True, to a point. Monopolies are only problematic when the barriers to entry are large. It would be silly, for example, to break up a trust that is limited to the greeting card industry--even if they did decide to ramp up their prices, someone else could easily come in and undercut them. It's a little different, on the other hand, if the startup costs and/or time is sufficiently large. I think we often overstate the power of monopolies to control the markets, though.
I would argue that the AIG support has nothing to do with a monopoly. They don't have a monopoly, and their competitors are at least as viable as they are, they've just been able to convince politicians that it'll hurt too many of their counterparties should they fail. This behavior can certainly encourage monopolies to form, though.
no government intervention leads to corruption
I'm not sure what would lead you to this conclusion. Government is a party in corruption, and in the absense of government there can't be corruption. If you look at a corporation as a quasi-government, then yes, that corporation can have corrupt people in power, but that will be in the interests of the shareholders to prevent (if the executives weren't given special legal protection from shareholders). Governments and corporations operate more or less the same way, except corporations actually have a fiduciary obligation to the shareholders.
More pragmatically, though, there are good reasons for regulation, but those regulations should be designed to provide (a) transparency and (b) accountability. Free markets require, in addition to competition, correct information in order to operate correctly, so you can't have corporations blatantly lying about their financial data.
I'm guessing the copper thieves are simply investors who lost all their money in the stock market, and now they're stockpiling it as a hedge against future inflation. (At least that's what I'd do if I were a copper thief.)
I'm a little sketchy, but I'm pretty sure it was before that infamous game where he stupidly overlooked an obvious intertunnel portage that would have sealed the win. That was the beginning of the end for him, as far as I'm concerned.
Oh, right. I think I recall something like this happening during the Robertson-Glass game a few years back. In that particular case, I believe it was deemed acceptable under the Fahlenburg exception.
I came up with a Regex that can be used to match literally anything (yes, anything!). It is, therefore, the most flexible regex ever concocted. Here it is:
That seems all well and good until you realize that those homes still aren't paid for and they're either going to bankrupt the people who are just temporarily living in them, or the entire country. Those homes weren't free, and the cost was not just a trillion dollars. The ENTIRE cost of the homes will be paid for by American citizens, even if it's not the homeowners themselves. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
This is much, MUCH more than a "few tough weeks on the stock market." This is potentially a multi-year downturn that will result in many of those people losing their homes, or worse, a considerable decline in the standard of living of the average American. We still don't know where the bottom of the housing market, the MBS market, and all of their derivatives lies, and it's well within the realm of possibility that tens of trillions of dollars in losses have yet to be written down, with all the job loss that goes with it. The 30 years of putting people into their own homes was NOT prudent, no matter what Barney Frank, George Bush, or Alan Greenspan say.
There WERE NO SUCCESSES to be claimed here. None. Saying that creating a liability that is countless trillions of dollars in scope with no means of paying for it is a successful strategy makes no economic sense whatsoever. You have to flagrantly ignore all of the people who have to take the fall now and for years down the road in order to consider this economic policy a success.
Since when did libertarians favor corporate welfare? Indeed, some of the most harsh criticisms of corporate welfare I've heard come from libertarians. I think if you actually calmed down and thought for a minute before running your mouth, you'd realize that corporate welfare comes from Republicans AND Democrats (remember that bailout bill just a few weeks ago, which was sponsored by Democrats, and only opposed by libertarian-leaning Republicans? Yeah, that was corporate welfare at its finest), who receive all the bribes from large corporations. Is it any wonder why Democrats receive more gifts from the financial lobby than anybody else? They're just as much, or more, into corporate welfare than anybody else, and it's only the libertarian platform that opposes it with any meaningful semblance of sincerity.
I don't think you read the article. It did highlight a few of the nonsensical remarks he's made over the past decade, and those were what I was referring to. No, I haven't followed him, but that doesn't mean I haven't read a few of his remarks. Also, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I concluded that "he's a douchebag." I believe the words I used were "hint of douchebaggery," which could be interpreted as "indication," not "definite proof." Lastly, you can say what you want about some alleged bias that reality has towards "liberals", but given the virulent nature of Krugman's recent political opinions, it's very hard to ignore the political aspect of his being chosen.
It appears as if that ship has sailed. Krugman did some incredibly important work when it comes to trade, but his opinions over the last decade have certainly had a hint of douchebaggery. I haven't really followed him (I'm afraid I'm not really into hero worship when it comes to economics), but it certainly seems as if this choice was largely political.
I would argue that if you can't figure out how to read Microsoft's documentation, your software probably isn't fit for human consumption, no matter how bad the documentation. Would you trust an application developer who doesn't know how to do anything remotely out of the ordinary, or even just google something?
Some might say the current system allows slavery. Isn't that what government social programs are? One person claims the fruits of another's labor, with the penalty of imprisonment for noncooperation.
Really, though, I've always wondered about the purely legal aspect of the Civil War. If I understand correctly, the state holds the allodial title over the land, which, according to Wikipedia, which "are the absolute property of their owner and not subject to any service or acknowledgment to a superior." If that's true, why can't a state secede from the Union? I know slavery was wrong, but I think there could have been a better solution that wouldn't have left problems embedded in our society.
I take it you have a pretty small network of friends? Because I've contacted scores of people from my past on Facebook whose contact information I'd have never even known. That, and it's alot better for people whom you might care a tad about major life events, such as marriages, but aren't at the level where you can send an email or make a phone call every month for updates.
Except they've said they'll credit the accounts of customers who were affected by this (which becomes closer and closer to everybody each day this goes on...). They'll almost undoubtably be losing money because of this, with some customer dissatisfaction on the part of the impatient on top of that.
Not having something explicitly denied you is a negative right, which is completely different than positive rights, i.e., being entitled to something. If you frame the discussion in light of negative rights, then yeah, you should have the right to anything that doesn't infringe on your neighbor's rights. But I'm not talking about that, and I'm not arguing that the government should tell you you can't have food, health care, or anything. What I'm arguing is that regardless of what the UN thinks (as was argued by the fellow to whom I responed), people aren't entitled to health care due to the fact that it requires time and resources. That's because that are limited, and as such, there is no physical way--even if we saw fit--to provide health care to every single person in the world. Simply put, entitlement to health care cannot be a human right because there is no possible way for everybody to have it. It is, for example, physically possible for everybody not to be killed by their neighbor, so that can be, and is, a human right.
Who cares what the UN thinks is a right? That doesn't make it so. The UN can't change the fact that medical care requires both people's time and resources, and as such, is not a right. Having health care is no more a right than having food, money, or a home is a right. You're not entitled to any of it by the mere fact that you exist, and the UN doesn't have the legal or philosophical authority to change that.
The Bush Republicans don't fundamentally believe government is bad and doesn't work. That's one of the most irritating misconceptions regarding the Bush administration. This administration has always enjoyed government intervention (see: No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act, Iraq, et al), and it's really unfair to call them true conservatives.
Just so we don't continue on with this "all Republicans are basically the same" nonsense, there are several factions within the Republican Party, some of which have more power than others:
Religious conservatives: They didn't really exist before the 80s. Jerry Falwell created the Moral Majority in the very late 70s, which later became the Christian Coalition. This is really a new phenomenon which didn't exist until the 80s, and in fact, up until Jimmy Carter or so, the religious conservatives tended to vote Democrat. See: GWB.
Neoconservatives: Had their roots in the 50s with certain liberals, but found followers in the Republican Party. Their distinguishing feature is that they favor aggressive foreign policy. Neoconservatives and Religious Conservatives get along really well, and are pretty much in control of the Republican Party, as the Neocons have been able to successfully sell their platform to the religious right.
Libertarians: Pretty much ignored by the Republican Party (rule by majority); opposed to both the religious right and neocon agenda. Had their roots in the 50s-60s with Barry Goldwater (who had some very harsh things to say about the relious right in the 80s). Though Goldwater's presidential run was a failure, he did open the door for Ronald Reagan, and won the southern states--which previously voted Democrat--which ironically may have opened the door for the religious conservatives he so despised.
And then before Goldwater, you had Eisenhower Republicans, which was really an era when the Republican Party was dominated by New Deal and Fair Deal Republicans. In the 60s and 70s, the party was fairly libertarian. In the 80s, under Ronald Reagan, it was fairly libertarian economics with neoconservative foreign policy, and after that, the libertarians were finally supplanted by the unholy alliance between the neoconservatives and religious right, neither of whom is concerned with the size and role of government.
Slashdot Mirror
I would argue that the AIG support has nothing to do with a monopoly. They don't have a monopoly, and their competitors are at least as viable as they are, they've just been able to convince politicians that it'll hurt too many of their counterparties should they fail. This behavior can certainly encourage monopolies to form, though.
no government intervention leads to corruption
I'm not sure what would lead you to this conclusion. Government is a party in corruption, and in the absense of government there can't be corruption. If you look at a corporation as a quasi-government, then yes, that corporation can have corrupt people in power, but that will be in the interests of the shareholders to prevent (if the executives weren't given special legal protection from shareholders). Governments and corporations operate more or less the same way, except corporations actually have a fiduciary obligation to the shareholders.
More pragmatically, though, there are good reasons for regulation, but those regulations should be designed to provide (a) transparency and (b) accountability. Free markets require, in addition to competition, correct information in order to operate correctly, so you can't have corporations blatantly lying about their financial data.
I'm guessing the copper thieves are simply investors who lost all their money in the stock market, and now they're stockpiling it as a hedge against future inflation. (At least that's what I'd do if I were a copper thief.)
Clearly whoever invented TCP did not properly understand game theory.
I always do this:
Also works for non-booleans as well.
I'm a little sketchy, but I'm pretty sure it was before that infamous game where he stupidly overlooked an obvious intertunnel portage that would have sealed the win. That was the beginning of the end for him, as far as I'm concerned.
Oh, right. I think I recall something like this happening during the Robertson-Glass game a few years back. In that particular case, I believe it was deemed acceptable under the Fahlenburg exception.
No, that's perfectly acceptable in the American version, and it might even be within Icelandic rules as well.
I came up with a Regex that can be used to match literally anything (yes, anything!). It is, therefore, the most flexible regex ever concocted. Here it is:
.*
It would seem our federal government and the Federal Reserve have been taking lessons in Islam...
Saying a government program failed its intended purpose is a bit of a tautology, isn't it?
That seems all well and good until you realize that those homes still aren't paid for and they're either going to bankrupt the people who are just temporarily living in them, or the entire country. Those homes weren't free, and the cost was not just a trillion dollars. The ENTIRE cost of the homes will be paid for by American citizens, even if it's not the homeowners themselves. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
This is much, MUCH more than a "few tough weeks on the stock market." This is potentially a multi-year downturn that will result in many of those people losing their homes, or worse, a considerable decline in the standard of living of the average American. We still don't know where the bottom of the housing market, the MBS market, and all of their derivatives lies, and it's well within the realm of possibility that tens of trillions of dollars in losses have yet to be written down, with all the job loss that goes with it. The 30 years of putting people into their own homes was NOT prudent, no matter what Barney Frank, George Bush, or Alan Greenspan say.
There WERE NO SUCCESSES to be claimed here. None. Saying that creating a liability that is countless trillions of dollars in scope with no means of paying for it is a successful strategy makes no economic sense whatsoever. You have to flagrantly ignore all of the people who have to take the fall now and for years down the road in order to consider this economic policy a success.
Since when did libertarians favor corporate welfare? Indeed, some of the most harsh criticisms of corporate welfare I've heard come from libertarians. I think if you actually calmed down and thought for a minute before running your mouth, you'd realize that corporate welfare comes from Republicans AND Democrats (remember that bailout bill just a few weeks ago, which was sponsored by Democrats, and only opposed by libertarian-leaning Republicans? Yeah, that was corporate welfare at its finest), who receive all the bribes from large corporations. Is it any wonder why Democrats receive more gifts from the financial lobby than anybody else? They're just as much, or more, into corporate welfare than anybody else, and it's only the libertarian platform that opposes it with any meaningful semblance of sincerity.
I don't think you read the article. It did highlight a few of the nonsensical remarks he's made over the past decade, and those were what I was referring to. No, I haven't followed him, but that doesn't mean I haven't read a few of his remarks. Also, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I concluded that "he's a douchebag." I believe the words I used were "hint of douchebaggery," which could be interpreted as "indication," not "definite proof." Lastly, you can say what you want about some alleged bias that reality has towards "liberals", but given the virulent nature of Krugman's recent political opinions, it's very hard to ignore the political aspect of his being chosen.
It appears as if that ship has sailed. Krugman did some incredibly important work when it comes to trade, but his opinions over the last decade have certainly had a hint of douchebaggery. I haven't really followed him (I'm afraid I'm not really into hero worship when it comes to economics), but it certainly seems as if this choice was largely political.
Sounds like a good idea, but durian is a pain in the butt to eat. You have to wear gloves just to carry the stupid thing.
Possibly. The Salton Sea was formed when the Colorado River overflowed its banks. I'm not sure the delta is going anywhere soon, though.
I would argue that if you can't figure out how to read Microsoft's documentation, your software probably isn't fit for human consumption, no matter how bad the documentation. Would you trust an application developer who doesn't know how to do anything remotely out of the ordinary, or even just google something?
Some might say the current system allows slavery. Isn't that what government social programs are? One person claims the fruits of another's labor, with the penalty of imprisonment for noncooperation.
Really, though, I've always wondered about the purely legal aspect of the Civil War. If I understand correctly, the state holds the allodial title over the land, which, according to Wikipedia, which "are the absolute property of their owner and not subject to any service or acknowledgment to a superior." If that's true, why can't a state secede from the Union? I know slavery was wrong, but I think there could have been a better solution that wouldn't have left problems embedded in our society.
I take it you have a pretty small network of friends? Because I've contacted scores of people from my past on Facebook whose contact information I'd have never even known. That, and it's alot better for people whom you might care a tad about major life events, such as marriages, but aren't at the level where you can send an email or make a phone call every month for updates.
Well, if you read the summary, you'd think they do.
Except they've said they'll credit the accounts of customers who were affected by this (which becomes closer and closer to everybody each day this goes on...). They'll almost undoubtably be losing money because of this, with some customer dissatisfaction on the part of the impatient on top of that.
Not having something explicitly denied you is a negative right, which is completely different than positive rights, i.e., being entitled to something. If you frame the discussion in light of negative rights, then yeah, you should have the right to anything that doesn't infringe on your neighbor's rights. But I'm not talking about that, and I'm not arguing that the government should tell you you can't have food, health care, or anything. What I'm arguing is that regardless of what the UN thinks (as was argued by the fellow to whom I responed), people aren't entitled to health care due to the fact that it requires time and resources. That's because that are limited, and as such, there is no physical way--even if we saw fit--to provide health care to every single person in the world. Simply put, entitlement to health care cannot be a human right because there is no possible way for everybody to have it. It is, for example, physically possible for everybody not to be killed by their neighbor, so that can be, and is, a human right.
Who cares what the UN thinks is a right? That doesn't make it so. The UN can't change the fact that medical care requires both people's time and resources, and as such, is not a right. Having health care is no more a right than having food, money, or a home is a right. You're not entitled to any of it by the mere fact that you exist, and the UN doesn't have the legal or philosophical authority to change that.
The Bush Republicans don't fundamentally believe government is bad and doesn't work. That's one of the most irritating misconceptions regarding the Bush administration. This administration has always enjoyed government intervention (see: No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act, Iraq, et al), and it's really unfair to call them true conservatives.
Just so we don't continue on with this "all Republicans are basically the same" nonsense, there are several factions within the Republican Party, some of which have more power than others:
And then before Goldwater, you had Eisenhower Republicans, which was really an era when the Republican Party was dominated by New Deal and Fair Deal Republicans. In the 60s and 70s, the party was fairly libertarian. In the 80s, under Ronald Reagan, it was fairly libertarian economics with neoconservative foreign policy, and after that, the libertarians were finally supplanted by the unholy alliance between the neoconservatives and religious right, neither of whom is concerned with the size and role of government.
Health care is not a right. It is a commodity.