The term 'rent seeking' is archaic in modern monetary policy. It was from a time when very few people owned property, and therefor could charge someone 95% of their profit for use of land or a building. That is no longer the case. Many people own land. Even if a business owner doesn't own the land/building he uses, he is able to negotiate between many land owners to get a price that allows him to run the business and make a profit, while still putting food on his family's table.
Alternatively, a business owner with a little money built up can finance buying a piece of land, of the thousands of parcels available, with and without buildings.
So, do I have a problem with someone 300 years ago describing their contemporary situation accurately? No, I have no problem with someone doing so.
Do I have a problem with someone now describing their contemporary situation as if it is still the 1700's? Yes, I have a problem with that.
And on the mention of someone describing their contemporary situation as if it was the same as before, Karl Marx had many insightful ways of looking at business, labor, mankind, and society. He also abused that insight by pretending it was still the 1700s, and making up great scenarios that hadn't existed for decades.
I'm going through my copy of "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Karl Marx", as translated by Martin Milligan and published by Prometheus Books in 1988, ISBN 0-87975-446-X. Marx quotes Smith extensively as a basis for the philosophy behind rent, and reasons for higher and lower values of rent.
Marx writes, "The rent of land is established as a result of the struggle between tenant and landlord. We find that the hostile antagonism of interests, the struggle, the war is recognized throughout political economy as the basis of social organization." (p. 55)
I wish I could quote the whole of his essay here, but it is too long to do so, and to complicated for me to abridge. Suffice it to say it is based on "feudal landed property", which hardly exists today, and for a large part was on its way out when he wrote about it.
No, they are rent seeking for the sake of rent seeking. If they wanted innovation they would produce something or seek out someone to produce the thing.
Which is the distinction the Forbes quote makes. Some NPEs license their patents to manufacturers and make money that way. Other NPEs don't license anything, they just sit there for a few years until someone comes up with a similar product on their own, and then sue them for patent infringement.
In other words, the group "patent trolls" is a subset of the group "non-practicing entities". On that basis, I fail to see what your problem really is.
. And please stop with the "rent seeking" crap. Not everything boils down to Karl Marx.
Fine by me. Stop drinking clean water, breathing clean air, taking safe medications, eating safe food, driving on safe roads, living and working in building that adhere to proper safety regulations, and so on and so forth, you fucking hypocrite. Seriously, you leeches need to be rounded up and shipped the fuck out of here.
Yes, because not wanting a company to pollute the air and water is exactly the same as wanting the government to force some third party to pay for my health care, regardless of my desire as to whether they should be forced to do so.
You fucking idiot, my great-great-....-grandparents moved from Europe to avoid shit like this. They "Galt-ed" a couple centuries ago. Now pieces of lazy, greedy shit like you are telling us we have to do so again, because you want something you can't afford.
Fuck you, go back to Europe if you want the government taking care of you your whole life. My ancestors didn't want it, and neither do I.
Don't be such a troll. If the NYT was so liberal and leftie, explain its stenography for the Bush Admin., resulting in two undeclared wars with thousands of dead people in Iraq and Afghanistan financed with cooked off the books loans, and its support for the Bush led but Obama fulfilled idiocies re: the banking system, Guantanamo, and a host of other violations of common decency.
The answer is: They watched two building collapse, killing thousands of people, some of whom they knew.
I live in an apartment complex, with an open parking lot. I wouldn't be able to charge a vehicle overnight, every night. I'm not the only one who lacks that convenience.
I should say that every article in the last month that I've seen mention 'drones' has been about devices I would call 'toy helicopters'. None of them have been about the Predator drones we have carrying missiles in the Middle East.
No, my post is based exactly as you write on your FAILED answer to another person POST.
No, your post is in response to part of a sentence. A sentence that was explained by the following sentence, which you choose to ignore. Bully for you.
You tried to correct him, and you did wrong so.
Again, you failed to read my actual post. I didn't try to correct him, as in his analogy was inherently wrong. I did point out that his analogy is only part of the solution.
If you could point out how I was "factual incorrect in two majour ways" you likely had pointed it out, don't you think so?
First, if you are going to use quotes, use copy-n-paste as well. Second, I likely would not have pointed it out (which I didn't, by the way), because I like to see if people (you or other readers) can come up with scenarios that validate my position on their own. You can't, apparently, and no else chose to bother.
I honestly doubt you can:D
So now I have to slap that smile off your face, with three examples. 1. Liposuction - The removal of extra fat by surgery. Has no bearing on calorie intake, does make a person weigh less. 2. Water - Drink a lot more water, you weigh more until you pee it out. Drink a lot more water and eat salty foods, you will retain it a long time. Go without extra water in a hot region, while eating the same number of calories, you will weigh less. 3. Eating organic material that the human body does not digest - "Calories in" generally includes all calorie counts of the food we eat, including the calories found in high-fiber vegetables, despite the fact we don't use those calories. Also, that fiber traps other pieces of half-digested food, and keeps some of it from being absorbed in the small intestines. Those calorie-laden bits exit the body along with the fiber.
You may say that the argument of "calories in" is limited to what is absorbed in the intestine, but that isn't the focal point of everyone's "2000 calories a day" diet. That measurement is strictly measuring the calorie content of food/drink that a person consumes.
Hhhhmmm, maybe these systems are a bit more complex than you think they are. Maybe there are things that are not initially thought of, that affect the end result in unexpected ways. Maybe the model based on the original scenario has to be modified in complicated ways to account for unforeseen situations. Maybe that sounds familiar. Maybe that is because it was my original post, which you failed to read.
If your post was accurate, and my post was wrong, then why are the climate models not 99% accurate?
You have misread what I said, because you only think skeptics are wrong by default, on any point they make. You prove the worst characterizations that skeptics make about "your side", while trying to do the same about "the other side".
My first statement was that the models are based on a scenario. They are. The scenario is called "Earth".
My second statement was that the models are not accurately corrected. If they were accurately corrected, they would be accurate. So which model accurately predicted the our current temperature level within their 'probable' range?
Of the dozens of models available, which ones from 2009 predicted our temperature today? As opposed to how many of the models simply have the temperature increasing consistently with minor variations of a positive slope?
I thought the US and Canada had calendars with the same denominations. Sure, there's technically an exchange rate, but only businesses along the border really care.
Slashdot Mirror
The answer is: They watched two building collapse, killing thousands of people, some of whom they knew.
Not really an excuse for killing thousands of other people they didn't know.
No offense meant, but what world do you live on? For humans, vengeance and retribution are always excuses for killing people.
That's not even getting into the mistakes and simple-minded statements in Ralph's post.
The term 'rent seeking' is archaic in modern monetary policy. It was from a time when very few people owned property, and therefor could charge someone 95% of their profit for use of land or a building. That is no longer the case. Many people own land. Even if a business owner doesn't own the land/building he uses, he is able to negotiate between many land owners to get a price that allows him to run the business and make a profit, while still putting food on his family's table.
Alternatively, a business owner with a little money built up can finance buying a piece of land, of the thousands of parcels available, with and without buildings.
So, do I have a problem with someone 300 years ago describing their contemporary situation accurately? No, I have no problem with someone doing so.
Do I have a problem with someone now describing their contemporary situation as if it is still the 1700's? Yes, I have a problem with that.
And on the mention of someone describing their contemporary situation as if it was the same as before, Karl Marx had many insightful ways of looking at business, labor, mankind, and society. He also abused that insight by pretending it was still the 1700s, and making up great scenarios that hadn't existed for decades.
I'm going through my copy of "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Karl Marx", as translated by Martin Milligan and published by Prometheus Books in 1988, ISBN 0-87975-446-X. Marx quotes Smith extensively as a basis for the philosophy behind rent, and reasons for higher and lower values of rent.
Marx writes, "The rent of land is established as a result of the struggle between tenant and landlord. We find that the hostile antagonism of interests, the struggle, the war is recognized throughout political economy as the basis of social organization." (p. 55)
I wish I could quote the whole of his essay here, but it is too long to do so, and to complicated for me to abridge. Suffice it to say it is based on "feudal landed property", which hardly exists today, and for a large part was on its way out when he wrote about it.
Please inform us what physical device you have invented in the past, and then shared with the world.
No, they are rent seeking for the sake of rent seeking. If they wanted innovation they would produce something or seek out someone to produce the thing.
Which is the distinction the Forbes quote makes. Some NPEs license their patents to manufacturers and make money that way. Other NPEs don't license anything, they just sit there for a few years until someone comes up with a similar product on their own, and then sue them for patent infringement.
In other words, the group "patent trolls" is a subset of the group "non-practicing entities". On that basis, I fail to see what your problem really is.
.
And please stop with the "rent seeking" crap. Not everything boils down to Karl Marx.
That must be the reason, why the US has a far higher child mortality and lesser epectancy than any Western European country.
I have heard that the biggest reason is we actually count live births as "live births". Many countries don't include babies that die soon after birth.
Can someone confirm or deny that? My google-fu is borken right now.
My ancestors didn't want it, and neither do I.
Fine by me. Stop drinking clean water, breathing clean air, taking safe medications, eating safe food, driving on safe roads, living and working in building that adhere to proper safety regulations, and so on and so forth, you fucking hypocrite. Seriously, you leeches need to be rounded up and shipped the fuck out of here.
Yes, because not wanting a company to pollute the air and water is exactly the same as wanting the government to force some third party to pay for my health care, regardless of my desire as to whether they should be forced to do so.
You fucking idiot.
As if insurance companies do not have red tape. Or death panels, they kill people all the time by denying care.
And that is the basis of why you guys can't figure out the real problem.
Insurance companies don't deny care.
They just don't agree to pay for some of it.
The doctors decide not to offer that specific care since you can't pay for it yourself.
And for that, you blame the insurance company.
You fucking idiot, my great-great-....-grandparents moved from Europe to avoid shit like this. They "Galt-ed" a couple centuries ago. Now pieces of lazy, greedy shit like you are telling us we have to do so again, because you want something you can't afford.
Fuck you, go back to Europe if you want the government taking care of you your whole life. My ancestors didn't want it, and neither do I.
the lucky shareholders of CSC who got 10 billion GBP for nothing.
Sort of like the health insurers in the U.S. who have gotten a multi-million dollar windfall by people being forced to buy something but won't use.
And yet, it will still cause most of them to close within a decade due to huge medical payouts for a small fraction of those people.
That is assuming President Obama doesn't waive the individual mandate for everyone like he did the employee coverage mandate for businesses.
Don't be such a troll. If the NYT was so liberal and leftie, explain its stenography for the Bush Admin., resulting in two undeclared wars with thousands of dead people in Iraq and Afghanistan financed with cooked off the books loans, and its support for the Bush led but Obama fulfilled idiocies re: the banking system, Guantanamo, and a host of other violations of common decency.
The answer is: They watched two building collapse, killing thousands of people, some of whom they knew.
ftfy
Yes they do. They all do, to support whatever side they root for. That's a big reason I don't watch any of them.
Yer not sposed to say that round here. It makes some of the natives angry.
I live in an apartment complex, with an open parking lot. I wouldn't be able to charge a vehicle overnight, every night. I'm not the only one who lacks that convenience.
Actually, he didn't say "gasoline service stations". He may have meant specifically "EV service stations".
Either way, his point of finding the proper place to swap your specific battery stands or falls on its own.
I should say that every article in the last month that I've seen mention 'drones' has been about devices I would call 'toy helicopters'. None of them have been about the Predator drones we have carrying missiles in the Middle East.
Maybe this one is about real drone-style craft.
Sure. What's your noun to define, in general, a remote controlled unmanned vehicle?
Toy helicopter.
Wait for it.
No, my post is based exactly as you write on your FAILED answer to another person POST.
No, your post is in response to part of a sentence. A sentence that was explained by the following sentence, which you choose to ignore. Bully for you.
You tried to correct him, and you did wrong so.
Again, you failed to read my actual post. I didn't try to correct him, as in his analogy was inherently wrong. I did point out that his analogy is only part of the solution.
If you could point out how I was "factual incorrect in two majour ways" you likely had pointed it out, don't you think so?
First, if you are going to use quotes, use copy-n-paste as well. Second, I likely would not have pointed it out (which I didn't, by the way), because I like to see if people (you or other readers) can come up with scenarios that validate my position on their own. You can't, apparently, and no else chose to bother.
I honestly doubt you can :D
So now I have to slap that smile off your face, with three examples.
1. Liposuction - The removal of extra fat by surgery. Has no bearing on calorie intake, does make a person weigh less.
2. Water - Drink a lot more water, you weigh more until you pee it out. Drink a lot more water and eat salty foods, you will retain it a long time. Go without extra water in a hot region, while eating the same number of calories, you will weigh less.
3. Eating organic material that the human body does not digest - "Calories in" generally includes all calorie counts of the food we eat, including the calories found in high-fiber vegetables, despite the fact we don't use those calories. Also, that fiber traps other pieces of half-digested food, and keeps some of it from being absorbed in the small intestines. Those calorie-laden bits exit the body along with the fiber.
You may say that the argument of "calories in" is limited to what is absorbed in the intestine, but that isn't the focal point of everyone's "2000 calories a day" diet. That measurement is strictly measuring the calorie content of food/drink that a person consumes.
Hhhhmmm, maybe these systems are a bit more complex than you think they are. Maybe there are things that are not initially thought of, that affect the end result in unexpected ways. Maybe the model based on the original scenario has to be modified in complicated ways to account for unforeseen situations. Maybe that sounds familiar. Maybe that is because it was my original post, which you failed to read.
Honestly, if the dogs are that good, I would limit them to only 5 per team.
I'm just writing to let you know I modded you up +1 Insightful.
First, you completely failed to read my post. Your response is based on 2/3 of a sentence that is responding to another person's analogy.
Second, you are factually incorrect in at least two major ways.
Have a nice day.
If your post was accurate, and my post was wrong, then why are the climate models not 99% accurate?
You have misread what I said, because you only think skeptics are wrong by default, on any point they make. You prove the worst characterizations that skeptics make about "your side", while trying to do the same about "the other side".
My first statement was that the models are based on a scenario. They are. The scenario is called "Earth".
My second statement was that the models are not accurately corrected. If they were accurately corrected, they would be accurate. So which model accurately predicted the our current temperature level within their 'probable' range?
Of the dozens of models available, which ones from 2009 predicted our temperature today? As opposed to how many of the models simply have the temperature increasing consistently with minor variations of a positive slope?
Wait, what?
I thought the US and Canada had calendars with the same denominations. Sure, there's technically an exchange rate, but only businesses along the border really care.
Did you not have a dictionary before 1986?
I look forward to the calm, rational, and coherent discussion!
640K ought to be enough for anybody!
Hey, when you take the initiative to invent the internets, you can make that claim. Not until. ;^)