In fact, let's just do away with prisons and sentence people to serve time in automated rape machines. Who cares about cruel or unusual punishment, these guys are spoofing telephone numbers!
How would enforcing a rule such as this enable telcos to make more money? I imagine that some of their larger customers are spoofers. And telcos are corporations. All corporations are inherently sociopathic, lacking in empathy, remorse, guilt, or any sense of right and wrong outside of "more money is right, less money is wrong."
If someone should do something, and they don't, we make a law to force them to.
No company will choose to roll out their own wires because wire-rolling is a natural monopoly. Quoting from the article (emphasis added):
Two different types of cost are important in microeconomics: marginal cost, and fixed cost. The marginal cost is the cost to the company of serving one more customer. In an industry where a natural monopoly does not exist, the vast majority of industries, the marginal cost decreases with economies of scale, then increases as the company has growing pains (overworking its employees, bureaucracy, inefficiencies, etc.). Along with this, the average cost of its products will decrease and then increase again. A natural monopoly has a very different cost structure. A natural monopoly has a high fixed cost for a product that does not depend on output, but its marginal cost of producing one more good is roughly constant, and small.
A firm with high fixed costs will require a large number of customers in order to retrieve a meaningful return on their initial investment. This is where economies of scale become important. Since each firm has large initial costs, as the firm gains market share and increases its output the fixed cost (what they initially invested) is divided among a larger number of customers. Therefore, in industries with large initial investment requirements, average total cost declines as output increases over a much larger range of output levels.
Once a natural monopoly has been established because of the large initial cost and that, according to the rule of economies of scale, the larger corporation (to a point) has lower average cost and therefore a huge advantage. With this knowledge, no firms attempt to enter the industry and an oligopoly or monopoly develops.
I think we would need a control group, lacking in back-end development, in order to correctly highlight the visual differences. It is my understanding that someone like Jane Fonda, who lacks a motor in the back of her Honda, would be perfect in this regard.
How do you get more competition from what is essentially a natural monopoly? Would you require telecom companies to rent space on their wires, or would every company have to run its own wires? Hey! I know! Every mom and pop ISP that wants to get into the game could just launch their own satellites.
Ah, I see! You were writing in the Mix-a-lotian dialect, and positing that your anaconda don't want none unless she's got buns, hon. Sorry for my confusion, it must be the anal leakage.
Digicam is a perfectly cromulent word. You may want to look into the prescription/description debate to understand everyone thinks you are a ridiculous buffoon.
Also, I resent the implication that I ride a Harley.
If we did not have you policing it for us, our language would have devolved into mutually incomprehensible babbling eons ago. Thank you for your continued vigilance.
However, I am confused by your use of the phrase 'the fuck,' and sentence fragments. Could you diagram your sentences for me? As you are the Lord of Language, I'm sure they are all grammatically correct, I just need a little help in seeing how...
I think you are right. Really the only innovation here is the memory cleaning technique. And, from what I've read in other threads here, that isn't even an innovation.
I would rather prevent you from damaging my property in the first place, than let you damage it (and my health) and collect restitution.
If the environment in question is not owned by an individual, it is available to everyone, so everyone loses when it is damaged. The environmental costs are not the only externalities in play here. Health costs are another.
I would rather not live in a system that lets you harm me, then forces me to put up my own money on the gamble that I can prove that you harmed me. If you have more money for lawyers than I do, you can harm me with impunity. Is that fair or just?
Luckily for me, I live in a democracy where I can work together with others to force people to act responsibly, if the majority agrees. Society is simply contracts and compromises. Rights always come with responsibilities. Nobody can have the freedom to do whatever the hell they please, and still live in society. We all have to give up some of our freedoms (like the freedom to punch people in the nuts) in order to secure freedoms we value more (like freedom from being punched in the nuts.)
Good point. Also, I realize, mining and refining techniques will likely become more efficient and less expensive in the meantime, meaning if we wait, we will extract more, for less money, and sell it for more.
Yes, then what? Do they invade us to get the money back? Maybe we just diddle with interest rates to create hyperinflation and POOF! the debt disappears. We're their major market, what happens to them if we have to stop buying?
Think it through. Who has more power, the guy who just got a billion dollar loan from someone with no ability to enforce repayment, or the guy who just handed out a loan he has no way of getting back?
Yes, I can have it both ways. I want us to start mining and refining rare earths here in America, in environmentally sound ways. Less pollution for everyone, and more rare earths.
SO, you think that people should be able to profit from something where someone else must pay part of the cost? Perhaps you'd like to be forced to pay for, say, all the axles on someone else's car? No? Then why do you want to force other people to pay for the cost of pollution?
People should take personal responsibility for their actions. If I hurt something or someone, I should have to pay for it.
Oh, I know what I desire is impossible, and that the WTO was set up to protect entrenched interests, not communities. I suffer no illusions as to how the game is played, I just knew someone like you would come along to explain it. Much more effective than me saying it, I think. I'm the straight guy, setting you up for the punchline. Ha. Ha. Ha.
In this case, the tarrifs exist to reflect the actual cost, including externalities, of the product. The money collected could go to help offset these costs. It isn't blocking trade, it is punishing those who take unfair advantage of others.
I was asking for a citation proving that America can no longer create mining and manufacturing plants because of environmental regulations. What am I supposed to be providing citations for?
There do not need to be 'consequences' to my lifestyle. I live pretty simply and am not materialistic. Also, you seem to be under the impression that I want China polluted. I don't. I don't want anyplace polluted, because pollution is an externality. Someone else profits, I pay.
I may be wealthy in world-wide terms, but I am certainly not owning class by anyone's standards. I don't have enough money to control other people's lives.
So if "wealth controls politics", why are federal income taxes so high, instead of being in the single digits, or even non-existent?
What an interesting lack of logical connection. We pay income taxes, so wealth does not control politics, what? How does one relate to the other? I do know we pay far less than most other countries do in taxes, as a portion of our GDP. These restrictions on land use serve entrenched interests, because it increases the barrier to entry and only lets the rich play. In short, there is no political class controlling America. There is an owning class controlling our supposedly democratic process.
We've got China over a barrel, man. They own us. What happens to them if we default? Or if we let inflation erase our debt? We're also their largest market. China isn't in as lordly a position over us as it might seem at first glance.
Indeed, the free market is failing like it always does by not taking the cost of externalities into account. Who will pay for the cost of pollution if not the polluter? Do you believe free market ideology trumps personal responsibility?
Slashdot Mirror
Ding ding ding, we have a winner!
More stupid politicians makings laws about things they do not understand.
I bet they did not even know the difference between CLID and ANI.
Everyone should know the difference between the CLID and the ANI. The CLID is in the front and the ANI is in the back.
In fact, let's just do away with prisons and sentence people to serve time in automated rape machines. Who cares about cruel or unusual punishment, these guys are spoofing telephone numbers!
How would enforcing a rule such as this enable telcos to make more money? I imagine that some of their larger customers are spoofers. And telcos are corporations. All corporations are inherently sociopathic, lacking in empathy, remorse, guilt, or any sense of right and wrong outside of "more money is right, less money is wrong."
If someone should do something, and they don't, we make a law to force them to.
No company will choose to roll out their own wires because wire-rolling is a natural monopoly. Quoting from the article (emphasis added):
Two different types of cost are important in microeconomics: marginal cost, and fixed cost. The marginal cost is the cost to the company of serving one more customer. In an industry where a natural monopoly does not exist, the vast majority of industries, the marginal cost decreases with economies of scale, then increases as the company has growing pains (overworking its employees, bureaucracy, inefficiencies, etc.). Along with this, the average cost of its products will decrease and then increase again. A natural monopoly has a very different cost structure. A natural monopoly has a high fixed cost for a product that does not depend on output, but its marginal cost of producing one more good is roughly constant, and small.
A firm with high fixed costs will require a large number of customers in order to retrieve a meaningful return on their initial investment. This is where economies of scale become important. Since each firm has large initial costs, as the firm gains market share and increases its output the fixed cost (what they initially invested) is divided among a larger number of customers. Therefore, in industries with large initial investment requirements, average total cost declines as output increases over a much larger range of output levels.
Once a natural monopoly has been established because of the large initial cost and that, according to the rule of economies of scale, the larger corporation (to a point) has lower average cost and therefore a huge advantage. With this knowledge, no firms attempt to enter the industry and an oligopoly or monopoly develops.
I think we would need a control group, lacking in back-end development, in order to correctly highlight the visual differences. It is my understanding that someone like Jane Fonda, who lacks a motor in the back of her Honda, would be perfect in this regard.
How do you get more competition from what is essentially a natural monopoly? Would you require telecom companies to rent space on their wires, or would every company have to run its own wires? Hey! I know! Every mom and pop ISP that wants to get into the game could just launch their own satellites.
Ah, I see! You were writing in the Mix-a-lotian dialect, and positing that your anaconda don't want none unless she's got buns, hon. Sorry for my confusion, it must be the anal leakage.
Digicam is a perfectly cromulent word. You may want to look into the prescription/description debate to understand everyone thinks you are a ridiculous buffoon.
Also, I resent the implication that I ride a Harley.
Teenager or not, if their asses are 'juicy' I think there may be a medical or dietary problem involved.
If we did not have you policing it for us, our language would have devolved into mutually incomprehensible babbling eons ago. Thank you for your continued vigilance.
However, I am confused by your use of the phrase 'the fuck,' and sentence fragments. Could you diagram your sentences for me? As you are the Lord of Language, I'm sure they are all grammatically correct, I just need a little help in seeing how...
I think you are right. Really the only innovation here is the memory cleaning technique. And, from what I've read in other threads here, that isn't even an innovation.
I would rather prevent you from damaging my property in the first place, than let you damage it (and my health) and collect restitution.
If the environment in question is not owned by an individual, it is available to everyone, so everyone loses when it is damaged. The environmental costs are not the only externalities in play here. Health costs are another.
I would rather not live in a system that lets you harm me, then forces me to put up my own money on the gamble that I can prove that you harmed me. If you have more money for lawyers than I do, you can harm me with impunity. Is that fair or just?
Luckily for me, I live in a democracy where I can work together with others to force people to act responsibly, if the majority agrees. Society is simply contracts and compromises. Rights always come with responsibilities. Nobody can have the freedom to do whatever the hell they please, and still live in society. We all have to give up some of our freedoms (like the freedom to punch people in the nuts) in order to secure freedoms we value more (like freedom from being punched in the nuts.)
Good point. Also, I realize, mining and refining techniques will likely become more efficient and less expensive in the meantime, meaning if we wait, we will extract more, for less money, and sell it for more.
Yes, then what? Do they invade us to get the money back? Maybe we just diddle with interest rates to create hyperinflation and POOF! the debt disappears. We're their major market, what happens to them if we have to stop buying?
Think it through. Who has more power, the guy who just got a billion dollar loan from someone with no ability to enforce repayment, or the guy who just handed out a loan he has no way of getting back?
Yes, I can have it both ways. I want us to start mining and refining rare earths here in America, in environmentally sound ways. Less pollution for everyone, and more rare earths.
SO, you think that people should be able to profit from something where someone else must pay part of the cost? Perhaps you'd like to be forced to pay for, say, all the axles on someone else's car? No? Then why do you want to force other people to pay for the cost of pollution?
People should take personal responsibility for their actions. If I hurt something or someone, I should have to pay for it.
Oh, I know what I desire is impossible, and that the WTO was set up to protect entrenched interests, not communities. I suffer no illusions as to how the game is played, I just knew someone like you would come along to explain it. Much more effective than me saying it, I think. I'm the straight guy, setting you up for the punchline. Ha. Ha. Ha.
Unfortunately, our gov't is WTOwned for the most part, so I don't see anything like that happening anytime soon.
Neither do I.
In this case, the tarrifs exist to reflect the actual cost, including externalities, of the product. The money collected could go to help offset these costs. It isn't blocking trade, it is punishing those who take unfair advantage of others.
I was asking for a citation proving that America can no longer create mining and manufacturing plants because of environmental regulations. What am I supposed to be providing citations for?
There do not need to be 'consequences' to my lifestyle. I live pretty simply and am not materialistic. Also, you seem to be under the impression that I want China polluted. I don't. I don't want anyplace polluted, because pollution is an externality. Someone else profits, I pay.
I may be wealthy in world-wide terms, but I am certainly not owning class by anyone's standards. I don't have enough money to control other people's lives.
So if "wealth controls politics", why are federal income taxes so high, instead of being in the single digits, or even non-existent?
What an interesting lack of logical connection. We pay income taxes, so wealth does not control politics, what? How does one relate to the other? I do know we pay far less than most other countries do in taxes, as a portion of our GDP. These restrictions on land use serve entrenched interests, because it increases the barrier to entry and only lets the rich play. In short, there is no political class controlling America. There is an owning class controlling our supposedly democratic process.
Good point. Also, the longer we let it sit in the ground, the better and cheaper the extraction and purification technology becomes.
We've got China over a barrel, man. They own us. What happens to them if we default? Or if we let inflation erase our debt? We're also their largest market. China isn't in as lordly a position over us as it might seem at first glance.
You mean those rare earth magnet ads? I don't think they could literally get rare earth elements by the ton, it was magnets made from rare earths.
Indeed, the free market is failing like it always does by not taking the cost of externalities into account. Who will pay for the cost of pollution if not the polluter? Do you believe free market ideology trumps personal responsibility?