I'm a bleeding heart, so you don't have to tell me about breadlines and old people in the streets, but part of me feels as though the youth has become soft. They don't want to learn. They don't create with what they have. They play video games and argue on Videosift.


Putting more money into the hands of the suppliers isn't going to boost employment for exactly that reason. Employers will only hire new people if they need to produce more goods, and they're only going to produce more goods if their sales increase. You really need to put more money into the hands of people who want to consume, not those who want to produce. You need to find a large group of people who want to buy more things, but can't because they don't have the money. In other words, you need to put money into the hands of poor people, not rich factory owners.

See Schiff would say DON'T give money to the employers. Stop giving money to ANYBODY. Leave the money right where the market put it. Doing anything else just allows some asshole to hoodwink the whole damn country rather than just their clients. Personally I feel there needs to be some initial breaking up of the oligarchy if you really want to pursue that line of reasoning (i.e. sorry Schiff, we're taking your gold with our pitchforks), but that's just me.


Schiff doesn't seem to know all this stuff, which is why everyone should laugh in his face when he says he knows anything about economics.

Come on, we're classier than that.

@Sarzy

I actually re-activated my account a couple weeks ago, and I've been playing through the "Cataclysm" content with some friends, but this is actually going to send me away from WoW, possibly for good.

It actually has nothing to do with the zones, to be honest I think that's kinda cool. But the fact that the Pandas can join either faction seems kinda meh to me in the first place, but they're also once again streamlining the game so that it's again got far less choices.

WoW has gotten progressively easier over the years, some changes for the better, some obviously just to make it easier. Mounts acquired at far lower levels and lowered cost, dungeons streamlined to be made shorter, and far easier, flying mounts in Azeroth, and finally the biggest one, they completely re-vamped the talent system, giving spells you'd normally get at level 60 at level 10.

Now, with this expansion, they're once again re-vamping the talent trees so that instead of having your 31 points (reduced from something like 70 points) they're once again reducing that to about.. 10-15, Essentially forcing you to play a certain style and once again making the game rediculously easier.

HEY, I've been here! Looks like the secret's out, this is literally one of my favorite places in the world I can escape to with any regular frequency. Huntington Gorge kicks bushels of Green Mountain ass.

Been going here like clockwork every summer since I was about 5 years old. It's about a 25-30 minute drive from Burlington, 15 minutes or so from Essex. Beautiful place, a couple different spots to jump from depending on how bold/experienced you are. A little something for everyone's specific comfort zone.

The spot where all the deaths occur and will probably continue to occur is unsurprisingly the highest/trickiest place to jump from. There's not much clearance on either side of you as you try to clear two overlapping ridges and NOT land in the "dead zone".

Basically, the river current plunges under the bottom of the rock face a few feet away from where you would want to land and goes underground (the regulars refer to it as a whirlpool but I'm not exactly sure what the proper term for it is) for a good 30 feet before resurfacing; the vast majority of people sucked under don't come out the other end, getting pinned against debris (there's said to be a few good sized logs down there) or stuck in a pocket where the oscillating current keeps you in spin-cycle until you drown.

The "newbie" area, in video @ 2:19 with the guy back-flipping, is a 20-25 foot drop with a nice 12 ft circumference pool to land in, 10 feet deep with a soft sandy bottom. This is where you go to build up courage for "the jump". Here, the only thing you really need to worry about is hitting the water properly (clench those cheeks and streamline yourself!).

The slides/caves carved out by waterfalls further up/down river are also places to check out if you're not into the whole thrill-seeking thing, accessibility depending on how dry/wet a summer it's been.

What an utterly agreeable configuration of natural elements this place is, well, for me at least.

The Peregrine: Lightness, streamlining, speed
The Pigeon: Strength, endurance, enough speed... and a head start.

Upvote for the writing.

>> ^jmd:

Chaos, not so much. Gladiator fights doesn't seem like the type of thing that would make a robber re-offend. infact stuff like this could be considered a good deterrent. I don't find it unusual for private jail facilities. The government is always known for its inability to streamline cost, so there is money to be made by doing just that. Unfortunately much like red light cameras, once something is moved out of official hands, they no longer want anything to do with it, no official supervision. Eventually corruption weaves its way in with the lure of money and this happens.
Just like red light cameras, I am fine with privatization of correctional facilities, but I am severely dissapointed in the lack of oversight, because even those with the best of intentions eventually do something wrong if not supervised and this is one of the areas where you cant fck up...even just once.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eNrgpVp70U&NR=1

>> ^jmd:

Chaos, not so much. Gladiator fights doesn't seem like the type of thing that would make a robber re-offend. infact stuff like this could be considered a good deterrent. I don't find it unusual for private jail facilities. The government is always known for its inability to streamline cost, so there is money to be made by doing just that. Unfortunately much like red light cameras, once something is moved out of official hands, they no longer want anything to do with it, no official supervision. Eventually corruption weaves its way in with the lure of money and this happens.
Just like red light cameras, I am fine with privatization of correctional facilities, but I am severely dissapointed in the lack of oversight, because even those with the best of intentions eventually do something wrong if not supervised and this is one of the areas where you cant fck up...even just once.


wait...what?
you are fine with correctional institutions being privatized?
and your main point is streamlining cash?
did i read your comment correctly?

have you even considered the implications of a powerful lobby driven by this privatized institution you have no problem with?
considered how they may use these lobbyists to influence lawmakers?
because an empty cell=NO MONEY!
so it would be in their best interest to lobby for stricter and harsher sentences that include mandatory jail time.
oh wait....
thats riiiight.they already did that didnt they?
or have you never heard of the "3 strikes" rule?
now go look up who pushed for that to be implemented...
notice anything? think thats a coincidence?

america has more people in prison RIGHT NOW than any other country combined.mostly non-violent.
but its so heart-warming to know that you consider a good ass kicking a good "deterrent" for re-offending.
i KNOW!
lets televise these brutal beatings so you can bet actual cash and watch from the comfort of your sofa!

christ on a stick.please tell me your comment was sarcasm.

Chaos, not so much. Gladiator fights doesn't seem like the type of thing that would make a robber re-offend. infact stuff like this could be considered a good deterrent. I don't find it unusual for private jail facilities. The government is always known for its inability to streamline cost, so there is money to be made by doing just that. Unfortunately much like red light cameras, once something is moved out of official hands, they no longer want anything to do with it, no official supervision. Eventually corruption weaves its way in with the lure of money and this happens.

Just like red light cameras, I am fine with privatization of correctional facilities, but I am severely dissapointed in the lack of oversight, because even those with the best of intentions eventually do something wrong if not supervised and this is one of the areas where you cant fck up...even just once.

http://www.insurance-advocate.com/Streamlining-Medicaid-the-Key-To-NY-Health-Care-Reform-c784.html

Considering it didn't happen but a few years ago, it would be very difficult to tell what positive influence it has had and will have, and his point wasn't that he fixed medicaid in NY by himself, and it's done. He said he changed it, and it's those kinds of reforms that will be needed to fix it.

I won't say he's right or wrong about it, because it remains to be seen if this kind of reform will work, but I'm glad you've already made your mind up due to your ideology.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Video is standard BM BS. A bunch of communists tossing out ad-hominems as a means to deflect genuine criticism of failed socialist systems in front of clapping sheep. Spitzer in particular is a complete idiot. When asked about "what do you do with the unfunded liabilities" he says a bunch of complete nonsense and then accuses the other guy of being biased. He 'changed New York'? Oh yeah - NY's medicare/medicaid is TOTALLY solvent thanks to Eliot Spitzer.

Aaaand guess how many of these right-wing conservatives are against?

/Captain Obvious

>> ^peggedbea:

this is how you decrease the number of abortions:
1. free comprehensive, scientifically sound, sex education to all
2. readily available, easily accessible, very affordable, guilt-free access to contraception in every community
3. counseling
4. streamline the adoption process to make it an actual option to EVERY sane, loving adult with the means to care for a child. i'd adopt a 3rd baby in a heart beat if it didn't cost $40k and they let single women of modest income do it. i have the means to support another child, but i don't have $40k laying around.
5. make health care a right
6. revisit public policies that actually alleviate poverty
7. equal pay for women
8. make legitimate vocational schools as affordable as community college and/or offer more grant-eligible vocational programs within community colleges... i know from experience that learning a trade can offer as much opportunity for single mothers as it can for any young man.
guess how many of these abortion-preventing solutions planned parenthood has a hand in???

this is how you decrease the number of abortions:

1. free comprehensive, scientifically sound, sex education to all
2. readily available, easily accessible, very affordable, guilt-free access to contraception in every community
3. counseling
4. streamline the adoption process to make it an actual option to EVERY sane, loving adult with the means to care for a child. i'd adopt a 3rd baby in a heart beat if it didn't cost $40k and they let single women of modest income do it. i have the means to support another child, but i don't have $40k laying around.
5. make health care a right
6. revisit public policies that actually alleviate poverty
7. equal pay for women
8. make legitimate vocational schools as affordable as community college and/or offer more grant-eligible vocational programs within community colleges... i know from experience that learning a trade can offer as much opportunity for single mothers as it can for any young man.

guess how many of these abortion-preventing solutions planned parenthood has a hand in???

>> ^chilaxe:

My original point is that these temperaments that cause individuals to get themselves tazed represent weird neurogenetics (not streamlined / aligned with incentives).


That's what I meant when I said:

>> ^NetRunner:

I dunno, it seems like the case study in "weird neurogenetics" would be the people who refuse to put their hands on their head when a cop has a gun pointed at them.

Which is probably a long way of saying "I don't think you should infer only liberals or libertarians are this stupid."

I don't even think it's genetic. I think some people just aren't taught self-control or manners as a child.

@NetRunner

If we assume emotional self-control is relatively unchanging (there doesn't appear to be any societal trend toward increasing levels of self-control) then people's natural temperaments will continue to drive significant variance in rates of self-caused tazing.

My original point is that these temperaments that cause individuals to get themselves tazed represent weird neurogenetics (not streamlined / aligned with incentives).