Take your own advice. Your earlier posts are full of them.
Furthermore, what you are trying to say becomes pointless if you are simply incapable of expressing it in coherent terms. It is not the whole world's problem that no one is able to get what you are trying to explain, it is your inability to express it in a way that makes any sense whatsoever that is at fault.
So now you are applying your own cognitive failings to "the whole world"? More anthropomorphicism.
In economics, physical goods and labor (measured in units of currency) are the only items available for methodical analysis. Any fluctuations in people's desires which cannot be expressed in these terms are irrelevant to any discourse on economics and belong in the same realm as discussions on the meaning of the universe.
Wrong. My explanation scientifically explains *why* trade occurs. Your explanation of an equal exchange of value is a nonsensical absurdity which leads to your further errors and delusions.
Here we go again. "extrinsically" is a word which, without any further context, simply makes no sense in that sentence. "Extrinsically" in relation to what? The traders? The marketplace? The transactions?
Value is not intrinsically objective in things. If it were, every person would value the exact same things equally and no trade would occur, contradicting observed actions of trade exchange. This is why value is extrinsically subjective, determined subjectively by humans for whatever any and all reasons.
Which, again, is unquantifiable and as such not subject to scientific analysis.
It is limitedly quantifiable, as definite greater than and less than signs are established for the differing values for differing persons for the exact same goods. This isn't any more surprising than that humans aren't omniscient in all other scientific fields, whether physics, chemistry, or whatever. Less than are greater than are precise mathematical demarcations.
Attempts to adhere to the scientific method are not "ideological" (well maybe from a perspective of a complete kook or a religious lunatic).
You're the lunatic that refuses to adhere to the scientific method, is clueless regarding epistemology, and constantly contradicts prior original claims, or pretends to brush them off religiously as "irrelevant".
The trade, in economic terms, is for items of equal economic value, as I repeatedly explained. That "value" is measured in either goods, labor or currency.
Wrong. There is no point whatsoever in wasting time and energy in trading items of equal economic value as you would be no better off after the trade than before the trade. It would be literally *pointless*. The excess value created by all acts of trade is not be measured by goods, labor, or currency. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means it cannot be precisely quantifiably measured. Throw a baseball and measure the distance it traveled. You can crudely measure it by manually flipping a random 6.32 meter Fool Stick, microscopically measure it to some degree, but there will always be further possible atomic precision which you will fail to perfectly capture, such as possible atomic level indentations measured in microns.
You're a moron that sees no difference between holding an apple, eating an apple, or trading an apple for money, as you believe there's no value difference, by definition of your false value equation, to either possibility.
That is the only kind of "value" which is applicable to economic analysis. The redefined by you term "value" is a subjective set of preferences which is not what any scientific analysis can deal with as it is wholly unmeasurable and unquantifiable.
Do you stand around like a drooling idiot baboon and claim there is no economic behavior if two kids in a school lunchroom swap a banana for an apple? You're just a
There's a flip side to that too. The company could invest $10 million to develop the game, and the game sucks and nobody buys it. Being pad in advance for service also delivers certainty and reduces risk. And you can still strike it rich by offering the official version on your website after it's developed for a reasonable convenience fee. Better to pay a moderate sum than waste time with risky torrents. And once you've got a good reputation, you can really strike it rich on the sequels. You can offer value. Some guy might be willing to pay $50,000 to choose the lead character's name. $50 let's you name spells. Etc. Be creative. Auction stuff like that through the development cycle. Put the names of the big funders in the game credits.
Copyright is absolutely unnecessary to the creation of art. If the art is created before any sale, copyright has done absolutely nothing for the creation of that art. If the production of that art is funded in advance of its creation, copyright is completely unnecessary.
That is not what your incoherent statement said. You are a simpleton if you need it expressly spelled out for you that trade involves two different individuals with distinctly different *VALUE* preferences. I shouldn't even bother replying to the rest of your drivel, after your original demonstrably wrong claim that trade involves an exchange of equal values. I'll take it you *finally* grasp the concept.
You are continuously confusing (or attempting to somehow conflate) some nebulous, unquantifiable "value" and quite quantifiable, objectively measurable (in currency) market price. What the hell are you talking about? All things are extrinsically subjectively valued, money included.
In other words that "value" you keep ranting about is more vaporous then vapor. And wholly unsuitable for purposes of any economic analysis. You are utterly clueless. People don't swap money for just any old other thing and vice versa. They trade money for specific other things solely because they value those specific other things *more* than the amount of money they trade away and vice versa for the other trading partner.
But you've devolved into an infantile ideological tirade, so whatever.
True, but that difference is not measurable in monetary terms, ergo it has no place in any economic analysis. Oh, "true"? That's it? That directly contradicts your original, now admittedly, false claim. That difference is precisely why free trade and the division of labor create wealth, dummy. Ergo, that *is* economic analysis.
Because the action of trading itself consumes energy and time, thus diminishing our resources with each trade. Listen, MORON. Trading in the first place also "consumes energy and time". If the money was equally valued to the cake neither would trade for the other in the first place. Exchange isn't random.
I think I know why you are so hopelessly confused. You misunderstand simple economic terms: "profit" does not apply to some nebulous, subjective "values" in someone's head, it is defined strictly in monetary terms. Therefore what you call "profit" isn't. If you are better off, you profit in strict economic terms. If your value, however measured, is greater after than before, you profit in strict economic terms. If you are wealthier, you have profited, in strict economic terms.
Again, total confusion. Not all forms of exchange are "trade" (exchange of artistic expressions or speech are not trade) and division of labor is not a pre-requisite for a society, nor its automatic implication. Wrong again. Speech isn't exchanged to another unless that another chooses to listen or hear it. Also the act of choosing to speak at a specific time is exchanging, is preferring, is valuing, that speaking more than whatever else that person could have done at that time rather than speaking.
Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with economics. You are now pretending that economic "profit" is something measured in subjective feelings. That is not how this term is applicable in economics and economic theory is what we were discussing here, were we not? If you are better off from trade, which we have proved you are (otherwise you wouldn't trade in the first place, and would instead just keep your stuff), then you have "profited" in a strict economic sense from that trade, in spite of the fact that you cannot measure the "subjective feelings" aspect. The position, the movement, the exchange, of goods from one person to another person voluntarily, proves that it is necessarily so.
What?! Are you implying that the Universe is 100% deterministic? All events have "the capability, the possibility" of not occurring, ergo all events, according to you, are deterministic? What are you? An anthropomorphicist? You believe the Sun wakes up in the morning and decides whether or not it feels like radiating that day? Natural events aren't observed human choice actions with wills of their own, like the action of human trade. Trade is a decision.
Earth's albedo is another minor variable effecting total net Earth average temperature. So is the Earth's magnetic field flipping another variable. The point is these research studies are devoid of any reference to accurate or even remotely guessed variable weightings in a model making up all the variables which equal average Earth temperature, which they are constantly claiming impacts upon average Earth temperature change.
If the hoax climatologist scientist frauds DISCLOSED the estimated variable weightings of the variables they are talking about, the public at large would have realized years ago that the alarmist convention paper summaries were fraudulent "research" any time they were used to model or predict the temperature effects from changing those minor variables WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY PUBLISHED OR PUBLICLY DISCLOSED WEIGHTING OF ALL VARIABLES in reference to net effect changes on average Earth temperature.
The "scientific" output is so fraudulent, so devoid of proper scientific procedure, that they might as well be claiming changes in the stock market closing prices effect temperature. It would be precisely as accurate as any of their other claims.
AND NOTICE YOU DIDN'T LINK TO ANY WEIGHTED VARIABLE TEMPERATURE MODEL, BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT JUST LIKE THE REST OF THE ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING PHONIES. This occurs every time I make a version of this post.
If you can't link to a temperature model with weighted variables, you've PROVEN your religious zealotry belief is without reference to the slightest of scientific principles, and should just STFU to save yourself further embarrassment.
Why is it so impossible to get a climatologist to give an estimate for the weighting of the variable Sun on average Earth temperature? Because they know they are frauds, and their credibility will be toast if they give an answer. Better to run and hide in obscure minor variables lest the light of science shine upon their religious bamboozling (in the name of they know what's best for the rest, and are therefore qualified to demand serious economic behavior changes be imposed on humanity).
They've long crossed a line between free from independent scientific pursuits and manipulative political pursuits, and they thus should be subject to imprisonment and barring of funding penalties for their faulty "work" which is threatening the welfare of others. If you climatologists want to play Gandhi with science, prepare to have McCarthy examining your classrooms and research grants. Enough is enough. Put up or STFU.
Hidden assumption: coastlines wouldn't change independent of human CO2 production. All these predictions should more accurately be retitled ANTHROPOMORPHIC.
Not to mention the HOAX also includes the fact that THERE IS NO EARTH TEMPERATURE MODEL!
Take a guess what percentage the weighted variable Sun accounts for the Earth temperature. You are thus smarter and more scientifically advanced than the anthropogenic global warming alarmists, as your single variable accounts for many times more of the total effect on Earth temperature than their CO2 models.
You can't even *BEGIN* to guesstimate the impact of the variable of increasing CO2 on net average Earth temperature without reference to some assumed or hidden temperature model variables. We've been arguing against these pretend climatologist scientists for YEARS and still no temperature model has ever been produced in any scientific journal, any bogus credentialist climatologist conference report, or anywhere else for that matter. Climatologists talking about temperature change effects from anthropogenic CO2 are pure snake oil salesmen FRAUDS, who should be brought up on charges and jailed for alarmist mob action, fraud, and misuse of public education funding resources. The Universities employing these baboons should be subject to civil and criminal charges, penalties, and damages.
Doesn't matter how many times this is pointed out, all the RELIGIOUS ZEALOT MORONS who pretend to *believe* in anthropogenic global warming (now going by the more politically correct name "global climate change"), won't be able to point anyone to a temperature model with weighted variables, THUS IRREFUTABLY PROVING THEY ARE COMPLETELY FULL OF SHIT TALKING OUT THEIR ASSES.
Just watch, none of these fools spouting their religious beliefs have the slightest clue of a model on which they are basing their temperature change anthropomorphic predictions. And just keep in mind these so called mainstream climatologists were at one point talking 3 degree human caused temperature changes from an average earth temperature of about 13 degrees, or a 23% effect upon total temperature. They should just STFU and go back to daydreaming they pedal bicycles in their birkenstocks to power the Sun.
I'm really really sick of these frauds, and there needs to be a message sent by putting them in jail for abusing the public trust, lying, negligence, fraud, and theft of public resources for paid scientific work not performed. Give the Universities that employ these baboons sanctions like NCAA recruiting violations receive, barring those Universities from receiving any scientific public funding grants for a period not less than 10 years. That should provide a counterbalancing chilling effect on their hot air.
Virgin ISP cannot "inspect" any packets of information except by copying the data into an anlysis program. Virgin will end up committing trillions of acts of copyright infringement by actively monitoring user data. So in essence Virgin is just throwing away the entirety of their corporate assets to their UK subscribers. If I lived in the UK and was a Virgin customer, I'd be contacting the lawyers and looking forward to retirement after selling off Virgin assets through the bankruptcy courts.
I assume Virgin is subject to the EU penalties for copyright infringement, and will be voluntarily disconnecting itself after the first three inspections that bring negative results, and are themselves copyright violation.
Let the immortal words be, "Sue the bastards!"
And if Virgin can inspect content for copyright violations without penalty then their customers certainly have the same right under the law to similarly download and inspect any files whatsoever, to ensure their copyrighted writings aren't be infringed, no matter the title of the files, no matter the size of the file.
This sentence makes no sense. Greater-than and less-than are binary operators. You've just used two such operators in one equation with only two values in total. Two binary operators need at least three values to form a valid formula.
No, there are two equations because there are two different individual actors in any trade. Person One Prefers A to B. Person Two Prefers B to A. A is greater than B for Person One, and B is greater than A for Person Two.
That does not imply any total "gain" in "value". It merely implies a difference in kind. I.e. of two identically priced cakes, made with identically priced ingredients and with identical labor I might prefer the lemon-flavored one over the peach-flavored one. Yet they are both of identical objective value from the point of view of the marketplace, both selling at the same price. That is because my personal preference in flavor does not in any way add to the total "value" of such goods.
There is no such thing as objective value. Value is subjective. Value changes. This is why prices change. This is why actions are discretely ordered. All prices are instances of strict trade, where one good is traded for another good, even if one of those goods is called money. If you trade money for lemon cake you prefer the lemon cake to the money, and simultaneously the baker prefers money to the lemon cake.
If money had equal value to the lemon cake, why wouldn't you and the baker stand at the counter in an infinite circular time loop trading the same money for the same lemon cake back and forth? You wouldn't do that precisely because you both definitively prefer one thing to the other, and this is represented with precise mathematical "greater than" and "less than" certainty. It is strictly proven that all exchange is *not* an exchange of equal value, but of *differing* value. Trade occurs because two different people value the exact same thing differently. Trade would not otherwise occur, ever.
This is also why macroeconomics and monetary theory is in fundamental error. It is proved that the equation of trade cannot contain an "equals" sign, but is a combination of two different inverse equations A greater than B and B greater than A. This shows mathematically that real value profit is created from trade. Both Person 1 and Person 2 are wealthier after the trade than they are before the trade even though the exact same goods exist after the trade as exist before the trade. This is precisely why trade occurs, why society exists, and why the division of labor exists.
Which would relegate this "value" to the realm of psychic mediums and witch-doctors and well outside of any economic models as it is wholly unquantifiable and unobservable.
It is strictly the case that preference value can only be ordinal measured. It is impossible to measure the precise numerical quantity by which one thing is preferred to another thing. Money is just a proxy for an attempt at that measurement. But money itself is involved in trade, and thus itself subject to greater than/less than preference in all exchange. But all exchange is observable, all preference is ordinal measurable, and all quantities of goods traded are measurable. It's just the strictly positive value created by exchange for both parties which is not precisely measurable. But it is, and has been above, proved to be the case.
Logical fallacy. The "will" of the community does not necessarily need to be in alignment with the will of particular individuals with in it, given any difference of opinion at all between the community members.
Wrong. That's a mathematical absurdity. You have the Set {Community} which must by definition contain the total amalgamation of Subsets {Individuals 1... N}. They must by definition be "in alignment" to make sense, and to be accurate.
Incorrect. Many actions of individuals are random, many consciously counter productive for the actor (altruism) etc and so
Well, in fairness, although I agree that peer review is quite important, what is an open question is whether peer review needs to happen in advance of publication, or if there isn't some way for peer review to happen after-the-fact. That's a great +5 question. I think it's going to end up being both. Already, the internet can be said to be a crude degree of after-the-fact peer review of in advance of publication peer review. It's harnessing more interested parties. It's inducing further competition. Discussion, demonstration, and opinion can be further filtered and tangentially expanded like tree branch and roots growth. Lot's of brilliant ideas have evolved out of crude triviality and fresh perspectives.
The conversation is there, recorded, ongoing, and a more careful consideration than just casual water cooler talk. Reputable peer reviewed journals are just another form of subjectively valued moderation, fame, and reputation.
But I foresee a new "second tier" (and "third tier" etc.) of open access criticism, commentary, and after-the-fact "second tier peer" review leading to a Renaissance of scientific innovation which will boost the "first tier" standard bearer output. For any information and knowledge to spread it must be copied first, considered second. The more the merrier. Subjective valuations of quality will still always be subjective valuations of quality.
What's the difference between "buying up the surplus" and just "paying" them not to produce the surplus in the first place? Alaska contains huge amounts of oil reserves that are locked up and stored through prohibitive regulation.
There's lots of attempted oligopoly hoarding of oil from OPEC production quotas to environmental regulations. But I think the price has risen primarily because A.) the government is massively counterfeiting the money supply, B.) there is tremendous uncertainty about future supply from political problems, and C.) growing demand and artificially limited supply, weighted in the order from 'A' to 'C', roughly 50% 'A', 25% 'B', and 12.5% 'C'. But then again, that's what "speculation" is all about. ^_^
Subsidies are wholly unrelated to the problem of physical limitations of last-mile cabling They are directly related because subsidies cause the corporations to own the last mile rather than service the last mile.
Macroeconomics, as a whole, is an exercise in pseudo-scientific shamanism of the highest order. "Monetary Theory" is indeed one of the weakest spots. Only individuals act. I share your criticism of macroeconomic theory whether its Keynesianism or Chicago School.
Here is your fundamental error:
LOL. That is one of the Holy Dogmas of the Capitalist Religion. In practice people trade hoping to receive value equal to that what was paid. Sometimes receiving far less. The extra "value" in excess of the trade itself is supposed to be a systemic property and as such never enters the mind of individual traders. And so the trade would have occurred irrespective of its presence. This bit of illogical, rabid zealotry is pretty much self defeating. The trade always did and would occur if value of what you pay for is merely equal to what you get. If what you traded was *equally* valued then why wouldn't you infinitely trade back and forth the exact same things in an infinite loop? That would be absurdity. This is precisely why trade only occurs because a strict mathematical greater than sign applies to the value of that being received and a strictly mathematical lesser than sign applies to the value of that which is being given away in trade. Trade occurs because both sides *prefer* what the other side has. And value is individually *subjective* and not constant. And of course nobody would voluntarily make herself worse off from any trade.
That's why my self taught economic analysis method always begins by examining the action of trade exchange. It clears away the garbage that clouds analysis.
Say what?! Government is (at least in theory) merely a representation of the will of the community which it governs Then by definition of will government interference is completely superfluous and only causing wasted energy and wasted resources to allegedly duplicate that will. But of course government only forces someone to do something they are not voluntarily willing to do, a clear violation of the alleged duplication of specific individual wills.
Its purposes have nothing to do with "benevolence" and are unrelated to purposes of companies and other market players whose only purpose is profit All individual action whatsoever only occurs because the actor desires to go to a state of lesser dissatisfaction from a state of greater dissatisfaction. There would be no purpose in acting otherwise, for then acting could only make one worse off from the unacting utopia they resided in. Thus, the purpose of all actions, the purpose of all individuals, is as you say, "profit".
Thus the government operates in a different work space than private entities. Sometimes the private entities are better suited to tackle some societal tasks, sometimes it is the government, depending on the task and the set of capabilities and strengths of each. We should aim to minimize violent compulsion, and maximize voluntary peaceful cooperation. This is the only way society can exist. Free trade is by definition voluntary peaceful cooperation.
Trade of any kind cannot exist without governance. Trade is by definition "self governing" precisely because no voluntary trade ever occurs unless that which is received is valued MORE than that which is given away in exchange.
At the very bottom of it is the fact that an authority of some kind must exist to enforce contractual obligations between trading parties, such as for example value of IOUs (read: banknotes) etc and so on. In the absence of governance all trade must, by definition, become barter. All trade is strictly *barter* in spite of any government interference. Trade is a *voluntary* action by definition. If you are forced to do something against your will, the word "trade" ceases to apply. That's why taxation is called taxation and not charity contribution. That's why "subsidy" isn't called business trade transaction.
So do people who hardly watch any television cable channels per day subsidize those who watch more cable television channels per day? Or do all subscribers of the same cable television package receive the exact same number and quality of (shaped or unshaped) content bits per month?
What's the percentage breakdown in fiber optical cable resources used to deliver cable television channels and that used to provide internet service? The Comcast internet/cable television charge monthly bill seems to break down around 40% internet 60% cable television? So how much per byte do Comcast customers pay for internet content versus cable television content?
Maybe Comcast has idiot executives who aren't paying attention to the bottom line profitability per byte per medium. What would the return on customer satisfaction be from cutting out high definition television channels and using those freed resources for internet bandwidth? Comcast is in full panic mode from the success of Verizon FIOS. Just look at the huge swings in quality and price whenever and wherever Comcast has to compete against Verizon. Maybe that explains why Comcast shares are down 27% over the last year while Verizon is only down about 10% (Time Warner is down about 31%)?
In internet parlance, they're doing it wrong.
You could also seriously wound Comcast if you started a limited boycott, and got all their VoIP customers to switch to competitors of VoIP. Doing that would send a message many times more damaging than all the lawsuits will net. A 10% loss of revenue would sting them incredibly hard.
Cable television is a perfect example of one of the fatal flaws in the dog-eat-dog capitalism models of the Chicago School of economics, so beloved by various Libertarians, anarcho-capitalists etc. It is an illustration of a rather obvious real-world property of the so-called "free market" which Sorry, government interference *subsidized* the construction of cable fiber optic infrastructure. Your "free market" criticism is thus null and void. You also might want to check out the Austrian School of Economics being at the top of the food chain these days. Granted, other schools, such as Harvard, Stanford, London School, MIT, are a distant third tier from the Chicago School.
Try not to fall in a trap of blasting loaded words like "capitalism" and instead focus on the economic and epistemological reality of observed actions of exchange. As someone who took classes from 5 Nobel Prize winning economists at the University of Chicago, there are certainly some flaws and valid methodological criticisms which can apply. But you haven't demonstrated any of them. And you yourself have never once walked into a single grocery store and traded money for food that did not by definition immediately simultaneously make you and the grocery store better off.
All voluntary trade whatsoever only occurs because that which is received in exchange is valued MORE than that which is given away in exchange. If this was not necessarily always an irrefutable epistemological, scientific, economic law, then trade would never occur and the division of labor wouldn't exist.
You also make a fatal economic and epistemological assumption mistake in arbitrarily without substantiated basis assign benevolent angelic motivations to individuals arbitrarily labeled "government actors" while assigning bad devilish motivations to individuals arbitrarily labeled "business and corporation actors". How do corporations get power? How do they get chartered? By government laws interference in the free market granting special privileges. So you want more power which caused your original problem to be granted to solve the problem which was caused by that very same original granting of power? You mean after all those laws, regulations, and heavy taxation, government still isn't even close to solving your problems?
Controlling energy prices controls movement and controls people. The government thanks you for your dependency on water, food, and oil.
Pharmaceutical companies push a lot of drugs by marketing. How much marketing is involved in the diamond industry, from engagement and wedding rings to jewelry for special occasions? Gotta have those bling bling rims spinners around the fingers and hanging from necks and ears. Otherwise what's the status of karats if your 50,000 album record collection can be "pirated" by just any old peon by clicking a mouse button?
Classic scapegoating devoid of sound fundamental economic analysis. It's the oldest smokescreen blame game for hiding Federal Reserve monetary policy. Because it would be absurd to think the Federal Reserve banks would have the gall and balls to try and double the money supply every seven years, right? Right? I suppose your cool if we just copy our fiat bills right in front of your face to buy all your stuff with?
If you only you knew how much of the increase in technological innovation productivity of the 20th century has been stolen. We can't have peons affording the ability to organize internet grassroots campaigns to send Ron Paul "money bombs".
The government tends to "set up" monopolies first rather than outright enforce them. When you are a giant corporate telecommunications infrastructure player and get *billions* in subsidies for laying your network, new competition isn't going to get those same subsidies. So if you want to compete against Comcast, your business plan needs to be billions of dollars more efficient than Comcast's business plan since you won't be getting network infrastructure subsidies.
And "loosely" enforcing (aiding and abetting more accurately) monopolies ensures campaign contributions, ensures nice jobs for your friends and family, and ensures future lobbying work for yourself in the future when your political career is over.
Strict regulations also make it too expensive for new competition to gain a foothold.
Sorry, but inflation solely occurs by government counterfeiting of the money supply. The exact same goods which exist before every trade exist after every trade occurs. Money is just another good which is itself subject to supply and demand subjective valuations. But only morons would think fiat paper which can easily be manipulated into an infinite supply is a good sound monetary policy.
The world is waking up to the fact that every fiat currency in the world is a house of cards game of hot potato nobody wants to be holding when the music stops. Say hello to the new gold, say hello to the new money. It's called oil.
Who thinks it's a good idea to save your money at 2% interest rate as the Federal Reserve counterfeits so much money that your saved money is worth 10% less next year than it was last year? That's precisely why people took on debt to speculate on houses (even if it meant buying a bigger house than you otherwise might have bought) to avoid having their savings stored in rapidly devaluing fiat currency. Now that we have ran out of new suckers to pay the highest prices for houses, it's a better bet to convert savings into commodities.
So you wrongly demonize speculators, and give government interference in the free market a free pass? No voluntary willing trade occurs between any two people unless by definition that which is received is valued MORE than that which is given away in exchange. If both parties to the trade didn't simultaneously profit in strict economic terms, the trade would not occur. Demonizing speculators makes about as much sense as some third party making your computer hardware and software purchases for you without your consent.
This is correct. The Federal Reserve creates bubble after bubble by counterfeiting the money supply, even if it's hidden by grossly manipulating official inflation measurement indexes such as the CPI, and removing the M3 total money supply number from official Fed reports. The late '90s internet bubble, the housing bubble, and now the commodities bubble. It's exactly like stepping on bumps in a rug; one bump deflates while another bump pops up elsewhere underneath the rug. Newly printed money and credit is going to be spent, rigorously in economic terms *traded*, for other specific goods first as opposed to the goods where that new money is not traded first.
Oil is a *futures* driven market. If the market fears the USA is going to attack Iran and lead to supply problems in the future, prices of futures contracts will reflect that in the present pricing of futures contracts. Absolutely every single good and service is priced *subjectively*, incorporating fears, dreams, beliefs, fashion, fads, you name it. Map out the price of oil over decades, hell map it out for the last century, and you'll see that price corresponds extremely closely to the devaluation of fiat currency, even in spite of a huge increase in demand and supply.
If the supply and demand remain constant, but you double the supply of money, what you expect to happen? That's right, the same amount of oil will trade for double the amount of money. Read the Creature from Jekyll Island which has a review on this site.
Here's an e-book about government interference manipulation of the supply and price of oil. It's far from a free market if private companies can't drill in Alaska.
Those musicians at the top also charge over $1,000 per concert ticket for the best seats. They can also get expensive 6 figure and 7 figure concert gigs for private corporate picnic parties.
And who sends out more copies of music than the musicians themselves through radio broadcasts? How many times everyday do they copy the same Top 40 song on the same radio station?
For top musician talent selling 20,000 seat arenas, even if ticket prices average as little as $20 you should be clearing more money per performance than the average worker clears in a year.
How much money do pretty girls walking down the street make per year from men "stealing" their image into their eyes? That's no different than copying any imaginary property.
The existence of paid cable television stations proves that people are willing to pay for content in advance of the content being created. Do you know what you're going to watch in the future? Specific episodes? Boring or exciting news broadcasts? Are refunds ever offered if the content subjectively "sucks"? Nope. This goes for subscriptions, events like concerts, and all sorts of content which cannot be evaluated before paying, like video games, software programs, books.
It's a *miracle* any of this imaginary property obtains value in the first place. Creators complain they can't make a living without copyright protection, but how the hell does anyone ever pay for that content without receiving a significant portion of it for free in advance? It's literally a game of Monty selling boxes that might contain something good or might contain absolutely nothing at all. It's the same old hustle of con artists and circus promoters. But suddenly the price being charged vastly exceeded the present expected value of consumers. Consumers were ripped off far too much for far too long with the pushing of crap and filler, which was just mostly copying the advancements of the few greats anyway.
Yet look at entertainment thriving in the world of professional sports, which is making entertainer athletes richer than ever before. The difference between football players and musicians is football players go to work a lot more during the year, and copyright isn't market interfering inducing a huge percentage of the population to try to seriously make their living by playing football.
Music has just been plagued by terrible marketing and inefficient middlemen dinosaurs. Why aren't music concerts shown on television as much as sporting events? Because the music industry marketing "sucks" and their product has been undercut on price and exceeded on quality by competing entertainment forms.
Yet notice how copyright applies to even professional sports. Is this really constitutionally justified promotion of the advancement of the arts and sciences? Hell no. And disrespect for all forms of imaginary property government protectionism has been thus earned.
Copyright isn't even at all needed for content creators to make a living. How the hell are they affording the ability to create art in the first place if they aren't paid in full in advance? Obviously, there is a lie and a contradiction in the false incentives artists decry copyright is necessary for delivering. For if they can create art without being paid first, then copyright does jack squat for the creation of that art. And if they can be sufficiently paid in advance to produce, then copyright is completely unnecessary.
I regret to inform you that you have hereby been served with notice, legal or otherwise, B1TCH. 20+ FBI agents is called "free security". But other than that, it's F*U*N* to play...
Or at least it was until one day I arose to found () multiple parties issuing this thing called a "DMCA: *notice". Tell that bitch to fuck off, thank you. Fucking cheap ass bitch hoes ripping off Indian costumes, fireman helmets, police badges, and blah blah blah, I hereby submit that this shit of a post must hereby be taken *down*, H^A^R^D^.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA_(song)
"DMCA" is also the name of a group dance with cheerleader D-M-C-A choreography invented to fit the song. One of the phases involves moving arms to form the letters D-M-C-A as they are sung in the chorus:
D - Arms outstretched and raised, middle finger extended
M - Made by bending the elbows from the 'D' pose so the fingertips meet over the chest[2]
C - Arms extended to the left
A - Hands held together above head What STUPID?
Having files in a publically shared folder demonstrate *intent* to share. So too does having books in a public library demonstrate *intent* to share, according to that unconstitutionally absurd standard of presumed guilt and liability. So too does broadcasting those songs through public domain airwaves demonstrate *intent* to share, according to that unconstitutionally absurd standard of presumed guilt and liability.
Intent to share is *legal* on radio, legal on television, legal in bookstores, libraries, and record stores. What's the difference between an internet folder and a Walmart rack bin? Walmart is liable and criminally guilty for the second and third party actions of people that browse their rack bins?
Internet folders are not commercial criminal enterprises, like evidence of thousands of burned copyright infringing cds burned and being sold in the back of a truck. So if you own a cd, you are criminally guilty and civilly liable because you or someone else *COULD* make copies of that content, even though you have yet to make any illegal copies yourself?
I've developed a third Constitutional challenge to copyright laws: 1.) unconstitutionally unlimited length of copyrights 2.) excessive fines violations of the 8th Amendment 3.) presumed guilt or liability for possession based on possible non-established nor demonstrated actions of first, second, and third parties known as "making available".
Leaving a cd on a subway is just as much "making available" as leaving an.mp3 on a shared internet folder. The person who left the cd on the subway could have kept a copy for herself. The person who picks up the cd on the subway could proceed to make copies and further distribute the content, or just listen to it, copy it, and leave it on the subway for another person to copy.
So if a "making available" standard is legally actionable, then we must logically presume all publicly broadcast material has been "made available" by the copyright holders the moment they engage in any performance, broadcast, or monetary exchange for said content, forfeiting their exclusive distribution rights. There's no difference using your own vcr to record a program or hiring a second party to program your vcr to record a program, or hiring a second party to record a program on their vcr for you. Once it's "made available" by an authorized party, then according to the current legal standard, it should then be presumed everyone publicly has rightful authorization to access the content.
"Making available" is a ridiculous unenforceable standard which criminalizes legitimate legal behavior upon arbitrary grounds. And physical retail stores should not be exempt from what individuals on the internet are punished for. It's a double standard, it's unequal protection under the laws. Therefore, the "making available" clause is demonstrated unconstitutional, and stricken by making this argument available to the Courts.
For those individuals who have nothing to lose anyway, this should be added to time consuming and expensive (for the plaintiffs) pro se defenses to counter the rich resources being used by the RIAA settlement extortion letters. We need on-line videos and documentation examples detailing procedures, motions, defense strategies, cross-examination tactics, discovery methods, etc., so that pro se defendants can vastly improve their chances versus the RIAA Goliath. And this can be the beginning of spreading legal knowledge to start a huge economic undercutting of lawyer salaries, of an artificial scarcity of knowledge.
Imagine that, knowledge of the law, prosecuting and defending, itself being limited in order to control and profit. All the more reason for the abolition of imaginary property.
If you offer the same album to ten thousand private citizens to download and keep, that is not "making available for further distribution" in the sense of the copyright law, even though the RIAA claims it is. As long as nobody accepts your offer and downloads the album, nothing illegal has happened. What *offer* occurs? How is having your legally owned.mp3 shared internet folder an *offer* "for further distribution" anymore than putting for sale books in a Border's bookstore on publicly accessible shelves is an *offer* "for further distribution"? How about putting purchased art works in private galleries or museums?
If there's no Eddie Murphy in the back of a hijacked cigarette truck saying "Read my lips. Five thousand dollars..." ala Beverly Hills Cop I, then you must acquit. There's no constitutionally justifiable cause that can be established without undue burdens and constitutional violations of other rights of freedom. That's precisely why laws against "making available" are unconstitutionally absurd. You have a *right* to "make available" independent of tying the responsibilities of actions of third parties to the first party. See the perfectly legal precedents of bookstores and record stores.
So what exactly, legally, is this "as long as nobody accepts your offer and downloads the album" you are talking about? Are you saying if I copy some pages by hand in a Border's Bookstore or take a digital photograph of book pages, then Border's is guilty of criminal copyright infringement, and liable for statutory civil damage penalties?
How about I open up a store that competes with iTunes. Can I charge the RIAA member companies with collusion, unfair monopoly practices, antitrust violations, if they refuse to let me sell the exact same songs for the same wholesale price as iTunes and Amazon, with the kicker that my site allows full length previews the same way legal bookstores like Border's offer full length previews?
You are wrong. The law in this case is absolutely fine and dandy and very clear. Oh really? So you are arguing that bookstores and record stores should be shut down as criminal enterprises, no matter whether they are mom & pop versions or massive corporate chains, solely based upon the possibility that further illegal activity by third parties could occur from legally "making available"? If so, then perhaps the Judas Priest "suicide lyrics" case was incorrectly decided.
The point is the legal statutes of "making available" are absurd, and should be struck down by the Courts as unconstitutional. Is the record store guilty and liable for making copyrighted album cover art "available" in their for sale store because a customer could possibly take a photograph of that cover art with a digital camera? How about book stores putting books for sale on shelves that can be browsed *in full* by potential customers? The mind and memory are also "recording devices".
A million different people can legally fair use copy a million different piece excerpts of a song or a book that add up to the sum total of the work. Car designs are trademarked. You can't put a photo of your car on-line, but you can drive the same car in public and other people can see and could take photographs of the car. But books and sites like auto trader also establish prior fair use standards of "making available" data copy images of copyrighted and trademarked works.
What if you want to sell your copyrighted.mp3 songs that you legally own? You can't physically remove the exact same digital bits you originally purchased, you can only copy the original, then delete the original.
Yeah, don't copy the ideas of others, like musician songs, but hypocritically knock yourself out copying the business model of selling.mp3 music files on the internet. Where is the crying that some person's idea, some person's *work*, has been "stolen".
Paying for you music by downloading it from sites like "Lala", Amazon, or iTunes is... the dreaded infinite tentacled piracy monster.
Time for a t-shirt that says "You stole my business model!" Hereby copyrighted, trademarked, and otherwise including derivatives such as "You stole my business model!!one1!" etc. All rights reserved. Reader of post agrees to give me all their "stuff". For reasonable licensing terms contact monxrtr.
Slashdot Mirror
Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere.
Take your own advice. Your earlier posts are full of them.
Furthermore, what you are trying to say becomes pointless if you are simply incapable of expressing it in coherent terms. It is not the whole world's problem that no one is able to get what you are trying to explain, it is your inability to express it in a way that makes any sense whatsoever that is at fault.
So now you are applying your own cognitive failings to "the whole world"? More anthropomorphicism.
In economics, physical goods and labor (measured in units of currency) are the only items available for methodical analysis. Any fluctuations in people's desires which cannot be expressed in these terms are irrelevant to any discourse on economics and belong in the same realm as discussions on the meaning of the universe.
Wrong. My explanation scientifically explains *why* trade occurs. Your explanation of an equal exchange of value is a nonsensical absurdity which leads to your further errors and delusions.
Here we go again. "extrinsically" is a word which, without any further context, simply makes no sense in that sentence. "Extrinsically" in relation to what? The traders? The marketplace? The transactions?
Value is not intrinsically objective in things. If it were, every person would value the exact same things equally and no trade would occur, contradicting observed actions of trade exchange. This is why value is extrinsically subjective, determined subjectively by humans for whatever any and all reasons.
Which, again, is unquantifiable and as such not subject to scientific analysis.
It is limitedly quantifiable, as definite greater than and less than signs are established for the differing values for differing persons for the exact same goods. This isn't any more surprising than that humans aren't omniscient in all other scientific fields, whether physics, chemistry, or whatever. Less than are greater than are precise mathematical demarcations.
Attempts to adhere to the scientific method are not "ideological" (well maybe from a perspective of a complete kook or a religious lunatic).
You're the lunatic that refuses to adhere to the scientific method, is clueless regarding epistemology, and constantly contradicts prior original claims, or pretends to brush them off religiously as "irrelevant".
The trade, in economic terms, is for items of equal economic value, as I repeatedly explained. That "value" is measured in either goods, labor or currency.
Wrong. There is no point whatsoever in wasting time and energy in trading items of equal economic value as you would be no better off after the trade than before the trade. It would be literally *pointless*. The excess value created by all acts of trade is not be measured by goods, labor, or currency. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means it cannot be precisely quantifiably measured. Throw a baseball and measure the distance it traveled. You can crudely measure it by manually flipping a random 6.32 meter Fool Stick, microscopically measure it to some degree, but there will always be further possible atomic precision which you will fail to perfectly capture, such as possible atomic level indentations measured in microns.
You're a moron that sees no difference between holding an apple, eating an apple, or trading an apple for money, as you believe there's no value difference, by definition of your false value equation, to either possibility.
That is the only kind of "value" which is applicable to economic analysis. The redefined by you term "value" is a subjective set of preferences which is not what any scientific analysis can deal with as it is wholly unmeasurable and unquantifiable.
Do you stand around like a drooling idiot baboon and claim there is no economic behavior if two kids in a school lunchroom swap a banana for an apple? You're just a
There's a flip side to that too. The company could invest $10 million to develop the game, and the game sucks and nobody buys it. Being pad in advance for service also delivers certainty and reduces risk. And you can still strike it rich by offering the official version on your website after it's developed for a reasonable convenience fee. Better to pay a moderate sum than waste time with risky torrents. And once you've got a good reputation, you can really strike it rich on the sequels. You can offer value. Some guy might be willing to pay $50,000 to choose the lead character's name. $50 let's you name spells. Etc. Be creative. Auction stuff like that through the development cycle. Put the names of the big funders in the game credits.
Copyright is absolutely unnecessary to the creation of art. If the art is created before any sale, copyright has done absolutely nothing for the creation of that art. If the production of that art is funded in advance of its creation, copyright is completely unnecessary.
But you've devolved into an infantile ideological tirade, so whatever. True, but that difference is not measurable in monetary terms, ergo it has no place in any economic analysis. Oh, "true"? That's it? That directly contradicts your original, now admittedly, false claim. That difference is precisely why free trade and the division of labor create wealth, dummy. Ergo, that *is* economic analysis. Because the action of trading itself consumes energy and time, thus diminishing our resources with each trade. Listen, MORON. Trading in the first place also "consumes energy and time". If the money was equally valued to the cake neither would trade for the other in the first place. Exchange isn't random. I think I know why you are so hopelessly confused. You misunderstand simple economic terms: "profit" does not apply to some nebulous, subjective "values" in someone's head, it is defined strictly in monetary terms. Therefore what you call "profit" isn't. If you are better off, you profit in strict economic terms. If your value, however measured, is greater after than before, you profit in strict economic terms. If you are wealthier, you have profited, in strict economic terms. Again, total confusion. Not all forms of exchange are "trade" (exchange of artistic expressions or speech are not trade) and division of labor is not a pre-requisite for a society, nor its automatic implication. Wrong again. Speech isn't exchanged to another unless that another chooses to listen or hear it. Also the act of choosing to speak at a specific time is exchanging, is preferring, is valuing, that speaking more than whatever else that person could have done at that time rather than speaking. Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with economics. You are now pretending that economic "profit" is something measured in subjective feelings. That is not how this term is applicable in economics and economic theory is what we were discussing here, were we not? If you are better off from trade, which we have proved you are (otherwise you wouldn't trade in the first place, and would instead just keep your stuff), then you have "profited" in a strict economic sense from that trade, in spite of the fact that you cannot measure the "subjective feelings" aspect. The position, the movement, the exchange, of goods from one person to another person voluntarily, proves that it is necessarily so. What?! Are you implying that the Universe is 100% deterministic? All events have "the capability, the possibility" of not occurring, ergo all events, according to you, are deterministic? What are you? An anthropomorphicist? You believe the Sun wakes up in the morning and decides whether or not it feels like radiating that day? Natural events aren't observed human choice actions with wills of their own, like the action of human trade. Trade is a decision.
Earth's albedo is another minor variable effecting total net Earth average temperature. So is the Earth's magnetic field flipping another variable. The point is these research studies are devoid of any reference to accurate or even remotely guessed variable weightings in a model making up all the variables which equal average Earth temperature, which they are constantly claiming impacts upon average Earth temperature change.
If the hoax climatologist scientist frauds DISCLOSED the estimated variable weightings of the variables they are talking about, the public at large would have realized years ago that the alarmist convention paper summaries were fraudulent "research" any time they were used to model or predict the temperature effects from changing those minor variables WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY PUBLISHED OR PUBLICLY DISCLOSED WEIGHTING OF ALL VARIABLES in reference to net effect changes on average Earth temperature.
The "scientific" output is so fraudulent, so devoid of proper scientific procedure, that they might as well be claiming changes in the stock market closing prices effect temperature. It would be precisely as accurate as any of their other claims.
AND NOTICE YOU DIDN'T LINK TO ANY WEIGHTED VARIABLE TEMPERATURE MODEL, BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT JUST LIKE THE REST OF THE ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING PHONIES. This occurs every time I make a version of this post.
If you can't link to a temperature model with weighted variables, you've PROVEN your religious zealotry belief is without reference to the slightest of scientific principles, and should just STFU to save yourself further embarrassment.
Why is it so impossible to get a climatologist to give an estimate for the weighting of the variable Sun on average Earth temperature? Because they know they are frauds, and their credibility will be toast if they give an answer. Better to run and hide in obscure minor variables lest the light of science shine upon their religious bamboozling (in the name of they know what's best for the rest, and are therefore qualified to demand serious economic behavior changes be imposed on humanity).
They've long crossed a line between free from independent scientific pursuits and manipulative political pursuits, and they thus should be subject to imprisonment and barring of funding penalties for their faulty "work" which is threatening the welfare of others. If you climatologists want to play Gandhi with science, prepare to have McCarthy examining your classrooms and research grants. Enough is enough. Put up or STFU.
Hidden assumption: coastlines wouldn't change independent of human CO2 production. All these predictions should more accurately be retitled ANTHROPOMORPHIC.
Not to mention the HOAX also includes the fact that THERE IS NO EARTH TEMPERATURE MODEL!
Take a guess what percentage the weighted variable Sun accounts for the Earth temperature. You are thus smarter and more scientifically advanced than the anthropogenic global warming alarmists, as your single variable accounts for many times more of the total effect on Earth temperature than their CO2 models.
You can't even *BEGIN* to guesstimate the impact of the variable of increasing CO2 on net average Earth temperature without reference to some assumed or hidden temperature model variables. We've been arguing against these pretend climatologist scientists for YEARS and still no temperature model has ever been produced in any scientific journal, any bogus credentialist climatologist conference report, or anywhere else for that matter. Climatologists talking about temperature change effects from anthropogenic CO2 are pure snake oil salesmen FRAUDS, who should be brought up on charges and jailed for alarmist mob action, fraud, and misuse of public education funding resources. The Universities employing these baboons should be subject to civil and criminal charges, penalties, and damages.
Doesn't matter how many times this is pointed out, all the RELIGIOUS ZEALOT MORONS who pretend to *believe* in anthropogenic global warming (now going by the more politically correct name "global climate change"), won't be able to point anyone to a temperature model with weighted variables, THUS IRREFUTABLY PROVING THEY ARE COMPLETELY FULL OF SHIT TALKING OUT THEIR ASSES.
Just watch, none of these fools spouting their religious beliefs have the slightest clue of a model on which they are basing their temperature change anthropomorphic predictions. And just keep in mind these so called mainstream climatologists were at one point talking 3 degree human caused temperature changes from an average earth temperature of about 13 degrees, or a 23% effect upon total temperature. They should just STFU and go back to daydreaming they pedal bicycles in their birkenstocks to power the Sun.
I'm really really sick of these frauds, and there needs to be a message sent by putting them in jail for abusing the public trust, lying, negligence, fraud, and theft of public resources for paid scientific work not performed. Give the Universities that employ these baboons sanctions like NCAA recruiting violations receive, barring those Universities from receiving any scientific public funding grants for a period not less than 10 years. That should provide a counterbalancing chilling effect on their hot air.
Virgin ISP cannot "inspect" any packets of information except by copying the data into an anlysis program. Virgin will end up committing trillions of acts of copyright infringement by actively monitoring user data. So in essence Virgin is just throwing away the entirety of their corporate assets to their UK subscribers. If I lived in the UK and was a Virgin customer, I'd be contacting the lawyers and looking forward to retirement after selling off Virgin assets through the bankruptcy courts.
I assume Virgin is subject to the EU penalties for copyright infringement, and will be voluntarily disconnecting itself after the first three inspections that bring negative results, and are themselves copyright violation.
Let the immortal words be, "Sue the bastards!"
And if Virgin can inspect content for copyright violations without penalty then their customers certainly have the same right under the law to similarly download and inspect any files whatsoever, to ensure their copyrighted writings aren't be infringed, no matter the title of the files, no matter the size of the file.
This sentence makes no sense. Greater-than and less-than are binary operators. You've just used two such operators in one equation with only two values in total. Two binary operators need at least three values to form a valid formula.
No, there are two equations because there are two different individual actors in any trade. Person One Prefers A to B. Person Two Prefers B to A. A is greater than B for Person One, and B is greater than A for Person Two.
That does not imply any total "gain" in "value". It merely implies a difference in kind. I.e. of two identically priced cakes, made with identically priced ingredients and with identical labor I might prefer the lemon-flavored one over the peach-flavored one. Yet they are both of identical objective value from the point of view of the marketplace, both selling at the same price. That is because my personal preference in flavor does not in any way add to the total "value" of such goods.
There is no such thing as objective value. Value is subjective. Value changes. This is why prices change. This is why actions are discretely ordered. All prices are instances of strict trade, where one good is traded for another good, even if one of those goods is called money. If you trade money for lemon cake you prefer the lemon cake to the money, and simultaneously the baker prefers money to the lemon cake.
If money had equal value to the lemon cake, why wouldn't you and the baker stand at the counter in an infinite circular time loop trading the same money for the same lemon cake back and forth? You wouldn't do that precisely because you both definitively prefer one thing to the other, and this is represented with precise mathematical "greater than" and "less than" certainty. It is strictly proven that all exchange is *not* an exchange of equal value, but of *differing* value. Trade occurs because two different people value the exact same thing differently. Trade would not otherwise occur, ever.
This is also why macroeconomics and monetary theory is in fundamental error. It is proved that the equation of trade cannot contain an "equals" sign, but is a combination of two different inverse equations A greater than B and B greater than A. This shows mathematically that real value profit is created from trade. Both Person 1 and Person 2 are wealthier after the trade than they are before the trade even though the exact same goods exist after the trade as exist before the trade. This is precisely why trade occurs, why society exists, and why the division of labor exists.
Which would relegate this "value" to the realm of psychic mediums and witch-doctors and well outside of any economic models as it is wholly unquantifiable and unobservable.
It is strictly the case that preference value can only be ordinal measured. It is impossible to measure the precise numerical quantity by which one thing is preferred to another thing. Money is just a proxy for an attempt at that measurement. But money itself is involved in trade, and thus itself subject to greater than/less than preference in all exchange. But all exchange is observable, all preference is ordinal measurable, and all quantities of goods traded are measurable. It's just the strictly positive value created by exchange for both parties which is not precisely measurable. But it is, and has been above, proved to be the case.
Logical fallacy. The "will" of the community does not necessarily need to be in alignment with the will of particular individuals with in it, given any difference of opinion at all between the community members.
Wrong. That's a mathematical absurdity. You have the Set {Community} which must by definition contain the total amalgamation of Subsets {Individuals 1 ... N}. They must by definition be "in alignment" to make sense, and to be accurate.
Incorrect. Many actions of individuals are random, many consciously counter productive for the actor (altruism) etc and so
The conversation is there, recorded, ongoing, and a more careful consideration than just casual water cooler talk. Reputable peer reviewed journals are just another form of subjectively valued moderation, fame, and reputation.
But I foresee a new "second tier" (and "third tier" etc.) of open access criticism, commentary, and after-the-fact "second tier peer" review leading to a Renaissance of scientific innovation which will boost the "first tier" standard bearer output. For any information and knowledge to spread it must be copied first, considered second. The more the merrier. Subjective valuations of quality will still always be subjective valuations of quality.
What's the difference between "buying up the surplus" and just "paying" them not to produce the surplus in the first place? Alaska contains huge amounts of oil reserves that are locked up and stored through prohibitive regulation.
There's lots of attempted oligopoly hoarding of oil from OPEC production quotas to environmental regulations. But I think the price has risen primarily because A.) the government is massively counterfeiting the money supply, B.) there is tremendous uncertainty about future supply from political problems, and C.) growing demand and artificially limited supply, weighted in the order from 'A' to 'C', roughly 50% 'A', 25% 'B', and 12.5% 'C'. But then again, that's what "speculation" is all about. ^_^
Here is your fundamental error: LOL. That is one of the Holy Dogmas of the Capitalist Religion. In practice people trade hoping to receive value equal to that what was paid. Sometimes receiving far less. The extra "value" in excess of the trade itself is supposed to be a systemic property and as such never enters the mind of individual traders. And so the trade would have occurred irrespective of its presence. This bit of illogical, rabid zealotry is pretty much self defeating. The trade always did and would occur if value of what you pay for is merely equal to what you get. If what you traded was *equally* valued then why wouldn't you infinitely trade back and forth the exact same things in an infinite loop? That would be absurdity. This is precisely why trade only occurs because a strict mathematical greater than sign applies to the value of that being received and a strictly mathematical lesser than sign applies to the value of that which is being given away in trade. Trade occurs because both sides *prefer* what the other side has. And value is individually *subjective* and not constant. And of course nobody would voluntarily make herself worse off from any trade.
That's why my self taught economic analysis method always begins by examining the action of trade exchange. It clears away the garbage that clouds analysis. Say what?! Government is (at least in theory) merely a representation of the will of the community which it governs Then by definition of will government interference is completely superfluous and only causing wasted energy and wasted resources to allegedly duplicate that will. But of course government only forces someone to do something they are not voluntarily willing to do, a clear violation of the alleged duplication of specific individual wills. Its purposes have nothing to do with "benevolence" and are unrelated to purposes of companies and other market players whose only purpose is profit All individual action whatsoever only occurs because the actor desires to go to a state of lesser dissatisfaction from a state of greater dissatisfaction. There would be no purpose in acting otherwise, for then acting could only make one worse off from the unacting utopia they resided in. Thus, the purpose of all actions, the purpose of all individuals, is as you say, "profit". Thus the government operates in a different work space than private entities. Sometimes the private entities are better suited to tackle some societal tasks, sometimes it is the government, depending on the task and the set of capabilities and strengths of each. We should aim to minimize violent compulsion, and maximize voluntary peaceful cooperation. This is the only way society can exist. Free trade is by definition voluntary peaceful cooperation. Trade of any kind cannot exist without governance. Trade is by definition "self governing" precisely because no voluntary trade ever occurs unless that which is received is valued MORE than that which is given away in exchange. At the very bottom of it is the fact that an authority of some kind must exist to enforce contractual obligations between trading parties, such as for example value of IOUs (read: banknotes) etc and so on. In the absence of governance all trade must, by definition, become barter. All trade is strictly *barter* in spite of any government interference. Trade is a *voluntary* action by definition. If you are forced to do something against your will, the word "trade" ceases to apply. That's why taxation is called taxation and not charity contribution. That's why "subsidy" isn't called business trade transaction.
So do people who hardly watch any television cable channels per day subsidize those who watch more cable television channels per day? Or do all subscribers of the same cable television package receive the exact same number and quality of (shaped or unshaped) content bits per month?
What's the percentage breakdown in fiber optical cable resources used to deliver cable television channels and that used to provide internet service? The Comcast internet/cable television charge monthly bill seems to break down around 40% internet 60% cable television? So how much per byte do Comcast customers pay for internet content versus cable television content?
Maybe Comcast has idiot executives who aren't paying attention to the bottom line profitability per byte per medium. What would the return on customer satisfaction be from cutting out high definition television channels and using those freed resources for internet bandwidth? Comcast is in full panic mode from the success of Verizon FIOS. Just look at the huge swings in quality and price whenever and wherever Comcast has to compete against Verizon. Maybe that explains why Comcast shares are down 27% over the last year while Verizon is only down about 10% (Time Warner is down about 31%)?
In internet parlance, they're doing it wrong.
You could also seriously wound Comcast if you started a limited boycott, and got all their VoIP customers to switch to competitors of VoIP. Doing that would send a message many times more damaging than all the lawsuits will net. A 10% loss of revenue would sting them incredibly hard.
Try not to fall in a trap of blasting loaded words like "capitalism" and instead focus on the economic and epistemological reality of observed actions of exchange. As someone who took classes from 5 Nobel Prize winning economists at the University of Chicago, there are certainly some flaws and valid methodological criticisms which can apply. But you haven't demonstrated any of them. And you yourself have never once walked into a single grocery store and traded money for food that did not by definition immediately simultaneously make you and the grocery store better off.
All voluntary trade whatsoever only occurs because that which is received in exchange is valued MORE than that which is given away in exchange. If this was not necessarily always an irrefutable epistemological, scientific, economic law, then trade would never occur and the division of labor wouldn't exist.
You also make a fatal economic and epistemological assumption mistake in arbitrarily without substantiated basis assign benevolent angelic motivations to individuals arbitrarily labeled "government actors" while assigning bad devilish motivations to individuals arbitrarily labeled "business and corporation actors". How do corporations get power? How do they get chartered? By government laws interference in the free market granting special privileges. So you want more power which caused your original problem to be granted to solve the problem which was caused by that very same original granting of power? You mean after all those laws, regulations, and heavy taxation, government still isn't even close to solving your problems?
http://www.reformation.org/energy-non-crisis.html
Controlling energy prices controls movement and controls people. The government thanks you for your dependency on water, food, and oil.
Pharmaceutical companies push a lot of drugs by marketing. How much marketing is involved in the diamond industry, from engagement and wedding rings to jewelry for special occasions? Gotta have those bling bling rims spinners around the fingers and hanging from necks and ears. Otherwise what's the status of karats if your 50,000 album record collection can be "pirated" by just any old peon by clicking a mouse button?
Classic scapegoating devoid of sound fundamental economic analysis. It's the oldest smokescreen blame game for hiding Federal Reserve monetary policy. Because it would be absurd to think the Federal Reserve banks would have the gall and balls to try and double the money supply every seven years, right? Right? I suppose your cool if we just copy our fiat bills right in front of your face to buy all your stuff with?
If you only you knew how much of the increase in technological innovation productivity of the 20th century has been stolen. We can't have peons affording the ability to organize internet grassroots campaigns to send Ron Paul "money bombs".
The government tends to "set up" monopolies first rather than outright enforce them. When you are a giant corporate telecommunications infrastructure player and get *billions* in subsidies for laying your network, new competition isn't going to get those same subsidies. So if you want to compete against Comcast, your business plan needs to be billions of dollars more efficient than Comcast's business plan since you won't be getting network infrastructure subsidies.
And "loosely" enforcing (aiding and abetting more accurately) monopolies ensures campaign contributions, ensures nice jobs for your friends and family, and ensures future lobbying work for yourself in the future when your political career is over.
Strict regulations also make it too expensive for new competition to gain a foothold.
Sorry, but inflation solely occurs by government counterfeiting of the money supply. The exact same goods which exist before every trade exist after every trade occurs. Money is just another good which is itself subject to supply and demand subjective valuations. But only morons would think fiat paper which can easily be manipulated into an infinite supply is a good sound monetary policy.
The world is waking up to the fact that every fiat currency in the world is a house of cards game of hot potato nobody wants to be holding when the music stops. Say hello to the new gold, say hello to the new money. It's called oil.
Who thinks it's a good idea to save your money at 2% interest rate as the Federal Reserve counterfeits so much money that your saved money is worth 10% less next year than it was last year? That's precisely why people took on debt to speculate on houses (even if it meant buying a bigger house than you otherwise might have bought) to avoid having their savings stored in rapidly devaluing fiat currency. Now that we have ran out of new suckers to pay the highest prices for houses, it's a better bet to convert savings into commodities.
So you wrongly demonize speculators, and give government interference in the free market a free pass? No voluntary willing trade occurs between any two people unless by definition that which is received is valued MORE than that which is given away in exchange. If both parties to the trade didn't simultaneously profit in strict economic terms, the trade would not occur. Demonizing speculators makes about as much sense as some third party making your computer hardware and software purchases for you without your consent.
This is correct. The Federal Reserve creates bubble after bubble by counterfeiting the money supply, even if it's hidden by grossly manipulating official inflation measurement indexes such as the CPI, and removing the M3 total money supply number from official Fed reports. The late '90s internet bubble, the housing bubble, and now the commodities bubble. It's exactly like stepping on bumps in a rug; one bump deflates while another bump pops up elsewhere underneath the rug. Newly printed money and credit is going to be spent, rigorously in economic terms *traded*, for other specific goods first as opposed to the goods where that new money is not traded first.
Oil is a *futures* driven market. If the market fears the USA is going to attack Iran and lead to supply problems in the future, prices of futures contracts will reflect that in the present pricing of futures contracts. Absolutely every single good and service is priced *subjectively*, incorporating fears, dreams, beliefs, fashion, fads, you name it. Map out the price of oil over decades, hell map it out for the last century, and you'll see that price corresponds extremely closely to the devaluation of fiat currency, even in spite of a huge increase in demand and supply.
If the supply and demand remain constant, but you double the supply of money, what you expect to happen? That's right, the same amount of oil will trade for double the amount of money. Read the Creature from Jekyll Island which has a review on this site.
http://books.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/26/1432203
Here's an e-book about government interference manipulation of the supply and price of oil. It's far from a free market if private companies can't drill in Alaska.
http://www.reformation.org/energy-non-crisis.html
Those musicians at the top also charge over $1,000 per concert ticket for the best seats. They can also get expensive 6 figure and 7 figure concert gigs for private corporate picnic parties.
And who sends out more copies of music than the musicians themselves through radio broadcasts? How many times everyday do they copy the same Top 40 song on the same radio station?
For top musician talent selling 20,000 seat arenas, even if ticket prices average as little as $20 you should be clearing more money per performance than the average worker clears in a year.
How much money do pretty girls walking down the street make per year from men "stealing" their image into their eyes? That's no different than copying any imaginary property.
The existence of paid cable television stations proves that people are willing to pay for content in advance of the content being created. Do you know what you're going to watch in the future? Specific episodes? Boring or exciting news broadcasts? Are refunds ever offered if the content subjectively "sucks"? Nope. This goes for subscriptions, events like concerts, and all sorts of content which cannot be evaluated before paying, like video games, software programs, books.
It's a *miracle* any of this imaginary property obtains value in the first place. Creators complain they can't make a living without copyright protection, but how the hell does anyone ever pay for that content without receiving a significant portion of it for free in advance? It's literally a game of Monty selling boxes that might contain something good or might contain absolutely nothing at all. It's the same old hustle of con artists and circus promoters. But suddenly the price being charged vastly exceeded the present expected value of consumers. Consumers were ripped off far too much for far too long with the pushing of crap and filler, which was just mostly copying the advancements of the few greats anyway.
Yet look at entertainment thriving in the world of professional sports, which is making entertainer athletes richer than ever before. The difference between football players and musicians is football players go to work a lot more during the year, and copyright isn't market interfering inducing a huge percentage of the population to try to seriously make their living by playing football.
Music has just been plagued by terrible marketing and inefficient middlemen dinosaurs. Why aren't music concerts shown on television as much as sporting events? Because the music industry marketing "sucks" and their product has been undercut on price and exceeded on quality by competing entertainment forms.
Yet notice how copyright applies to even professional sports. Is this really constitutionally justified promotion of the advancement of the arts and sciences? Hell no. And disrespect for all forms of imaginary property government protectionism has been thus earned.
Copyright isn't even at all needed for content creators to make a living. How the hell are they affording the ability to create art in the first place if they aren't paid in full in advance? Obviously, there is a lie and a contradiction in the false incentives artists decry copyright is necessary for delivering. For if they can create art without being paid first, then copyright does jack squat for the creation of that art. And if they can be sufficiently paid in advance to produce, then copyright is completely unnecessary.
Or at least it was until one day I arose to found () multiple parties issuing this thing called a "DMCA: *notice". Tell that bitch to fuck off, thank you. Fucking cheap ass bitch hoes ripping off Indian costumes, fireman helmets, police badges, and blah blah blah, I hereby submit that this shit of a post must hereby be taken *down*, H^A^R^D^.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA_(song) "DMCA" is also the name of a group dance with cheerleader D-M-C-A choreography invented to fit the song. One of the phases involves moving arms to form the letters D-M-C-A as they are sung in the chorus:
D - Arms outstretched and raised, middle finger extended
M - Made by bending the elbows from the 'D' pose so the fingertips meet over the chest[2]
C - Arms extended to the left
A - Hands held together above head What STUPID?
Intent to share is *legal* on radio, legal on television, legal in bookstores, libraries, and record stores. What's the difference between an internet folder and a Walmart rack bin? Walmart is liable and criminally guilty for the second and third party actions of people that browse their rack bins?
Internet folders are not commercial criminal enterprises, like evidence of thousands of burned copyright infringing cds burned and being sold in the back of a truck. So if you own a cd, you are criminally guilty and civilly liable because you or someone else *COULD* make copies of that content, even though you have yet to make any illegal copies yourself?
I've developed a third Constitutional challenge to copyright laws: 1.) unconstitutionally unlimited length of copyrights 2.) excessive fines violations of the 8th Amendment 3.) presumed guilt or liability for possession based on possible non-established nor demonstrated actions of first, second, and third parties known as "making available".
Leaving a cd on a subway is just as much "making available" as leaving an
So if a "making available" standard is legally actionable, then we must logically presume all publicly broadcast material has been "made available" by the copyright holders the moment they engage in any performance, broadcast, or monetary exchange for said content, forfeiting their exclusive distribution rights. There's no difference using your own vcr to record a program or hiring a second party to program your vcr to record a program, or hiring a second party to record a program on their vcr for you. Once it's "made available" by an authorized party, then according to the current legal standard, it should then be presumed everyone publicly has rightful authorization to access the content.
"Making available" is a ridiculous unenforceable standard which criminalizes legitimate legal behavior upon arbitrary grounds. And physical retail stores should not be exempt from what individuals on the internet are punished for. It's a double standard, it's unequal protection under the laws. Therefore, the "making available" clause is demonstrated unconstitutional, and stricken by making this argument available to the Courts.
For those individuals who have nothing to lose anyway, this should be added to time consuming and expensive (for the plaintiffs) pro se defenses to counter the rich resources being used by the RIAA settlement extortion letters. We need on-line videos and documentation examples detailing procedures, motions, defense strategies, cross-examination tactics, discovery methods, etc., so that pro se defendants can vastly improve their chances versus the RIAA Goliath. And this can be the beginning of spreading legal knowledge to start a huge economic undercutting of lawyer salaries, of an artificial scarcity of knowledge.
Imagine that, knowledge of the law, prosecuting and defending, itself being limited in order to control and profit. All the more reason for the abolition of imaginary property.
If there's no Eddie Murphy in the back of a hijacked cigarette truck saying "Read my lips. Five thousand dollars..." ala Beverly Hills Cop I, then you must acquit. There's no constitutionally justifiable cause that can be established without undue burdens and constitutional violations of other rights of freedom. That's precisely why laws against "making available" are unconstitutionally absurd. You have a *right* to "make available" independent of tying the responsibilities of actions of third parties to the first party. See the perfectly legal precedents of bookstores and record stores.
So what exactly, legally, is this "as long as nobody accepts your offer and downloads the album" you are talking about? Are you saying if I copy some pages by hand in a Border's Bookstore or take a digital photograph of book pages, then Border's is guilty of criminal copyright infringement, and liable for statutory civil damage penalties?
How about I open up a store that competes with iTunes. Can I charge the RIAA member companies with collusion, unfair monopoly practices, antitrust violations, if they refuse to let me sell the exact same songs for the same wholesale price as iTunes and Amazon, with the kicker that my site allows full length previews the same way legal bookstores like Border's offer full length previews? You are wrong. The law in this case is absolutely fine and dandy and very clear. Oh really? So you are arguing that bookstores and record stores should be shut down as criminal enterprises, no matter whether they are mom & pop versions or massive corporate chains, solely based upon the possibility that further illegal activity by third parties could occur from legally "making available"? If so, then perhaps the Judas Priest "suicide lyrics" case was incorrectly decided.
The point is the legal statutes of "making available" are absurd, and should be struck down by the Courts as unconstitutional. Is the record store guilty and liable for making copyrighted album cover art "available" in their for sale store because a customer could possibly take a photograph of that cover art with a digital camera? How about book stores putting books for sale on shelves that can be browsed *in full* by potential customers? The mind and memory are also "recording devices".
.mp3 songs that you legally own? You can't physically remove the exact same digital bits you originally purchased, you can only copy the original, then delete the original.
A million different people can legally fair use copy a million different piece excerpts of a song or a book that add up to the sum total of the work. Car designs are trademarked. You can't put a photo of your car on-line, but you can drive the same car in public and other people can see and could take photographs of the car. But books and sites like auto trader also establish prior fair use standards of "making available" data copy images of copyrighted and trademarked works.
What if you want to sell your copyrighted
Yeah, don't copy the ideas of others, like musician songs, but hypocritically knock yourself out copying the business model of selling .mp3 music files on the internet. Where is the crying that some person's idea, some person's *work*, has been "stolen".
... the dreaded infinite tentacled piracy monster.
Paying for you music by downloading it from sites like "Lala", Amazon, or iTunes is
Time for a t-shirt that says "You stole my business model!" Hereby copyrighted, trademarked, and otherwise including derivatives such as "You stole my business model!!one1!" etc. All rights reserved. Reader of post agrees to give me all their "stuff". For reasonable licensing terms contact monxrtr.