What we really need is a corporate breakup service as part of a credit/debit card. They can send a nice letter like
Dear Comcast, We are sorry to inform you that John Smith wants to end his relationship with you. He feels that you're growing in different directions and the chemistry isn't the same. In short, he's just not that into you.. He wants to see other cable providers.
Then to avoid any boiling rabbits and such, they should refuse all further charges from them to their ex-customer's card. As a premium service, they should also file a restraining order keeping the ex's marketing department at least 500 feet away at all times.
Since we have a non-zero unemployment rate the repairman might well not have something else he could do for a living. It is likely that we should all be working a bit less for our living, but as long as a majority in the house seem to believe it's OK to cast people into poverty as long as they don't have to look at them, that's not happening.
Fixing your own gear wouldn't be a bloodbath if it was actually made to be fixed. People throw away the clogged washer because they don''t have the needed skills and due to parts being unavailable, professional repairmen are not available.
Again, they already stock the washers themselves. Assuming that people actually buy washers from time ti time because the old one is worn out, they would sell the parts. Quite possibly they would only actually stock the most common parts locally with the rest a day or two away in a regional warehouse.
Why would the store have to employ a repairman? They usually contract that sort of thing out. That's how they can offer delivery, installation, and haul away services now. Fixing a washing machine isn't rocket surgery, there are a great many general contractor/handyman services that can do it.
On some models, it may well be. That's an even better case since it would be dirt cheap to mail a replacement.
Our last washer died of a failed clutch. Our current one is just hanging in there but it makes a horrible clatter getting up to speed and it doesn't always make it if the clothes are a bit unbalanced. It would be nice to put a new clutch in and get another 10 years out of it.
So you maintain that it will be cheaper to ship the whole BOM for the washing machine to a central location, assemble it, then ship it to the local Home Depot than it will to ship the same clutch in the BOM from the same place it was before direct to the Home Depot (or your home)? If we add a few more hops, that should make the washer free according to your math.
Broken window fallacy.
Actually, no. The repairman exists whether we utilize his work or pay him to not work. Putting him to work is not breaking a window since we gain a value rather than losing it. Throwing away a bunch of good parts along with the failed $0.50 nylon gear is breaking the window.
You didn't answer the question. Who do you know that collects major appliances they don't use? I'll accept saw a silly season news article about as know.
Indeed it would. They would probably also be out of business quite soon.
If we're going to just make bald assertions count as debate, I'll claim the hardware store owners will all become immortal and filthy rich.
You aren't thinking things through. For an example, the most common failure on washing machines is the clutch for the spin cycle. No matter how new the math, it will always be cheaper to ship a clutch to the local store than to ship a whole new washing machine. There is no case where shipping part of an appliance costs more than shipping the whole thing. Go to the home depot. See the 2 dozen complete washing machines on display? Those are made of parts. They generally have more of them in the back or at least at a regional warehouse, ready for next day delivery to your home. It certainly wouldn't cost any more to keep all those parts exactly where they are kept now but in un-assembled form.
Furthermore, if the parts are reasonably standardized, they would need less on hand than they keep now.
A first world repairman is NOT more resources than a first world unemployed man.
It could always use natural medicine for that. For example, it could suddenly play a recording of truck horns and screeching tires, women screaming, freight train collision sounds and such.
I do realize that there is a cost associated with printing and minting money now. But that can be taxed progressively so the poor sot with 2 dollars to his name isn't stuck with the bill. Any susc system would need a public service where the transaction is done for no more than cost, at least as a last resort. Otherwise we are back to annointing private concerns with the right of taxation.
I also know that bills are serialized. However, unlike bitcoin, keeping track of those serial numbers is purely optional for each step in the transaction and in practice, nobody does. When they check those numbers, they're just looking for known bad money. Assuming the bill you hand over isn't on that list, it just goes in the drawer. Tomorrow, they won't be able to say where that bill came from. With bitcoin, a particular value can be back traced all the way back to the miner that first generated it,
But I think you're starting to see the point. Smartphone may be nice for people who have one, but many do not and unless they can carry money around somehow, they never will. Meanwhile, Bitcoin likely isn't the answer, but we don't actually know what the answer is beyond a list of desirable traits some of which Bitcoin has.
Smartphone was YOUR suggestion, you don't get to blame me for it's shortcomings:-)
The current solution (cash) has the advantage that you don't have to spend money just to be able to have money. If absolutely all else fails, you can carry it in your hand. True enough, credit cards weren't ubiquitous at one time, but they didn't need to be since we had cash which was legal tender for all debts.
To actually replace cash, whatever carries the replacement will have to be available at no cost. It will need to not have transaction fees. Note that currently Bitcoin doesn't typically carry a transaction fee, but it is expected that it will once it is 'mined out' in order to maintain an incentive to compute block chains.
The other downside to Bitcoin is that it actually is traceable. That problem may prove harder to solve than the wallet problem.
No, my concern is that you seem not to understand that in the UK, not handing over the password is a crime and so requires the higher standard of proof. Part of that is that you have to prove the defendant even possesses the key (you can't hand over what you don't have).
A secondary concern is how often courts in the U.S. and seemingly in the U.K. have employed sophistry in an attempt to lower the standards for a conviction in general. In some cases by claiming something that looks exactly like a criminal conviction in every way is somehow something else.
BTW, criminal law is SUPPOSED to be unbalanced in favor of the defendant. The consequences of jailing the innocent are worse than the sonsequences of not jailing the guilty.
Of course it's not ubiquitous yet.. But god damn, your questions are meant to criticize Bitcoin - but they are awfully dimwitted. First, maybe 10 years ago it was seen as limiting market exposure if users needed to own a smartphone. But, there isn't a company left that worries about being out of the huge capital markets of 'users without smartphones' except maybe Walmart.
Interesting persuasion tactic there. I'm convinced now that Bitcoin advocates are oversensitive clods who fart out their mouths. You could do the whole concept a favor by stitching your fingers together and your mouth shut.
You also sound awfully callous about actually kicking poor people completely out of society.
So you propose a currency that will only work if you own a working smartphone that is only accepted by a small percent of online vendors? How will I buy gas and food with that?
So why replace it with banks that launder money for terrorists and drug cartels and dodge taxes? Normal human beings do need to not pay what are effectively taxes to corporations. If they knew how much the credit cards were taking on the merchant side (that shows up in their prices), they might clamor to pay cash more often.
Not really. If we devalue the dollar, the equation shifts and local manufacturing begins to make more sense than offshore. American made goods also start to look more attractive on foreign markets, again to the benefit of American workers.
When domestic goods go up in price it is not because of a devalued dollar since all of their expenses are also in devalued dollars.
It's not as unlikely as you think. You forgot the urban homeless population, for example. There's the homeless you see and then there's the squatters you may not see (or recognize).
But it''s not getting anywhere near as cheap as dealing in cash. It's also not getting as risk free as cash. A bank can't decide that their security problem should be my problem and revoke the $20 bill someone paid me.
Slashdot Mirror
What we really need is a corporate breakup service as part of a credit/debit card. They can send a nice letter like
Dear Comcast, We are sorry to inform you that John Smith wants to end his relationship with you. He feels that you're growing in different directions and the chemistry isn't the same. In short, he's just not that into you.. He wants to see other cable providers.
Then to avoid any boiling rabbits and such, they should refuse all further charges from them to their ex-customer's card. As a premium service, they should also file a restraining order keeping the ex's marketing department at least 500 feet away at all times.
Since we have a non-zero unemployment rate the repairman might well not have something else he could do for a living. It is likely that we should all be working a bit less for our living, but as long as a majority in the house seem to believe it's OK to cast people into poverty as long as they don't have to look at them, that's not happening.
Fixing your own gear wouldn't be a bloodbath if it was actually made to be fixed. People throw away the clogged washer because they don''t have the needed skills and due to parts being unavailable, professional repairmen are not available.
Well, the example used in the thread starter was washing machines.
Major appliances are things like oven, dishwasher, refrigerator, washer, and dryer. You could also add in heat pump and water heater.
It definitely doesn't mean small items bought at Walmart or anything you might dispose of by throwing in in the kitchen trash can.
Again, they already stock the washers themselves. Assuming that people actually buy washers from time ti time because the old one is worn out, they would sell the parts. Quite possibly they would only actually stock the most common parts locally with the rest a day or two away in a regional warehouse.
Why would the store have to employ a repairman? They usually contract that sort of thing out. That's how they can offer delivery, installation, and haul away services now. Fixing a washing machine isn't rocket surgery, there are a great many general contractor/handyman services that can do it.
'Major appliance' is fairly well understood by people not trying to dodge the question.
Hint, if it goes in the drawer, it is not a major appliance and is not what we are talking about.
On some models, it may well be. That's an even better case since it would be dirt cheap to mail a replacement.
Our last washer died of a failed clutch. Our current one is just hanging in there but it makes a horrible clatter getting up to speed and it doesn't always make it if the clothes are a bit unbalanced. It would be nice to put a new clutch in and get another 10 years out of it.
So you maintain that it will be cheaper to ship the whole BOM for the washing machine to a central location, assemble it, then ship it to the local Home Depot than it will to ship the same clutch in the BOM from the same place it was before direct to the Home Depot (or your home)? If we add a few more hops, that should make the washer free according to your math.
Broken window fallacy.
Actually, no. The repairman exists whether we utilize his work or pay him to not work. Putting him to work is not breaking a window since we gain a value rather than losing it. Throwing away a bunch of good parts along with the failed $0.50 nylon gear is breaking the window.
It's already taken over at that point. They can have control back when their heart rate returns to a reasonable baseline. :-)
You didn't answer the question. Who do you know that collects major appliances they don't use? I'll accept saw a silly season news article about as know.
Indeed it would. They would probably also be out of business quite soon.
If we're going to just make bald assertions count as debate, I'll claim the hardware store owners will all become immortal and filthy rich.
You aren't thinking things through. For an example, the most common failure on washing machines is the clutch for the spin cycle. No matter how new the math, it will always be cheaper to ship a clutch to the local store than to ship a whole new washing machine. There is no case where shipping part of an appliance costs more than shipping the whole thing. Go to the home depot. See the 2 dozen complete washing machines on display? Those are made of parts. They generally have more of them in the back or at least at a regional warehouse, ready for next day delivery to your home. It certainly wouldn't cost any more to keep all those parts exactly where they are kept now but in un-assembled form.
Furthermore, if the parts are reasonably standardized, they would need less on hand than they keep now.
A first world repairman is NOT more resources than a first world unemployed man.
Who do you know that collects dishwashers, clothes washers and driers, water heaters or ovens?
If the local hardware store stocked the replacement parts, the waiting time for repair would be shorter than the time to get a new one delivered.
It could always use natural medicine for that. For example, it could suddenly play a recording of truck horns and screeching tires, women screaming, freight train collision sounds and such.
As long as it doesn't tattle, it's not creepy.
I notice that paypal has not been proposed to REPLACE cash. Nobody in their right mind has even suggested it.
I do realize that there is a cost associated with printing and minting money now. But that can be taxed progressively so the poor sot with 2 dollars to his name isn't stuck with the bill. Any susc system would need a public service where the transaction is done for no more than cost, at least as a last resort. Otherwise we are back to annointing private concerns with the right of taxation.
I also know that bills are serialized. However, unlike bitcoin, keeping track of those serial numbers is purely optional for each step in the transaction and in practice, nobody does. When they check those numbers, they're just looking for known bad money. Assuming the bill you hand over isn't on that list, it just goes in the drawer. Tomorrow, they won't be able to say where that bill came from. With bitcoin, a particular value can be back traced all the way back to the miner that first generated it,
But I think you're starting to see the point. Smartphone may be nice for people who have one, but many do not and unless they can carry money around somehow, they never will. Meanwhile, Bitcoin likely isn't the answer, but we don't actually know what the answer is beyond a list of desirable traits some of which Bitcoin has.
Smartphone was YOUR suggestion, you don't get to blame me for it's shortcomings :-)
The current solution (cash) has the advantage that you don't have to spend money just to be able to have money. If absolutely all else fails, you can carry it in your hand. True enough, credit cards weren't ubiquitous at one time, but they didn't need to be since we had cash which was legal tender for all debts.
To actually replace cash, whatever carries the replacement will have to be available at no cost. It will need to not have transaction fees. Note that currently Bitcoin doesn't typically carry a transaction fee, but it is expected that it will once it is 'mined out' in order to maintain an incentive to compute block chains.
The other downside to Bitcoin is that it actually is traceable. That problem may prove harder to solve than the wallet problem.
It's not a fallacy when the hater provides nothing objective other then 'its teh suxors.'
But the person you called a hater rattled off a fair sized list of what was wrong.
No, my concern is that you seem not to understand that in the UK, not handing over the password is a crime and so requires the higher standard of proof. Part of that is that you have to prove the defendant even possesses the key (you can't hand over what you don't have).
A secondary concern is how often courts in the U.S. and seemingly in the U.K. have employed sophistry in an attempt to lower the standards for a conviction in general. In some cases by claiming something that looks exactly like a criminal conviction in every way is somehow something else.
BTW, criminal law is SUPPOSED to be unbalanced in favor of the defendant. The consequences of jailing the innocent are worse than the sonsequences of not jailing the guilty.
Of course it's not ubiquitous yet.. But god damn, your questions are meant to criticize Bitcoin - but they are awfully dimwitted. First, maybe 10 years ago it was seen as limiting market exposure if users needed to own a smartphone. But, there isn't a company left that worries about being out of the huge capital markets of 'users without smartphones' except maybe Walmart.
Interesting persuasion tactic there. I'm convinced now that Bitcoin advocates are oversensitive clods who fart out their mouths. You could do the whole concept a favor by stitching your fingers together and your mouth shut.
You also sound awfully callous about actually kicking poor people completely out of society.
So you propose a currency that will only work if you own a working smartphone that is only accepted by a small percent of online vendors? How will I buy gas and food with that?
Helicopter parents are so last year. We have drone parents now.
So why replace it with banks that launder money for terrorists and drug cartels and dodge taxes? Normal human beings do need to not pay what are effectively taxes to corporations. If they knew how much the credit cards were taking on the merchant side (that shows up in their prices), they might clamor to pay cash more often.
Not really. If we devalue the dollar, the equation shifts and local manufacturing begins to make more sense than offshore. American made goods also start to look more attractive on foreign markets, again to the benefit of American workers.
When domestic goods go up in price it is not because of a devalued dollar since all of their expenses are also in devalued dollars.
It's not as unlikely as you think. You forgot the urban homeless population, for example. There's the homeless you see and then there's the squatters you may not see (or recognize).
But it''s not getting anywhere near as cheap as dealing in cash. It's also not getting as risk free as cash. A bank can't decide that their security problem should be my problem and revoke the $20 bill someone paid me.