Many atheists claim that without religion our society could be perfect. They claim that religion stifles creativity, science, and government. Ironically, they are right in some degree. Religious belief prohibits certain types of art, certain classes of experimentation, and some government practices. Some of the idea is that without religion people will be more united in belief (or disbelief, in this case) and that is probably true in some degree also. So, besides hope, what does religion really give us?
First, religion gives us freedom. Without religion, the concept of 'human rights' is subject to interpretation. Without religion good and evil are concepts that can change at a whim and depend entirely on whom you are speaking to and who is in power. Without religion murder can easily be justified as 'survival of the fittest', dangerous experiments on unwilling human subjects become 'trying to improve the race', and moral convictions become 'fanatical beliefs'. Ultimately, without religion, the only law is 'survival of the fittest' and 'might makes right'. Without religion human rights do not even exist. Without religion the only true goal is reproduction.
Religion gives us rights. If a right is not given by God, or some other supreme being, it is given by man and is subject to the whims of men. A right that is given by man can be taken away by man, but a right given by a supreme being is eternal and can only be taken away by that same being. This means that without religion, the right to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' can be taken away by the same government that granted it, without so much as a seconds notice. With religion we have the right to rebel against a government that becomes oppressive, even if we have sworn loyalty to it, because loyalty to our deity and our family trump our loyalty to government. Without religion, not only do we not have a deity to be loyal to, we have no moral reason to be loyal to our family besides making sure our own genetics are carried on.
Religion is not a crutch to give people hope; even if it is not true, religion is what gives people rights. Religion is what makes all men equal. Without it the claim that 'all men are created equal' is invalid. This means, that without religion, slavery is only bad because we think it is bad. Without religion slavery would be a philosophical issue, rather than an issue of rights. In reality, without religion, slavery is entirely justifiable. Without slaves the Greeks would never have had the time to develop the advanced mathematics that allow us to have the technology that I am using to write this and you are using to read it (their time would have been spent working to grow their food). The lasting effects of slavery in Greece are very positive. Without religion to proclaim that all men should be treated equally it is simple to show that slavery is actually good and results in only positive consequences. Of course, we know that this is not true, but if religion is bad, then it must be true and can easily be justified as true.
I am not going to condemn people that choose not to believe in religion; it is their right to choose how to believe. Even most religions agree that each person has the right to choose their beliefs. I am condemning those who condemn religion. Religion protects us from tyranny and gives us human rights. Without it we are subject to whomever has the most power and we have no rights besides those that are given to us or that we take by force. Without religion The Constitution is meaningless and powerless. A document cannot give rights and it cannot record rights unless they are inherent rights, and without religion there are no inherent rights. Without religion The Constitution is a document recording the rights a group of men believed everyone should have, not a document recording the rights that should be had by all men by divine edict.
The right for each person to believe as they choose is granted by most religions. There have in the past been religions that believed that people should be forced to believe what that religion taught. Notice that these religions either no longer exist, or have changed so materially that this belief no longer exists within the religion (with the exception of small groups of terrorists that occasionally try to resurrect those beliefs). This belief has been condemned by nearly all modern religions as infringing on the inherent rights granted by deity. So why do many atheists preach that religion should be extinguished, by force if necessary? If it is permissible that any set of beliefs should be enforced, why should it not be a more ancient religion that believed in enforced religion long before atheism ever thought of it?
Ultimately, it is inherently wrong to enforce any set of beliefs on people, whether it be Paganism, Islam, Christianity, or Atheism. This is why theft, vandalism, assault, rape, and murder are wrong. This is why democratic forms of government are better than others. Religion is the foundation of civilization. Whether it is right or wrong, religion is what keeps civilization civilized. Without it we are just animals that should be aggressively fighting each other for survival in an effort to continue to evolve to the next level.
Lack of religion gives us an entirely different set of moral guidelines and principals. For instance, the medical profession is entirely at odds with atheism, because without religion we should be letting the weak die in an effort to strengthen the species. Besides that we should also kill (or sterilize) everyone who is a descendant of someone with an especially bad genetic disease. Highly intelligent people should be breading like crazy, in an effort to out reproduce stupid people (interesting that those who believe themselves to be intelligent often choose not to reproduce). There should be experiments in evolution that involve the use of animal husbandry techniques upon humans, in an effort to improve the species. Dangerous experimentation upon humans should not only be legal, but should be funded by the government, again in an effort to improve the species. Slavery should be re-instituted to help fund this and to give smart people the time to make new inventions and discoveries that might help to ensure the continued survival of the species. (Slaves should be composed entirely of people with lower IQs, since the smart people are needed for inventing things or doing research. Race should not be a factor. A smart black guy, a smart Asian guy, and a smart white guy are equally as likely to come up with something that will benefit the species and as such all three should be given equal opportunity to do so.) Stupid people or people with serious genetic problems should be sterilized as soon as the problem is evident, again in an effort to improve the species.
Anyway, it should be obvious that all of these things bring up severe human rights issues. Without religion, the most important goal should be the continued survival and evolutionary improvement of the species. The only moral question should be 'will this improve the race as a whole?'. If the answer is 'yes', then anything is justifiable. Religion is our shield against this. Religion is what says that slavery is immoral. Religion is what says that it is wrong to experiment on human test subjects, unless the risk is extremely low. Religion is what says we should be kind to animals and to our planet. Even if we do not believe in religion, we should continue to fight for our right to believe as we choose. Without this right, we do not have any rights.
Lord Rybec
11 June 2009
02 June 2009
Questionable Science?
First I have to tell you that I am a scientist of sorts. I have always been interested in physics, electronics, genetics, and many other scientific subjects. I enjoy reading about new discoveries and various theories. I have even come up with a few of my own theories. So do not take this article as an anti-science pro-religion article. The intent of this article is to show that science and religion are two distinctly separate disciplines.
First, let's define a few words. We will start with the word 'fact'. I define a fact as something which has been shown to be true in at least one instance and has never been shown to be false. This definition makes sense, especially in its use within the realm of science. Usually in science, for something to be recognized as a fact, it must be show to be true by multiple independent researchers, but in many cases facts are accepted after one researcher shows it to be true, then other independent research is conducted to verify the original research. Note, however, that on occasion a 'fact' is discovered to be false in at least one instance and thus ceases to be a fact (look into what areas of the tongue taste what flavors for an example).
The second word is 'truth'. This is a religious word. Truth is something that is absolutely and irrevocably true. Truth transcends science and facts. The problem with truth is that it cannot be empirically proven. A person may know that something is absolutely true, but cannot convince others because they have no proof, or even no evidence, of what they claim to be true. Truth is absolute, but cannot be proven by any means available to man or science.
These words are exclusive to their specific disciplines. Truth has no place in science and facts have no place in religion. The reason is that religion and science have no overlapping ground. This does not mean that only one of the two can be valid. Rather it means that neither can infringe upon the realm of the other. In other words, science is not sufficiently equipped to argue with religion and religion is not equipped to argue with science. This is why arguments between the two most often end in stalemates. The two cover entirely different realms. Neither realm is suitable for the other to exist within.
Let's define science. Science consists of observations and predictions. Experiments can be devised and executed to observe reactions under controlled conditions, but it is still only observation. Science collects data, compiles and organizes it, and then looks for patterns. That is where science ends. Science may use the discovered patterns to make predictions, but may not interpret the data. This means that it is acceptable for a scientist to say that it is likely that a certain effect is going to happen given certain circumstances, but it is not acceptable for the scientist to claim that he absolutely knows that a certain effect will happen. Absolute knowledge does not belong to the realm of science. If a scientist makes such a claim, he is preaching his faith and belief that the effect will happen, not making a prediction based on observation. It has been shown that an observation may be taken any number of times with the same results, but then the next observation may yield results entirely at odds with all of the previous observations. Quantum physics actually predicts this. Science itself predicts that even an infinite number of observations may not yield every possible result.
Religion is nearly opposite to science in definition. Religion often is not based on any known observations. Empirical studies cannot prove religious truths. Even the appearance of deity can easily be attributed to hallucination or other forms of illusion. It is known that the senses can be fooled into seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching things that are not real and do not actually exist. On the other hand a person may claim that they have had a feeling that has given them absolute knowledge of truth, and science can do nothing to prove or disprove that claim or that truth. Many who have claimed to be scientists have tried to prove or disprove various religious claims and all have failed, except in the few cases where the claims have infringed upon the realm of science. Still, while no effort of science has ever been able to disprove religion, neither have any effort of science been able to verify religion.
This war between religion and science is not even real. Neither can cross the boundaries of the other. For a scientist to fight against religious principles he must create his own religious ideals that oppose those principles he is fighting against. Likewise, for a religious person to fight against a theory of science, he must create his own scientific theories that oppose those theories he wishes to fight against. This does not mean that religions cannot have scientific theories within them, but those religions must understand that the theories are subject to the rules of science, if they are to be considered scientific theories. Otherwise they are not theories, but rather religious beliefs.
Unlike science, religion is subject to interpretation. To interpret scientific data is to create a religious belief or principle based upon that data (this is where pagan nature worship originated). Science may not go beyond prediction and still be considered science. Religion on the other hand cannot make predictions. For religion to make predictions is to invite ruin. When religion crosses the boundaries into the realm of science, it must play by the rules of science. This means that if a religion makes a prediction, science may make a direct attack on that religion by disproving the prediction. Of course, if a scientist crosses the boundaries into religion, that scientist puts every theory and claim he has ever made in question. This does not mean that a single person may not make religious claims and scientific theories, but that person must be sure not to make a scientific theory based on belief, nor a religious claim that infringes on science; he must make sure his claims fall distinctly into the correct category. The two are not enemies, but they do not tolerate territorial disputes.
That said, there is one case where science and religion can get along. This is the case where the interpretations of religion and the predictions of science run parallel. For this to happen two things must be true. First, all of the claims made by the religion must be true, ie. they must be the correct interpretation. Second, science must recognize that everything may not be as it seems. No amount of evidence will reveal the absolute truth. Sometimes the evidence may actually be entirely at odds with the truth. If science refuses to admit this, it has failed. Equally, if religion refuses to admit that their interpretation may not be entirely accurate, it too has failed. Religion and science can only play together on the narrow strip of ground where they meet. Somewhere that ground does exist, but as it has not yet been found and indeed may never be found, science and religion should be treated as two distinctly separate, but valid realms of understanding. A scientist who claims that science makes religion invalid is a false prophet and a preacher who claims that religion supercedes science is a purgored scientist. Science cannot offer truth and religion cannot offer facts. Those on both sides need to realize this and get on with their lives. There are much more useful things they could be doing with their lives than participating in a war that cannot be won.
Lord Rybec
First, let's define a few words. We will start with the word 'fact'. I define a fact as something which has been shown to be true in at least one instance and has never been shown to be false. This definition makes sense, especially in its use within the realm of science. Usually in science, for something to be recognized as a fact, it must be show to be true by multiple independent researchers, but in many cases facts are accepted after one researcher shows it to be true, then other independent research is conducted to verify the original research. Note, however, that on occasion a 'fact' is discovered to be false in at least one instance and thus ceases to be a fact (look into what areas of the tongue taste what flavors for an example).
The second word is 'truth'. This is a religious word. Truth is something that is absolutely and irrevocably true. Truth transcends science and facts. The problem with truth is that it cannot be empirically proven. A person may know that something is absolutely true, but cannot convince others because they have no proof, or even no evidence, of what they claim to be true. Truth is absolute, but cannot be proven by any means available to man or science.
These words are exclusive to their specific disciplines. Truth has no place in science and facts have no place in religion. The reason is that religion and science have no overlapping ground. This does not mean that only one of the two can be valid. Rather it means that neither can infringe upon the realm of the other. In other words, science is not sufficiently equipped to argue with religion and religion is not equipped to argue with science. This is why arguments between the two most often end in stalemates. The two cover entirely different realms. Neither realm is suitable for the other to exist within.
Let's define science. Science consists of observations and predictions. Experiments can be devised and executed to observe reactions under controlled conditions, but it is still only observation. Science collects data, compiles and organizes it, and then looks for patterns. That is where science ends. Science may use the discovered patterns to make predictions, but may not interpret the data. This means that it is acceptable for a scientist to say that it is likely that a certain effect is going to happen given certain circumstances, but it is not acceptable for the scientist to claim that he absolutely knows that a certain effect will happen. Absolute knowledge does not belong to the realm of science. If a scientist makes such a claim, he is preaching his faith and belief that the effect will happen, not making a prediction based on observation. It has been shown that an observation may be taken any number of times with the same results, but then the next observation may yield results entirely at odds with all of the previous observations. Quantum physics actually predicts this. Science itself predicts that even an infinite number of observations may not yield every possible result.
Religion is nearly opposite to science in definition. Religion often is not based on any known observations. Empirical studies cannot prove religious truths. Even the appearance of deity can easily be attributed to hallucination or other forms of illusion. It is known that the senses can be fooled into seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching things that are not real and do not actually exist. On the other hand a person may claim that they have had a feeling that has given them absolute knowledge of truth, and science can do nothing to prove or disprove that claim or that truth. Many who have claimed to be scientists have tried to prove or disprove various religious claims and all have failed, except in the few cases where the claims have infringed upon the realm of science. Still, while no effort of science has ever been able to disprove religion, neither have any effort of science been able to verify religion.
This war between religion and science is not even real. Neither can cross the boundaries of the other. For a scientist to fight against religious principles he must create his own religious ideals that oppose those principles he is fighting against. Likewise, for a religious person to fight against a theory of science, he must create his own scientific theories that oppose those theories he wishes to fight against. This does not mean that religions cannot have scientific theories within them, but those religions must understand that the theories are subject to the rules of science, if they are to be considered scientific theories. Otherwise they are not theories, but rather religious beliefs.
Unlike science, religion is subject to interpretation. To interpret scientific data is to create a religious belief or principle based upon that data (this is where pagan nature worship originated). Science may not go beyond prediction and still be considered science. Religion on the other hand cannot make predictions. For religion to make predictions is to invite ruin. When religion crosses the boundaries into the realm of science, it must play by the rules of science. This means that if a religion makes a prediction, science may make a direct attack on that religion by disproving the prediction. Of course, if a scientist crosses the boundaries into religion, that scientist puts every theory and claim he has ever made in question. This does not mean that a single person may not make religious claims and scientific theories, but that person must be sure not to make a scientific theory based on belief, nor a religious claim that infringes on science; he must make sure his claims fall distinctly into the correct category. The two are not enemies, but they do not tolerate territorial disputes.
That said, there is one case where science and religion can get along. This is the case where the interpretations of religion and the predictions of science run parallel. For this to happen two things must be true. First, all of the claims made by the religion must be true, ie. they must be the correct interpretation. Second, science must recognize that everything may not be as it seems. No amount of evidence will reveal the absolute truth. Sometimes the evidence may actually be entirely at odds with the truth. If science refuses to admit this, it has failed. Equally, if religion refuses to admit that their interpretation may not be entirely accurate, it too has failed. Religion and science can only play together on the narrow strip of ground where they meet. Somewhere that ground does exist, but as it has not yet been found and indeed may never be found, science and religion should be treated as two distinctly separate, but valid realms of understanding. A scientist who claims that science makes religion invalid is a false prophet and a preacher who claims that religion supercedes science is a purgored scientist. Science cannot offer truth and religion cannot offer facts. Those on both sides need to realize this and get on with their lives. There are much more useful things they could be doing with their lives than participating in a war that cannot be won.
Lord Rybec
31 March 2009
Conversion to Open Source Software: Training
If you are running a business and want to cut costs, one of the easiest and simplest things you can do is switch to open source software. Generally, this involves finding and downloading open source equivalents of any proprietary software you currently use, evaluating that software, and then installing the software and converting document formats to fit that software company wide. This may also require some amount of training employees to use the new software. That is what this article is about, the training.
Let's begin with OpenOffice.org, probably the most popular open source alternative to MS Office. The conversion here is simple. First let me ask a question: Has your company switched to MS Office 2007 yet? If you answered "yes", then training for OpenOffice.org is almost entirely unnecessary.
Earlier today, my mother was complaining about how much more difficult it is to use MS Office 2007 in comparison to earlier versions. People in your company probably make similar complaints, although maybe not in front of you. My solution was to install OpenOffice.org on her computer. No additional training was required, because OpenOffice.org is so similar to earlier versions of MS Office, that anyone who has just switched to MS Office 2007 will be completely willing to work out the few differences just to have something they already know how to use.
If that does not work, open Firefox to Google (I presume your company had the sense to switch to Firefox when the Department of Homeland Security declared MS Internet Explorer a security hazard) and search "OpenOffice.org tutorial". The first item in the results looks pretty good. If you do not like that one, the next few look pretty good as well. The point is that even if most of your employees do not want to read a tutorial, there are plenty out there and if you just have one employee read one or two of them, at least that employee can help out the others if they have issues.
If you are still skeptical, take a look at this link. How did I find this? Simple: I went to amazon.com and I entered "OpenOffice.org" into the search. That link was the first result. If you do not like that author, or how the book looks, there was a list with many other similar books. Even if you take the tutorial route one of these might be handy to have around for reference.
OpenOffice.org is a very popular piece of open source software and as such has a reasonable footprint. By this I mean that OpenOffice.org has managed to get enough attention for people to actually write and publish books detailing how to use it. This is not true of all open source software. One thing you need to learn before switching to open source software is how to find information about that software. In the previous paragraphs, I used two of the most effective methods for finding this information. If you need to learn anything on the internet, one of the most effective ways of finding teaching oriented information is using the keyword "tutorial" in a search. I searched "electronics tutorial" to begin learning basic electrical engineering. I have used "javascript tutorial" to learn javascript. This works with almost anything, but especially with software.
As you may have already figured out, the second most effective way of finding information online is by searching the subject you want to learn about, ie. "OpenOffice.org". In the above case, I wanted to find books related to the subject, so I went to one of the foremost online bookstores and searched. If you have tried it, you have seen the long list of relevant information. While these are probably the fastest and most effective way of finding information about using open source software, there are a few more which should be obvious, but are not always.
I think I am safe saying that all open source software projects have their own web page, in one form or another. Many smaller ones use repositories like sourceforge.net (write this down, this website has a very large number of open source projects, and a simple search will often leave you with many useful results), but each one still has its own pages on the web site. Bigger projects, like OpenOffice.org have full web sites all to themselves. OpenOffice.org's web page can be found at openoffice.org (big surprise?). As a matter of fact, let's go there right now. Notice on the left hand side (or maybe the middle of the page for you) there is a list of options? The top one and the third one down offer support of different types. Near the top of the page, there is a row of tabs; notice how the title of the fourth tab is "support". Click that. If you are familiar with internet forums, you might recognize the format of this page. This is a place where you can ask questions about OpenOffice.org, and people will answer them. The answers do not always appear overnight, but unless they are rediculous or unrelated to OpenOffice.org, they will probably be answered relativly quickly. If you are switching your business to OpenOffice.org and your staff is worried about learning to use it, show them that site. Make sure they know that answers often will not be immediate, but they will eventually come. Many open source software websites actually include tutorials made by the people who made the program. These websites can be invaluable sources of information and should probably be your first stop when looking for learning resources for open source software.
That should cover training for open source software. Try these techniques if you are hesitant about switching to open source software because of training issues. Another good idea is to download the software yourself and play around with it. Many open source applications are relatively self explanitory. I learned to use OpenOffice.org by using it. Your experience with proprietary software may also help you with open source software. I took a MS Office 2007 class and learned how to use OpenOffice.org's spreadsheet program more effectively, because a lot of the information applied directly to how OpenOffice.org operates. Remember though that not everyone learns like I do, or like you do. It is wise to supply your staff with reference materials, so they do not have to keep knocking on your door to ask how to do things that they were not able to figure out on their own.
In parting, I would like to offer some useful links:
Open Disc is a project that has compiled a CD of useful open source software for Windows.
Open Education Disc is a branch of the Open Disc project tailored towards students, especially college students, but contains some software that could be useful within selected business environments.
SourceForge.net was already mentioned in the article, but bears repeating. This website hosts web space for an enourmous number of open source projects. It is more frequently used by smaller projects, but it does host many larger projects as well.
Wikipedia.com has lists of open source software, if you look in the right places. An example is a search for "accounting software". At the bottom of the wikipedia page, in the 'references' section, there are lists of open source, freeware, and 'retail' (or, rather, proprietary) accounting applications. Similar searches for other types of software should yield similar results.
Searching "open source" or "open source software" on modern search engines will also get a long list of open source software sources. Just be careful. Upon searching "open source office" I discovered that there are web sites out there that try to exploit open source software by asking for personal information before allowing you to download it. Most good open source software is freely downloadable. Free as in no strings attached, so if you discover that the first site listed for the above search asks for your email address (and various other information) before it will allow you to download OpenOffice.org, note that it was a 'sponsered link' (ie, the web site payed Google to put it at the top), and note that the link under it, to OpenOffice.org is not a sponsered link and does not ask for anything before allowing you to download OpenOffice.org.
Lord Rybec
Let's begin with OpenOffice.org, probably the most popular open source alternative to MS Office. The conversion here is simple. First let me ask a question: Has your company switched to MS Office 2007 yet? If you answered "yes", then training for OpenOffice.org is almost entirely unnecessary.
Earlier today, my mother was complaining about how much more difficult it is to use MS Office 2007 in comparison to earlier versions. People in your company probably make similar complaints, although maybe not in front of you. My solution was to install OpenOffice.org on her computer. No additional training was required, because OpenOffice.org is so similar to earlier versions of MS Office, that anyone who has just switched to MS Office 2007 will be completely willing to work out the few differences just to have something they already know how to use.
If that does not work, open Firefox to Google (I presume your company had the sense to switch to Firefox when the Department of Homeland Security declared MS Internet Explorer a security hazard) and search "OpenOffice.org tutorial". The first item in the results looks pretty good. If you do not like that one, the next few look pretty good as well. The point is that even if most of your employees do not want to read a tutorial, there are plenty out there and if you just have one employee read one or two of them, at least that employee can help out the others if they have issues.
If you are still skeptical, take a look at this link. How did I find this? Simple: I went to amazon.com and I entered "OpenOffice.org" into the search. That link was the first result. If you do not like that author, or how the book looks, there was a list with many other similar books. Even if you take the tutorial route one of these might be handy to have around for reference.
OpenOffice.org is a very popular piece of open source software and as such has a reasonable footprint. By this I mean that OpenOffice.org has managed to get enough attention for people to actually write and publish books detailing how to use it. This is not true of all open source software. One thing you need to learn before switching to open source software is how to find information about that software. In the previous paragraphs, I used two of the most effective methods for finding this information. If you need to learn anything on the internet, one of the most effective ways of finding teaching oriented information is using the keyword "tutorial" in a search. I searched "electronics tutorial" to begin learning basic electrical engineering. I have used "javascript tutorial" to learn javascript. This works with almost anything, but especially with software.
As you may have already figured out, the second most effective way of finding information online is by searching the subject you want to learn about, ie. "OpenOffice.org". In the above case, I wanted to find books related to the subject, so I went to one of the foremost online bookstores and searched. If you have tried it, you have seen the long list of relevant information. While these are probably the fastest and most effective way of finding information about using open source software, there are a few more which should be obvious, but are not always.
I think I am safe saying that all open source software projects have their own web page, in one form or another. Many smaller ones use repositories like sourceforge.net (write this down, this website has a very large number of open source projects, and a simple search will often leave you with many useful results), but each one still has its own pages on the web site. Bigger projects, like OpenOffice.org have full web sites all to themselves. OpenOffice.org's web page can be found at openoffice.org (big surprise?). As a matter of fact, let's go there right now. Notice on the left hand side (or maybe the middle of the page for you) there is a list of options? The top one and the third one down offer support of different types. Near the top of the page, there is a row of tabs; notice how the title of the fourth tab is "support". Click that. If you are familiar with internet forums, you might recognize the format of this page. This is a place where you can ask questions about OpenOffice.org, and people will answer them. The answers do not always appear overnight, but unless they are rediculous or unrelated to OpenOffice.org, they will probably be answered relativly quickly. If you are switching your business to OpenOffice.org and your staff is worried about learning to use it, show them that site. Make sure they know that answers often will not be immediate, but they will eventually come. Many open source software websites actually include tutorials made by the people who made the program. These websites can be invaluable sources of information and should probably be your first stop when looking for learning resources for open source software.
That should cover training for open source software. Try these techniques if you are hesitant about switching to open source software because of training issues. Another good idea is to download the software yourself and play around with it. Many open source applications are relatively self explanitory. I learned to use OpenOffice.org by using it. Your experience with proprietary software may also help you with open source software. I took a MS Office 2007 class and learned how to use OpenOffice.org's spreadsheet program more effectively, because a lot of the information applied directly to how OpenOffice.org operates. Remember though that not everyone learns like I do, or like you do. It is wise to supply your staff with reference materials, so they do not have to keep knocking on your door to ask how to do things that they were not able to figure out on their own.
In parting, I would like to offer some useful links:
Open Disc is a project that has compiled a CD of useful open source software for Windows.
Open Education Disc is a branch of the Open Disc project tailored towards students, especially college students, but contains some software that could be useful within selected business environments.
SourceForge.net was already mentioned in the article, but bears repeating. This website hosts web space for an enourmous number of open source projects. It is more frequently used by smaller projects, but it does host many larger projects as well.
Wikipedia.com has lists of open source software, if you look in the right places. An example is a search for "accounting software". At the bottom of the wikipedia page, in the 'references' section, there are lists of open source, freeware, and 'retail' (or, rather, proprietary) accounting applications. Similar searches for other types of software should yield similar results.
Searching "open source" or "open source software" on modern search engines will also get a long list of open source software sources. Just be careful. Upon searching "open source office" I discovered that there are web sites out there that try to exploit open source software by asking for personal information before allowing you to download it. Most good open source software is freely downloadable. Free as in no strings attached, so if you discover that the first site listed for the above search asks for your email address (and various other information) before it will allow you to download OpenOffice.org, note that it was a 'sponsered link' (ie, the web site payed Google to put it at the top), and note that the link under it, to OpenOffice.org is not a sponsered link and does not ask for anything before allowing you to download OpenOffice.org.
Lord Rybec
16 March 2009
Cutting Costs
You may have noticed that the U.S. economy is having major problems right now. You may also have noticed that most of our economy experts are at a loss as to why we are having these problems. You may also have noticed that the answer is obvious. Anyhow, that is not what this article is about. This article is about cutting costs in business and government, in an effort to survive the current economical problems.
Businesses and government should always be keeping an eye open for new ways of saving money. If this advice had been followed over the last two decades, we might not be having these problems with our economy. The problem is that most businesses only take advantage of the cost cutting techniques that hit them in the face. I would like to propose that businesses and government agencies should have small departments dedicated to research and development of cost management. If the right people were hired for the job far more money could be saved than it would take to fund the department. I have some suggestions on how this should be handled.
The first thing to consider with cost management is where money is being spent. Retailers probably already have someone who negotiates prices with wholesalers. The new department might be a good place for this person.
The next thing to consider is operating costs that don't result in direct income. Supplies like toilet paper, paper hand towels, cleaning supplies, receipt paper, and office supplies are among these. At my job, our store has changed the style of paper hand towels we put in the bathrooms three times. Each time the claim has been that the new method will save money. The funny thing is that we are now back to the ones we started with, but we had to replace the dispensers each time, so ultimately, even if each change saved money on towels, we incurred extra costs on the dispensers. If I was to make a guess, I would say that we are probably not the only store in the corporation that has done this and I would also guess that there are currently other stores using the less cost effective route. It may be that costs differ between regions because of shipping costs or other variables, but if we had a person calculating these costs, there is a very good potential that we could save enough to pay this person's salary, as well as save additional money. The person in this position would probably be in charge of bathroom supplies, cleaning supplies, and office supplies.
The next area is IT. Technology is an area where most businesses are either willing to spill money into it like a black hole, or they go as cheap as they possibly can. Neither of these are cost effective methods of running a business or government agency. Companies that go cheap on technology generally suffer for it (although, since they have never had sufficient technology to begin with, they usually do not even realize it). On the other hand, it is pretty obvious to most people that businesses that pour money into technology suffer from lack of funds elsewhere. Businesses and government agencies need technology workers who have an understanding of what the organization needs. The problem here is that many IT professionals do not want to cut costs; they want the business to have cutting edge technology. Now, there is nothing wrong with wanting the cutting edge for your home, but you do not need a gaming computer for running the business's accounting software.
What businesses need to look for is IT people who understand what the business needs and what it does not need. An important thing to look at when hiring an IT worker for this type of position is someone who has a good knowledge of all current technology. A good test for this is another article I wrote: Open Source Software in Business and Government If your candidate reads this article and is surprised to learn the things it discusses, they are definitely not the person for the job. The article outlines many ways an organization can save money on software licensing costs. The information therein is widely available for anyone with access to the internet. If your candidate has not been able to discover this information on their own, do not expect them to suddenly become good at finding other cost management information just because you hired them to do it. You may actually be better off finding someone without certifications or degrees, if they have the ability to find information like this. A good person for the job might be someone who has never bought a new computer in their life, but is able to do everything they need with the computers they have. These people have probably used their cost management abilities to obtain computers that are sufficient for thier needs at the lowest possible cost. This kind of candidate would be ideal for an IT cost management position.
The most expensive things most businesses buy are computers and software. Some businesses have managed to cut costs by using free software alternatives (see the article mentioned in the previous paragraph). One of these businesses is Lowe's. Lowe's uses the Linux operating system for their POS system, as well as most of their order management system. Even a small proprietary alternative would cost at least $50 per computer and Lowe's has at least 30 computers per store. That is a savings of at least $1,500 per store. For a large corporation, that does not seem like much, but if Lowe's has 200 stores (I believe it has more), that adds up to $300,000. Not only that, but eventually computers must be replaced and each replacement would cost another $50 for licensing costs for the software.
Since my other article covers software very well, we are going to discuss hardware. Businesses often discover that they can save money by making contracts for hardware, like computers. The problem with this is that frequently businesses and government agencies accept poor contracts because they believe that because it is a bulk contract, it must be a good deal, and no one wants to take the time (or has the knowledge) to shop around. Often this results in expensive long-term obligations. In additon, many companies that sell preconstructed computers use low quality products that will not last very long. Good warranties and service plans can circumvent some of the costs associated with these problems, but you should also consider downtime for broken hardware. This is an area where a good IT cost management employee is valuable. Many IT professionals might recommend that you sign a contract with a company like Dell, or Gateway. In some cases this might be cost efficient, but many times a good IT expert (with some cost management skill) can find a better deal than that and in addition, they may be able to arrange it without a long term contract that may become oppressive in the future. (Consider a contract that has you paying $1,200 each for a computer that was good 5 years ago, when you signed the contract.) This is not work that a normal IT graduate has been trained in, so businesses should take care when looking for people for this sort of position.
There are many ways businesses and government can save money, but lack of technical knowledge, lack of time, or just plain laziness often get in the way of this. If no one is willing or able to do this kind of work, businesses and government agencies should consider hiring people to do it. Even if your business is not struggling, it is a good idea to consider this, because someday it may make the difference between business as usual and going under. Most government agencies are already underfunded, so they have no excuse for failing to find ways of stretching our tax dollars. In some cases, businesses may not benefit from this sort of program, but since most businesses will benefit from it, it is worth the risk to invest in better cost management.
Lord Rybec
Businesses and government should always be keeping an eye open for new ways of saving money. If this advice had been followed over the last two decades, we might not be having these problems with our economy. The problem is that most businesses only take advantage of the cost cutting techniques that hit them in the face. I would like to propose that businesses and government agencies should have small departments dedicated to research and development of cost management. If the right people were hired for the job far more money could be saved than it would take to fund the department. I have some suggestions on how this should be handled.
The first thing to consider with cost management is where money is being spent. Retailers probably already have someone who negotiates prices with wholesalers. The new department might be a good place for this person.
The next thing to consider is operating costs that don't result in direct income. Supplies like toilet paper, paper hand towels, cleaning supplies, receipt paper, and office supplies are among these. At my job, our store has changed the style of paper hand towels we put in the bathrooms three times. Each time the claim has been that the new method will save money. The funny thing is that we are now back to the ones we started with, but we had to replace the dispensers each time, so ultimately, even if each change saved money on towels, we incurred extra costs on the dispensers. If I was to make a guess, I would say that we are probably not the only store in the corporation that has done this and I would also guess that there are currently other stores using the less cost effective route. It may be that costs differ between regions because of shipping costs or other variables, but if we had a person calculating these costs, there is a very good potential that we could save enough to pay this person's salary, as well as save additional money. The person in this position would probably be in charge of bathroom supplies, cleaning supplies, and office supplies.
The next area is IT. Technology is an area where most businesses are either willing to spill money into it like a black hole, or they go as cheap as they possibly can. Neither of these are cost effective methods of running a business or government agency. Companies that go cheap on technology generally suffer for it (although, since they have never had sufficient technology to begin with, they usually do not even realize it). On the other hand, it is pretty obvious to most people that businesses that pour money into technology suffer from lack of funds elsewhere. Businesses and government agencies need technology workers who have an understanding of what the organization needs. The problem here is that many IT professionals do not want to cut costs; they want the business to have cutting edge technology. Now, there is nothing wrong with wanting the cutting edge for your home, but you do not need a gaming computer for running the business's accounting software.
What businesses need to look for is IT people who understand what the business needs and what it does not need. An important thing to look at when hiring an IT worker for this type of position is someone who has a good knowledge of all current technology. A good test for this is another article I wrote: Open Source Software in Business and Government If your candidate reads this article and is surprised to learn the things it discusses, they are definitely not the person for the job. The article outlines many ways an organization can save money on software licensing costs. The information therein is widely available for anyone with access to the internet. If your candidate has not been able to discover this information on their own, do not expect them to suddenly become good at finding other cost management information just because you hired them to do it. You may actually be better off finding someone without certifications or degrees, if they have the ability to find information like this. A good person for the job might be someone who has never bought a new computer in their life, but is able to do everything they need with the computers they have. These people have probably used their cost management abilities to obtain computers that are sufficient for thier needs at the lowest possible cost. This kind of candidate would be ideal for an IT cost management position.
The most expensive things most businesses buy are computers and software. Some businesses have managed to cut costs by using free software alternatives (see the article mentioned in the previous paragraph). One of these businesses is Lowe's. Lowe's uses the Linux operating system for their POS system, as well as most of their order management system. Even a small proprietary alternative would cost at least $50 per computer and Lowe's has at least 30 computers per store. That is a savings of at least $1,500 per store. For a large corporation, that does not seem like much, but if Lowe's has 200 stores (I believe it has more), that adds up to $300,000. Not only that, but eventually computers must be replaced and each replacement would cost another $50 for licensing costs for the software.
Since my other article covers software very well, we are going to discuss hardware. Businesses often discover that they can save money by making contracts for hardware, like computers. The problem with this is that frequently businesses and government agencies accept poor contracts because they believe that because it is a bulk contract, it must be a good deal, and no one wants to take the time (or has the knowledge) to shop around. Often this results in expensive long-term obligations. In additon, many companies that sell preconstructed computers use low quality products that will not last very long. Good warranties and service plans can circumvent some of the costs associated with these problems, but you should also consider downtime for broken hardware. This is an area where a good IT cost management employee is valuable. Many IT professionals might recommend that you sign a contract with a company like Dell, or Gateway. In some cases this might be cost efficient, but many times a good IT expert (with some cost management skill) can find a better deal than that and in addition, they may be able to arrange it without a long term contract that may become oppressive in the future. (Consider a contract that has you paying $1,200 each for a computer that was good 5 years ago, when you signed the contract.) This is not work that a normal IT graduate has been trained in, so businesses should take care when looking for people for this sort of position.
There are many ways businesses and government can save money, but lack of technical knowledge, lack of time, or just plain laziness often get in the way of this. If no one is willing or able to do this kind of work, businesses and government agencies should consider hiring people to do it. Even if your business is not struggling, it is a good idea to consider this, because someday it may make the difference between business as usual and going under. Most government agencies are already underfunded, so they have no excuse for failing to find ways of stretching our tax dollars. In some cases, businesses may not benefit from this sort of program, but since most businesses will benefit from it, it is worth the risk to invest in better cost management.
Lord Rybec
13 March 2009
Open Source Software in Business and Government
I have read some emails sent between government workers recently and have been lead to the conclusion that we need a higher degree of awareness of open source software alternatives in government agencies and businesses.
Many, upon hearing about open source software make comments about how nothing is free, or how software made by people in their spare time cannot be as good as software made by companies that dedicate all of their resources to making good software. First, while everything good requires work from someone, people often choose to give service at no charge. Consider charities for a good example of this. Open source software is like a charity, only better, since the work of one person can benefit everyone willing to take advantage of it. Second, most software companies have a limited amount of personnel to program and test software, while open source software can be programmed, tested, and reviewed by anyone with a decent computer.
One thing people do not realize about software companies is that their goal is not to make good high quality software; their goal is to make as much profit as possible (they are legally required to maximize profits for their shareholders). This means making software that is just sufficient to make people willing to buy it at the price being charged. This means that a bug that will not effect most users will probably be ignored unless it is really easy to fix. This also means there will only be enough features to make it sufficiently more useful (or flashy) to make consumers want it over competitors software.
Another major problem with proprietary software in government is that software companies usually use proprietary formats for saving data, so that customers will be forced to continue to use their software instead of switching to a competitor's product. The problem with this in government (as noted in several of the emails) is that most government data is legally required to be retained in a publicly readable form, permanently. This means that if I do not own the proprietary software used to record the data, it is not readable to me, a member of the public. In addition, if future versions of the software remove support for that specific proprietary format (this is a very common technique used to force consumers to upgrade to a newer version), and old versions are no longer licensable (ie, the company stops selling the older version), the data is no longer readable by anyone who did not buy the software when it was on the market. Essentially this means that it is actually technically illegal for government organizations to store any data solely in proprietary formats, because the data cannot be considered permanently available to the public.
Businesses should also consider this. Once again, there are records that businesses are required to keep that must be in a presentable form for government inspections or audits. If the business changes its software to something that does not support the old software's format, the business could be in deep legal trouble if they get audited. The government officials do not care if the company changed its software, they want to see the records and if the company cannot produce them in a format that is readable, the company is going to get fined, or worse.
Using open source data formats can alleviate these problems. Among other things, most open source software still supports the original data formats it originally used, even if it normally uses a newer format now. Besides that, if your records are stored in an open format, even if the software that can open it no longer exists, you can find the original formating information and construct a simple program to display the data or convert it to a newer format.
These are the purely technical reasons for using open source software as opposed to proprietary software. Following are some less technical, but just as important reasons for using open source software.
Earlier I debunked the myth that software companies have more reasons and resources for making high quality software. Here you will find why open source software is often considered much better than proprietary software. Most people that are working on open source software are not getting paid for it (some companies do pay some of their programmers to help work on specific open source projects). This means that their incentive for making the software is not to earn a paycheck. Most people working on open source software are doing it because they intend on using the software and they have a specific interest in its functionality. This means that they actually want the software to work properly. If you research open source software you will find many projects that claim they are not suitable for commercial use at this point. If you use these programs you may also find that they work as well or better than many programs sold by software companies as commercial products for commercial use. The reason open source software is often superior to proprietary software is specifically that those making it aren't being paid to make it. Also, as I mentioned earlier, since anyone with a decent computer can test it, bugs are weeded out much more quickly and efficiently, and frequently new features are added as suggested by those using the software (or even added by those using the software).
Finally, one of the best reasons to seriously consider using open source software in government and business is that it is usually free. Anything that can replace a high cost commodity in government or business at no cost should be seriously considered. I have seen arguments over availability of documentation, training, tech support, and other things as reasons for avoiding open source software, but a few Google searches will quickly reveal that the community of open source software users are far more friendly for sharing information than anyone using proprietary software. Some open source software may not include as good documentation as some proprietary software, but free technical support is far more available on the internet for open source software (and you don't have to spend hours on hold waiting to talk to some guy in India who doesn't even understand english).
Switching to open source software can save large organizations enormous amounts of money. The last time I checked, Microsoft Office cost $160, if you have to buy Office for 200 computers (not unusual for large companies), that is costing you $32,000. This is just one piece of software. Adobe Photoshop CS4 costs almost $700, Adobe Illustrator CS4 costs over $300, and Adobe InDesign cost from $250 to $300. A graphic design studio could save $1,250 or more per computer using The GIMP, Inkscape, and Scribus, free open source alternatives to the proprietary programs I have mentioned above. Businesses may be able to negotiate lower prices for buying in bulk, but they can't beat free.
I would like to recommend government agencies and businesses to look for open source alternatives to the software they buy large amounts of, or pay large amounts for. If you find alternatives that appear to have any potential, download them and evaluate them. The only costs incured for evaluation are man hours, and with the potential savings, it is well worth the time spent. Just don't forget that any new software is going to have a learning curve. Remember this if, after five minutes, you decide that the software is difficult to use. If it was really that hard to use, would there be enough interest in it for it to be worth the work people are putting into it? Give your evaluators a little time to learn to use the software, then watch them use it and decide if your proprietary software is really worth the licensing costs.
Lord Rybec
Many, upon hearing about open source software make comments about how nothing is free, or how software made by people in their spare time cannot be as good as software made by companies that dedicate all of their resources to making good software. First, while everything good requires work from someone, people often choose to give service at no charge. Consider charities for a good example of this. Open source software is like a charity, only better, since the work of one person can benefit everyone willing to take advantage of it. Second, most software companies have a limited amount of personnel to program and test software, while open source software can be programmed, tested, and reviewed by anyone with a decent computer.
One thing people do not realize about software companies is that their goal is not to make good high quality software; their goal is to make as much profit as possible (they are legally required to maximize profits for their shareholders). This means making software that is just sufficient to make people willing to buy it at the price being charged. This means that a bug that will not effect most users will probably be ignored unless it is really easy to fix. This also means there will only be enough features to make it sufficiently more useful (or flashy) to make consumers want it over competitors software.
Another major problem with proprietary software in government is that software companies usually use proprietary formats for saving data, so that customers will be forced to continue to use their software instead of switching to a competitor's product. The problem with this in government (as noted in several of the emails) is that most government data is legally required to be retained in a publicly readable form, permanently. This means that if I do not own the proprietary software used to record the data, it is not readable to me, a member of the public. In addition, if future versions of the software remove support for that specific proprietary format (this is a very common technique used to force consumers to upgrade to a newer version), and old versions are no longer licensable (ie, the company stops selling the older version), the data is no longer readable by anyone who did not buy the software when it was on the market. Essentially this means that it is actually technically illegal for government organizations to store any data solely in proprietary formats, because the data cannot be considered permanently available to the public.
Businesses should also consider this. Once again, there are records that businesses are required to keep that must be in a presentable form for government inspections or audits. If the business changes its software to something that does not support the old software's format, the business could be in deep legal trouble if they get audited. The government officials do not care if the company changed its software, they want to see the records and if the company cannot produce them in a format that is readable, the company is going to get fined, or worse.
Using open source data formats can alleviate these problems. Among other things, most open source software still supports the original data formats it originally used, even if it normally uses a newer format now. Besides that, if your records are stored in an open format, even if the software that can open it no longer exists, you can find the original formating information and construct a simple program to display the data or convert it to a newer format.
These are the purely technical reasons for using open source software as opposed to proprietary software. Following are some less technical, but just as important reasons for using open source software.
Earlier I debunked the myth that software companies have more reasons and resources for making high quality software. Here you will find why open source software is often considered much better than proprietary software. Most people that are working on open source software are not getting paid for it (some companies do pay some of their programmers to help work on specific open source projects). This means that their incentive for making the software is not to earn a paycheck. Most people working on open source software are doing it because they intend on using the software and they have a specific interest in its functionality. This means that they actually want the software to work properly. If you research open source software you will find many projects that claim they are not suitable for commercial use at this point. If you use these programs you may also find that they work as well or better than many programs sold by software companies as commercial products for commercial use. The reason open source software is often superior to proprietary software is specifically that those making it aren't being paid to make it. Also, as I mentioned earlier, since anyone with a decent computer can test it, bugs are weeded out much more quickly and efficiently, and frequently new features are added as suggested by those using the software (or even added by those using the software).
Finally, one of the best reasons to seriously consider using open source software in government and business is that it is usually free. Anything that can replace a high cost commodity in government or business at no cost should be seriously considered. I have seen arguments over availability of documentation, training, tech support, and other things as reasons for avoiding open source software, but a few Google searches will quickly reveal that the community of open source software users are far more friendly for sharing information than anyone using proprietary software. Some open source software may not include as good documentation as some proprietary software, but free technical support is far more available on the internet for open source software (and you don't have to spend hours on hold waiting to talk to some guy in India who doesn't even understand english).
Switching to open source software can save large organizations enormous amounts of money. The last time I checked, Microsoft Office cost $160, if you have to buy Office for 200 computers (not unusual for large companies), that is costing you $32,000. This is just one piece of software. Adobe Photoshop CS4 costs almost $700, Adobe Illustrator CS4 costs over $300, and Adobe InDesign cost from $250 to $300. A graphic design studio could save $1,250 or more per computer using The GIMP, Inkscape, and Scribus, free open source alternatives to the proprietary programs I have mentioned above. Businesses may be able to negotiate lower prices for buying in bulk, but they can't beat free.
I would like to recommend government agencies and businesses to look for open source alternatives to the software they buy large amounts of, or pay large amounts for. If you find alternatives that appear to have any potential, download them and evaluate them. The only costs incured for evaluation are man hours, and with the potential savings, it is well worth the time spent. Just don't forget that any new software is going to have a learning curve. Remember this if, after five minutes, you decide that the software is difficult to use. If it was really that hard to use, would there be enough interest in it for it to be worth the work people are putting into it? Give your evaluators a little time to learn to use the software, then watch them use it and decide if your proprietary software is really worth the licensing costs.
Lord Rybec
13 February 2009
New Software Development Model
Microsoft has come up with a novel new development model that saves them tons of money. Actually, not only does it save them money, they actually earn money with it.
Microsoft has successfully convinced consumers to pay to beta test their products. In traditional software development the developer normally hires people to test their software to find bugs and other inconsistencies that might affect the performance of the software. Many software companies have been 'allowing' individuals to test their software for free over the last few years. Microsoft has gone one step further.
Microsoft has begun releasing beta software for individuals to test as well, but now they are charging for the 'privilege'. The trick is that they don't tell you that the software is only beta level. Microsoft puts it on the store shelves as a finished commercial product, when in reality it is early to mid beta level software. If Linux or Mac tried that, only hard core fans would ever use the OSs, but Microsoft has managed to slowly break down consumers expectations to a point where the consumers not only willingly use half finished software, but the consumers actually pay for the experience.
The U.S. needs an Underwriters Limited for software. Obviously Microsoft's quality control is unable to accurately discern the actual quality of the software. The solution is to have an independent organization analyze and test the software, like UL tests hardware. Of course, Microsoft would really hate this, since competition from Linux and Mac would squash them in the quality department and Microsoft would never have any of their products listed by the organization.
Lord Rybec
Microsoft has successfully convinced consumers to pay to beta test their products. In traditional software development the developer normally hires people to test their software to find bugs and other inconsistencies that might affect the performance of the software. Many software companies have been 'allowing' individuals to test their software for free over the last few years. Microsoft has gone one step further.
Microsoft has begun releasing beta software for individuals to test as well, but now they are charging for the 'privilege'. The trick is that they don't tell you that the software is only beta level. Microsoft puts it on the store shelves as a finished commercial product, when in reality it is early to mid beta level software. If Linux or Mac tried that, only hard core fans would ever use the OSs, but Microsoft has managed to slowly break down consumers expectations to a point where the consumers not only willingly use half finished software, but the consumers actually pay for the experience.
The U.S. needs an Underwriters Limited for software. Obviously Microsoft's quality control is unable to accurately discern the actual quality of the software. The solution is to have an independent organization analyze and test the software, like UL tests hardware. Of course, Microsoft would really hate this, since competition from Linux and Mac would squash them in the quality department and Microsoft would never have any of their products listed by the organization.
Lord Rybec
Economy Fix
I have become quite tired with all the stupid arguments over what will or will not fix the economy. In my personal opinion, our economy is so flawed that continuing to run it like we have been is impossible. Even government stimulus is only delaying the inevitable.
Stimulus is like an addiction; the only way to sustain the economy with stimulus is to continue to give it. Once it is being given, it will integrate itself into the economy so totally that removing it will result in a worse crash than not giving it in the first place. The problem is the way businesses are handling assets.
In the past the economy has worked fine without large amounts of consumer debt. If it can't do it now, there is a problem. The solution is not to throw money at the problem. That will only result in dependence. I have a better, albeit harder, solution.
The government is throwing enormous amounts of money at this problem. Part of it is in the current stimulus package and part of it is in public assistance programs (welfare). The government also has plenty of other programs that are costing large amounts of tax money.
Here is my solution:
Take all of that money; temporarily suspend some programs, reduce spending to minimal amounts on others, then divide all of that money among the populace. Send the checks out with pamphlets that tell people that the money should be used to stock up on food and other resources, for coming hard times. Then sit back and watch the economy crash. From the ashes a new, more resilient economy will arise.
Yes, there may be several years where it is very difficult to find food or other resources, but that's what the money was for. The pamphlets should have instructed people on what kinds of resources were available that would last that long. If people chose not to heed the warning, the fault, and consequences are their own.
Many large businesses will fail, but consider this: how long have you been complaining about those big businesses robbing us blind? Yes, it is true, many of them are. I think we will be better off without them! As far as I am concerned, while times may be hard during the recovery at least we would have the opportunity and means to secure resources to hold us over this way. The current policy will only help the businesses, while the rest of us starve.
Lord Rybec
Stimulus is like an addiction; the only way to sustain the economy with stimulus is to continue to give it. Once it is being given, it will integrate itself into the economy so totally that removing it will result in a worse crash than not giving it in the first place. The problem is the way businesses are handling assets.
In the past the economy has worked fine without large amounts of consumer debt. If it can't do it now, there is a problem. The solution is not to throw money at the problem. That will only result in dependence. I have a better, albeit harder, solution.
The government is throwing enormous amounts of money at this problem. Part of it is in the current stimulus package and part of it is in public assistance programs (welfare). The government also has plenty of other programs that are costing large amounts of tax money.
Here is my solution:
Take all of that money; temporarily suspend some programs, reduce spending to minimal amounts on others, then divide all of that money among the populace. Send the checks out with pamphlets that tell people that the money should be used to stock up on food and other resources, for coming hard times. Then sit back and watch the economy crash. From the ashes a new, more resilient economy will arise.
Yes, there may be several years where it is very difficult to find food or other resources, but that's what the money was for. The pamphlets should have instructed people on what kinds of resources were available that would last that long. If people chose not to heed the warning, the fault, and consequences are their own.
Many large businesses will fail, but consider this: how long have you been complaining about those big businesses robbing us blind? Yes, it is true, many of them are. I think we will be better off without them! As far as I am concerned, while times may be hard during the recovery at least we would have the opportunity and means to secure resources to hold us over this way. The current policy will only help the businesses, while the rest of us starve.
Lord Rybec
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)