The best way to deal with "too large" companies is to reduce government regulation. The thing most people do not understand is that all government regulation stifles competition to one degree or another, even regulations whose purpose is to encourage competition. It is easier for a large company to afford the cost of compliance with a regulation than it is for a small company. Furthermore, large companies usually end up having a greater impact on what regulations are actually implemented than small companies, they are therefore better able to make sure that those regulations are ones which favor themselves over smaller competitors. Finally, regulations present a barrier to entry to a particular market because existing companies already understand the impact of regulation on their industry, whereas small start-ups may be unaware of a regulation that will drive up their expenses.
Except that in some states, the sales tax rate varies from municipality to municipality. New York is one of those states. As I said, in New York, there are people living next door to each other whose local sales tax varies from each other (because the city/county line runs in between them). For brick and mortar stores that doesn't matter, they collect the sales tax of the municipality they are located in. But for Internet sales, the sales tax would be that of the customer's location and there is no easy way to figure that out. There are more than 50 different sales tax rates in the U.S.
You've clearly misunderstood Krugman's articles. He isn't talking about taxing the rich. He is talking about taxing those attempting to become rich. Of course, those are the very people who drive the economy. Of course, Krugman's real position is that we would all be better off if we would let people like him decide every aspect of our lives and just lived as drones supporting our betters (him and those like him).
Yes, I would prefer to return to pre-1930 policies where the government did not decide the winners and losers in the economy. I don't know what makes you think that any post-2000 policies bear any resemblance to pre-FDR policies. I would prefer to return to a country that followed the Constitution.
William Jennings Bryan is a perfect example of most "populists". He advocated an approach to government that involved people like him making decisions for people like you and me (rather than leaving us with the freedom to make the decisions that we wanted to make).
These are all things that will make the rich richer and the poor more dependent on the government. Big business loves social programs and regulations. Regulations always favor the large corporations over smaller companies, if for no other reason than that large corporations can more easily afford the expense of the paperwork that any regulation will entail.
Well, that probably explains why nobody has ever called him that before. However, Krugman's economic advice is always for the government to do those things that will help the rich stay rich while making everyone else poorer.
Ok, so where do I find out that 123 Some Road, Someplace NY 12345 pays a different sales tax rate than the guy at 124 Some Road, Someplace NY 12345? Oh, yeah, it needs to be the same place that tells me the same type of thing for people living in another state that does the same thing.
The prolem is not Amazon. The problem is that if Amazon loses this argument (not this particular case), it will set a precedent that the one person web site that sells stuff will, also, have to collect sales tax for every state and local that they ship to. How is somebody in Mississippi supposed to know that the guy who lives at 123 Some Road. Someplace, NY 12345 pays 7.5%, but the guy at 124 Some Road. Someplace NY 12345 pays 8.0%?
The most important thing here is that by not calling Hoffa out on his statement, Obama is proved to be a hypocrite. Back in January, he talked about the need for a more civil tone in public discourse. Today, when one of his supporters is the one using violent rhetoric in the process of introducing Obama, he not only refuses to condemn that rhetoric, he thanks the man for the introduction.
Teamsters leadership has in the past made public statements that were calls for members of the Teamsters to do violence against oppponents (although carefully worded so as to avoid prosecution...not always successfully).
Whether or not Lincoln was a bad President depends on whether or not you believe that preserving the Union was worth the damage he did to the Constitution. However, I would contend that his two immediate predecessors were significantly worse because they were each President at a time when bold action may have defused the slavery issue without leading to Civil War. Actually, in all probability Franklin Pierce was the one who most could have prevented the Civil War. If he had refused to recognize (or at least withdrawn his support after it became clear that it was illegally elected) the illegally elected pro-slavery Kansas government, it would likely have resulted in less heat between the abolitionist and pro-slavery factions. This may have resulted in a more peaceful abolition of slavery.
You do know that there is significant evidence that the Teamsters (not unions in general) are controlled by organized crime? In particular, that Hoffa received significant support from organized crime figures in his effort to become, and remain, president of the Teamsters Union? The Teamsters Union has a history of violence, so when the President of the Teamsters says "take these son-of-a-bitches out" it is reasonable to suspect he was calling for violence, or at least that it was likely that some of his followers in the Teamsters would interpret it that way.
Federal regulation by any measure is significantly higher now than it was under LBJ. Size of the Federal Register? The Federal Register has regularly had over 70,000 pages since the year 2000, never that high before. The Code of Federal Regulations has similarly steadily increased in size since it was first published.
I would like to say I am sorry to get in the way of your ignorance, but I'm not. The Federal government has steadily increased its regulation of the economy of the U.S. for as long as I have been alive with only minimal retrenchments. Under George W. Bush federal regulation increased significantly and Obama has, at a minimum, continued that increase, if not actually accelerating it.
The poster I replied to said "We can support 10 billion people, but not 10 billion rich people." What part of that does not involve the number of warm bodies?
My response was to the point that if the overwhelming majority of the Earth's population was rich, there would be fewer than 10 billion people.
The author's examples do not support his point. Over the time period where he shows that average workers incomes have stagnated is the same time period where the government has increasingly intervened in the market on the basis of socialistic principles. The examples the author gives of the "failures" of capitalism are the result of the government applying Marxian theory to "ease" the failings of capitalism. This does not mean that capitalism is perfect, no system involving humans, or designed by humans, will be.
This is a common argument I see: problem A is evidence that we need more government regulation, even though problem A was caused by bad government regulation in the first place. Problem B is evidence that Marx was right, even though problem B is the result of applying Marx's theories (usually partially).
It is not true that people do not need training to use paper documentation. It is just that they need that same training plus additional training specific to whatever technology is intended to replace the paper documentation. However, your point about the fact that paper has been around for a long time is relevant to this discussion. Over the centuries that paper has been around we have pretty well worked out the bugs. Fax has been around for well over a century and has that same benefit, we have worked out most of the bugs. In both cases, we have developed systems to work around any unresolvable bugs left in the system.
Actually, fax originated in the mid 1800s. At its base, it is pre-Civil War technology. Which explains why it is still around, it has been around for a very long time and gained acceptance gradually.
Why, yes, fax machines have been around almost since the dawn of man or, at least the mid 1800s, which, in technology terms, is just about the same thing. So, the fact of the matter is that fax machines took a long time to become accepted technology, with people gradually becoming familiar with them. It is going to take a similar process for whatever technology replaces them to move into that office niche.
I've found that people do not want to change a system that mostly works for them, despite the advantages.
That sums up the reason that fax machines are still around. They mostly work for what we want them for. The fact of the matter is that anybody who has been around for any length of time has encountered multiple new systems that were touted as improvements over existing methods that turned out to not only not offer anything new that was worth learning the new system, but that generally fail at some basic task that the old system was rock solid reliable on.
Replacing something that works because it is "old-fashioned" is usually a mistake. Fax machines will go away when their replacement has been universally adopted and you will not even realize that they had gone away until someone asks why their replacement does not work in some more efficient manner, and you realize that the way it works is a legacy of being backward compatible with fax machines, which are, by that time, completely obsolete.
My email client always asks me before sending a "read, reception and delivery receipt". I have the option of not sending such a reply. I am unaware of any system that allows you to get delivery confirmation of an email that I cannot block the transmission of that confirmation.
Where is T-Mobile going to get the money to do the upgrades that their network requires for them to remain competitive? Also, wouldn't DT get more for selling off the pieces of T-Mobile than just spinning it off?
Slashdot Mirror
The best way to deal with "too large" companies is to reduce government regulation. The thing most people do not understand is that all government regulation stifles competition to one degree or another, even regulations whose purpose is to encourage competition. It is easier for a large company to afford the cost of compliance with a regulation than it is for a small company. Furthermore, large companies usually end up having a greater impact on what regulations are actually implemented than small companies, they are therefore better able to make sure that those regulations are ones which favor themselves over smaller competitors. Finally, regulations present a barrier to entry to a particular market because existing companies already understand the impact of regulation on their industry, whereas small start-ups may be unaware of a regulation that will drive up their expenses.
Except that in some states, the sales tax rate varies from municipality to municipality. New York is one of those states. As I said, in New York, there are people living next door to each other whose local sales tax varies from each other (because the city/county line runs in between them). For brick and mortar stores that doesn't matter, they collect the sales tax of the municipality they are located in. But for Internet sales, the sales tax would be that of the customer's location and there is no easy way to figure that out. There are more than 50 different sales tax rates in the U.S.
You've clearly misunderstood Krugman's articles. He isn't talking about taxing the rich. He is talking about taxing those attempting to become rich. Of course, those are the very people who drive the economy. Of course, Krugman's real position is that we would all be better off if we would let people like him decide every aspect of our lives and just lived as drones supporting our betters (him and those like him).
Yes, I would prefer to return to pre-1930 policies where the government did not decide the winners and losers in the economy. I don't know what makes you think that any post-2000 policies bear any resemblance to pre-FDR policies. I would prefer to return to a country that followed the Constitution.
William Jennings Bryan is a perfect example of most "populists". He advocated an approach to government that involved people like him making decisions for people like you and me (rather than leaving us with the freedom to make the decisions that we wanted to make).
These are all things that will make the rich richer and the poor more dependent on the government. Big business loves social programs and regulations. Regulations always favor the large corporations over smaller companies, if for no other reason than that large corporations can more easily afford the expense of the paperwork that any regulation will entail.
Well, that probably explains why nobody has ever called him that before. However, Krugman's economic advice is always for the government to do those things that will help the rich stay rich while making everyone else poorer.
You know this is the first time I have ever heard anyone call Krugman a member of the Austrian School of economics.
Ok, so where do I find out that 123 Some Road, Someplace NY 12345 pays a different sales tax rate than the guy at 124 Some Road, Someplace NY 12345? Oh, yeah, it needs to be the same place that tells me the same type of thing for people living in another state that does the same thing.
Unless something has changed in the last couple of years, Borders online store is run by Amazon.
The prolem is not Amazon. The problem is that if Amazon loses this argument (not this particular case), it will set a precedent that the one person web site that sells stuff will, also, have to collect sales tax for every state and local that they ship to. How is somebody in Mississippi supposed to know that the guy who lives at 123 Some Road. Someplace, NY 12345 pays 7.5%, but the guy at 124 Some Road. Someplace NY 12345 pays 8.0%?
The most important thing here is that by not calling Hoffa out on his statement, Obama is proved to be a hypocrite. Back in January, he talked about the need for a more civil tone in public discourse. Today, when one of his supporters is the one using violent rhetoric in the process of introducing Obama, he not only refuses to condemn that rhetoric, he thanks the man for the introduction.
Teamsters leadership has in the past made public statements that were calls for members of the Teamsters to do violence against oppponents (although carefully worded so as to avoid prosecution...not always successfully).
Whether or not Lincoln was a bad President depends on whether or not you believe that preserving the Union was worth the damage he did to the Constitution. However, I would contend that his two immediate predecessors were significantly worse because they were each President at a time when bold action may have defused the slavery issue without leading to Civil War. Actually, in all probability Franklin Pierce was the one who most could have prevented the Civil War. If he had refused to recognize (or at least withdrawn his support after it became clear that it was illegally elected) the illegally elected pro-slavery Kansas government, it would likely have resulted in less heat between the abolitionist and pro-slavery factions. This may have resulted in a more peaceful abolition of slavery.
You do know that there is significant evidence that the Teamsters (not unions in general) are controlled by organized crime? In particular, that Hoffa received significant support from organized crime figures in his effort to become, and remain, president of the Teamsters Union? The Teamsters Union has a history of violence, so when the President of the Teamsters says "take these son-of-a-bitches out" it is reasonable to suspect he was calling for violence, or at least that it was likely that some of his followers in the Teamsters would interpret it that way.
Federal regulation by any measure is significantly higher now than it was under LBJ. Size of the Federal Register? The Federal Register has regularly had over 70,000 pages since the year 2000, never that high before. The Code of Federal Regulations has similarly steadily increased in size since it was first published.
I would like to say I am sorry to get in the way of your ignorance, but I'm not. The Federal government has steadily increased its regulation of the economy of the U.S. for as long as I have been alive with only minimal retrenchments. Under George W. Bush federal regulation increased significantly and Obama has, at a minimum, continued that increase, if not actually accelerating it.
The poster I replied to said "We can support 10 billion people, but not 10 billion rich people." What part of that does not involve the number of warm bodies?
My response was to the point that if the overwhelming majority of the Earth's population was rich, there would be fewer than 10 billion people.
Are you claiming that the U.S. economy is less regulated today than it was in the 1950s? or even the 1980s?
The author's examples do not support his point. Over the time period where he shows that average workers incomes have stagnated is the same time period where the government has increasingly intervened in the market on the basis of socialistic principles. The examples the author gives of the "failures" of capitalism are the result of the government applying Marxian theory to "ease" the failings of capitalism. This does not mean that capitalism is perfect, no system involving humans, or designed by humans, will be.
This is a common argument I see: problem A is evidence that we need more government regulation, even though problem A was caused by bad government regulation in the first place. Problem B is evidence that Marx was right, even though problem B is the result of applying Marx's theories (usually partially).
It is not true that people do not need training to use paper documentation. It is just that they need that same training plus additional training specific to whatever technology is intended to replace the paper documentation. However, your point about the fact that paper has been around for a long time is relevant to this discussion. Over the centuries that paper has been around we have pretty well worked out the bugs. Fax has been around for well over a century and has that same benefit, we have worked out most of the bugs. In both cases, we have developed systems to work around any unresolvable bugs left in the system.
Actually, fax originated in the mid 1800s. At its base, it is pre-Civil War technology. Which explains why it is still around, it has been around for a very long time and gained acceptance gradually.
Why, yes, fax machines have been around almost since the dawn of man or, at least the mid 1800s, which, in technology terms, is just about the same thing. So, the fact of the matter is that fax machines took a long time to become accepted technology, with people gradually becoming familiar with them. It is going to take a similar process for whatever technology replaces them to move into that office niche.
I've found that people do not want to change a system that mostly works for them, despite the advantages.
That sums up the reason that fax machines are still around. They mostly work for what we want them for. The fact of the matter is that anybody who has been around for any length of time has encountered multiple new systems that were touted as improvements over existing methods that turned out to not only not offer anything new that was worth learning the new system, but that generally fail at some basic task that the old system was rock solid reliable on.
Replacing something that works because it is "old-fashioned" is usually a mistake. Fax machines will go away when their replacement has been universally adopted and you will not even realize that they had gone away until someone asks why their replacement does not work in some more efficient manner, and you realize that the way it works is a legacy of being backward compatible with fax machines, which are, by that time, completely obsolete.
My email client always asks me before sending a "read, reception and delivery receipt". I have the option of not sending such a reply. I am unaware of any system that allows you to get delivery confirmation of an email that I cannot block the transmission of that confirmation.
Current evidence suggests that would be neither simple nor cheap.
Where is T-Mobile going to get the money to do the upgrades that their network requires for them to remain competitive? Also, wouldn't DT get more for selling off the pieces of T-Mobile than just spinning it off?