Apparently, you dropped out of your Econ 101 course before they covered market failures. Or techniques a monopoly can use to prevent competitors from having much success.
Such techniques are far less effective in a free market and market failures are usually the result of state meddling: monopolists very quickly seek to enlist the force of the state to maintain their monopolies. Why is this necessary if they have nothing to fear? Without the state aparatus, it would not be possible.
The response to a sucessful powerful monopoly making "obscene" profits is a cooperative of its current disgruntled customers.
But, I suspect that you'd argue that the state can bust up a monopoly faster than the market forces could, and you'd be correct. Of course, it might be the case that I could rob you of your money faster than I could earn it, but this does not make either action just.
"Under an abusive monopoly, no free market would stay that way."
One can define a government has having a monopoly on law, yes? And it can pass laws to abuse the population, yes?
The parallel to what you are saying is that no revolution can succeed.
(...trot out disproof of non-existance by historica example, say the U.S.A.'s sucessful war of independence from England...)
What I *think* you mean to say, is that eliminating abusive monopolies, like abusive governments, might involve inconvenience and perhaps be somewhat bloody.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
I think I'll take Jefferson's wisdom over your drivel.
The lack of market share of the examples you provided shows that people can't even give away alternatives because most users have their data locked up inside the crude encryption of Microsoft's proprietary systems and formats.
"Give away"?
Seams to me that if someone writes one program, and receives 1000 programs in cooperative return, they have gained a great deal. Even if they write one program for themselves, and share it, they have gained convenience.
The state is an ineffective, archaic, farce.
And I'm not even libertarian anymore, but anarchist (believing in the complete absense of state), though a libertarian government would be a damn fine step in the right direction. (For that matter, anything reducing the size and scope of government is good). I am convinced that the market can provide for settlement of disputes in all cases (those who refuse any arbitration whatsoever will never have any hope for settlement and will be viewed as "difficult to deal with"), private defense companies can provide protection from criminals, and defense companies will band against a common foreign enemy. Wars of destruction are generally fought for defensive reasons, and there is no reason to defend against a non-agressor. Wars of conquest can not involve overwhelming destructive force since it would be counter-productive. The only logical "war" against a nation of free individuals would be limited, designed to win the minds of the population (and thus enslave their productivity, as any modern state does), and even loose affiliations of individuals can repel such things.
In an unregulated market, successful players acquire sufficinet capital (and power) to manipulate the markets to their advantage, by things such as reducing transparency, and building extraneous barriers to entry. It is in their interest to do so, so they do.
And states guarantee transparancy?
If transparancy, oversight, or regulation were so desirable, customers would deal with companies that appeared more transparent, and subjected themselves to greater review. IOW, if transparancy and neutral review were so desirable, the market would provide them in the form of "Review Companies" which could produce reports on other companies, to which customers could purchase subscriptions. Think "Consumer Reports" on steroids. If there is an interest in corporate scandal (which there will be), the news organizations will certainly seek it out (for scandal is their livelihood) and report it.
Bingo, this market is no longer free; it is manipulated. Sure, those barriers eventually fall...
While I disagree that lack of transparancy or regulation can exist to the extent you fear, a sucessful business does impede competitors because it can reinvest its profits to be even more successfull whereas a competitor has yet to realize them. So, let's consider such barriers, arising out of "runaway success".
If a business is sucessful, it is only so because its customers are satisfied. If they are satisfied, what is the problem? The fear that, once the business is so powerful that it has effectively eliminated all competitors, it will start to gouge it's customers, who have no recourse to do business elsewhere?
Let's say this happens.
Now the situation has shifted from one where no other business can effectively compete because they can not undercut the margins of the sucessful one. The "monopolist's" greed, however, changes this. Suddenly it becomes more profitable to try to compete once again. But, business can't "turn on" overnight, and once a competitor becomes serious, the greedy business once again lower it's prices and drive the competition away. Why bother competing in the first place? And so, the monopoly survives. This is your fear and complaint, yes?
Such a situation must involve a lot of angry people, I suppose.
But, they have no ones but themselves to blame -- getting their "eggs", as it were, from the basket of a single supplier who can effectively adjust prices at their whim, with no planned recourse if the price becomes to deal. Alas, the nature of people is to be short-sighted, so to assign blame is to be a bit unrealistic.
Of course, there will be those few who see the danger. (After all, you do.) Perhaps they can convince others that the danger is real. Perhaps they can afford to stockpile the single-supplier commodity, and sell insurance (to cover the cost of such storage) to guarantee supplies at a stable price. Perhaps large numbers of people, can form a collective and so self-insure against such a risk. (Such self-insurance is common today in the form of mutual insurance companies that are owned by their insureds).
The fly in this ointment is that the big, bad, monopolist might be able to outlast any such risk (and this goes for boycotts in general). However, this requires tying up large reserves of capital that could otherwise be put to productive use and so involves a big opportunity cost. Few companies can afford to do this. Even Microsoft, flush with cash and nowhere to effectively invest it, recently simply returned a large chunk, in the form of a special dividend, back to its shareholders.
The moral is to simply not put all ones eggs in one basket, and for those times when that is unavoidable, act to be able to avoid it in the future. This is no different than saving for a "rainy day" in case one loses the only job one has.
But, let's assume the worst. Let's assume that the monopolist can survice any economic onslaught. I expect he will be greatly dispised. While initiation of force is wrong, some people m
Absurd: In a free market, no abusive monopoly would stay that way -- competitors, smelling profits, would start supplying effective alternatives. Heck, even with a less than free market, alternatives sprung up to Windows: the community-produced and collectively owned GNU/* and BSD-* alternatives.
Oh, but it was hard, time-consuming, and difficult to do. Considering the capital investgment MSFT made, this is not surprising. Now Windows®, while catering to 90%+ of computer users' needs, might be awkward for your needs, that's just plain good business sense: go after the low hanging fruit. Try buying fresh galangal outside of Thailand sometime. I don't see attempts to bust up the "ginger monopoly" in response.
The anti-monopolists wish to use the force of the state for the simple purpose of making their lives more convenient at someone else's expense. And it is to the initiation of such force that I object. (Much as I'd object to state-granted patents, licensing requirements, and other impediments to a free market - why should the taxpayer protect your intellectual property?).
Insightful: If you wish to object to a monopoly object to the state's monopoly on the initiation of force on behalf of the popular thieves of the day and read "The Market for Liberty."
Those that are strong enough to steal for you are strong enough to steal from you.
Those that think monopolies should be busted so their lives might be more convenient should have no objection to the busting of their skulls with a crowbar, facilitating the taking of their monies so my life could, too, be more convenient.
What output are you using (SVGA, YPrPb, Y/C (svideo), or Composite)?
I'm only using the SVGA output for now, but have pushed the display to 1920x1440x60Hz(x16 bits instead of 24 at that res) to get 1920x1080 on a 4:3 CRT, with no ill effects.
15 habs dried (in a dehydrator), and ground, make about a tablespoon of chili pepper powder. It's a damn site hotter than just about anything you can buy, with the exception of exotic extracts and lasts quite a while.
FWIW, I do remove the seeds but retain as much of the placenta (where most of the capcaiscin is stored) as possible, so the resulting powder is more orange than red.
Great on eggs, chicken, pizza, aw heck, just about anything. I tend to use a pinch when I make vindaloo if it isn't hot enough, though I generally use dried red serranos or arbols when making vindaloo (about a tablespoon per two pounds of meat).
Don't try this at home, but if you must, here's what you do:
1. Get a bunch of habs: 15 to 30 nice red ones. Get Red Savina® if you like them really hot.
2. Slit them open, and cut off the stem. Remove the seeds, but try to retain as much of the white, fleshy placenta and ribs as possible. You may want to wear gloves while doing this: I'm a veteran at it (read: don't bother with gloves) and still get burns on my hands from time to time -- they take about 4-6 hours to really start burning, so you won't notice when you're cutting them up. The occasional burn doesn't bother me all that much: it burns more when the skin is heater (like in the shower or tub), but YMMV. Be careful what you do touch after slicing open the habs.
3. Arrange them non-overlapping in a food dehydrator. Cut big one in half so all the pieces are about the same size. Food dehydrators can be purchased for US$30 to US$50. They're great for drying all sorts of things (onions, garlic, fruit, etc.) and making beef jerky.
4. Dry for 8 to 12 hours (overnight) or until they are completely dry.
5. Grind up the dried peppers in a blade coffee grinder used only to grind spices.
6. Wait for the powder to settle. Carefully sift through a strainer to get a consistent size. Try to not get too much of it airborne -- it will irritate your eyes, nose, throat, etc. While stinging and hot, this is not likely to be fatal, but you might think your eyes and nose are about to bleed if you do get exposed.
7. Transfer to a spice jar, close tightly, and store in a cool, dark place. The freezer works well for maximum freshness, but any remaining humidity will lead to cluming.
Add as desired to food. It takes a while for the burn of habs to be noticible, so go slow at first.
Instead of grinding the dried habs, you may want to keep the pieces as intact as possible, stored in a freezer bag in the freezer, and grind them as required, or in small quantites to keep in a spice jar in the pantry. That's useful if you have a lot of habs.
You could also partially grind or crush them into flakes, for use over pasta, for example, where flakes are better than powder, but I find that the fruity flavour does not go all that well with pasta. I prefer arbols for this purpose.
Notice: I think, that in Canada, this process consitutes the manufacture of a weapon, and might be quite illegal. Check with your lawyer. (It probably is illegal in the U.S. too, if weapon's manufacture is your intent.)
Most border guards / customs officers are pricks to most of us, so don't take it too personally, even people driving regular cars and wearing plain clothes showing no political leanings get the third degree.
I was born in Canada, am a Canadian citizen, and have had nothing but very negative experiences in Canada: my treatment in the U.S., by people who know I'm a foreigner has been far, far better, in comparison.
I came to realize in my 20s that my socio-political views were hightly libertarian. I saw the founding documents of the U.S. (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights) as a good framework upon which to build a nation, even if not as completely libertarian as some purists might wish. In contrast to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", I saw "peace, order, and good government" in Canada's Constitution.
Harumph.
It's easy to have "peace, order, and good government": Just slaughter all the troublemakers. While that's extreme, it happened in Nazi Germany, and seeing the seeds of that possibility in a nation's founding documents was most troubling. I quickly found that actively (but peacefully) voicing such concerns in Canada was a fast ticket to bringing trouble upon myself that could be easily avoided if I "just shut up".
1982's "Notwithstanding Clause" as opposed to a clear separation of executive, legislative, and judicial powers was yet another example of how out of sync Canada's socio-political framework and general public mindset was with my beliefs.
Yes, yes, varous U.S. regimes have not been faithful to their principles, and it can be argued that Canadian regimes have been "reasonable" (though I would debate this). However, strong principles that recognize governments as a necessary evil, but an evil nevertheless, strike me as better bedrock for a society, that some vague promise that the government won't ever do what it has the mandated power to do. The pendulum swings wildly in the U.S., but swing back from excess it does do, over and over. Bush, too, will pass (though the choice between warmongering republican or taxing democrat in 2008 is a lose/lose proposition).
Recently, the Province of Quebec noted that it would use the "Notwithstanding Clause" to overrule the Canadian Supreme Court decision that a federal or provincial government can't prevent a patient from contracting with a doctor for treatment, when treatment under the government system is not forthcomimg because of delays (which have become rampant in the Canadian nationalized healtcare system).
So, the abuse of power is exposed, in all it's ugliness. Americans, imagine this: you paid your taxes, they went up to pay for some nationalized healthcare system, with long waits for some level of service. You don't want to wait, have savings, and pay a doctor for treatment. (Say you're a woman recently diagnosed with breast cancer and told that the government waiting list for treatment is 6 months long). You, and the doctor, can be fined, and go to jail. That is the state of Canadian health care. If you wait, there's a good chance you might die.
Canada (and Cuba) have replaced the former Soviet Union as bastions of communism. I suppose Canadians vacationing in Cuba feel right at home. The classic communist response to the above is to argue that perhaps more than one life can be saved instead of "wasting" resources to save yours, even if you've already paid your taxes! (Of course, what happens is that the tax rates are so high, that even if it were legal to pay for health care, most could not afford to do so).
This is the state playing at god: chosing who lives or dies (There is evidence that prominent people, particularly politicials, get preferential treatment. The very wealthy, of course, just leave the country. I remember it being a big deal that the former premier of Quebec went to the U.S. for cancer treatment -- something generally unavailable).
I reject this notion, and call it murder, when the state has acted or legislated in su
When I first moved to a suburb of Chicago from Montreal, it took me about six months to stop saying "Depanneur" and start saying "Convenience Store".
Then, after over five years in the U.S., and moving from a suburb of Dallas to a suburb of Toronto, I had to "learn" that (a) no one understands what a "20 oz Coke" is (it actually took me about a minute to realize that it was the "20 oz" instead of "600 ml" that was confusing people), (b) it was dangerous to try to order "a side of grits" with my breakfast, (c) asking for a receipt at a fast food place could get me arrested for "holding up the line".
I also learned that while wearing an NRA t-shirt and cap let me be accepted as "one of us" in Texas (my NRA card got me a discount on an oil change, once!), it was an invitation to be arrested in Ontario (my NRA bumper stickers ("Crime Control not Gun Control" and "Freedom is not Free") got me flack from BC border guards as well).
1997 Montreal to Chicago (international)
2001 Chicago to Dallas
2003 Dallas to Toronto
2004 Toronto to Seattle
Things to watch out for:
1. Cost of Living. You did do a cost of living analysis (including differences in income and other taxes, insurance, housing), right? Because, no amount of relocation assistance (unless it is extreme) will make up for some place you can't afford to live.
2. Moving Expenses. Are they footing the whole bill, or reimburing you to some limit? I've done it both ways, and getting a mover within your budget is just another headache to deal with while you are very busy. When I moved from Chicago to Dallas, with a fixed moving allowance, it still cost me $1600 (over the $8500 (IIRC) my employer paid). I suppose I could have found a cheaper mover, but that would take time, which I didn't have.
3. Temporary Housing: for how long? Typical is a month, and that's way too short if you need to sell a home and buy another one. It's damn hard to sell a house and buy another one within 30 days. I've done it, but only by pricing my home agressively.
4. Storage. 30 days is typical. After that, it's on your dime. $500 to $1000 a month is typical for a home's contents.
5. Selling/Buying a home. This only applies if you own, not rent. If your employer will buy your old home at a reasonable price, don't hesitate to accept! Some will guarantee a price, if you can't sell it within 90 days. If you have to sell it yourself, price your home to sell... fast! While that may seam foolish, realize that every month your house does not sell is another month that your're renting temporary housing (or chosing to rent for a mid-term, like 6 months) and either paying for storage or accepting that you'll have to move twice, and paying a mortgage and insurance and someone to look after your old home (most insurance policies require that the house be checked every 24 to 48 hours if vacant, if they're that flexible). Pricing your house $10k under market might make the difference between selling it in two weeks or four months. Don't forget that you will pay comissions to sell your house.
Here's my experience in this regard:
1997: Montreal, Canada: bought US$75k in 1991. Sold US$70k to relo company on the spot. Lost $5k. Of course, the market was horrible and houses typically took over a year to sell.
2001: Lake Zurich, IL: bought $179,500 in 1997. Sold $221,500. Paid 5% to sell. $30.9k profit. Sold in 8 days. Closed in 21 days.
2003: Allen, TX: bought $189k in 2001. Sold: $189k. Paid 3% to sell (buyer came unrepresented. Lost $6k. Sold in 2 weeks. Closed in 30 days. Big telecom bust, and many homes were being foreclosed upon. Neighbour held out and lost around $20k more in similar circumstances.
Had to rent a house in Markham for 6 months because one can't buy a house in Ontario with less than 120 days employment. US$1480 rent/month. Had stuff delivered, but kept all but essentials boxed for 6 months. Paid US$2800 to move 20 miles into Whitby home.
2004: Whitby, ON: bought 2003 for US$189. Sold: US$194 in 36 hours. Closed in 3 weeks. Paid 3.75% to sell (I paid 1.25% to list on MLS and stick a sign up). Lost $2.3k, but was offset by signing bonus which helped with move. Negotiate this if your are selling a house on your own!
Today: Monroe, WA: bought 2004 for $225k. Currently appraised at $320k.
It might look that I sold fast and cheap. But, figure $3-4k a month for every month your house does not sell to (a) rent, (b) put your stuff in storage.
6. House hunting trip. Ignore if renting. Try to negotiate a house hunting trip over a weekend. Even if you can't do this, budget extra time after your last interview, and if it goes well, get a realtor to take you around to get a feel for the market. The idea is that you hit the ground running to find a house as soon as you're in temporary housing.
Ideally, you want to have your old home sold, and your new one purchased, and
lesse:
s/impeeded/impeded/ - spelling, my bad
s/paraent/parent - typo, my bad
s/insistes/insists/ - typo, my bad
s/amis/amiss/ - typo, my bad
s/Johnney/Johnny/ - typo, my bad (thought I caught them all, though)
s/damn/damned/ - coloquailism: I'm using damn as an adjective, not a verb.
I plead haste as far as the typos go, but the spelling mistake I'll accept.
Not always a good deal for the taxpayers, though; they often get stuck paying maintenance for roads that only serve a few wealthy people living in a cul-de-sac that would've served the public interest better as a through road.
While I agree with the sentiment, those "few wealthy people" often pay high property taxes, somewhat ofsetting the cost of maintaining their roads.
Parenting is a hard job. The world isn't all kid friendly, but it's your job to keep your kids safe, not the governments, not sociaties, not your neighbors, and certainly not mine. It's your job, quit trying to pawn it off on other people.
I'm not sure whether you are agreeing with me, or arguing with me.
One counter to parenting not being the government's job is that government has impeeded the paraent's ability to parent. When little Johnny learns that all he has to do is call the school-supplied state "abuse" hotline and say he is "scared of Daddy" because Daddy insistes Johnny finish his homework before watching TV, something is amis. And, if Daddy has raised Johnney to be smart, it won't be long before Johnny learns to "work the system".
In such a situtation, I muse about raising my kids to be the best damn serial psychopathic killers I can, and let them lose on the society that restrained my ability to exert discipline.
Adam Smith proposes that increasing the number of interconnections between people and places increases opportunities to create wealth (oversimplification, look it up if you want more). Restricting travel to the privileged classes pretty clearly restricts trade and thus decreases the opportunities for people to better themselves.
Funny how the internet does that quite well. Oh wait, you will equate the miniscule amount of state involvement in the 'net to it's existence as a government success.
But I'm not going to debate you if you are going to defend racism. That battle's just about over where I live, thank god, and I can quite cheerfully blow the fucking head off anybody that tries to burn a cross in my yard.
Lucky for you, that yard is yours. Imagine if all yards were public.
But, what is telling is your insistance on forcing your view on others. This is the way of all statists: they believe that they can justify theft (elimination of private property, taxation, etc.) by some mob-based arithmetic. By the same token, "lynching niggers" to which you appear to be quite opposed, would be fine, if it were a majority-held view.
Bringing a bogus charge of racism into the depate is a red herring: no one has the right to trespass on private property, regardless of race. If the owner happens to welcome whites while killing others, on his land, that's his business, and limited quite directly to his borders.
Fortunately, most of us value freedom of movement and are quite happy to enter into cooperative relationshiops with our neighbors in that regard, leaving the bigots to their enclaves, where, masters of their domain, they'd have little right to complain.
and what part of TURN YOUR TV OFF doesn't the grandparent understand?
Oh, I see, he thinks he can force his view of the world on everyone else, by prefixing his desire with "as a parent".
Lemme try that: "As a parent, I object to the grandparent poster being allowed to live and expose my children to the vile notion that it is all right to force one's opinions on others."
In the "old days" people built their own roads on their property, and connected to roads shared, and maintained by their neighbours.
You still see this in rural parts of the country. Many of the roads around where I live are private.
Now, these roads would not support large amounts of traffic, but, then again, they don't have to. Where there is economic pressure for large amounts of traffic, road operators will indeed purchase private rights of way and build toll roads.
At the end of the last century a similar thing happened with rail roads -- they weren't built by government, they were built by private industry.
What part of Internet Service Provider don't you understand?
Here's the deal: I provide IP packets to you, and you see that you make a best effort to deliver them to where they're intended. You also make a best effort to deliver IP packets to me that are intended for me that you receive.
What's the problem here?
Yes, yes, we know what the problem is: instead of acting like an ISP, many ISPs deliver "that thar intarweb".
That's why I only deal with ISPs without bullshit TOS. Granted, I pay closer to US$70 a month instead of $19.95 for my 1.5Mx384k service, but at least I know what I'm getting.
I routinely paid around CA$30k in income tax. I have two kids in school, support them, and my wife (who does not work). So, in Canada, I basically got taxed as a single, got 20% ($17 Fed and 3% Ontario) of some $7500 or $1500 non-refundable tax credit for my wife, and nothing because of the kids, because I earned too much. Any social benefits got clawed back. The thing is, I hardly made CA$100k a year, or around US$75-$80k. That might seam like a lot, but is close to the poverty line in some places in the U.S. (where a modest three bedroom home costs over US$1 million).
In the U.S., I can (a) file jointly with my wife, (b) deduct the mortgage interest on our home, (c) get a tax credit of $2k for our kids, (d) earn at least 30% more in US$ than I did in CA$, (e) have gold-plated health case via my employer, (f) actually manage to save for retirement, and (g) contribute thousands of dollars a year to various charities. I can actually have a housekeeper and pay people to care for my lawn. Bourgous? Hardly, that's a middle class life. And the monies I pay for these service help these people own their own homes as well. (Don't kid yourself: lawn care runs around $35 an hour, and maid service $30-50. The self-employed in these areas can do quite well for themselves).
What's interesting about your numbers is the cost per student: $6797. That's way more than the tuition to many private schools that offer a better education. Not the best private schools, to be sure, but typical ones (and excluding room and board, obviously).
I am opposed to socialism in principle, being a libertarian. However, if the state actually made effective use of my tax dollars to support what I would anyway, I could not complain much from a pragmatic standpoint. But, Canada and the provinces have done an abysmal job keeping the promise of the social contract.
Slashdot Mirror
Such techniques are far less effective in a free market and market failures are usually the result of state meddling: monopolists very quickly seek to enlist the force of the state to maintain their monopolies. Why is this necessary if they have nothing to fear? Without the state aparatus, it would not be possible.
The response to a sucessful powerful monopoly making "obscene" profits is a cooperative of its current disgruntled customers.
But, I suspect that you'd argue that the state can bust up a monopoly faster than the market forces could, and you'd be correct. Of course, it might be the case that I could rob you of your money faster than I could earn it, but this does not make either action just.
Talk about depressingly fatalist.
It is better to try and possibly fail than to not try and definately fail.
That's what life is, simply trying to live.
If all you ever do is not try, you will die (of hunger for not trying to feed yourself).
If all you ever do is succeed (afraid to try something new), you will be cursed to live as you always have and might as well die.
But, if you fail, something has been learned, and you have taken the first steps toward success.
Repeat as desired.
One can define a government has having a monopoly on law, yes? And it can pass laws to abuse the population, yes?
The parallel to what you are saying is that no revolution can succeed.
(...trot out disproof of non-existance by historica example, say the U.S.A.'s sucessful war of independence from England...)
What I *think* you mean to say, is that eliminating abusive monopolies, like abusive governments, might involve inconvenience and perhaps be somewhat bloody.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
I think I'll take Jefferson's wisdom over your drivel.
"Give away"?
Seams to me that if someone writes one program, and receives 1000 programs in cooperative return, they have gained a great deal. Even if they write one program for themselves, and share it, they have gained convenience.
The state is an ineffective, archaic, farce.
And I'm not even libertarian anymore, but anarchist (believing in the complete absense of state), though a libertarian government would be a damn fine step in the right direction. (For that matter, anything reducing the size and scope of government is good). I am convinced that the market can provide for settlement of disputes in all cases (those who refuse any arbitration whatsoever will never have any hope for settlement and will be viewed as "difficult to deal with"), private defense companies can provide protection from criminals, and defense companies will band against a common foreign enemy. Wars of destruction are generally fought for defensive reasons, and there is no reason to defend against a non-agressor. Wars of conquest can not involve overwhelming destructive force since it would be counter-productive. The only logical "war" against a nation of free individuals would be limited, designed to win the minds of the population (and thus enslave their productivity, as any modern state does), and even loose affiliations of individuals can repel such things.
And states guarantee transparancy?
If transparancy, oversight, or regulation were so desirable, customers would deal with companies that appeared more transparent, and subjected themselves to greater review. IOW, if transparancy and neutral review were so desirable, the market would provide them in the form of "Review Companies" which could produce reports on other companies, to which customers could purchase subscriptions. Think "Consumer Reports" on steroids. If there is an interest in corporate scandal (which there will be), the news organizations will certainly seek it out (for scandal is their livelihood) and report it.
Bingo, this market is no longer free; it is manipulated. Sure, those barriers eventually fall...
While I disagree that lack of transparancy or regulation can exist to the extent you fear, a sucessful business does impede competitors because it can reinvest its profits to be even more successfull whereas a competitor has yet to realize them. So, let's consider such barriers, arising out of "runaway success".
If a business is sucessful, it is only so because its customers are satisfied. If they are satisfied, what is the problem? The fear that, once the business is so powerful that it has effectively eliminated all competitors, it will start to gouge it's customers, who have no recourse to do business elsewhere?
Let's say this happens.
Now the situation has shifted from one where no other business can effectively compete because they can not undercut the margins of the sucessful one. The "monopolist's" greed, however, changes this. Suddenly it becomes more profitable to try to compete once again. But, business can't "turn on" overnight, and once a competitor becomes serious, the greedy business once again lower it's prices and drive the competition away. Why bother competing in the first place? And so, the monopoly survives. This is your fear and complaint, yes?
Such a situation must involve a lot of angry people, I suppose.
But, they have no ones but themselves to blame -- getting their "eggs", as it were, from the basket of a single supplier who can effectively adjust prices at their whim, with no planned recourse if the price becomes to deal. Alas, the nature of people is to be short-sighted, so to assign blame is to be a bit unrealistic.
Of course, there will be those few who see the danger. (After all, you do.) Perhaps they can convince others that the danger is real. Perhaps they can afford to stockpile the single-supplier commodity, and sell insurance (to cover the cost of such storage) to guarantee supplies at a stable price. Perhaps large numbers of people, can form a collective and so self-insure against such a risk. (Such self-insurance is common today in the form of mutual insurance companies that are owned by their insureds).
The fly in this ointment is that the big, bad, monopolist might be able to outlast any such risk (and this goes for boycotts in general). However, this requires tying up large reserves of capital that could otherwise be put to productive use and so involves a big opportunity cost. Few companies can afford to do this. Even Microsoft, flush with cash and nowhere to effectively invest it, recently simply returned a large chunk, in the form of a special dividend, back to its shareholders.
The moral is to simply not put all ones eggs in one basket, and for those times when that is unavoidable, act to be able to avoid it in the future. This is no different than saving for a "rainy day" in case one loses the only job one has.
But, let's assume the worst. Let's assume that the monopolist can survice any economic onslaught. I expect he will be greatly dispised. While initiation of force is wrong, some people m
That's both absurd and insightful.
Absurd: In a free market, no abusive monopoly would stay that way -- competitors, smelling profits, would start supplying effective alternatives. Heck, even with a less than free market, alternatives sprung up to Windows: the community-produced and collectively owned GNU/* and BSD-* alternatives.
Oh, but it was hard, time-consuming, and difficult to do. Considering the capital investgment MSFT made, this is not surprising. Now Windows®, while catering to 90%+ of computer users' needs, might be awkward for your needs, that's just plain good business sense: go after the low hanging fruit. Try buying fresh galangal outside of Thailand sometime. I don't see attempts to bust up the "ginger monopoly" in response.
The anti-monopolists wish to use the force of the state for the simple purpose of making their lives more convenient at someone else's expense. And it is to the initiation of such force that I object. (Much as I'd object to state-granted patents, licensing requirements, and other impediments to a free market - why should the taxpayer protect your intellectual property?).
Insightful: If you wish to object to a monopoly object to the state's monopoly on the initiation of force on behalf of the popular thieves of the day and read "The Market for Liberty."
Those that are strong enough to steal for you are strong enough to steal from you.
Those that think monopolies should be busted so their lives might be more convenient should have no objection to the busting of their skulls with a crowbar, facilitating the taking of their monies so my life could, too, be more convenient.
I'm only using the SVGA output for now, but have pushed the display to 1920x1440x60Hz(x16 bits instead of 24 at that res) to get 1920x1080 on a 4:3 CRT, with no ill effects.
I have not yet tried the YPrPb outputs.
I've got a 1.0 GHz nano-ITX, with MythTv on it, leveraging the OpenChrome CN400 drivers.
I haven't optimized it though: slapped in a hard drive with a full FC3 install (so I could compile natively if I wanted), and so have to do that.
I would very much like to collaborate w.r.t. configuration, etc.
FWIW, I do remove the seeds but retain as much of the placenta (where most of the capcaiscin is stored) as possible, so the resulting powder is more orange than red.
Great on eggs, chicken, pizza, aw heck, just about anything. I tend to use a pinch when I make vindaloo if it isn't hot enough, though I generally use dried red serranos or arbols when making vindaloo (about a tablespoon per two pounds of meat).
Don't try this at home, but if you must, here's what you do:
1. Get a bunch of habs: 15 to 30 nice red ones. Get Red Savina® if you like them really hot.
2. Slit them open, and cut off the stem. Remove the seeds, but try to retain as much of the white, fleshy placenta and ribs as possible. You may want to wear gloves while doing this: I'm a veteran at it (read: don't bother with gloves) and still get burns on my hands from time to time -- they take about 4-6 hours to really start burning, so you won't notice when you're cutting them up. The occasional burn doesn't bother me all that much: it burns more when the skin is heater (like in the shower or tub), but YMMV. Be careful what you do touch after slicing open the habs.
3. Arrange them non-overlapping in a food dehydrator. Cut big one in half so all the pieces are about the same size. Food dehydrators can be purchased for US$30 to US$50. They're great for drying all sorts of things (onions, garlic, fruit, etc.) and making beef jerky.
4. Dry for 8 to 12 hours (overnight) or until they are completely dry.
5. Grind up the dried peppers in a blade coffee grinder used only to grind spices.
6. Wait for the powder to settle. Carefully sift through a strainer to get a consistent size. Try to not get too much of it airborne -- it will irritate your eyes, nose, throat, etc. While stinging and hot, this is not likely to be fatal, but you might think your eyes and nose are about to bleed if you do get exposed.
7. Transfer to a spice jar, close tightly, and store in a cool, dark place. The freezer works well for maximum freshness, but any remaining humidity will lead to cluming.
Add as desired to food. It takes a while for the burn of habs to be noticible, so go slow at first.
Instead of grinding the dried habs, you may want to keep the pieces as intact as possible, stored in a freezer bag in the freezer, and grind them as required, or in small quantites to keep in a spice jar in the pantry. That's useful if you have a lot of habs.
You could also partially grind or crush them into flakes, for use over pasta, for example, where flakes are better than powder, but I find that the fruity flavour does not go all that well with pasta. I prefer arbols for this purpose.
Notice: I think, that in Canada, this process consitutes the manufacture of a weapon, and might be quite illegal. Check with your lawyer. (It probably is illegal in the U.S. too, if weapon's manufacture is your intent.)
I was born in Canada, am a Canadian citizen, and have had nothing but very negative experiences in Canada: my treatment in the U.S., by people who know I'm a foreigner has been far, far better, in comparison.
I came to realize in my 20s that my socio-political views were hightly libertarian. I saw the founding documents of the U.S. (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights) as a good framework upon which to build a nation, even if not as completely libertarian as some purists might wish. In contrast to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", I saw "peace, order, and good government" in Canada's Constitution.
Harumph.
It's easy to have "peace, order, and good government": Just slaughter all the troublemakers. While that's extreme, it happened in Nazi Germany, and seeing the seeds of that possibility in a nation's founding documents was most troubling. I quickly found that actively (but peacefully) voicing such concerns in Canada was a fast ticket to bringing trouble upon myself that could be easily avoided if I "just shut up".
1982's "Notwithstanding Clause" as opposed to a clear separation of executive, legislative, and judicial powers was yet another example of how out of sync Canada's socio-political framework and general public mindset was with my beliefs.
Yes, yes, varous U.S. regimes have not been faithful to their principles, and it can be argued that Canadian regimes have been "reasonable" (though I would debate this). However, strong principles that recognize governments as a necessary evil, but an evil nevertheless, strike me as better bedrock for a society, that some vague promise that the government won't ever do what it has the mandated power to do. The pendulum swings wildly in the U.S., but swing back from excess it does do, over and over. Bush, too, will pass (though the choice between warmongering republican or taxing democrat in 2008 is a lose/lose proposition).
Recently, the Province of Quebec noted that it would use the "Notwithstanding Clause" to overrule the Canadian Supreme Court decision that a federal or provincial government can't prevent a patient from contracting with a doctor for treatment, when treatment under the government system is not forthcomimg because of delays (which have become rampant in the Canadian nationalized healtcare system).
So, the abuse of power is exposed, in all it's ugliness. Americans, imagine this: you paid your taxes, they went up to pay for some nationalized healthcare system, with long waits for some level of service. You don't want to wait, have savings, and pay a doctor for treatment. (Say you're a woman recently diagnosed with breast cancer and told that the government waiting list for treatment is 6 months long). You, and the doctor, can be fined, and go to jail. That is the state of Canadian health care. If you wait, there's a good chance you might die.
Canada (and Cuba) have replaced the former Soviet Union as bastions of communism. I suppose Canadians vacationing in Cuba feel right at home. The classic communist response to the above is to argue that perhaps more than one life can be saved instead of "wasting" resources to save yours, even if you've already paid your taxes! (Of course, what happens is that the tax rates are so high, that even if it were legal to pay for health care, most could not afford to do so).
This is the state playing at god: chosing who lives or dies (There is evidence that prominent people, particularly politicials, get preferential treatment. The very wealthy, of course, just leave the country. I remember it being a big deal that the former premier of Quebec went to the U.S. for cancer treatment -- something generally unavailable).
I reject this notion, and call it murder, when the state has acted or legislated in su
Then, after over five years in the U.S., and moving from a suburb of Dallas to a suburb of Toronto, I had to "learn" that (a) no one understands what a "20 oz Coke" is (it actually took me about a minute to realize that it was the "20 oz" instead of "600 ml" that was confusing people), (b) it was dangerous to try to order "a side of grits" with my breakfast, (c) asking for a receipt at a fast food place could get me arrested for "holding up the line".
I also learned that while wearing an NRA t-shirt and cap let me be accepted as "one of us" in Texas (my NRA card got me a discount on an oil change, once!), it was an invitation to be arrested in Ontario (my NRA bumper stickers ("Crime Control not Gun Control" and "Freedom is not Free") got me flack from BC border guards as well).
Other than that, sorry, no. :-(
2001 Chicago to Dallas
2003 Dallas to Toronto
2004 Toronto to Seattle
Things to watch out for:
1. Cost of Living. You did do a cost of living analysis (including differences in income and other taxes, insurance, housing), right? Because, no amount of relocation assistance (unless it is extreme) will make up for some place you can't afford to live.
2. Moving Expenses. Are they footing the whole bill, or reimburing you to some limit? I've done it both ways, and getting a mover within your budget is just another headache to deal with while you are very busy. When I moved from Chicago to Dallas, with a fixed moving allowance, it still cost me $1600 (over the $8500 (IIRC) my employer paid). I suppose I could have found a cheaper mover, but that would take time, which I didn't have.
3. Temporary Housing: for how long? Typical is a month, and that's way too short if you need to sell a home and buy another one. It's damn hard to sell a house and buy another one within 30 days. I've done it, but only by pricing my home agressively.
4. Storage. 30 days is typical. After that, it's on your dime. $500 to $1000 a month is typical for a home's contents.
5. Selling/Buying a home. This only applies if you own, not rent. If your employer will buy your old home at a reasonable price, don't hesitate to accept! Some will guarantee a price, if you can't sell it within 90 days. If you have to sell it yourself, price your home to sell... fast! While that may seam foolish, realize that every month your house does not sell is another month that your're renting temporary housing (or chosing to rent for a mid-term, like 6 months) and either paying for storage or accepting that you'll have to move twice, and paying a mortgage and insurance and someone to look after your old home (most insurance policies require that the house be checked every 24 to 48 hours if vacant, if they're that flexible). Pricing your house $10k under market might make the difference between selling it in two weeks or four months. Don't forget that you will pay comissions to sell your house.
Here's my experience in this regard:
1997: Montreal, Canada: bought US$75k in 1991. Sold US$70k to relo company on the spot. Lost $5k. Of course, the market was horrible and houses typically took over a year to sell.
2001: Lake Zurich, IL: bought $179,500 in 1997. Sold $221,500. Paid 5% to sell. $30.9k profit. Sold in 8 days. Closed in 21 days.
2003: Allen, TX: bought $189k in 2001. Sold: $189k. Paid 3% to sell (buyer came unrepresented. Lost $6k. Sold in 2 weeks. Closed in 30 days. Big telecom bust, and many homes were being foreclosed upon. Neighbour held out and lost around $20k more in similar circumstances.
Had to rent a house in Markham for 6 months because one can't buy a house in Ontario with less than 120 days employment. US$1480 rent/month. Had stuff delivered, but kept all but essentials boxed for 6 months. Paid US$2800 to move 20 miles into Whitby home.
2004: Whitby, ON: bought 2003 for US$189. Sold: US$194 in 36 hours. Closed in 3 weeks. Paid 3.75% to sell (I paid 1.25% to list on MLS and stick a sign up). Lost $2.3k, but was offset by signing bonus which helped with move. Negotiate this if your are selling a house on your own!
Today: Monroe, WA: bought 2004 for $225k. Currently appraised at $320k.
It might look that I sold fast and cheap. But, figure $3-4k a month for every month your house does not sell to (a) rent, (b) put your stuff in storage.
6. House hunting trip. Ignore if renting. Try to negotiate a house hunting trip over a weekend. Even if you can't do this, budget extra time after your last interview, and if it goes well, get a realtor to take you around to get a feel for the market. The idea is that you hit the ground running to find a house as soon as you're in temporary housing.
Ideally, you want to have your old home sold, and your new one purchased, and
Nah :-) Besides, I've got a fairly thick skin.
lesse: s/impeeded/impeded/ - spelling, my bad s/paraent/parent - typo, my bad s/insistes/insists/ - typo, my bad s/amis/amiss/ - typo, my bad s/Johnney/Johnny/ - typo, my bad (thought I caught them all, though) s/damn/damned/ - coloquailism: I'm using damn as an adjective, not a verb. I plead haste as far as the typos go, but the spelling mistake I'll accept.
While I agree with the sentiment, those "few wealthy people" often pay high property taxes, somewhat ofsetting the cost of maintaining their roads.
... for all the grammar nazis out there: it was a typographical, not grammatical, error on my part.
I'm not sure whether you are agreeing with me, or arguing with me.
One counter to parenting not being the government's job is that government has impeeded the paraent's ability to parent. When little Johnny learns that all he has to do is call the school-supplied state "abuse" hotline and say he is "scared of Daddy" because Daddy insistes Johnny finish his homework before watching TV, something is amis. And, if Daddy has raised Johnney to be smart, it won't be long before Johnny learns to "work the system".
In such a situtation, I muse about raising my kids to be the best damn serial psychopathic killers I can, and let them lose on the society that restrained my ability to exert discipline.
Funny how the internet does that quite well. Oh wait, you will equate the miniscule amount of state involvement in the 'net to it's existence as a government success.
But I'm not going to debate you if you are going to defend racism. That battle's just about over where I live, thank god, and I can quite cheerfully blow the fucking head off anybody that tries to burn a cross in my yard.
Lucky for you, that yard is yours. Imagine if all yards were public.
But, what is telling is your insistance on forcing your view on others. This is the way of all statists: they believe that they can justify theft (elimination of private property, taxation, etc.) by some mob-based arithmetic. By the same token, "lynching niggers" to which you appear to be quite opposed, would be fine, if it were a majority-held view.
Bringing a bogus charge of racism into the depate is a red herring: no one has the right to trespass on private property, regardless of race. If the owner happens to welcome whites while killing others, on his land, that's his business, and limited quite directly to his borders.
Fortunately, most of us value freedom of movement and are quite happy to enter into cooperative relationshiops with our neighbors in that regard, leaving the bigots to their enclaves, where, masters of their domain, they'd have little right to complain.
Oh, I see, he thinks he can force his view of the world on everyone else, by prefixing his desire with "as a parent".
Lemme try that: "As a parent, I object to the grandparent poster being allowed to live and expose my children to the vile notion that it is all right to force one's opinions on others."
So. What part of "private" don't you understand?
You still see this in rural parts of the country. Many of the roads around where I live are private.
Now, these roads would not support large amounts of traffic, but, then again, they don't have to. Where there is economic pressure for large amounts of traffic, road operators will indeed purchase private rights of way and build toll roads.
At the end of the last century a similar thing happened with rail roads -- they weren't built by government, they were built by private industry.
Here's the deal: I provide IP packets to you, and you see that you make a best effort to deliver them to where they're intended. You also make a best effort to deliver IP packets to me that are intended for me that you receive.
What's the problem here?
Yes, yes, we know what the problem is: instead of acting like an ISP, many ISPs deliver "that thar intarweb".
That's why I only deal with ISPs without bullshit TOS. Granted, I pay closer to US$70 a month instead of $19.95 for my 1.5Mx384k service, but at least I know what I'm getting.
You wouldn't think to shoot back?
Of course not! After all, I'd get slapped with a murder charge! The fact that you'd be dead wouldn't matter.
All I can say, is "stoopid dumbfuck canuck".
In the U.S., I can (a) file jointly with my wife, (b) deduct the mortgage interest on our home, (c) get a tax credit of $2k for our kids, (d) earn at least 30% more in US$ than I did in CA$, (e) have gold-plated health case via my employer, (f) actually manage to save for retirement, and (g) contribute thousands of dollars a year to various charities. I can actually have a housekeeper and pay people to care for my lawn. Bourgous? Hardly, that's a middle class life. And the monies I pay for these service help these people own their own homes as well. (Don't kid yourself: lawn care runs around $35 an hour, and maid service $30-50. The self-employed in these areas can do quite well for themselves).
What's interesting about your numbers is the cost per student: $6797. That's way more than the tuition to many private schools that offer a better education. Not the best private schools, to be sure, but typical ones (and excluding room and board, obviously).
I am opposed to socialism in principle, being a libertarian. However, if the state actually made effective use of my tax dollars to support what I would anyway, I could not complain much from a pragmatic standpoint. But, Canada and the provinces have done an abysmal job keeping the promise of the social contract.