They can get all the data they need at the level of a neighborhood or town or whatever. I can't think of any reason why recording the power consumption per individual household in small intervals would make a difference to what you are talking about.
Look up broken window fallacy. I would also suggest Hazlitt's book Economics in One Lesson (the lesson being to not fall for the broken window fallacy like you are doing in your post). The growth of a nation's economy can never be achieved by a destructive behavior, be it by breaking a window or by buying something worth $10 (market price in this case) for $50. Instead of having a pair of shoes and $40 to spend on other things, you have only a pair of shoes. You are essentially giving your neighbor a gift of $40 which is very nice for him but it does not mean net growth, it just passing wealth for one person to another. Yes the currency goes outside the borders but so what? What do you think Chinese will do with it? They will buy other stuff or convert it into their currency so it will find its way back to the US one way or another.
It's not about the money. Money is just a tool for keeping the score. If I sell you something worth $20 for $10, yes technically you are "paying" me because you are handing me $10 bill, but I am really giving you a greater value than you are giving me. Sure, the prices will rise in China and correspondingly their products will become less competitive and India's or whatever will become more competitive. I know our schools are gone so far to the left that they are almost falling off the edge, but do they not even teach the basic economics anymore or were you sick that day?
You can't compare the growth in a developing economy like China to a developed one like the USA. In a developed country the workforce is already mostly employed in highly efficient work and, baring some major revolutions in productivity through some new technology, the growth comes from marginal improvements. In China the growth comes from moving the population in bulk from extremely inefficient participation in the economy or no participation at all (subsistence farming etc) to moderately efficient which is easy as long as there is capital. It will get harder and harder though and the days of double digit growth in China will be over long before it reaches anything like the US per capita GDP. Then it will have to catch up the hard way, through innovation (good luck there) and small improvements in productivity which will take forever.
Would you prefer to make your shoes yourself if it costs you $50 in labor and materials even if another person is willing to sell you the exact same pair already made for $10? Would you impose a tariff on that other person of $40 so his shoes cost the same as the ones you make? Why?
What do you mean by paying them to industrialize? They are really paying us by selling us stuff at lower price than it's worth for us to make it. Not to mention that the manufacturing that is done in China mostly benefit the Western companies higher up the food chain. Apple makes far more profit per iPhone than the Chinese company that manufactures it. As for them destroying our industrial base, then switching to higher prices, that's a fantasy. The world does not have only two players, it has many. China does not have a monopoly on making stuff. We will buy for the cheapest price or if the price is too high, we will make it ourselves. People who make your point always overestimate the cost of entry especially give the amount of capital that exists in the US. You can throw up a factory in no time if it makes economic sense to do it.
Now that SCOTUS has determined that corporations are really people
No it didn't. It determined that a group of people have the right to pool their money to support a candidate just like a single rich person always had. This applies to unions just like it applies to profit and non-profit corporations and any other groups of people. The court interpreted the constitution correctly, which is it's job. You, and millions of others who repeat the point in your post ad nauseam, are, in a nutshell, tools used to intimidate the court just like those who are wielding you, including the POTUS, intended.
Free market capitalism is actually better for us even if they don't "play fair", subsidize their companies or impose tariffs on our exports. Why should we stop them from providing us with cheap state subsidized manufacturing service?
Ah, the old protectionism. That boat has sailed a long time ago and free traders have won. Get used to it.
Btw, the USA is 4th in the world in the standard of living (HDI rankings), China is 101st. Our per capita GDP is around $50K, China's is about $8K. Why do you think their way of doing things is better?
But when you are in the US try the best you can to avoid the laws of the that country such as IP laws? Why are extremely restrictive laws in a foreign country more important to follow that much less restrictive laws in your own?
Hey, aren't you supposed to be out there securing us more oil. Or propping up puppet governments? Or killing foreign people that look different from us? We're not paying you guys to fap off to the internet, ya know.
Posts like this shouldn't be voted off the page. They serve a useful purpose in reminding us of the most widely spread and repeated liberal myths that we should recognize for their extreme ignorance and laugh out of any serious conversation. If he only included words like "banksters", "koch brothers" and "faux news" it would be a perfect sample of what goes on for conversation on sites like huffington post and dailykos.
The rules haven't changed, only the circumstances, namely the existence of a global hegemony by a mostly benign power, the USA. As China grows to a status of a superpower it is naive to the extreme to not realize that it's interests will clash with ours in a million ways. It probably will never become an actual war, which would be too costly for everybody. Probably not even a new cold war. But some sort of intense rivalry for sure.
The progress in science or any other field does not happen simply by collecting the previously known facts and putting them together. Only a person who has never had an original thought in their head would believe that.
As for my "idiotic" signature, do they have dictionaries in Sweden? If so, please take your head out of your ass and look it up.
"There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others." N. Machiavelli
By war in don't mean we should go to an actual war with China, but that we should use every advantage we have to secure and increase our interests, rather than playing nice until it's too late and it is they who hold the upper hand, because they won't be so nice.
how their own countrymen came about the knowledge in question in the first place.
By hard work and spending a lot of money on research?
Knowledge belongs to humanity
Not really. It belongs more to the people who put in the effort and money to acquire it than to those who didn't. Otherwise it is foolish to do your own research and smart to copy others' research.
There is no rational reason for China and America to be rivals
Access to scarce resources, including oil. Political/military influence in Asia (Japan, Korea, Taiwan etc). Human rights. China's vast industrial and military espionage programs against the USA. There are lots of things that USA has and China wants, rationally.
"There are four charges: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body."
Where did you get the strange idea that he was charged because he told a girl she was pretty?
Seeking protection in Ecuador against the Swedish legal system!!! That's a laugh. Ecuador president Correa is the main competitor to his best friends Chavez and Castro in maintaining his power by constantly bashing the USA and blaming the West for all his country's problems, intimidating and imprisoning journalists who oppose him and implementing idiotic populist socialist policies. I suppose a natural ally for Assange.
I really can understand the argument of the type "if you don't like it just opt out!!!" when the whole issue is that you CAN'T opt out. Also, if you want to have the basic safety net, fine. But then you have to either make it unconditional, or make the conditions clear and offer an opt out. In short, you are the shithead.
Are you trying to win an an award for the most disingenuous statement of the year? Oh wait, the 5 justices already beat you to it. So any mandate is fine as long as you call the penalty "tax".
Slashdot Mirror
With all the free software around, advertising is one of the few remaining ways to make money.
They can get all the data they need at the level of a neighborhood or town or whatever. I can't think of any reason why recording the power consumption per individual household in small intervals would make a difference to what you are talking about.
In other news, those drinking more than 3 Piña Coladas a day were 20% more likely to get skin cancer. But it's worth it!
It will. It's just another fad after all.
Look up broken window fallacy. I would also suggest Hazlitt's book Economics in One Lesson (the lesson being to not fall for the broken window fallacy like you are doing in your post). The growth of a nation's economy can never be achieved by a destructive behavior, be it by breaking a window or by buying something worth $10 (market price in this case) for $50. Instead of having a pair of shoes and $40 to spend on other things, you have only a pair of shoes. You are essentially giving your neighbor a gift of $40 which is very nice for him but it does not mean net growth, it just passing wealth for one person to another. Yes the currency goes outside the borders but so what? What do you think Chinese will do with it? They will buy other stuff or convert it into their currency so it will find its way back to the US one way or another.
It's not about the money. Money is just a tool for keeping the score. If I sell you something worth $20 for $10, yes technically you are "paying" me because you are handing me $10 bill, but I am really giving you a greater value than you are giving me. Sure, the prices will rise in China and correspondingly their products will become less competitive and India's or whatever will become more competitive. I know our schools are gone so far to the left that they are almost falling off the edge, but do they not even teach the basic economics anymore or were you sick that day?
You can't compare the growth in a developing economy like China to a developed one like the USA. In a developed country the workforce is already mostly employed in highly efficient work and, baring some major revolutions in productivity through some new technology, the growth comes from marginal improvements. In China the growth comes from moving the population in bulk from extremely inefficient participation in the economy or no participation at all (subsistence farming etc) to moderately efficient which is easy as long as there is capital. It will get harder and harder though and the days of double digit growth in China will be over long before it reaches anything like the US per capita GDP. Then it will have to catch up the hard way, through innovation (good luck there) and small improvements in productivity which will take forever.
Would you prefer to make your shoes yourself if it costs you $50 in labor and materials even if another person is willing to sell you the exact same pair already made for $10? Would you impose a tariff on that other person of $40 so his shoes cost the same as the ones you make? Why?
What do you mean by paying them to industrialize? They are really paying us by selling us stuff at lower price than it's worth for us to make it. Not to mention that the manufacturing that is done in China mostly benefit the Western companies higher up the food chain. Apple makes far more profit per iPhone than the Chinese company that manufactures it. As for them destroying our industrial base, then switching to higher prices, that's a fantasy. The world does not have only two players, it has many. China does not have a monopoly on making stuff. We will buy for the cheapest price or if the price is too high, we will make it ourselves. People who make your point always overestimate the cost of entry especially give the amount of capital that exists in the US. You can throw up a factory in no time if it makes economic sense to do it.
Now that SCOTUS has determined that corporations are really people
No it didn't. It determined that a group of people have the right to pool their money to support a candidate just like a single rich person always had. This applies to unions just like it applies to profit and non-profit corporations and any other groups of people. The court interpreted the constitution correctly, which is it's job. You, and millions of others who repeat the point in your post ad nauseam, are, in a nutshell, tools used to intimidate the court just like those who are wielding you, including the POTUS, intended.
Free market capitalism is actually better for us even if they don't "play fair", subsidize their companies or impose tariffs on our exports. Why should we stop them from providing us with cheap state subsidized manufacturing service?
Ah, the old protectionism. That boat has sailed a long time ago and free traders have won. Get used to it.
Btw, the USA is 4th in the world in the standard of living (HDI rankings), China is 101st. Our per capita GDP is around $50K, China's is about $8K. Why do you think their way of doing things is better?
But when you are in the US try the best you can to avoid the laws of the that country such as IP laws? Why are extremely restrictive laws in a foreign country more important to follow that much less restrictive laws in your own?
Hey, aren't you supposed to be out there securing us more oil. Or propping up puppet governments? Or killing foreign people that look different from us? We're not paying you guys to fap off to the internet, ya know.
Posts like this shouldn't be voted off the page. They serve a useful purpose in reminding us of the most widely spread and repeated liberal myths that we should recognize for their extreme ignorance and laugh out of any serious conversation. If he only included words like "banksters", "koch brothers" and "faux news" it would be a perfect sample of what goes on for conversation on sites like huffington post and dailykos.
The rules haven't changed, only the circumstances, namely the existence of a global hegemony by a mostly benign power, the USA. As China grows to a status of a superpower it is naive to the extreme to not realize that it's interests will clash with ours in a million ways. It probably will never become an actual war, which would be too costly for everybody. Probably not even a new cold war. But some sort of intense rivalry for sure.
The progress in science or any other field does not happen simply by collecting the previously known facts and putting them together. Only a person who has never had an original thought in their head would believe that.
As for my "idiotic" signature, do they have dictionaries in Sweden? If so, please take your head out of your ass and look it up.
Would it be better not to worry and to be complacent and take what we have for granted? Didn't work out so well for the Romans.
"There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others." N. Machiavelli
By war in don't mean we should go to an actual war with China, but that we should use every advantage we have to secure and increase our interests, rather than playing nice until it's too late and it is they who hold the upper hand, because they won't be so nice.
how their own countrymen came about the knowledge in question in the first place.
By hard work and spending a lot of money on research?
Knowledge belongs to humanity
Not really. It belongs more to the people who put in the effort and money to acquire it than to those who didn't. Otherwise it is foolish to do your own research and smart to copy others' research.
There is no rational reason for China and America to be rivals
Access to scarce resources, including oil. Political/military influence in Asia (Japan, Korea, Taiwan etc). Human rights. China's vast industrial and military espionage programs against the USA. There are lots of things that USA has and China wants, rationally.
"There are four charges: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body."
Where did you get the strange idea that he was charged because he told a girl she was pretty?
Seeking protection in Ecuador against the Swedish legal system!!! That's a laugh. Ecuador president Correa is the main competitor to his best friends Chavez and Castro in maintaining his power by constantly bashing the USA and blaming the West for all his country's problems, intimidating and imprisoning journalists who oppose him and implementing idiotic populist socialist policies. I suppose a natural ally for Assange.
I really can understand the argument of the type "if you don't like it just opt out!!!" when the whole issue is that you CAN'T opt out. Also, if you want to have the basic safety net, fine. But then you have to either make it unconditional, or make the conditions clear and offer an opt out. In short, you are the shithead.
Are you trying to win an an award for the most disingenuous statement of the year? Oh wait, the 5 justices already beat you to it. So any mandate is fine as long as you call the penalty "tax".
Everything apparently affects the interstate commerce. The biggest mistake by the framers was to not make that damn clause clearer.