The National Security argument is moot, since it was US government that created the problem of oil dependence in the first place, by subsidizing auto-makers via the highway building project.
Also it is safer to drive a bigger vehicle, but there is a subset of market that wants that safety, not everybody wants to drive a tank. However if I want a tank, I am going to get a tank regardless of the regulations. The only thing that these regulations will do to me if I want a tank, they will make it more expensive to own one, but they won't stop me from owning one, but the economy will suffer again, because there was no reason to make this more expensive to buy a bigger car, which always creates inefficiency in the market, by mis-allocating resources to something that shouldn't cost as much as it costs with government intervention.
So how often is this practice of releasing knowingly faulty software and not notifying the users is used to release other Oracle products, such as their database, weblogic, etc.etc?
If there was a market for vials of mercury that people wanted to dump into waterways, would you support that?
- those are 2 separate questions.
1. If there was a market for vials of mercury, then the people should be able buy those vials of mercury.
2. If somebody decided to dump the mercury into waterways, then it would be a separate issue. The waterways should all be private property, and anybody affected by the actions of dumping the mercury there would have to take those people to court to seek damages.
If you are correct that there is no market for the gas guzzlers, than what the hell with the regulations forcing something, when in fact there is no point in them, if there is no demand for gas guzzlers?
But that's just not the case. In fact the government in US caused a massive increase of gas guzzler purchases, because it was subsidizing them with special tax incentives.
Either there is market for large vehicles or there isn't. If there isn't, there is no need for the legislation. If there is, then the gov't is getting in the way of the choices people make in the market, and thus causing more imbalance in the market.
They did not HAVE to bail out the failed companies, including the car manufacturers. The fact that they failed was enough of the proof that those companies did not need to exist. Those companies failed because they were engaged in BANKING that's my point. They were doing the same thing that mortgage lenders were doing, but GM was doing it with car loans. Beside that they had unsurmountable issues with their pension obligations.
My point is that gov't is going to cause more economic problems with its policies yet again. They should never have bailed out any company, any bank, they should never have regulated any business or taxed any income or subsidized anybody, business or person. But we are where we are, and it is what it is, and I am not sure I'll be able to post here again, it's all moded into oblivion, so I am probably on the so called 'daily limit' of 25 comments on my account and I don't post as AC.
You say that the government is punishing automakers that make large cars and got into significant financial trouble because they lost their market
- not Ford, the car company that didn't get into financial trouble, wasn't bailed out and is producing cars people actually want to buy.
then you say that the market wants large cars. Then you say that foreign car makers will clean our clocks because they already make lots of small cars...
- Obviously. What is NOT obvious to you?
The public obviously wants to buy large vehicles. The foreign manufacturers obviously have the leg up. The government is going to punish the domestic manufacturers for selling what the public wants, but the regulation would prevent the foreign manufacturers from importing large vehicles as well. Obviously the domestic manufacturers will not be able to compete without huge subsidies from the government, because they don't produce the cars that are mandated.
The MANDATE will force the domestic manufacturers to start producing some smaller cars, but they won't be able to compete with companies who already make those cars, they have production lines, they are in business of making smaller cars. What's not clear?
Mandates will force the domestic manufacturers to produce smaller cars, a niche, that foreign manufacturers have covered. Good luck competing there.
You also don't pay the price to send troops to Irag to get the gasoline
- yeah, isn't that something? The government subsidizes the auto-industry and destroys other transport industries with the public works by building the highway system that robs people of their freedoms, by giving the federal gov't unlimited power. Gov't puts the country on a collision course with the eventuality of peak oil production, creates a situation with impossible to maintain without subsidies infrastructure. Causes massive pollution in the process, by shifting the national transportation strategy towards personal vehicles, and NOW all of a sudden the government is a White Knight in Shiny Armor that is galloping to save you with all the new regulations, that will hurt the market further.
Also, you can't win by not hiring those people since not hiring them also opens you to exactly the same possibilities of lawsuits as hiring them.
- no, hiring people from the protected groups is much more dangerous than not hiring them, because after all, resumes do have names on them, don't they?
Unless there is a systematic biad throughout the system, you know like hoe collusion and price fixing messes up free markets?
- unlike the centrally planned economies that USSR and USA are involved in, price collusion is not a problem on the market, which even the oil cartels is proving to be true. Cartels don't work, because it doesn't make sense to artificially limit your sales to satisfy the quotas established by the cartel.
No it is not. You seem to believe that everyone else is like you and pursues the rational choice. Most people simply aren't like that. You are again falling into the same trap that sunk communism as a system: people are crap.
- in the growing society, that is constantly moving towards more competitive markets this is just not an option to remain a bigot, at least not from POV of business.
How amazingly stupid it is, that the government on one hand subsidizes the auto-industry with the roads and even bailing out the bank that GM was (you didn't think they were a car manufacturer, did you?) and now they are setting quotas on mileage, completely disregarding the market that exists for large cars. Yeah, large cars. Cars that are big. Cars that are huge. Cars that people want.
If people want small cars, cars that consume less fuel, they always could buy those smaller vehicles. But this regulation would actually punish the automakers for making and selling cars that their MARKET wants from them. So if their market wants to buy large cars that take more gas, the auto-makers will be punished for this! Great stuff. Wonderful. Why not, punish the producer, as always, punish the employer for employing people, for producing products that people want.
Unless there will be massive subsidies and massive excise taxes, the European and Asian auto-makers will come out on top of this, they already produce huge numbers of small vehicles. But this is just retarded, and I am sure there will be plenty of apologists for yet another way the government is taking over your lives here and destroying the market in the process.
I don't think about hiring in terms of 'good or bad' for anybody, except for myself. Does it make sense to hire somebody if that person has better qualifications or does it make sense to hire somebody else, who has worse qualifications, but who I, for example, could find more likable to myself, or somebody who, for example has the same religious views (I am an atheist.)
Of-course it makes sense to hire somebody who will make me more money. If a business decides to hire people not based on their competitive abilities but instead follows some other arbitrary standards for hiring, that give preference to people based on gender or race or their religion, than that business eventually loses on the market to businesses who make more sound hiring decisions.
Now, that does not mean that there will be an equal number of men and women in a company, of-course not! This totally depends on proclivity of women or men to be in that business, basically it's what the gender chooses, not what the company chooses. So enforcing arbitrary hiring decisions based on government regulations, for example setting quotas on number of racial or religious minorities or people with disabilities, or specific genders will only make the business uncompetitive AND it would open the business to various lawsuit possibilities.
This has nothing to do with employers being good or bad, this has everything to do with money. It's all about money. If hiring you can potentially open me up to a lawsuit, which I wouldn't be in danger of if I hired somebody not from your government protected group, then I will absolutely make the conscious decision to avoid anybody from your protected group.
Thus laws like the Titlle 2 of Civil Rights Act of 1964 only have the opposite effect to their supposed goal, thus prior to 1965, over 85% of young blacks had jobs in US, which was even higher than the numbers for young whites, but now over 50% of black youth is unemployed.
Nonsense, people are hired who are the most qualified, but once government starts protecting any particular group of people, that immediately disqualifies them from being hired, as they now have special government protections. That's why in Asia I hire regardless of gender and in North America I didn't.
government is doing its job by making society work.
- aha. I suppose if 'making society work' means making sure, that employers move jobs overseas, where there are no labor laws to speak of, which allows the employer to avoid having conflicts with the courts based on gov't decision to protect some specific groups of people based on arbitrary preconditions, then gov't is working.
I know this: I don't give a shit who you are, if you can do the job better than the next applicant I will hire you. However if you are part of a gov't protected minority, then I will avoid hiring you no matter what. I am not interested in gov't protections, which can end up causing me to be dragged to courts and having to spend time and resources protecting myself against government attacks via the court system because of anything, any gov't protected employee can come up with.
What, you think I am the only one with this opinion? How many women will not be hired, how many racial or religious minorities will not be hired specifically because employer knows: you hire this person, if anything goes wrong, unlike an able young white guy, this person can cause you massive financial trouble by dragging you through the court system?
As always, gov't "making it work", making sure that the exact opposite happens of what it supposedly was trying to prevent.
Overt action? Like a government mandate to have quotas for different genders (who knows how many there are, I took anthropology maybe 18 years ago, I remember something like 5 genders), while at it, is there anything else that government can do to make hiring people any more dangerous from POV of lawsuits? Please, do, tell.
No federally dictated minimum wage, taxes are falling (though I prefer Cyprus taxes better), that's just to start, oh, and I am voting, I am always voting.
As I said, you have nothing to say on the idea and your message is limited to ad-hominem attacks, which are completely pointless and irrelevant, but it doesn't matter, it doesn't change the message.
As to 'everything I achieved is 100% mine' - well, it's certainly 0% yours.
It's not about dissent, it's about stupidity. What is intolerable is stupidity.
As to 'give me mine, fuck yours' - nonsense, I earn mine, earn yours. There is nothing burning anywhere in my conscious, it's clear. It's your conscious that should be burning, as you want the world to descend into poverty through government oppression.
How is your comment not 'shitting on the fellow man', and mine are somehow?
While in this thread I left comments based on ideas, some others left comments based on persona. I like the doublespeak that you are engaged in, carry on.
No, not just taxes. It's about regulations of business, labor laws, minimum wage laws, everything that government does that I am against and I will always vote against all of it with my vote and with my money and with my feet.
Your comments as always concentrate on the messenger and have nothing to do with the message.
Slashdot Mirror
The National Security argument is moot, since it was US government that created the problem of oil dependence in the first place, by subsidizing auto-makers via the highway building project.
Also it is safer to drive a bigger vehicle, but there is a subset of market that wants that safety, not everybody wants to drive a tank. However if I want a tank, I am going to get a tank regardless of the regulations. The only thing that these regulations will do to me if I want a tank, they will make it more expensive to own one, but they won't stop me from owning one, but the economy will suffer again, because there was no reason to make this more expensive to buy a bigger car, which always creates inefficiency in the market, by mis-allocating resources to something that shouldn't cost as much as it costs with government intervention.
So how often is this practice of releasing knowingly faulty software and not notifying the users is used to release other Oracle products, such as their database, weblogic, etc.etc?
If there was a market for vials of mercury that people wanted to dump into waterways, would you support that?
- those are 2 separate questions.
1. If there was a market for vials of mercury, then the people should be able buy those vials of mercury.
2. If somebody decided to dump the mercury into waterways, then it would be a separate issue. The waterways should all be private property, and anybody affected by the actions of dumping the mercury there would have to take those people to court to seek damages.
If you are correct that there is no market for the gas guzzlers, than what the hell with the regulations forcing something, when in fact there is no point in them, if there is no demand for gas guzzlers?
But that's just not the case. In fact the government in US caused a massive increase of gas guzzler purchases, because it was subsidizing them with special tax incentives.
Either there is market for large vehicles or there isn't. If there isn't, there is no need for the legislation. If there is, then the gov't is getting in the way of the choices people make in the market, and thus causing more imbalance in the market.
They did not HAVE to bail out the failed companies, including the car manufacturers. The fact that they failed was enough of the proof that those companies did not need to exist. Those companies failed because they were engaged in BANKING that's my point. They were doing the same thing that mortgage lenders were doing, but GM was doing it with car loans. Beside that they had unsurmountable issues with their pension obligations.
My point is that gov't is going to cause more economic problems with its policies yet again. They should never have bailed out any company, any bank, they should never have regulated any business or taxed any income or subsidized anybody, business or person. But we are where we are, and it is what it is, and I am not sure I'll be able to post here again, it's all moded into oblivion, so I am probably on the so called 'daily limit' of 25 comments on my account and I don't post as AC.
You say that the government is punishing automakers that make large cars and got into significant financial trouble because they lost their market
- not Ford, the car company that didn't get into financial trouble, wasn't bailed out and is producing cars people actually want to buy.
then you say that the market wants large cars. Then you say that foreign car makers will clean our clocks because they already make lots of small cars...
- Obviously. What is NOT obvious to you?
The public obviously wants to buy large vehicles. The foreign manufacturers obviously have the leg up. The government is going to punish the domestic manufacturers for selling what the public wants, but the regulation would prevent the foreign manufacturers from importing large vehicles as well. Obviously the domestic manufacturers will not be able to compete without huge subsidies from the government, because they don't produce the cars that are mandated.
The MANDATE will force the domestic manufacturers to start producing some smaller cars, but they won't be able to compete with companies who already make those cars, they have production lines, they are in business of making smaller cars. What's not clear?
Mandates will force the domestic manufacturers to produce smaller cars, a niche, that foreign manufacturers have covered. Good luck competing there.
You also don't pay the price to send troops to Irag to get the gasoline
- yeah, isn't that something? The government subsidizes the auto-industry and destroys other transport industries with the public works by building the highway system that robs people of their freedoms, by giving the federal gov't unlimited power. Gov't puts the country on a collision course with the eventuality of peak oil production, creates a situation with impossible to maintain without subsidies infrastructure. Causes massive pollution in the process, by shifting the national transportation strategy towards personal vehicles, and NOW all of a sudden the government is a White Knight in Shiny Armor that is galloping to save you with all the new regulations, that will hurt the market further.
Also, you can't win by not hiring those people since not hiring them also opens you to exactly the same possibilities of lawsuits as hiring them.
- no, hiring people from the protected groups is much more dangerous than not hiring them, because after all, resumes do have names on them, don't they?
Unless there is a systematic biad throughout the system, you know like hoe collusion and price fixing messes up free markets?
- unlike the centrally planned economies that USSR and USA are involved in, price collusion is not a problem on the market, which even the oil cartels is proving to be true. Cartels don't work, because it doesn't make sense to artificially limit your sales to satisfy the quotas established by the cartel.
No it is not. You seem to believe that everyone else is like you and pursues the rational choice. Most people simply aren't like that. You are again falling into the same trap that sunk communism as a system: people are crap.
- in the growing society, that is constantly moving towards more competitive markets this is just not an option to remain a bigot, at least not from POV of business.
How amazingly stupid it is, that the government on one hand subsidizes the auto-industry with the roads and even bailing out the bank that GM was (you didn't think they were a car manufacturer, did you?) and now they are setting quotas on mileage, completely disregarding the market that exists for large cars. Yeah, large cars. Cars that are big. Cars that are huge. Cars that people want.
If people want small cars, cars that consume less fuel, they always could buy those smaller vehicles. But this regulation would actually punish the automakers for making and selling cars that their MARKET wants from them. So if their market wants to buy large cars that take more gas, the auto-makers will be punished for this! Great stuff. Wonderful. Why not, punish the producer, as always, punish the employer for employing people, for producing products that people want.
Unless there will be massive subsidies and massive excise taxes, the European and Asian auto-makers will come out on top of this, they already produce huge numbers of small vehicles. But this is just retarded, and I am sure there will be plenty of apologists for yet another way the government is taking over your lives here and destroying the market in the process.
I don't think about hiring in terms of 'good or bad' for anybody, except for myself. Does it make sense to hire somebody if that person has better qualifications or does it make sense to hire somebody else, who has worse qualifications, but who I, for example, could find more likable to myself, or somebody who, for example has the same religious views (I am an atheist.)
Of-course it makes sense to hire somebody who will make me more money. If a business decides to hire people not based on their competitive abilities but instead follows some other arbitrary standards for hiring, that give preference to people based on gender or race or their religion, than that business eventually loses on the market to businesses who make more sound hiring decisions.
Now, that does not mean that there will be an equal number of men and women in a company, of-course not! This totally depends on proclivity of women or men to be in that business, basically it's what the gender chooses, not what the company chooses. So enforcing arbitrary hiring decisions based on government regulations, for example setting quotas on number of racial or religious minorities or people with disabilities, or specific genders will only make the business uncompetitive AND it would open the business to various lawsuit possibilities.
This has nothing to do with employers being good or bad, this has everything to do with money. It's all about money. If hiring you can potentially open me up to a lawsuit, which I wouldn't be in danger of if I hired somebody not from your government protected group, then I will absolutely make the conscious decision to avoid anybody from your protected group.
Thus laws like the Titlle 2 of Civil Rights Act of 1964 only have the opposite effect to their supposed goal, thus prior to 1965, over 85% of young blacks had jobs in US, which was even higher than the numbers for young whites, but now over 50% of black youth is unemployed.
Learn the Lady Language, or your life ain't gonna go good
Nonsense, people are hired who are the most qualified, but once government starts protecting any particular group of people, that immediately disqualifies them from being hired, as they now have special government protections. That's why in Asia I hire regardless of gender and in North America I didn't.
government is doing its job by making society work.
- aha. I suppose if 'making society work' means making sure, that employers move jobs overseas, where there are no labor laws to speak of, which allows the employer to avoid having conflicts with the courts based on gov't decision to protect some specific groups of people based on arbitrary preconditions, then gov't is working.
I know this: I don't give a shit who you are, if you can do the job better than the next applicant I will hire you. However if you are part of a gov't protected minority, then I will avoid hiring you no matter what. I am not interested in gov't protections, which can end up causing me to be dragged to courts and having to spend time and resources protecting myself against government attacks via the court system because of anything, any gov't protected employee can come up with.
What, you think I am the only one with this opinion? How many women will not be hired, how many racial or religious minorities will not be hired specifically because employer knows: you hire this person, if anything goes wrong, unlike an able young white guy, this person can cause you massive financial trouble by dragging you through the court system?
As always, gov't "making it work", making sure that the exact opposite happens of what it supposedly was trying to prevent.
What is that?
Google VP Marissa Mayer: " People ask me a lot what it's like to be a woman at Google. I don't think of my experience that way. I'm a geek at Google."
what the hell is that? Now I see what they mean by Google 'perks'.
Overt action? Like a government mandate to have quotas for different genders (who knows how many there are, I took anthropology maybe 18 years ago, I remember something like 5 genders), while at it, is there anything else that government can do to make hiring people any more dangerous from POV of lawsuits? Please, do, tell.
whatever happens between private entities is none of my concern, they are not the government. Cyprus is where I keep my hq, I like Swiss climate more.
I don't have a teleprompter, so I am disqualified on that basis alone.
As I said, I find your existence to be insulting, not what you write here, that's because existence of stupidity is insulting, as it should be.
No federally dictated minimum wage, taxes are falling (though I prefer Cyprus taxes better), that's just to start, oh, and I am voting, I am always voting.
As I said, you have nothing to say on the idea and your message is limited to ad-hominem attacks, which are completely pointless and irrelevant, but it doesn't matter, it doesn't change the message.
As to 'everything I achieved is 100% mine' - well, it's certainly 0% yours.
It's not about dissent, it's about stupidity. What is intolerable is stupidity.
As to 'give me mine, fuck yours' - nonsense, I earn mine, earn yours. There is nothing burning anywhere in my conscious, it's clear. It's your conscious that should be burning, as you want the world to descend into poverty through government oppression.
You can't insult me with your comments, you only insult me with your presence, that I have to bear it in this world.
How is your comment not 'shitting on the fellow man', and mine are somehow?
While in this thread I left comments based on ideas, some others left comments based on persona. I like the doublespeak that you are engaged in, carry on.
+1? No no, you should visit this thread tomorrow. The total moderation of my comments shouldn't exceed -5 (that's with a minus.)
No, not just taxes. It's about regulations of business, labor laws, minimum wage laws, everything that government does that I am against and I will always vote against all of it with my vote and with my money and with my feet.
Your comments as always concentrate on the messenger and have nothing to do with the message.