The Political Thread

[The Legendary Shark]

Fortunately, I'm a writer so all I really need is any old text editor.

The CS6 Jim uses is 13 years old, so bleeding-edge software isn't necessarily essential. Even if what you say about Open Source software being a decade out of date is true, he could update his software for free and still be more up to date than he is now. (Not that he should have to, he likes his CS6 and paid for it, so should be able to use it for as long as he likes.)

Yes, Open Source is reliant on altruism but then so are lots of things from Christmas to cancer research. Altruism is not a dirty word or some woolly airy-fairy pipe dream, it's a real human trait that manifests all over the world all the time.

I could just as easily point out that Adobe's software is reliant on the economy; maybe it'll be economically viable to issue regular updates and maybe it won't. Neither way is guaranteed to succeed 100% of the time but I have noticed that the things people do for the love of it tend to keep being done regardless, whilst the things people do for money tend to dry up when the money runs out.

[The Legendary Shark]

Correction, CS6 was initially released 13 years ago and last updated four years ago.

That'll teach me for skim-reading!

[IndigoPrime]

Fortunately, I'm a writer so all I really need is any old text editor.

As a writer myself, I can do my job in "any old text editor", but I'm most efficient in one that's actually good. And since time is money and rates are increasingly awful, efficiency is to be prized. Unsurprisingly, I don't favour free software for such work.

Yes, Open Source is reliant on altruism but then so are lots of things from Christmas to cancer research.

What? Cancer research is not reliant on altruism. It's reliant on funding that comes from all kinds of sources, only some of which is charity.

Altruism is not a dirty word or some woolly airy-fairy pipe dream, it's a real human trait that manifests all over the world all the time.

I never said it was a dirty word. What I'm suggesting is most professionals would be taking a massive risk to base the future of their own ability to complete projects on the whims of people updating software whenever they fancy.

I have noticed that the things people do for the love of it tend to keep being done regardless, whilst the things people do for money tend to dry up when the money runs out.

Tell that to Mint's customers.

[Jim_Campbell]

The CS6 Jim uses is 13 years old, so bleeding-edge software isn't necessarily essential. Even if what you say about Open Source software being a decade out of date is true, he could update his software for free and still be more up to date than he is now. (Not that he should have to, he likes his CS6 and paid for it, so should be able to use it for as long as he likes.)

I'm not sure you're reading what I wrote. I have, for now, chosen to stick with CS6 because I think Adobe's monopolist imposition of a subscription model is an outrageous abuse of their market dominance, and also vastly more expensive than the old perpetual-license-and-update-when-you-want model. If I could pay Adobe the usual £350-ish to upgrade to a perpetual license CS7 version of the old Design Standard bundle, I'd do it in a shot.

I'm constantly evaluating alternatives, because there will come a point where an OS update will break the software and I won't be able to use it any more. Consequently, when I say that only one alternative (Affinity Designer) is fit for purpose in my profession (which is functionally identical to any graphic designer for print), it's because that's the way it is. If you want a colour-managed CMYK workflow, with trapping options, and fine typographic controls, none of the shareware/open-source options pass muster. None.

And this is why Adobe won't release the above-mentioned hypothetical CS7. They make far more money from Creative Cloud, and their complete market dominance means that my only option is to keep using CS6 until it stops working, then I'll have no choice other than to pay through the nose for their subscription model.

(Just to clarify my previous point about 'live' AI documents: most clients are happy to have an exported output from Illustrator — TIFF, EPS, PDF — so any software that gives me the features mentioned above would be an acceptable alternative. However, Titan and 451 want me to send them the actual Illustrator lettering documents, meaning that I have use Illustrator, simply because there is no way to supply them the files that they need.)

[Steven Denton]

First off I apologise for the formatting on this post.


Gold's value, indeed the value of everything, is based largely on faith. Gold is a rare metal, doesn't corrode and is also useful in many technologies, making it an ideal store of value. It is, however, bulky and problematic to keep safe. This is why bank notes were invented. A bank note was originally a certificate issued by a bank to represent the gold and/or silver people stored in the bank's vaults for safety. At some point, the goldsmiths (who first devised this system because their vaults were very secure) realised that people who deposited gold with them rarely came to remove their gold from the vaults, preferring to trade in bank notes which were "as good as gold." They began creating bank notes without receiving any gold to base them on and lending them out at interest. What a brilliant scam! When the public began to realise what was happening, the bankers justified this fraud by coining the term "fractional reserve banking," which simply means banks gave themselves the right to lend out more bank notes than they had gold to back them up. This was the beginning of inflation and a debt-based monetary system.

Histories and interpretations may vary.

Without this fraudulent system, there would be no such thing as bank runs. (A bank run occurs when people, for whatever reason, decide to redeem their notes for gold in larger than expected numbers.

I don't need a summary of the bank scene from it's a wonderful life to understand what a run is. Sometimes it comes across like you think you are talking to idiots.

Let's say Farmer Giles has worked all his life and amassed a modest amount of gold with which to fund his retirement and deposited it in a bank. Then a rumour starts that the farmer's bank is in trouble and everyone rushes to get their gold - of course, in that situation it's first come, first served - and the first to come are those people (other bankers and the "elites," usually) in the know. They get theirs but the poor farmer has lost everything he's worked for over the years. With fractional reserve banking such monstrous abuses are made increasingly likely. It still happens today, from time to time, with people's hard-earned savings diminished or even eradicated at a stroke.) It's not the gold or the bank notes that's the problem, it's how and by whom the system is run.

Bank runs happen when banks do not have the liquid assists to cover withdrawals. This does not mean the assets are bad (although with the sub-prime mortgage crash they were indeed bad) what it means is the bank's assets cannot be freed up upon request. This can cause huge problems with asset transferal and essentially led to the Icelandic bank crash. In the case of the Icelandic banks it wasn't that their assets were bad it's that too much of their capital was tied up in investments and not enough in cash. (Farmer Giles Spent all his monopoly money on hoovering up as much property as possible but now he's landed on green grocer Mabel's Hotel on Mayfair and he's fucked.)

Now, none of this means very much because, as you say, paper money is just an artifice.

Run's are still incredibly important. Conceptually it can be extended to any business and as far as personal budgeting. If you don't have enough operating capital and you suddenly have a bill to pay, you are probably going to find it tricky to e-bay your graded captain America back issues for a decent price in time to get your Car fixed for work the next day.   

It's worth what people believe it's worth, which is why banks work so hard to project an image of competence, trustworthiness, solidity and stability. Gold is a real, tangible thing that has to be located, dug up and refined - its existence cannot be simply wished or magicked into reality by writing in a ledger. This is the core of the problem - not what we use as a money but how it is created and by whom. At present, all money in the world is created by a core cartel of private bankers who make a profit from this monopoly and decide who can have some and who can't - they even decide how much money entire countries can have, making a mockery of the governments people love and trust so much. Most people labour under the illusion that central banks, such as the Bank of England and the US Federal Reserve, are part of the government and therefore owned by the people but this is not so. The people might own the building, and be responsible for funding its upkeep, but everything inside is owned by private shareholders - of which you are not one. Even governments must "borrow" from the central bank - and you get to pay it all back. In this way, profits are privatised whilst losses are covered by the general public. This is the imbalance which has done so much damage through the centuries and continues to this day.


Money isn't magicked into existence, Banks use maths, they don't just pull things out of their asses, even when it seems most like they do (quantative easing). Quantative easing is a good example because it's an emergency measure and extreme test of the system. The economy has stalled, banks aren't lending money. Businesses need to borrow money against future profits or current assets to have the liquid assets to purchase the goods or services they require to make money. Without access to these funds they will definitely go bust, putting an end to this future money. Quantative easing gambles that by putting more money into the system now businesses will convert that money from possible capital/profits to actual capital/profits. The down side if they don't then all of the currency will be devalued to cover the new money. And that's the test. If you can create new money on future earning then not realise those future earnings with no repercussions then the money is based on nothing (thin air if you like) if however, creating new money with no new assets devalues all of the money until the money represents the assets again, currency IS tied to something.

In this modern age, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are an important development. The amount of bitcoins available is determined by a mathematical formula, meaning they cannot be created at a whim and the profits resulting from that creation snaffled up by a handful of entities or individuals - the profits of Bitcoin creation are evenly distributed throughout the system, so every Bitcoin user benefits in a small way and those benefits are not consolodated into the hands of a few. Bitcoin also shows that money does not have to be tethered to gold, silver, copper or any other metal. Bitcoin has value because people have faith in the currency - and that's the only thing ultimately backing any currency.

cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are indeed really interesting. It's most interesting not because it can be traded for goods and services where Bitcoin is accepted but because it can be traded for traditional currency and has become a tranferable asset in the same way as traditional currancy(the ability to mine Bitcoin and it's finite nature is an entertaining mimicking of the dynamics gold as currency.)

[The Legendary Shark]

I think the software discussion is wandering off topic so I'll leave that for now. Suffice to say that both open source and closed source programs each have their pros and cons. There's risk also
in basing the future of a professional's own ability to complete projects on the whims of people updating software whenever it's profitable.

Medical research funding from government (using stolen money*, of course) in the UK is around £2.5 billion a year, charitable donations for the same amount to around £1 billion a year, so I'd call that pretty reliant.

Who or what is Mint?

*And if it's not stolen, it's freely given and therefore an altruistic donation too.

[The Legendary Shark]

Jim, I don't understand the intricacies of Illustrator as compared to Open Source options and so I accept your expert opinion in the matter as I'm sure you will have experimented. You cannot be the only one, however, unhappy with Adobe's monopolistic practices and so I'd assume many professionals such as yourself are pressuring Adobe to change their ways. Indeed, I guess what you'd need to do is remind them of all that government anti-monopoly legislation...

Steven, no. The economy has not stalled. The economy cannot stall, that's a physical and philosophical impossibility. There is no computer with "The Economy" stencilled on it, no fundamental equation that governs it, no ministry or department running it. The economy is simply the interactions, many and varied, between human beings (another word for it is 'praxeology'). When a politician promises to fix the economy, they're living in a universe so far removed from reality they might as well be promising everyone a free unicorn. What has stalled is money creation, which is a tiny but significant aspect of the economy. It's like putting crap oil into an engine - the mechanics are all fine but still the engine's going to fail.

I'm sure I've posted this link for you before but there it is anyway in case you want to ignore it again. If the Bank of England admitting it creates money out of nothing is not enough to disabuse you of your weird view that it's not created out of nothing but somehow created tomorrow to be waiting for us when the sun comes up, then I guess nothing will.

[Steven Denton]

Steven, no. The economy has not stalled. The economy cannot stall, that's a physical and philosophical impossibility. There is no computer with "The Economy" stencilled on it, no fundamental equation that governs it, no ministry or department running it. The economy is simply the interactions, many and varied, between human beings (another word for it is 'praxeology'). When a politician promises to fix the economy, they're living in a universe so far removed from reality they might as well be promising everyone a free unicorn. What has stalled is money creation, which is a tiny but significant aspect of the economy. It's like putting crap oil into an engine - the mechanics are all fine but still the engine's going to fail.

I'm sure I've posted this link for you before but there it is anyway in case you want to ignore it again. If the Bank of England admitting it creates money out of nothing is not enough to disabuse you of your weird view that it's not created out of nothing but somehow created tomorrow to be waiting for us when the sun comes up, then I guess nothing will.

Yes I was referring to growth stalling and teetering on the brink of recession then talking about a method of stimulating growth. it was a statement specific to the motivation for quantitative easing. but feel free to rant condescendingly.

I read the link. It's an opinion piece.

but thank you for again reminding me why you are so unpleasant to converse with.

[Jim_Campbell]

I think the software discussion is wandering off topic so I'll leave that for now.

Unintended de-rail aside, I brought it up because it's another example of precisely the kind of behaviour I was talking about: large company buys up smaller competitors, then uses market dominance to kill its only remaining competitor. Once it has the field to itself, it proceeds to act in a manner directly intended to benefit its shareholders, to the detriment of its customers. The subscription model flattens out the peaks and troughs of the company's cashflow, releases them from the onerous task of actually improving their software*, and locks their customers into using their software (theoretically) forever, whilst costing all but a minority of their customers more money than the old perpetual license model did.

It's a fundamentally customer-hostile action enabled by market dominance.

*I can't find a single feature added to Illustrator or InDesign in three and a half years that looks remotely compelling, although Photoshop does seem to have had some work put in.

[Steven Denton]

omy. It's like putting crap oil into an engine - the mechanics are all fine but still the engine's going to fail.

I'm sure I've posted this link for you before but there it is anyway in case you want to ignore it again. If the Bank of England admitting it creates money out of nothing is not enough to disabuse you of your weird view that it's not created out of nothing but somehow created tomorrow to be waiting for us when the sun comes up, then I guess nothing will.

I have also read the Bank of England Paper that David Graeber is arguing his opinion from and came out wit ha differn't opinion. but go ahead and accuse me of being ill informed and wilfully ignorant for not sharing the same opinion as you.

[The Legendary Shark]

 

There is a link in that "opinion piece" to the actual pdf put out by the BoE, so you can read the actual facts straight from the horse's mouth, if you like.

That unpleasant feeling you're getting is largely due to the knowledge that you're wrong but unwilling to admit it (although in all fairness about 11% of it is probably down to me being a c*nt).

[Steven Denton]

There is a link in that "opinion piece" to the actual pdf put out by the BoE, so you can read the actual facts straight from the horse's mouth, if you like.

That unpleasant feeling you're getting is largely due to the knowledge that you're wrong but unwilling to admit it (although in all fairness about 11% of it is probably down to me being a c*nt).

I read the PDF, it doesn't say 'we create money from nothing' I read quite a lot believe it or not.

The unpleasant feeling I'm getting is from talking to someone who thinks 'you're wrong but unwilling to admit it' is an augment. Maybe look at yourself before accusing others of blind denial.

[The Legendary Shark]

I understand and agree with what you say, Jim, and I think it's a piss-poor way to treat your customers. (Not you, Adobe.)

And yet, and call me naïve if you like, if Adobe stagnates its innovation and development for too long, there is every possibility that Open Source software designers may outstrip them.

Of course, Adobe may use its money to lobby governments to make OS software illegal - insuring its own income stream through protectionism rather than quality. It's the modern penchant for "rent seeking" - the idea that one can invent and/or produce a single thing and not sell it but hire it out indefinitely with as little costly maintenance and innovation as possible. The ideal, as I think you said in other words earlier, is to find a way of getting money for nothing.

[Steve Green]

I think the software discussion is wandering off topic so I'll leave that for now.

Unintended de-rail aside, I brought it up because it's another example of precisely the kind of behaviour I was talking about: large company buys up smaller competitors, then uses market dominance to kill its only remaining competitor. Once it has the field to itself, it proceeds to act in a manner directly intended to benefit its shareholders, to the detriment of its customers. The subscription model flattens out the peaks and troughs of the company's cashflow, releases them from the onerous task of actually improving their software*, and locks their customers into using their software (theoretically) forever, whilst costing all but a minority of their customers more money than the old perpetual license model did.

It's a fundamentally customer-hostile action enabled by market dominance.

*I can't find a single feature added to Illustrator or InDesign in three and a half years that looks remotely compelling, although Photoshop does seem to have had some work put in.

See also Autodesk.

They had 3DS Max, bought Maya, and Softimage - which gave them the big 3 3D apps, and ended up killing Softimage because they didn't know what to do with three of them.

Their rental prices are something like £200+ a month these days - crazy.

[The Legendary Shark]

Okay, Steven, so we disagree. Fine. You don't believe me and I don't believe you. It's not the end of the world, is it?

I obviously don't read anything and am as thick as pig sh*t as well as being unpleasant to converse with and condescending to boot. Boo-frikkin'-hoo.

So we'd best just call it quits, eh?