Other factors need checking as well. Is the demand for freight actually limited currently by the cost of freight? After all, people only eat so much food, and if it suddenly costs half as much to receive it by freight, we won't suddenly eat twice as much.
Second, is the price of freight driven by the cost of truckers, or is it "value priced". If the cost of long-haul truckers goes away, will the freight companies actually reduce their prices or will the shareholders and executives simply pocket the difference?
Next up, will those local deliveries be done by truckers or will the freight companies just hire a bunch of minimum wage guys and use trucks that can be driven on a regular drivers license?
In the U.S. it's the right. While it;s a bit complicated due to the GOPs unholey alliance "if you'll forgive the pun" with fundamentalist Christianity, the GOP has long represented primarily the upper class, so there's truth in it being a class issue. It's confounded here by the aptly described "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" voting against their own class.
I didn't mean to imply that it's everyone's right.
It's going to have to freefall to lose the serious volatility. Unfortunately, that will drive transaction costs up since it still costs electricity to mine coins.
Even a conference on everything bitcoin isn't taking payment in bitcoin.
Currently, bitcoin value is certainly not increasing.
But then you'll install windows 20 on it and the standard 12 anti-virus programs and the 6 hidden trackers and keyloggers and the performance will resemble an Altair.
And there's the issue. The bubble has to pop. The entire basis of bitcoin retaining value was that it would become an everyday currency used for buying and selling goods and services. It's current value and volatility preclude that, so it's valueation (not value) is supported primarily by investors running around like chickens looking for the next kernel of corn. Let someone yell BOO and it all goes to hell.
If I want search results for a particular language or framework, I just include it as a search term. I dob't need the search engine to know what my favorite programming language is.
It sounds like a problem of underfunding the public system, possibly the same sort of monkey wrenching that the right has perpetrated in the U.S. in it's efforts to make sure we all have the most expensive and profitable (for a few) healthcare possible.
It's a common tactic. Push legislation that makes a public service inefficient or insufficient and then claim the sorry state of affairs is somehow intrinsic to a public service.
You seem unable to appreciate the situation. Many Americans simply cannot afford to pay what you want them to for healthcare. They don't buy those luxury cars, they either buy older used cars, more basic cars, or no car. No healthcare really isn't an option. Older healthcare still costs a fortune in this country compared to the rest of the world. Basic healthcare costs a fortune in this country compared to the rest of the world.
Again, you seem to be REALLY generous with other people's limited income.
You're just repeating yourself. It has all been shot down before. You have yet to explain how such an impossible thing as single payer works everywhere in the world but somehow can't work in the U.S.
You seem to be quite generous with other people's income there. In particular, those who have a lot less of it than you do. Perhaps we should be paying more than Uganda, but should we really be paying double what Canada, the U.K., Germany, Switzerland, etc. pay?
Yes, DOUBLE.
How fair is it to have average Americans paying that much more to support the development of drugs they won't be able to afford? Should we be paying a food surcharge to develop a new $10,000/oz super caviar while we're at it?
Now, as soon as rent and mortgage payments come down to 3rd world standards (not to mention food and drug prices) that might matter.
Until that happens, the cost of medical care in the U.S. compared to income is ruinous for many people and is a drag on the entire economy. If you want to see research advance (laudable, BTW), donate some of your disposable income to that cause. Don't demand that people who don't have disposable income choose between their heart pills and rent.
But no matter how hard they wave their wallets, the thing they talked about can't really get going for a year or so. But the chickens are clucking and scurrying now.
Kinda like last month when a couple random companies said the word "blockchain" without demonstrating that they even knew what it was.
But tell me, do you routinely pay double the sticker price for things in the hope it will advance improvements to the product? Do you try to make others do the same?
You mean other than the fact it has worked every single place it has ever been tried? Given that, the onus is on you to show why it WOULDNT work in the U.S. since that would be the unusual situation.
As for education, guess what, in the other countries where it is cheaper, the government pays all or part of the tuition rather than saddling students with loans (for higher education) or pushing it off to the local government (for k-12).
You apparently don't know how averages work. Think about it a minute and you'll see your mistake, I'll wait....
Next up, they also don't t have to pay an insurance company for their health insurance. Would you rather send a private corporation $1000/month or send the public insurance $500/month for the same service. Cue Jeopardy music...
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, they don't. Consider "value pricing". It's everywhere these days even though in theory the market would squash it like a bug.
Markets must be regulated in order to work well. Note that a regulated market is not a command economy.
Other factors need checking as well. Is the demand for freight actually limited currently by the cost of freight? After all, people only eat so much food, and if it suddenly costs half as much to receive it by freight, we won't suddenly eat twice as much.
Second, is the price of freight driven by the cost of truckers, or is it "value priced". If the cost of long-haul truckers goes away, will the freight companies actually reduce their prices or will the shareholders and executives simply pocket the difference?
Next up, will those local deliveries be done by truckers or will the freight companies just hire a bunch of minimum wage guys and use trucks that can be driven on a regular drivers license?
In the U.S. it's the right. While it;s a bit complicated due to the GOPs unholey alliance "if you'll forgive the pun" with fundamentalist Christianity, the GOP has long represented primarily the upper class, so there's truth in it being a class issue. It's confounded here by the aptly described "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" voting against their own class.
I didn't mean to imply that it's everyone's right.
BitPay is providing the insurance.
It's going to have to freefall to lose the serious volatility. Unfortunately, that will drive transaction costs up since it still costs electricity to mine coins.
Even a conference on everything bitcoin isn't taking payment in bitcoin.
Currently, bitcoin value is certainly not increasing.
But then you'll install windows 20 on it and the standard 12 anti-virus programs and the 6 hidden trackers and keyloggers and the performance will resemble an Altair.
And there's the issue. The bubble has to pop. The entire basis of bitcoin retaining value was that it would become an everyday currency used for buying and selling goods and services. It's current value and volatility preclude that, so it's valueation (not value) is supported primarily by investors running around like chickens looking for the next kernel of corn. Let someone yell BOO and it all goes to hell.
Is it that they don't care or is it some combination of not knowing and giving up for lack of a better option (that they know of)?
If I want search results for a particular language or framework, I just include it as a search term. I dob't need the search engine to know what my favorite programming language is.
I remember a Braves game where the Twins were so taken by surprise at a suicide squeeze they asked the ump if it was legal.
The local news tonight seemed more excited about the puppy bowl.
In part because the league spent years denying the damage and covering up the evidence. They made a choice, but it wasn't an informed choice.
Only if it isn't you or a loved one who can't afford necessary care.
More "I got mine, screw you!" mentality from the well off.
It sounds like a problem of underfunding the public system, possibly the same sort of monkey wrenching that the right has perpetrated in the U.S. in it's efforts to make sure we all have the most expensive and profitable (for a few) healthcare possible.
It's a common tactic. Push legislation that makes a public service inefficient or insufficient and then claim the sorry state of affairs is somehow intrinsic to a public service.
You seem unable to appreciate the situation. Many Americans simply cannot afford to pay what you want them to for healthcare. They don't buy those luxury cars, they either buy older used cars, more basic cars, or no car. No healthcare really isn't an option. Older healthcare still costs a fortune in this country compared to the rest of the world. Basic healthcare costs a fortune in this country compared to the rest of the world.
Again, you seem to be REALLY generous with other people's limited income.
I provided ample evidence. You simply refused to follow the links. I'm not interested in attempting to spoon feed you further.
They should come over here. Then they can pay top dollar for private care AND sit for 6-8 hours with the junkies. then get lesser quallity care.
Funny thing I'be seen, the mere existence of public care reduces the costs of private care in most places just by providing an option.
You're just repeating yourself. It has all been shot down before. You have yet to explain how such an impossible thing as single payer works everywhere in the world but somehow can't work in the U.S.
You seem to be quite generous with other people's income there. In particular, those who have a lot less of it than you do. Perhaps we should be paying more than Uganda, but should we really be paying double what Canada, the U.K., Germany, Switzerland, etc. pay?
Yes, DOUBLE.
How fair is it to have average Americans paying that much more to support the development of drugs they won't be able to afford? Should we be paying a food surcharge to develop a new $10,000/oz super caviar while we're at it?
Now, as soon as rent and mortgage payments come down to 3rd world standards (not to mention food and drug prices) that might matter.
Until that happens, the cost of medical care in the U.S. compared to income is ruinous for many people and is a drag on the entire economy. If you want to see research advance (laudable, BTW), donate some of your disposable income to that cause. Don't demand that people who don't have disposable income choose between their heart pills and rent.
Now, about the two questions I asked...
Sure, but average age of death is fairly unambiguous.
But no matter how hard they wave their wallets, the thing they talked about can't really get going for a year or so. But the chickens are clucking and scurrying now.
Kinda like last month when a couple random companies said the word "blockchain" without demonstrating that they even knew what it was.
OH, I see, we're uniquely challenged. Not at all like the influx of refugees to Germany and the U.K.
I guess you're saying it's too much of an authoritarian hellhole to have good health care?
Personally, I think it's still salvageable.
You mean some Americans are wealthy.
But tell me, do you routinely pay double the sticker price for things in the hope it will advance improvements to the product? Do you try to make others do the same?
You mean other than the fact it has worked every single place it has ever been tried? Given that, the onus is on you to show why it WOULDNT work in the U.S. since that would be the unusual situation.
As for education, guess what, in the other countries where it is cheaper, the government pays all or part of the tuition rather than saddling students with loans (for higher education) or pushing it off to the local government (for k-12).
I'll just leave this here
You apparently don't know how averages work. Think about it a minute and you'll see your mistake, I'll wait....
Next up, they also don't t have to pay an insurance company for their health insurance. Would you rather send a private corporation $1000/month or send the public insurance $500/month for the same service. Cue Jeopardy music...