Re:The right to privacy is underrated
on
The Privacy Candidate
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Counting on Russ Feingold to protect the right to privacy is very foolish. The man cannot even be relied on to protect rights which are explicitly spelled out in the constitution (free speech). He thinks that limiting your fellow citizens' right to form a group and tell you what they think about a particular politician should be regulated (McCain-Feingold bill).
Re:The right to privacy is underrated
on
The Privacy Candidate
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
That's nice, unless they have a history of voting/sponsoring legislation the other way. It wouldn't be the first time a politician campaigned on one side of an issue and then governed on the other...or governed on one side and then campaigned on the other.
Re:The right to privacy is underrated
on
The Privacy Candidate
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Don't vote on what they say, vote on what they have done. I don't know Hillary's record on privacy, but I suspect it is not good. Check her voting record in the Senate. Talk is cheap.
Though on the other hand, pollution is often an "externality" that the manufacturer can inflict on the outside world without paying for it...
Actually, they do pay for it in lost productivity. Now, that doesn't mean that a lot of companies don't make the mistake of thinking it is an "externality". However, in the long run, the companies that make every effort to minimize the pollution they create will be the most profitable and successful.
Yes, using raw materials more efficiently is one of the ways that productivity is increased, which leads to increased profitability.
For those of you who think that government intervention is the way to go, remember the Soviet Union had great government regulation of industry....and pollution rates many times that of the U.S.. China has lots of government regulation of industry and pollution rates much greater than the U.S.
Actually, companies discovered something interesting after the anti-pollution laws were passed in the sixties and seventies (I'm not sure when they actually noticed this. When companies reduced pollution, they made greater profit. It turns out that the best way to reduce pollution is to turn "pollution" (i.e. waste) into product. Oftentimes a product that the company didn't make before. The point is pollution is waste, the less you waste the more money you make. I suspect a similar principle applies to behavirs that are truly evil, the less you do them the more profitable you will be (everything else being equal).
Wages in the U.S. are higher than elsewhere because productivity is higher in the U.S. than elsewhere. When it is possible to get the same productivity (factoring in transport and communication costs) for less cost elsewhere any company that wants to compete will move their production to that location. If your field of business is moving overseas it means that American workers want more money then their greater productivity justifies. In some cases companies have moved production out of the U.S. for cheap labor, only to discover that the labor is not productive enough. At which time the company either moves it back or goes out of business. This is basic economics, if the government increases the cost of doing business with other countries, the economy suffers (fewer jobs, higher inflation, worst case scenario..a new Great Depression).
If you are right, develop a business plan, found a company and build it. If you believe there is a enough of a market to make a profit and can construct a business plan that supports that belief, you will be able to find Venture Capitalists who will put up the money.
SO you actually believe that there is a market for a $100,000 electric car? I may be wrong about what it would cost to bring one to market, but I know it is more than I would pay. Until sometime in 2004 or 2005 (I forget the date of the news article now) gas/electric hybrids were sold at a loss by all auto manufacturers. Toyota started making hybrids as a public relations move. They had to sell the cars for less than the cost of manufacturing them until sometime in either 2004 or 2005 when costs of manufacture dropped enough to make it break even. It was only with the rise in gas prices at the end of 2005 that they started to sell them for a significant profit. In addition, the only reason hybrids are profitable now is because of various special tax breaks (both corporate and individual) that don't apply to a true electric car.
Slashdot Mirror
Counting on Russ Feingold to protect the right to privacy is very foolish. The man cannot even be relied on to protect rights which are explicitly spelled out in the constitution (free speech). He thinks that limiting your fellow citizens' right to form a group and tell you what they think about a particular politician should be regulated (McCain-Feingold bill).
That's nice, unless they have a history of voting/sponsoring legislation the other way. It wouldn't be the first time a politician campaigned on one side of an issue and then governed on the other...or governed on one side and then campaigned on the other.
Don't vote on what they say, vote on what they have done. I don't know Hillary's record on privacy, but I suspect it is not good. Check her voting record in the Senate. Talk is cheap.
Though on the other hand, pollution is often an "externality" that the manufacturer can inflict on the outside world without paying for it... Actually, they do pay for it in lost productivity. Now, that doesn't mean that a lot of companies don't make the mistake of thinking it is an "externality". However, in the long run, the companies that make every effort to minimize the pollution they create will be the most profitable and successful. Yes, using raw materials more efficiently is one of the ways that productivity is increased, which leads to increased profitability. For those of you who think that government intervention is the way to go, remember the Soviet Union had great government regulation of industry....and pollution rates many times that of the U.S.. China has lots of government regulation of industry and pollution rates much greater than the U.S.
Actually, companies discovered something interesting after the anti-pollution laws were passed in the sixties and seventies (I'm not sure when they actually noticed this. When companies reduced pollution, they made greater profit. It turns out that the best way to reduce pollution is to turn "pollution" (i.e. waste) into product. Oftentimes a product that the company didn't make before. The point is pollution is waste, the less you waste the more money you make. I suspect a similar principle applies to behavirs that are truly evil, the less you do them the more profitable you will be (everything else being equal).
Wages in the U.S. are higher than elsewhere because productivity is higher in the U.S. than elsewhere. When it is possible to get the same productivity (factoring in transport and communication costs) for less cost elsewhere any company that wants to compete will move their production to that location. If your field of business is moving overseas it means that American workers want more money then their greater productivity justifies. In some cases companies have moved production out of the U.S. for cheap labor, only to discover that the labor is not productive enough. At which time the company either moves it back or goes out of business. This is basic economics, if the government increases the cost of doing business with other countries, the economy suffers (fewer jobs, higher inflation, worst case scenario..a new Great Depression).
In other words, there is not enough money to be made to be worth your while....Maybe that is the reason now one else has done it either.
If you are right, develop a business plan, found a company and build it. If you believe there is a enough of a market to make a profit and can construct a business plan that supports that belief, you will be able to find Venture Capitalists who will put up the money.
SO you actually believe that there is a market for a $100,000 electric car? I may be wrong about what it would cost to bring one to market, but I know it is more than I would pay. Until sometime in 2004 or 2005 (I forget the date of the news article now) gas/electric hybrids were sold at a loss by all auto manufacturers. Toyota started making hybrids as a public relations move. They had to sell the cars for less than the cost of manufacturing them until sometime in either 2004 or 2005 when costs of manufacture dropped enough to make it break even. It was only with the rise in gas prices at the end of 2005 that they started to sell them for a significant profit. In addition, the only reason hybrids are profitable now is because of various special tax breaks (both corporate and individual) that don't apply to a true electric car.