AT&T became a monopoly as result of government regulation. AT&T did pursue becoming a monopoly as company policy, but various government interventions greatly assisted them in accomplishing that goal. I do not believe AT&T would have been successful in becoming a monopoly without the assistance it received from the government (particularly the Wilson Administration).
You have failed to identify a specific industry that is a "natural monopoly". All you have done is identified what the theory of "natural monopoly". Please identify a real world example of a "natural monopoly that exists because of "natural monopoly" conditions, not because of government regulation. I am unaware of any.
See, I figured an early adapter was someone who started hacking an Apple product as soon as it went on sale, even before anyone had figured out what it was good for.
Sorry, but there were lots of companies that entered the early cable/telco market only to be gradually squeezed out by government regulation. Local municipalities had the authority to license what companies could offer cable service in their area. The local governments in the most lucrative areas basically sold the local monopoly to the highest bidder. The more areas a cable company already serviced the more they could pay in bribes to the next community.
Please give one example of a "natural monopoly". All of the monopolies that are usually given as examples of "natural mononpolies" exist because of government regulation: electricity, telephone, cable tv, all monopolies created by government regulation.
If a company's IP is insecure, it may, possibly, lose some money. If data which falls under regulation is insecure, people go to prison. This is exactly as it should be, and so the "imbalance" is entirely appropriate.
I suppose the folks at Forrester Research think that IP protection is more important than protecting, say, personal medical information. Fortunately, most people in the world are sane enough to disagree.
An important correction: if data which falls under regulation is not kept according to the regulation people go to prison. If following the regulation decreases the security of the data, no problem.
Except that the linked article does not support the conclusion you reached. All the linked article says is that the study concluded that smokers have a lower IQ on average than non-smokers. There are two possible explanations for this. The first (the one taken by the summary and the article) is that people with lower IQs are more likely to start smoking. The second is that smoking lowers one's IQ. Either of these would result in the findings in the study. Hopefully someone will do a follow on study to discover which of these is the case.
There are three groups that support this that between them make me think it is a good idea: ACLU, EFF, and Americans for Tax Reform. Between them the three offset the potential partisan bias of the others. While none of them are strongly biased, they each tend to attract people with partisan leanings in different directions.
The advantage of the CAFE standards over a tax is that politicians don't have to pass what would be an unpopular tax. You are right that a fuel tax would be more effective at driving up fuel efficiency. The problem with a fuel tax is that it would dive up the cost of everything that needed to be transported.
Fleet average means that the average of all of the vehicles (not models) that a car manufacturer produces must equal the standard for mpg. That means that if they don't sell, they have to do something with the cars (generally, they either sell them for a loss or produce only a limited number of the more popular, low mpg models).
NO Ford (and all the other manufacturers) must do more than offer a fuel efficient vehicle. They must produce their vehicles in such numbers that the harmonic mean of the gas mileage of all of the vehicles they produce that fall under this regulation meets this goal. What happens if they can't sell enough of the high mpg cars to offset the number of low mpg cars they sell? They then have two choices. Don't produce more of the low mpg vehicles than can be offset by the demand for the high mpg vehicles or arbitrarily set the price on the low mpg vehicles high and the price on the high mpg vehicles low so that you can adjust demand to favor the high mpg cars.
I got them from Ford's UK site, so presumably UK gallons - divide by 1.2 for US values, which makes the worst petrol automatic Focus 29.4mpg.
That means that for every one of those Focuses they sell once the new guidelines go into effect, they will need to sell one of a model that gets 41.6 mpg. Now go back to that list and out of 100 people who are going to buy a Ford how many would buy a car that gets over 40 mpg? How many would buy a car that gets less than 30mpg? Does your estimate have enough people buying high mpg cars to offset the people who buy low mpg cars?
I did not claim that people are learning how to drive. I said that if cellphones were such a major problem we should see a change in the rate at which highway fatalities are declining, but we don't. Just because some people are behaving irresponsibly with their cellphones does not mean that we need a new law.
Because marketing people know that people often go to movies and/or buy products that are seen as popular. As this technique is used to predict how popular something is going to be, marketing people will attempt to make something seem more popular than it is in order to drive additional customers to spend their money on it.
Yes, but right now, those twits are talking about the movie because they are interested in going. The companies will start paying people to create "buzz" on twitter. They will also create accounts (that are not identified as such) on twitter to promote their products.
Actually, other state courts are likely to follow this precedent for two reasons. One, it applied to attorney-client communication (judges are lawyers, as such they tend to favor rulings that protect lawyers). Two, it appears to be a carefully worded and reasoned ruling with a fairly specific, limited scope (judges are human, as such if there is an easy way to make a ruling that they can do by little more than cut and paste, they will).
As my second point notes this is a narrow ruling, as such even if it does influence courts in other states that influence is likely to be limited to very similar cases. Ultimately, the primary result of this ruling will be a re-wording of company policies to allow them to do what this company did.
I believe a large part of the problem stems from the government takeover of the airport screeners. Before 9/11 (and for awhile after), the airport screeners worked for the airlines. That should still be the case with the TSA tasked with testing their effectiveness and compliance with other laws. There would still be problems and debates about what those other laws should be, but at least the airport screeners (or at least their bosses) would be conscious of balancing the effectiveness of screening methods and inconvenience to the paying customers.
There are some problems that would occur in such a system as well, but I think it would be easier to correct problems in the system than with the current one.
Chiropractic is not totally quackery. It all depends on which school of thought the chiropracter is in: If the chiropracter believes in subluxation, he or she is a quack. If they don't, they can be of some help in those few areas that spinal manipulation can help (primarily back and neck pain). However, a chiropracter generally does no more good than a good massuese.
Right, because one day of oral testimony is such a thorough way to get to the bottom of this whole mess. FTA "Lawmakers stressed that their report — which was written after only a single day of oral testimony..."
I'm sorry, but if all they are going to do is spend one day talking to some people, they haven't investigated anything.
I've never understood why the left, which has supported the idea of a single-payer health care system, can't get its head around vouchers, which amount to a single-payer education system.
Because their end goal is a single provider health care system for everybody but the elite, just like they already have for education (for the most part).
Slashdot Mirror
AT&T became a monopoly as result of government regulation. AT&T did pursue becoming a monopoly as company policy, but various government interventions greatly assisted them in accomplishing that goal. I do not believe AT&T would have been successful in becoming a monopoly without the assistance it received from the government (particularly the Wilson Administration).
You have failed to identify a specific industry that is a "natural monopoly". All you have done is identified what the theory of "natural monopoly". Please identify a real world example of a "natural monopoly that exists because of "natural monopoly" conditions, not because of government regulation. I am unaware of any.
See, I figured an early adapter was someone who started hacking an Apple product as soon as it went on sale, even before anyone had figured out what it was good for.
Sorry, but there were lots of companies that entered the early cable/telco market only to be gradually squeezed out by government regulation. Local municipalities had the authority to license what companies could offer cable service in their area. The local governments in the most lucrative areas basically sold the local monopoly to the highest bidder. The more areas a cable company already serviced the more they could pay in bribes to the next community.
Please give one example of a "natural monopoly". All of the monopolies that are usually given as examples of "natural mononpolies" exist because of government regulation: electricity, telephone, cable tv, all monopolies created by government regulation.
If a company's IP is insecure, it may, possibly, lose some money. If data which falls under regulation is insecure, people go to prison. This is exactly as it should be, and so the "imbalance" is entirely appropriate.
I suppose the folks at Forrester Research think that IP protection is more important than protecting, say, personal medical information. Fortunately, most people in the world are sane enough to disagree.
An important correction: if data which falls under regulation is not kept according to the regulation people go to prison. If following the regulation decreases the security of the data, no problem.
Except that the linked article does not support the conclusion you reached. All the linked article says is that the study concluded that smokers have a lower IQ on average than non-smokers. There are two possible explanations for this. The first (the one taken by the summary and the article) is that people with lower IQs are more likely to start smoking. The second is that smoking lowers one's IQ. Either of these would result in the findings in the study. Hopefully someone will do a follow on study to discover which of these is the case.
There are three groups that support this that between them make me think it is a good idea: ACLU, EFF, and Americans for Tax Reform. Between them the three offset the potential partisan bias of the others. While none of them are strongly biased, they each tend to attract people with partisan leanings in different directions.
For all intents and purposes that is what happens. Automobile manufacturers sell low mpg cars at a premium and high mpg cars at a loss.
The advantage of the CAFE standards over a tax is that politicians don't have to pass what would be an unpopular tax. You are right that a fuel tax would be more effective at driving up fuel efficiency. The problem with a fuel tax is that it would dive up the cost of everything that needed to be transported.
Fleet average means that the average of all of the vehicles (not models) that a car manufacturer produces must equal the standard for mpg. That means that if they don't sell, they have to do something with the cars (generally, they either sell them for a loss or produce only a limited number of the more popular, low mpg models).
And how many of those that do over 35.5 mpg do you think they will sell for every vehicle that they sell that does less than 35.5 mpg?
NO Ford (and all the other manufacturers) must do more than offer a fuel efficient vehicle. They must produce their vehicles in such numbers that the harmonic mean of the gas mileage of all of the vehicles they produce that fall under this regulation meets this goal. What happens if they can't sell enough of the high mpg cars to offset the number of low mpg cars they sell? They then have two choices. Don't produce more of the low mpg vehicles than can be offset by the demand for the high mpg vehicles or arbitrarily set the price on the low mpg vehicles high and the price on the high mpg vehicles low so that you can adjust demand to favor the high mpg cars.
I got them from Ford's UK site, so presumably UK gallons - divide by 1.2 for US values, which makes the worst petrol automatic Focus 29.4mpg.
That means that for every one of those Focuses they sell once the new guidelines go into effect, they will need to sell one of a model that gets 41.6 mpg. Now go back to that list and out of 100 people who are going to buy a Ford how many would buy a car that gets over 40 mpg? How many would buy a car that gets less than 30mpg? Does your estimate have enough people buying high mpg cars to offset the people who buy low mpg cars?
I did not claim that people are learning how to drive. I said that if cellphones were such a major problem we should see a change in the rate at which highway fatalities are declining, but we don't. Just because some people are behaving irresponsibly with their cellphones does not mean that we need a new law.
They would not necessarily use bots.
Because marketing people know that people often go to movies and/or buy products that are seen as popular. As this technique is used to predict how popular something is going to be, marketing people will attempt to make something seem more popular than it is in order to drive additional customers to spend their money on it.
Yes, but right now, those twits are talking about the movie because they are interested in going. The companies will start paying people to create "buzz" on twitter. They will also create accounts (that are not identified as such) on twitter to promote their products.
Attorney-client privileges protect the client, but they also increase the power of and protect lawyers
Actually, other state courts are likely to follow this precedent for two reasons. One, it applied to attorney-client communication (judges are lawyers, as such they tend to favor rulings that protect lawyers). Two, it appears to be a carefully worded and reasoned ruling with a fairly specific, limited scope (judges are human, as such if there is an easy way to make a ruling that they can do by little more than cut and paste, they will).
As my second point notes this is a narrow ruling, as such even if it does influence courts in other states that influence is likely to be limited to very similar cases. Ultimately, the primary result of this ruling will be a re-wording of company policies to allow them to do what this company did.
I believe a large part of the problem stems from the government takeover of the airport screeners. Before 9/11 (and for awhile after), the airport screeners worked for the airlines. That should still be the case with the TSA tasked with testing their effectiveness and compliance with other laws. There would still be problems and debates about what those other laws should be, but at least the airport screeners (or at least their bosses) would be conscious of balancing the effectiveness of screening methods and inconvenience to the paying customers.
There are some problems that would occur in such a system as well, but I think it would be easier to correct problems in the system than with the current one.
It works until marketing departments at big companies start gaming it in a big way.
Chiropractic is not totally quackery. It all depends on which school of thought the chiropracter is in: If the chiropracter believes in subluxation, he or she is a quack. If they don't, they can be of some help in those few areas that spinal manipulation can help (primarily back and neck pain). However, a chiropracter generally does no more good than a good massuese.
Right, because one day of oral testimony is such a thorough way to get to the bottom of this whole mess. FTA "Lawmakers stressed that their report — which was written after only a single day of oral testimony..."
I'm sorry, but if all they are going to do is spend one day talking to some people, they haven't investigated anything.
I've never understood why the left, which has supported the idea of a single-payer health care system, can't get its head around vouchers, which amount to a single-payer education system.
Because their end goal is a single provider health care system for everybody but the elite, just like they already have for education (for the most part).