The reason so many people are drawing Unemployment benefits and/or Welfare is because the minimum wage is so low it doesn't justify the increased expenses on the worker.
- no, the real reason why so many people are drawing unemployment and welfare is because those opportunities exist and it's because the highest tax bracket is going from welfare or EI to being employed again.
All of a sudden your taxes go up from 0 to something, anything, and it has to be a really really great opportunity for somebody to forego the freedom of not having to work and just get a check in mail, even if it is a small check.
But think about this: If you are on EI or welfare, you don't have to get up in the morning and go to work. You don't have to drive anywhere, you don't have to dress up, you don't have to leave the house. All of a sudden you are not in a paid vacation anymore. You have to pay taxes, you have to go to work and do something, you have to be there on time and you can't just leave whenever you feel like it. You will have various expenses, transit or gas and car payments, car insurance, maintenance, you have to dress up. You can't just go to a park in the middle of the day and spend 5 hours there, you can't go to the beach.
OTOH you can work under table and make your welfare or EI and also have extra income, and again, you are not paying taxes on any of it.
Oh, what about free medical care for those, who are on welfare or EI? They have medical care, don't they? All of a sudden they may have WORSE medical care, they may have worse type of insurance coverage.
No no, for somebody to get off welfare or EI it takes not a minimum wage, it takes many times that, maybe 4 times the minimum wage for it to make sense. That's how fucked up the system is - all this government interference causes all the prices to be so high, while providing the moral hazard of welfare state and setting wage and price controls (minimum wage, prices on medical procedures, etc.), and all that this does is that it causes prices to be much higher both in nominal terms (dollar amounts) and in real terms (real money, quality, opportunity, etc.)
No, government isn't doing anybody any favours in this, except it gets the opportunity to sell this idea of socialism to the dumbest segment of population - the voters who want this free cheese and the poverty mousetrap that comes with it.
Contrast that with a recent graduate, an unskilled worker, an older worker with more limited job options.
- so what? I was an unskilled worker once upon the time, sometimes making below minimum wage, sometimes making minimum wage, I believe I spent about 2 years having those types of jobs. I don't see how that hurt me in any way, I didn't have the skills, I didn't have the capital, I probably couldn't have been more useful to anybody else at higher wages anyway. I WAS HAPPY that I could get jobs at all at some point in my life, what is your point? Everybody is born without skills, we don't know how to wipe our asses even when we are born, we can't even hold our heads straight on our own, does it mean we are useful right away and should be able to command a salary that allows us to have a minimum living standard of some sort?
Says who?
People have intrinsic value in that they can learn to be useful to others in some way, but nobody owes them anything (maybe their parents owe them something, but even that is questionable). Nobody owes us a living wage, nobody owes us a job that would satisfy our interests, etc.
We are born into this world absolutely naked and completely useless. It's up to the parents to figure out how to turn us into something useful, and the parents have (or used to have) a motivation for that as well - people used to HELP their parents, because it was customary, but it was not a government law.
People took care of their children and children took care of their parents. In the current society for some reason the care for other people's children is distributed among the tax payers, and this is total bullshit nonsense. It only makes sense for orphans, and even THEN it shouldn't be a law, that somebody must sacrifice to help others, it must be purely up to people's charity.
Those who receive charity shouldn't be abstracted away from those who pay, because then this charity becomes a fucking entitlement system.
You feel that if you are born - the system owes you something? No it does not. You are living on charity if the system is taking care of you, but you don't even know it, you think you are entitled to other people's money, which means you think other people should give up their productivity, their time, the time of their lives, their work, their effort and this is done by the threat of government violence,
Taxes are paid only because there is a violent outcome against those, who refuse to pay. This is a threat of violence, and this is no charity.
It's not 'making a living wage' when I am not getting paid, this is purely an investment, I could as well have taken the same money that I saved and put it into some other use. This is my risk - doing this type of work, and there is opportunity cost - I could have continued contracting for these few years instead of building my own systems.
Again, according to the GP (rtb61) this shouldn't be done, because, in his words:
What is the point of working if you are not earning a living wage, seriously, why?
In my case I did save money and that's my investment, in other cases people can save money, borrow money from others as an investment.
They can ALSO take a job that DOES NOT PAY WELL, because they are investing their TIME in order to gain experience that will help them to be more productive later, when they will have more experience and be able to make more money. It is the same thing - sacrificing something hoping for some useful outcome.
Seriously? How many people should go to work and spend 4 years working with low pay and gain work experience but be free of government debt while getting more valuable as a worker over these 4 years instead of taking yet another sociology course with borrowed money?
By the way, are you a proponent of minimum wage? Because if your question: "if you are not earning a living wage, seriously, why?" is truly a question, then the answer is obvious: people want to get experience, learn something on a job and eventually move on to better paying positions.
Now can you answer this question for me: I have been working for myself for a few years, not paying myself any salary while building my software, according to your theory I shouldn't be doing it, right? I mean as a contractor I was making 15-22K per month, so I should have just kept doing it and instead I quit contracting and used the savings to build my own capital (capital, as in means of production), so what do you say to all the people who just do things without getting paid? Inventors, investors, writers, composers, musicians, etc? So what about people who work not even for a paycheck, but hoping/betting that their investment will pay off at some point? They can lose, it's easy to lose on an investment, it's easy to fail in business.
he can't really be blamed for their insane increase,
- wrong. The trend in the oil prices is to go up, but it's not the oil that is getting more expensive, the opposite is true. Oil is getting cheaper, there is more supply than ever and the demand is lowest in 11 years.
It's not the prices for oil that are going up, it's the currency that is being destroyed, devalued by printing, and this is directly related to the policy of the government to spend money and monetise the debts with loans and via central bank 'credit' (money printing).
The blame for the rising prices of EVERYTHING is squarely on the shoulders of the governments that are destroying the fiat currencies, and USA is the primary mover there, because it doesn't produce anything but it likes to buy stuff that others produce (thus the huge monthly trade deficit), so USA prints, and then everybody else prints to 'catch up'.
This is inflation, not oil supply/demand curve, and it's not speculation. Speculation discovers the prices, and now speculation is moving prices lower, speculation is a bet that in the future there will be more people with more money to buy the stuff or fewer people with less money to buy it, that's all speculation does.
A home owner has the right not to have his house confiscated by GOVERNMENT, as to 'right not to have his house burned' for whatever reason, yes, that's a right as long as it is a government that doesn't burn the house.
When the house is burnt by some individuals and not a government, then it's between that home owner and those individuals.
While the right to bear arms is again, a protection against government taking away your weapons, the situation when a person shoots something and causes property damage cannot be considered a right violation, it's property damage and this CAN be taken to civil court and the homeowner can sue the shooter and if he can prove that the shooter caused the house to be burnt, then it's up to the judicial system to set proper level of compensation.
The shooter should understand that he can be required to pay for the damages, of-course he better have some form of liability insurance or assets that he can sell to compensate the plaintiff.
Moron, learn what fascism is, it's what USA has today: government supporting and maintaining certain monopolies in exchange for huge corporate taxes and contributions, while running with a socialist agenda and warmongering, shit-head.
Freedom and Democracy are incompatible with each other, that's why USA was most free when it was a democratic representative republic, but not a 'democracy', so there were limits on who could vote and this was the right thing to do (but I do take exception to the fact that Constitution was ratified with slave language in it, I wouldn't have ratified it like that).
In a democracy people eventually vote all of their freedoms away in exchange for perceived security and perceived economic stability.
You people don't understand money at all, it's not about any specific price, it's about the spread between all costs and the sales price. That's all there is. If the components, elements, labour costs are falling, then the price of the final product is falling.
It's not like any of these companies are operating at a loss, they are making money, but they are exactly what happens in free market - there are many competitors, they are really improving the quality of the product and finding ways to sell it at a lower price, but they are MAKING money, not losing it, that's because they find ways to bring down the cost of ALL components (including labour and taxes obviously), and it's all good for the people who are buying these products, they are the winners in this.
That's the problem with the governments and the belief system that it's all about jobs.
It's NOT all about jobs, we do NOT want jobs, we want the final product. Gov't causes prices to go up because of price fixing, rules like the minimum wage, destruction of competition, inflation.
The funny but also sad and stupid thing is that people have been led to believe that gov't somehow lowers the prices and creates more competition. Nothing can be further from the truth. The famous and completely wrong example is Standard Oil, it's famous, because it's almost the only example anybody has been taught at school, and it's wrong, because it's a great COUNTER example to this stupid idea. Standard Oil had over 150 competitors by 1911, it also became a large player from only having 4% of the market in 1969, but the way it did it is by increasing efficiencies.
Just like these hardware companies are lowering the sale prices, Standard Oil dropped the prices over their entire existence, from 30 cents per gallon of refined oil to 5.9 cents per gallon by 1899.
The gov't broke the economy of scale and allowed a bunch of losers to enter the market to 'compete', but in reality all it achieved was the prices for oil stopped falling. Gov't shouldn't be in business helping certain businesses against others, all while causing prices to go up.
From late 17 hundreds to 1913, prices in USA have been falling for consumer products, while quality, quantity, innovation, infrastructure, credit worthiness, standard of living and savings have been rising. ALL of this was achieved without gov't regulations, without income taxes, without the Fed and IRS.
The times when USA had busts in 19th century was when gov't did get involved, like with the printing of the Continental currency. Soon enough they'll be saying 'not worth a Federal'.
In any case, here is the point: nobody is losing money on selling all this hardware. These are not banks or car companies or houses, they are not propped up by the gov't, if they lose money, they'll go out of business.
They are making money on spreads, they push their costs down, that's how they compete - by providing more and more of their product to more and more population. That's why everybody has a cell phone today.
RIM isn't going out of business because of their prices. They are going out of business because of their inability to understand the market.
US citizens must judge the law in every case where it involves any level of government against any individual, and they must find the law to be unjust and they must nullify it.
'jew' only to a degree that I had a Jewish grandmother, sure, Russian? To a degree that I was born in the former USSR and speak the language.
By the way, your comment, it shows insane amount of ignorance. First of all Russia has a naval base in Syria, so for USA to attack Syria is a similar situation to Russia attacking Mexico.
Secondly, it is retarded to believe that Israel will be a winner in this situation, unless you are asleep, you should have noticed that USA is bankrupt, which means USA cannot actually conduct another world war, and it wants a world war. Attacking Syria may eventually get Iran and Russia involved in this, and if that happens, then watch China and Pakistan and eventually Europe get into the conflict. Is Israel going to survive something like that, given that America's economy is hanging by whatever charity that China is still providing? I doubt it.
If a capitalist has a choice between spending X amount of resources to preserve his profits via rent-seeking mechanisms such as the DMCA or onerous patent litigation and 2X to preserve his profits via developing more efficient products rational actor theory, and human nature, says that rent-seeking is going to win every time.
- I am a person who agrees with Rand and I admire Ron Paul for being the most consistent and principled politician that the world has seen in decades.
At the same time I don't disagree with your main assertion.
Your main assertion is that for some reason a person who prefers capitalism and free markets would negate the fact that people act upon their own best interests.
But that's the entire premise of the free market idea - people are always looking for their own self interests first of all, and by looking for their own self interests in a free market system they will inadvertently increase economic prosperity, because they have to satisfy their customers.
But notice that this requires actual FREE market, and that means - market free FROM government interfering.
Once the government interferes, then the way to maximise your own profits maybe by using this interference mechanism, and in case of DMCA it is GOVERNMENT that is standing behind the law.
The law NEGATES free market, and thus the market is not free, but this is not about ideology, this is always about common sense, and in case of progressives and liberals common sense is absolutely uncommon, it's just not there.
Once government creates a law, that states that a person or a business has limited liability and has certain monopoly rights over whatever (like distribution of their copyrighted materials), that will be what the private interests will pursue to maximise their profits.
How does this negate the principle of maximising one's own profit? You are espousing nonsense, you see, you think that people who are pro-free market think that businessmen will act 'morally' in a free market (whatever the value of 'moral' is for you), but that is ALWAYS wrong, it's the exact wrong idea.
Individuals (businesses) want to maximise their profits, and that is the concept behind the free market - we do not want the most profits to be guaranteed by some form of government action, some form of government interference.
Once the government grants a monopoly to a person, a business and once the government stands behind that monopoly, then it is logical that the most profitable action for that person to take is to use that unnatural power that is granted to him and maximise his profits through that unnatural power.
Free market literally means market free of government meddling..
Capitalism is private ownership of capital, it's based on the rule of law and freedom to posses private property, life and liberty.
You have to have the right to life, liberty and property to have capitalism. To have Free market you have to have capitalism AND the government must not interfere with the individuals and businesses, the government must protect the rights of people to live, to be free and to posses property, but the government must not provide any unnatural powers to individuals, to businesses.
Copyright is an UNNATURAL power, patent is an unnatural power, that stuff requires government interference.
Limited liability granted to corporations is unnatural power, why should management and the owner be shielded from liability claims? Well, that's what government does - creates moral hazards. That's how BP executives and management do not care about spilling oil, because they had all these licenses and all these liability limitations (75 million per spill).
In fact that's how government creates environmental disasters - limits liability, removes competition, uses 'public property' to give unnatural rights to certain interests to do business there without actually bearing the real costs.
Private property is paramount, there shouldn't be pub
99 cloud applications from Oracle, 99 cloud applications. Take one down and pass it around, 98 cloud applications from Oracle...... (for X=X-1 cloud applications while X>-1)
No more cloud applications from Oracle, no cloud applications. Go to the store and buy some more, 99 cloud applications from Oracle.
--
By the way, I hate Oracle. I don't like any large software firm for that matter, but Oracle is especially nauseating.
Of-course, China has much freer market than almost anybody else on the planet, all the businesses that are there, all the people, who moved their investment capital there, all the companies that produce there, you think they are there because China is communist? China is a communist like I am a ballerina.
Also, China to USA is what Germany is to Greece, except Greece cannot print money and USA can, but the rest of the relationship is the same, USA needs China much more than China needs USA.Here is one of debates on this, the people in the audience don't understand it and don't want to hear about it (no surprise, so many are Chinese expatriates)
Slashdot Mirror
The reason so many people are drawing Unemployment benefits and/or Welfare is because the minimum wage is so low it doesn't justify the increased expenses on the worker.
- no, the real reason why so many people are drawing unemployment and welfare is because those opportunities exist and it's because the highest tax bracket is going from welfare or EI to being employed again.
All of a sudden your taxes go up from 0 to something, anything, and it has to be a really really great opportunity for somebody to forego the freedom of not having to work and just get a check in mail, even if it is a small check.
But think about this: If you are on EI or welfare, you don't have to get up in the morning and go to work. You don't have to drive anywhere, you don't have to dress up, you don't have to leave the house. All of a sudden you are not in a paid vacation anymore. You have to pay taxes, you have to go to work and do something, you have to be there on time and you can't just leave whenever you feel like it. You will have various expenses, transit or gas and car payments, car insurance, maintenance, you have to dress up. You can't just go to a park in the middle of the day and spend 5 hours there, you can't go to the beach.
OTOH you can work under table and make your welfare or EI and also have extra income, and again, you are not paying taxes on any of it.
Oh, what about free medical care for those, who are on welfare or EI? They have medical care, don't they? All of a sudden they may have WORSE medical care, they may have worse type of insurance coverage.
No no, for somebody to get off welfare or EI it takes not a minimum wage, it takes many times that, maybe 4 times the minimum wage for it to make sense. That's how fucked up the system is - all this government interference causes all the prices to be so high, while providing the moral hazard of welfare state and setting wage and price controls (minimum wage, prices on medical procedures, etc.), and all that this does is that it causes prices to be much higher both in nominal terms (dollar amounts) and in real terms (real money, quality, opportunity, etc.)
No, government isn't doing anybody any favours in this, except it gets the opportunity to sell this idea of socialism to the dumbest segment of population - the voters who want this free cheese and the poverty mousetrap that comes with it.
Contrast that with a recent graduate, an unskilled worker, an older worker with more limited job options.
- so what? I was an unskilled worker once upon the time, sometimes making below minimum wage, sometimes making minimum wage, I believe I spent about 2 years having those types of jobs. I don't see how that hurt me in any way, I didn't have the skills, I didn't have the capital, I probably couldn't have been more useful to anybody else at higher wages anyway. I WAS HAPPY that I could get jobs at all at some point in my life, what is your point? Everybody is born without skills, we don't know how to wipe our asses even when we are born, we can't even hold our heads straight on our own, does it mean we are useful right away and should be able to command a salary that allows us to have a minimum living standard of some sort?
Says who?
People have intrinsic value in that they can learn to be useful to others in some way, but nobody owes them anything (maybe their parents owe them something, but even that is questionable). Nobody owes us a living wage, nobody owes us a job that would satisfy our interests, etc.
We are born into this world absolutely naked and completely useless. It's up to the parents to figure out how to turn us into something useful, and the parents have (or used to have) a motivation for that as well - people used to HELP their parents, because it was customary, but it was not a government law.
People took care of their children and children took care of their parents. In the current society for some reason the care for other people's children is distributed among the tax payers, and this is total bullshit nonsense. It only makes sense for orphans, and even THEN it shouldn't be a law, that somebody must sacrifice to help others, it must be purely up to people's charity.
Those who receive charity shouldn't be abstracted away from those who pay, because then this charity becomes a fucking entitlement system.
You feel that if you are born - the system owes you something? No it does not. You are living on charity if the system is taking care of you, but you don't even know it, you think you are entitled to other people's money, which means you think other people should give up their productivity, their time, the time of their lives, their work, their effort and this is done by the threat of government violence,
Taxes are paid only because there is a violent outcome against those, who refuse to pay. This is a threat of violence, and this is no charity.
It's not 'making a living wage' when I am not getting paid, this is purely an investment, I could as well have taken the same money that I saved and put it into some other use. This is my risk - doing this type of work, and there is opportunity cost - I could have continued contracting for these few years instead of building my own systems.
Again, according to the GP (rtb61) this shouldn't be done, because, in his words:
What is the point of working if you are not earning a living wage, seriously, why?
In my case I did save money and that's my investment, in other cases people can save money, borrow money from others as an investment.
They can ALSO take a job that DOES NOT PAY WELL, because they are investing their TIME in order to gain experience that will help them to be more productive later, when they will have more experience and be able to make more money. It is the same thing - sacrificing something hoping for some useful outcome.
curbs. curbs on how much power and wealth you can amass.
- what you means is "curbs. curbs on how much a person can produce".
I don't know if stupid stuff like this qualifies as science, but it does little to the sexiness argument.
Seriously? How many people should go to work and spend 4 years working with low pay and gain work experience but be free of government debt while getting more valuable as a worker over these 4 years instead of taking yet another sociology course with borrowed money?
By the way, are you a proponent of minimum wage? Because if your question: "if you are not earning a living wage, seriously, why?" is truly a question, then the answer is obvious: people want to get experience, learn something on a job and eventually move on to better paying positions.
Now can you answer this question for me: I have been working for myself for a few years, not paying myself any salary while building my software, according to your theory I shouldn't be doing it, right? I mean as a contractor I was making 15-22K per month, so I should have just kept doing it and instead I quit contracting and used the savings to build my own capital (capital, as in means of production), so what do you say to all the people who just do things without getting paid? Inventors, investors, writers, composers, musicians, etc? So what about people who work not even for a paycheck, but hoping/betting that their investment will pay off at some point? They can lose, it's easy to lose on an investment, it's easy to fail in business.
he can't really be blamed for their insane increase,
- wrong. The trend in the oil prices is to go up, but it's not the oil that is getting more expensive, the opposite is true. Oil is getting cheaper, there is more supply than ever and the demand is lowest in 11 years.
It's not the prices for oil that are going up, it's the currency that is being destroyed, devalued by printing, and this is directly related to the policy of the government to spend money and monetise the debts with loans and via central bank 'credit' (money printing).
The blame for the rising prices of EVERYTHING is squarely on the shoulders of the governments that are destroying the fiat currencies, and USA is the primary mover there, because it doesn't produce anything but it likes to buy stuff that others produce (thus the huge monthly trade deficit), so USA prints, and then everybody else prints to 'catch up'.
This is inflation, not oil supply/demand curve, and it's not speculation. Speculation discovers the prices, and now speculation is moving prices lower, speculation is a bet that in the future there will be more people with more money to buy the stuff or fewer people with less money to buy it, that's all speculation does.
Inflation is the trend setter.
You seem to care more about NVIDIA's image than about what the Linux community actually needs.
- duh! Is the "Linux community" going to PAY the company for their efforts?
A home owner has the right not to have his house confiscated by GOVERNMENT, as to 'right not to have his house burned' for whatever reason, yes, that's a right as long as it is a government that doesn't burn the house.
When the house is burnt by some individuals and not a government, then it's between that home owner and those individuals.
While the right to bear arms is again, a protection against government taking away your weapons, the situation when a person shoots something and causes property damage cannot be considered a right violation, it's property damage and this CAN be taken to civil court and the homeowner can sue the shooter and if he can prove that the shooter caused the house to be burnt, then it's up to the judicial system to set proper level of compensation.
The shooter should understand that he can be required to pay for the damages, of-course he better have some form of liability insurance or assets that he can sell to compensate the plaintiff.
Moron, learn what fascism is, it's what USA has today: government supporting and maintaining certain monopolies in exchange for huge corporate taxes and contributions, while running with a socialist agenda and warmongering, shit-head.
Do you want to work on a distributed retail chain management system? If yes, drop me a line.
Freedom and Democracy are incompatible with each other, that's why USA was most free when it was a democratic representative republic, but not a 'democracy', so there were limits on who could vote and this was the right thing to do (but I do take exception to the fact that Constitution was ratified with slave language in it, I wouldn't have ratified it like that).
In a democracy people eventually vote all of their freedoms away in exchange for perceived security and perceived economic stability.
You people don't understand money at all, it's not about any specific price, it's about the spread between all costs and the sales price. That's all there is. If the components, elements, labour costs are falling, then the price of the final product is falling.
It's not like any of these companies are operating at a loss, they are making money, but they are exactly what happens in free market - there are many competitors, they are really improving the quality of the product and finding ways to sell it at a lower price, but they are MAKING money, not losing it, that's because they find ways to bring down the cost of ALL components (including labour and taxes obviously), and it's all good for the people who are buying these products, they are the winners in this.
That's the problem with the governments and the belief system that it's all about jobs.
It's NOT all about jobs, we do NOT want jobs, we want the final product. Gov't causes prices to go up because of price fixing, rules like the minimum wage, destruction of competition, inflation.
The funny but also sad and stupid thing is that people have been led to believe that gov't somehow lowers the prices and creates more competition. Nothing can be further from the truth. The famous and completely wrong example is Standard Oil, it's famous, because it's almost the only example anybody has been taught at school, and it's wrong, because it's a great COUNTER example to this stupid idea. Standard Oil had over 150 competitors by 1911, it also became a large player from only having 4% of the market in 1969, but the way it did it is by increasing efficiencies.
Just like these hardware companies are lowering the sale prices, Standard Oil dropped the prices over their entire existence, from 30 cents per gallon of refined oil to 5.9 cents per gallon by 1899.
The gov't broke the economy of scale and allowed a bunch of losers to enter the market to 'compete', but in reality all it achieved was the prices for oil stopped falling. Gov't shouldn't be in business helping certain businesses against others, all while causing prices to go up.
From late 17 hundreds to 1913, prices in USA have been falling for consumer products, while quality, quantity, innovation, infrastructure, credit worthiness, standard of living and savings have been rising. ALL of this was achieved without gov't regulations, without income taxes, without the Fed and IRS.
The times when USA had busts in 19th century was when gov't did get involved, like with the printing of the Continental currency. Soon enough they'll be saying 'not worth a Federal'.
In any case, here is the point: nobody is losing money on selling all this hardware. These are not banks or car companies or houses, they are not propped up by the gov't, if they lose money, they'll go out of business.
They are making money on spreads, they push their costs down, that's how they compete - by providing more and more of their product to more and more population. That's why everybody has a cell phone today.
RIM isn't going out of business because of their prices. They are going out of business because of their inability to understand the market.
Not so.
US citizens must judge the law in every case where it involves any level of government against any individual, and they must find the law to be unjust and they must nullify it.
It is some form of a trap, it may even be a trap with rounded corners. Don't say I didn't warn you.
'jew' only to a degree that I had a Jewish grandmother, sure, Russian? To a degree that I was born in the former USSR and speak the language.
By the way, your comment, it shows insane amount of ignorance. First of all Russia has a naval base in Syria, so for USA to attack Syria is a similar situation to Russia attacking Mexico.
Secondly, it is retarded to believe that Israel will be a winner in this situation, unless you are asleep, you should have noticed that USA is bankrupt, which means USA cannot actually conduct another world war, and it wants a world war. Attacking Syria may eventually get Iran and Russia involved in this, and if that happens, then watch China and Pakistan and eventually Europe get into the conflict. Is Israel going to survive something like that, given that America's economy is hanging by whatever charity that China is still providing? I doubt it.
By the way, with all this hate towards Ron Paul, who else in government is trying to enforce the Constitution and prevent yet another undeclared war, this time with Syria, that can become a much bigger war involving Iran, Russia and possibly China and India (never mind the rest of the Middle East) and then Europe?
All this nonsense is going on in Congress, while Ron Paul is introducing yet another bill to enforce the Constitution, and prevent the government from going into war without a declaration of war with Syria.
Should have previewed the comment,
At the same time I don't disagree with your main assertion.
- this must read "At the same time I disagree with your main assertion."
If a capitalist has a choice between spending X amount of resources to preserve his profits via rent-seeking mechanisms such as the DMCA or onerous patent litigation and 2X to preserve his profits via developing more efficient products rational actor theory, and human nature, says that rent-seeking is going to win every time.
- I am a person who agrees with Rand and I admire Ron Paul for being the most consistent and principled politician that the world has seen in decades.
At the same time I don't disagree with your main assertion.
Your main assertion is that for some reason a person who prefers capitalism and free markets would negate the fact that people act upon their own best interests.
But that's the entire premise of the free market idea - people are always looking for their own self interests first of all, and by looking for their own self interests in a free market system they will inadvertently increase economic prosperity, because they have to satisfy their customers.
But notice that this requires actual FREE market, and that means - market free FROM government interfering.
Once the government interferes, then the way to maximise your own profits maybe by using this interference mechanism, and in case of DMCA it is GOVERNMENT that is standing behind the law.
The law NEGATES free market, and thus the market is not free, but this is not about ideology, this is always about common sense, and in case of progressives and liberals common sense is absolutely uncommon, it's just not there.
Once government creates a law, that states that a person or a business has limited liability and has certain monopoly rights over whatever (like distribution of their copyrighted materials), that will be what the private interests will pursue to maximise their profits.
How does this negate the principle of maximising one's own profit? You are espousing nonsense, you see, you think that people who are pro-free market think that businessmen will act 'morally' in a free market (whatever the value of 'moral' is for you), but that is ALWAYS wrong, it's the exact wrong idea.
Individuals (businesses) want to maximise their profits, and that is the concept behind the free market - we do not want the most profits to be guaranteed by some form of government action, some form of government interference.
Once the government grants a monopoly to a person, a business and once the government stands behind that monopoly, then it is logical that the most profitable action for that person to take is to use that unnatural power that is granted to him and maximise his profits through that unnatural power.
Free market literally means market free of government meddling..
Capitalism is private ownership of capital, it's based on the rule of law and freedom to posses private property, life and liberty.
You have to have the right to life, liberty and property to have capitalism. To have Free market you have to have capitalism AND the government must not interfere with the individuals and businesses, the government must protect the rights of people to live, to be free and to posses property, but the government must not provide any unnatural powers to individuals, to businesses.
Copyright is an UNNATURAL power, patent is an unnatural power, that stuff requires government interference.
Limited liability granted to corporations is unnatural power, why should management and the owner be shielded from liability claims? Well, that's what government does - creates moral hazards. That's how BP executives and management do not care about spilling oil, because they had all these licenses and all these liability limitations (75 million per spill).
In fact that's how government creates environmental disasters - limits liability, removes competition, uses 'public property' to give unnatural rights to certain interests to do business there without actually bearing the real costs.
Private property is paramount, there shouldn't be pub
99 cloud applications from Oracle, 99 cloud applications. ..... (for X=X-1 cloud applications while X>-1)
Take one down and pass it around, 98 cloud applications from Oracle.
No more cloud applications from Oracle, no cloud applications.
Go to the store and buy some more, 99 cloud applications from Oracle.
--
By the way, I hate Oracle. I don't like any large software firm for that matter, but Oracle is especially nauseating.
You forgot to check 'post as anonymous' box in your first comment.
Of-course, China has much freer market than almost anybody else on the planet, all the businesses that are there, all the people, who moved their investment capital there, all the companies that produce there, you think they are there because China is communist? China is a communist like I am a ballerina.
Also, China to USA is what Germany is to Greece, except Greece cannot print money and USA can, but the rest of the relationship is the same, USA needs China much more than China needs USA. Here is one of debates on this, the people in the audience don't understand it and don't want to hear about it (no surprise, so many are Chinese expatriates)
Well, from raising a 30 story building in 360 hours to erecting an 830 meter tower in 90 days... why not? Sure they can do it, that's what happens in free markets - innovation and competition.
again, nonsense. USA and Japan are the worst offenders in terms of money printing, then it's China.