No because if you read my post, the fixing will take a generation, so you are in no position to make that judgement today.
I did read your post. Just because time passes doesn't mean something will improve over time.
The first part of "fixing it" is to get rid of the ACA and replace it with something, almost anything else. The ACA is really just the old system pumped up on steroids. It looks flashy in the short run, but it will burn out long before my kids care about it.
Ok, maybe I'm missing it, but 4g seems fast enough to me.
I can watch video, play games, use apps, browse the web, etc. on 4g now.
I'm struggling to imagine what I'd need another big speed boost for?
Not that I'm against it, I am just trying to see the need. If it solves other issues, such as allowing more total traffic in the same radio spectrum, then fair enough, but the summary doesn't say that.
So what are you doing with your phones that needs more speed?
This is where you are wrong. The USSR's economy worked stupendously well. At doing what it was commanded to do, which was build a military superpower.
Ha! You must be kidding...
If you really believe that, then there is nothing further to talk about, because you're factually wrong. They were largely a paper tiger much past 1960 or so, we just didn't know it for a long time, they hid it well.
I'm no expert, but it seems the ACA is a good first step.
It isn't...
The ACA is designed to try and force everyone to buy insurance, and to have the government pay for part of that insurance for the poor.
It doesn't do squat to the actual cost of health care.
So first up, even the playing field and expose the true cost to the individual.Tick.
It doesn't do that, people still have no idea what anything costs.
But now this should put pressure on providers (in a truly competitive market - I'm not if this exist in the US?) to find cheaper services, cut the fat and find efficiencies in the industry.
It doesn't do that, not at all...
What you end up with is some cheap policies that are a pain to use and have high deductibles and co-pays, or expensive policies that only the well off can afford.
In 2014 and 2015, I had policies via the Healthcare exchanges, they sucked. Too many providers didn't take them. Trying to get a doctor who could see you was a pain in the butt. You have to pay a lot more to get on the "good lists".
Oh sure, if you need emergency room care, they are all fine. But normal stuff is terrible.
I dropped my policy for 2016, it was a waste of money. $1,000 a month and it is really hard to make use of it. My normal doctor doesn't take it, the ones who do are not easy to get too, don't have good hours, or have way too many patients. I'd have to spend closer to $1,600 a month for a policy that my doctor would accept.
For a 40 year old in good health, that is silly, I'll just pay out of pocket. The fine for not having coverage is trivial, about $700.
So you are in the first stage of this pain, but eventually, assuming there are genuine market forces at work, the industry should become more efficient. Like most major social change, it could take a generation to turn the ship around, but your kids will thank you for it.
I'm sorry, but healthcare in the US is a mess, has been for a long time, and the ACA didn't fix it.
The market should stop them and the governments of the world should regulate the markets so that they do.
This is the part where I think you're wrong.
What you're suggesting is that the government pass laws saying that companies can only sell approved items.
You want government to run businesses. This is a REALLY bad idea. The USSR tried it, it really doesn't work.
Capitalism may have its flaws, but it works far better than a command economy does.
---
Now, I suspect you don't THINK you're suggesting the above, but you really are. You want government to tell companies that they can't market segment. You think this is a good thing.
It really isn't.
There isn't actually THAT much difference between a Chevy Suburban, a GMC Yukon XL, and a Cadillac Escalade. They are the same truck, made on the same production line, with rather minor trim differences. You can buy a Suburban for under $50K, or spend $100K on an Escalade. There isn't nearly $50K worth of differences there, but the three lines exist because there are customers willing to pay the higher prices for the fluff.
Under your plan, the under $50K Suburban would have to go away, because they could only sell one model and it would cost more to cover R&D.
No, not everyone does that. That you would assume that to be the case is incredibly telling...
You're telling me that you pay more taxes than you legally have to?
Do you write a check to the US Treasury on top of what you actually owe?
Ok, fair enough, there ARE a few people who actually do this. Not very many however, and when I say "everyone", clearly that means "almost everyone", since in any large population you can find an exception.
If you're a fiscal conservative, why would you even consider voting Republican?
I don't think R/D makes any difference when it comes to money and debt, both are bad.
I vote Republican because the Democrats are for gun control, and I believe that is a crime against humanity. Yes, seriously, I believe that disarming citizens causes real harm in the long run to everyone.
If Bernie Sanders would come out tomorrow and say the following:
"I support a constitutional amendment respecting the individual right to keep and bear arms as both personal and collective security against threats to the citizens of this country from all threats, foreign and domestic, to include the US government should it overstep the US Constitution".
Do you honestly believe that Donald Trump, the man with his name plastered across everything he owns, does anything with nuance?
I think that Donald Trump has built up a public image and has learned that by projecting success, he opens doors that remain closed to other people.
I recall reading many years ago about his first really big disaster in business. It was during the 1990 recession, he was broke, owing almost half a billion dollars and not being able to meet his obligations.
He called up the big banks he owned money to and met with them over the weekend. He said to them, "I could declare bankruptcy and instantly make a lot of money, because my net worth would go from negative a lot to zero, but I'm not going to do that".
"Instead, I'm going to work with you to get you every penny back that you're owed, in return, I need another $50 million to carry me over until I make that happen".
He owed all this money, was on paper bankrupt, and walked out with MORE money from the banks.
That takes hubris...
Sadly, it also take that type of hubris to run for President the way he has. Reasonable, well spoken people tend not to do that. Ben Carson might be the closest, but he lost any chance he might have had when he opened his mouth and showed that he had no idea about way too many topics. He is a very smart man, but he is not well versed across a wide spectrum. Donald Trump probably isn't either, but he is enough to get away with it for the moment, and he can learn.
Sorry, but unless he spells it out, you can be sure he's letting people hear whatever they want to hear, everyone believing they can read between the lines.
Yea, that is a risk. I am hoping that at some point he does it. If he does, I think he'll get a lot of people off the fence. Multiple times I've heard good stuff from him, only to think, "meh, that he what he thinks we want to hear, where are the details?"
I respect the details that Bernie Sanders released about his single payer healthcare plan. I know it won't happen exactly as he describes, Congress gets a say.:) But it is a good starting point, I would support it. It is better than the ACA, IMHO.
Your interpretation is probably the best articulated, most intelligent, and compelling version of a defense for Trump's platform, but unless he spells it out with his own words, it's still speculation and probably wishful thinking.
You may well be right. He can probably win the primary off what he has done so far, but to win the election, he'll need to provide more details to get the middle 20% of Americans on his side.
When I gave my interpretation, I was trying to think of what he might mean, if put into a "reasonableness filter", taking into account that there are multiple points of view and that we are electing a President and not a King.
If I could be President tomorrow, the first thing I'd do is put a plaque up in the Oval Office that says, "it takes two to tango and one to stop", meaning that if I want to get anything done, I have to dance with the other side. If I want it all my own way, nothing is going to happen.
Trump in particular has a track record of poor strategy and implementation, even when he has total control.
People say that, but he has a crapload of money, so he has done something right. Perhaps he put the right people in charge of projects and then moved on to other stuff, and those people did well. Well, that is a lot of what a President does, picking the right people to run each department, since he can't do it all himself.
I'd much rather have Trump than Hilary or Cruz, both of those two scare the crap out of me. I'd even take Bernie Sanders over Hilary or Cruz, if that tells you anything.
But it's not a good example. The CPU market (at least x86 compatible) is very unhealthy. It has far too few competitors and way too much too big to fail.
There doesn't HAVE to be a market for x86 compatible, you can thank IBM for the fact that we have AMD at all.
But there is plenty of competition in the CPU market, it just turns out that Intel is really good at what they do and have a better process than anyone else.
IBM made Power chips for years. ARM exists, as do others. Intel and AMD are not the only sources for CPUs, and every CPU maker does exactly what Intel does.
That should be telling, and should inform you of something.
GPU makers do it, DRAM makers do it, and so on...
It is basic good business. You're claiming that it isn't and they should stop. I'm pointing out that they aren't going to stop because the market has clearly decided they are all right.
This isn't about a few companies doing something, it is about ALL companies doing something. MANY companies over the years have tried what you suggest. Most don't exist anymore.
It only has to be made more efficient. US healthcare costs twice as much ans other similar countries. Fix this, and everything else takes care of itself.
Easy to say, but hard to do, because the basic system is broken.
The US has the best healthcare in the world, if you're well off, it also has decent care if you're completely impoverished and don't care about your credit.
It isn't actually that great if you're in the middle.
Curious, what do you think could be done to "fix this" and make health care cost less?
but can't we atleast say that labor shifts can't be more than 9 hours long? The underlying reason being that 1 person working for 16 hours is less effective than 2 people working 8 each?
You can say that, but it doesn't work.
The person just has 2 jobs with two 8 hour shifts and now has to move between two jobs.
In fact, depending on how things are setup, the 2 people might swap jobs, moving between 2 buildings at the 8 hour point, with each building "owned" by a different company, but really not.
You're trying to change economics by decree, it just doesn't work. Too many external factors are at play.
But who will Trump hire for housekeeping in his casinos?
Americans, and pay them a fair wage, if he wants the work done.
Example: I enjoy getting my lawn mowed for $20 a week, they do a good job as well. But what is the price of being able to get that service for that price? If we kick out half the illegals, my lawn service will likely go up to $30 a week, but I'm ok with that actually.
We'll all be better off when the balance of labor supply and demand is adjusted with 5 million fewer people willing to work for peanuts.
I'm sure he is a big supporter of NAFTA too since companies can save money by moving their workload to Canada or Mexico instead of building on US soil.
He might have been, in the past, when it suited him. Now he is rich, old, and doesn't need any more money. Instead, he can change his focus to improving the world, or at least America.
Compare Bill Gates from 1995 to Bill Gates of 2015 as an example.
Nearly everything has parts made in China and other countries and it would be nearly impossible for Apple to remain competitive price wise against imports if they make everything in the USA.
That is because you, and many others, take such comments at face value, in a vacuum, and assume nothing else changes but that one thing.
Trump's point is that the whole supply chain needs to shift, and he is not so stupid as to think this'll happen in a week. It took years to get here, it'll take years to undo it. If we don't undo it, we're finished as a major power. Is that what you want?
As a side note, you read too much media, Trump never said he would force Apple to do anything. He said he would get them to do it. Carrot vs. stick. There is more nuance involved, but it doesn't fit into a 15 second soundbite.
One of the great faults of modern democracy is the unwillingness of the average person to pay more attention to any details, thus you have what sounds like a bunch of nonsense coming from Trump, when there is detail behind it.
Bernie Sanders has the same problem. Look at the last debate with Clinton... She just keeps harping "oh, you want to raise taxes, oh you want to raise taxes!" Yea, yea, so fracking what, if you no longer have to pay health care premiums, you're net ahead. Bernie is completely right, we pay a crap ton of money for health care and have tens of millions with no coverage and millions more with poor coverage with huge deductibles.
I'm sorry but are you out of your mind??? You seriously just suggested that Mexico would simply decide to let the US put them behind a giant wall AND give the US part of their country for free?!?!?
No, you didn't read it very well. Go back and read it again, because you missed several key points.
1) I disagree the current situation cannot continue. You'll still have a country, it will be somewhat more latino but it will still be a country. That's not to say it's an ideal situation, but I submit that it's better than the outcome you propose.
Then there is nothing much further to discuss, then is there? That's fine, you're welcome to your opinion and views, I'm welcome to mine.
3) If you're really serious about stopping immigration you can build the wall and pay for it yourself as conservatives have suggested for ages. This talk about having Mexico pay for it is just bizarre, the US has more money and is the one who's most concerned about it, why is it Mexico's responsibility to protect your border?
It isn't as bizarre as you'd think... Why should Mexico care? Because they are highly dependent on the US for jobs, cash flow from families, and manufacturing. They need to work with us to stop the flow of illegal immigration. It is in their interest, as well as ours.
And as for why Mexico should pay for the wall, or at least half of it, that is to get some say as to where the wall gets put. Some sections of Northern Mexico are largely under the control of the drug cartels, the same ones that have expanded across the border and have camps on the US side. If the Mexican Government is unable to control warlords on their side of the border, we can use the US Army to do that for them. And then put the border further south. Then we'll be happy to pay for the wall.
You of course have to have some vision to understand that doesn't happen in the first 5 minutes, it is the end game, not the first move of a pawn. Mexico would have many chances along the way to work with us, to help deal with the problem. For example, were I US President, I would suggest to the Mexican Government that the US Army work with the Mexican Army to go after the drug cartels together. I would suggest that join border patrols by both armies could be implemented so they work together to stop the flow of drugs, money, and people across the border.
The level of help and effort put forth by them would determine where it goes next. If I see a good faith effort, then much of the harshness can be put aside.
---
Trump is right about one thing... If you can't control your own border, then you don't really have a country.
Even if you somehow get the US public to support it then you create a latino terrorist problem and make the US into an international pariah.
I don't agree with your conclusion. You clearly don't agree with mine.
What I haven't heard is another solution, because it is easy to attack someone else who has a plan, it is far harder to come up with your own plan and put it out there.
I submit that the current situation cannot continue and has to be stopped, or we'll no longer have a country. At least not a great one.
What is your solution to stopping illegal border crossings?
I agree about single payer and that is what I would love to see happen
Bernie Sanders has proposed a small tax on people and a slightly larger tax on companies, to fund Medicare for all, with no co-pays and no deductibles.
I reject the $1,000 a month BC/BS wants, but I'll support the above, and yes I pay taxes. It bypasses the profit of the middleman, and there is a LOT of waste in healthcare (my wife is a doctor, I know this first hand).
how do you expect paying for a car accident that may happen tomorrow that may result in a 200k$ hospital bill or a stroke or whatever?
I have $300K of medical coverage on my auto insurance for just that reason, and I also have uninsured/underinsured coverage, so if the other guy only has $40K total limit, my policy will pickup the difference.
I have a $500K medical policy on my home owners insurance to cover hospital costs for accidents in the home.
What the above policies do NOT cover is stuff like heart disease, diabetes, stuff like that. But if I'm in a car crash, or I fall down the stairs and break a leg, or something like that, I'm covered. The cost to add the above riders to both policies was less than $1,000 per year and covers me for a lot of the risk at 40.
You thinking it is rubbish and it actually being rubbish are two different things.
It really isn't, allow me to explain:
It sounds like they could save a cool million by just doing the tuning once and selling the more powerful product at a proper market regulated price rather than playing silly games with market segmentation. If the better product costs no more to make than the lesser product, the market will force them to sell the better product at the lesser price in order to be competitive.
You're assuming that once all the R&D time is divided over the units sold, the resulting price is one that enough people will pay to make the whole thing worth the effort. Often what really happens is the volume units are there, just to give R&D something to divide across to make the whole thing make sense, but the real profits are in the high end units.
Take cars for example. The base model of a vehicle usually is a break even, or even money losing item for a car company. They really make their money on the upgrades. The person who buys a fully loaded vehicle is subsidizing the cheap car for the poor person.
What you're suggesting is that the base price be raised and the top line price be lowered. The problem with that is you won't sell more cars to the people who could otherwise afford the higher price, they only need one car. But you WILL sell fewer cars at the lower price points. Your total R&D budget now has to divide across fewer cars, raising the price further for all of them.
A base Ford Focus might be $15K, a midlevel might be $22K, and a fully loaded might be $30K. It doesn't cost twice as much to make the fully loaded vehicle, but they need the profits to make the $15K model exist. Across all those models, they may sell 200,000 cars. But if you made them sell just one model, it might end up having to be $22K, but they may only sell 100,000 cars, and now it has to cost $25K to cover the R&D costs.
You've removed the cheaper option, you've sold fewer cars, fewer people have jobs, and costs went up for everyone, just so you could feel "fair" somehow. It is a really bad deal.
Another example is computer CPUs. Intel sells a i5-6400 for about half the price of a i7-6700K. But they are really the same CPU off the same production line. The market for $350 CPUs isn't large enough to justify selling ONLY that chip, and lowering the price to $250 still has issues. Being able to offer a $175 CPU increases their overall marketshare and overall profits, while giving the customer choice. The majority of i5-6400 chips could probably run with hyperthreading turned on, the extra 2MB L2 cache turned on, and at a higher clockspeed (yes, some are binned because they are defective, early on at least, but at some point demand calls for more i5-6400 chips than are binned, so Intel disables otherwise working features to meet the customer orders for the lower priced chip.
Why? Because it really costs maybe $20 to make each CPU. But their cost isn't in making millions and millions of chips, it was in making the first chip. The first chip might have cost $2 billion to make. Each extra chip is $20 after that. The more they can sell, the more total profit they make.
If everyone could take an i5-6400 and turn it into a i7-6700K, then their business model breaks down. That is why we have locked chips in the first place, people used to do just that. The K series exists because Intel has discovered that if they charge enough, then they don't have to care what people do with the CPU, the profits compensate them for any loss due to overclocking.
---
TL;DR - In short, it is well understood that making a single model of something and selling it at multiple price points with multiple features, is a well established way of doing business. The market has picked it over the long run, over many industries, over many companies.
Modern combines and tractors don't even have to be driven by a human. And you think the only complex logic is on the engine?
There are probably ways to do that with open source.
The OP said that one of the reasons they encrypt is per the EPA, they have to make it hard to defeat the emissions control equipment.
If you want to remove the encryption, then you have to provide another acceptable way to prevent farmers from removing that equipment and controls.
All the farmers have to do is just refuse to buy tractors that aren't open. Let the dealerships know that you are deliberately putting off buying a new tractor for a few years at least until more open options are on the table, and let everyone know there are huge opportunities for new start ups.
So you're literally proposing they gun down women and children?
Oh yes, the "think of the children" argument...
Do you prefer the current situation, where unlimited numbers of women and children come here and destroy our country?
What will it take, what has to happen, before you'll accept that these are invaders who are destroying our way of life?
At some point, yes, you do have to shoot them. It will be the only way to stop them from coming. People do whatever is in their own best interest. If you feed, cloth, house, and educate them, THEY WILL KEEP COMING.
It really isn't that hard to understand.
If you start shooting them, they will STOP COMING.
Instead of the Border Patrol driving SUVs along the border, why don't we have tanks and armored personal carriers on the border? When the people drive across the border in their SUVs, shoot them.
You have a very distorted misunderstanding of the world.
A problem for the US isn't just that we've outsourced manufacturing, but that we've moved so much of the production pipeline overseas that it is becoming more and more untenable to have any manufacturing done in the US. Sure, there are exceptions, but the more parts are sourced from Asia the more you will see the product manufacturing being moved wholesale to Asia.
I'm well aware of that... which is why it needs to be reversed before it is too late...
Assuming that you are human, you need health insurance.
No, I don't...
It wasn't needed 200 years ago, it wasn't needed 100 years, it wasn't needed 50 years ago, and it isn't needed today...
Insurance is an optional purchase made to cover against unexpected loss in the future...
The whole system is so messed up it isn't even funny. The only policy you can buy now covers a runny nose. I don't need insurance against that. I might, maybe, need insurance against major health issues, but those policies are gone.
5 years ago, I had health insurance. Today I do not. I'm not going to buy insurance just to make the ACA "work". Since the only way it "works" is if lots of healthy people buy insurance to cover all the sick people.
I'm 40 years old and healthy, I haven't spent more than $1,000 a year on health care... well, ever...
Might I at some point? Yes. Then I'll get insurance.
What you REALLY want is single-payer national health care. I don't have a problem with that actually, much like I enjoy a federal highway system and good police and schools. I pay taxes to pay for those.
But I'm not giving Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Texas $1,000 a month so their CEO can get his bonus. Which is really all the ACA is about.
Slashdot Mirror
No because if you read my post, the fixing will take a generation, so you are in no position to make that judgement today.
I did read your post. Just because time passes doesn't mean something will improve over time.
The first part of "fixing it" is to get rid of the ACA and replace it with something, almost anything else. The ACA is really just the old system pumped up on steroids. It looks flashy in the short run, but it will burn out long before my kids care about it.
Ok, maybe I'm missing it, but 4g seems fast enough to me.
I can watch video, play games, use apps, browse the web, etc. on 4g now.
I'm struggling to imagine what I'd need another big speed boost for?
Not that I'm against it, I am just trying to see the need. If it solves other issues, such as allowing more total traffic in the same radio spectrum, then fair enough, but the summary doesn't say that.
So what are you doing with your phones that needs more speed?
This is where you are wrong. The USSR's economy worked stupendously well. At doing what it was commanded to do, which was build a military superpower.
Ha! You must be kidding...
If you really believe that, then there is nothing further to talk about, because you're factually wrong. They were largely a paper tiger much past 1960 or so, we just didn't know it for a long time, they hid it well.
I'm no expert, but it seems the ACA is a good first step.
It isn't...
The ACA is designed to try and force everyone to buy insurance, and to have the government pay for part of that insurance for the poor.
It doesn't do squat to the actual cost of health care.
So first up, even the playing field and expose the true cost to the individual.Tick.
It doesn't do that, people still have no idea what anything costs.
But now this should put pressure on providers (in a truly competitive market - I'm not if this exist in the US?) to find cheaper services, cut the fat and find efficiencies in the industry.
It doesn't do that, not at all...
What you end up with is some cheap policies that are a pain to use and have high deductibles and co-pays, or expensive policies that only the well off can afford.
In 2014 and 2015, I had policies via the Healthcare exchanges, they sucked. Too many providers didn't take them. Trying to get a doctor who could see you was a pain in the butt. You have to pay a lot more to get on the "good lists".
Oh sure, if you need emergency room care, they are all fine. But normal stuff is terrible.
I dropped my policy for 2016, it was a waste of money. $1,000 a month and it is really hard to make use of it. My normal doctor doesn't take it, the ones who do are not easy to get too, don't have good hours, or have way too many patients. I'd have to spend closer to $1,600 a month for a policy that my doctor would accept.
For a 40 year old in good health, that is silly, I'll just pay out of pocket. The fine for not having coverage is trivial, about $700.
So you are in the first stage of this pain, but eventually, assuming there are genuine market forces at work, the industry should become more efficient. Like most major social change, it could take a generation to turn the ship around, but your kids will thank you for it.
I'm sorry, but healthcare in the US is a mess, has been for a long time, and the ACA didn't fix it.
No, you still missed it.
No, I didn't miss your point, I hear you.
I just think you're wrong.
The market should stop them and the governments of the world should regulate the markets so that they do.
This is the part where I think you're wrong.
What you're suggesting is that the government pass laws saying that companies can only sell approved items.
You want government to run businesses. This is a REALLY bad idea. The USSR tried it, it really doesn't work.
Capitalism may have its flaws, but it works far better than a command economy does.
---
Now, I suspect you don't THINK you're suggesting the above, but you really are. You want government to tell companies that they can't market segment. You think this is a good thing.
It really isn't.
There isn't actually THAT much difference between a Chevy Suburban, a GMC Yukon XL, and a Cadillac Escalade. They are the same truck, made on the same production line, with rather minor trim differences. You can buy a Suburban for under $50K, or spend $100K on an Escalade. There isn't nearly $50K worth of differences there, but the three lines exist because there are customers willing to pay the higher prices for the fluff.
Under your plan, the under $50K Suburban would have to go away, because they could only sell one model and it would cost more to cover R&D.
No, not everyone does that. That you would assume that to be the case is incredibly telling...
You're telling me that you pay more taxes than you legally have to?
Do you write a check to the US Treasury on top of what you actually owe?
Ok, fair enough, there ARE a few people who actually do this. Not very many however, and when I say "everyone", clearly that means "almost everyone", since in any large population you can find an exception.
If you're a fiscal conservative, why would you even consider voting Republican?
I don't think R/D makes any difference when it comes to money and debt, both are bad.
I vote Republican because the Democrats are for gun control, and I believe that is a crime against humanity. Yes, seriously, I believe that disarming citizens causes real harm in the long run to everyone.
If Bernie Sanders would come out tomorrow and say the following:
"I support a constitutional amendment respecting the individual right to keep and bear arms as both personal and collective security against threats to the citizens of this country from all threats, foreign and domestic, to include the US government should it overstep the US Constitution".
I'd switch sides and support him in a heartbeat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
That is Diane Feinstein on the gun ban in 1995.
âoeIf I could have banned them all â" âMr. and Mrs. America turn in your gunsâ(TM) â" I would have!â
I will NEVER vote Democrat until that changes.
Do you honestly believe that Donald Trump, the man with his name plastered across everything he owns, does anything with nuance?
I think that Donald Trump has built up a public image and has learned that by projecting success, he opens doors that remain closed to other people.
I recall reading many years ago about his first really big disaster in business. It was during the 1990 recession, he was broke, owing almost half a billion dollars and not being able to meet his obligations.
He called up the big banks he owned money to and met with them over the weekend. He said to them, "I could declare bankruptcy and instantly make a lot of money, because my net worth would go from negative a lot to zero, but I'm not going to do that".
"Instead, I'm going to work with you to get you every penny back that you're owed, in return, I need another $50 million to carry me over until I make that happen".
He owed all this money, was on paper bankrupt, and walked out with MORE money from the banks.
That takes hubris...
Sadly, it also take that type of hubris to run for President the way he has. Reasonable, well spoken people tend not to do that. Ben Carson might be the closest, but he lost any chance he might have had when he opened his mouth and showed that he had no idea about way too many topics. He is a very smart man, but he is not well versed across a wide spectrum. Donald Trump probably isn't either, but he is enough to get away with it for the moment, and he can learn.
Sorry, but unless he spells it out, you can be sure he's letting people hear whatever they want to hear, everyone believing they can read between the lines.
Yea, that is a risk. I am hoping that at some point he does it. If he does, I think he'll get a lot of people off the fence. Multiple times I've heard good stuff from him, only to think, "meh, that he what he thinks we want to hear, where are the details?"
I respect the details that Bernie Sanders released about his single payer healthcare plan. I know it won't happen exactly as he describes, Congress gets a say. :) But it is a good starting point, I would support it. It is better than the ACA, IMHO.
Your interpretation is probably the best articulated, most intelligent, and compelling version of a defense for Trump's platform, but unless he spells it out with his own words, it's still speculation and probably wishful thinking.
You may well be right. He can probably win the primary off what he has done so far, but to win the election, he'll need to provide more details to get the middle 20% of Americans on his side.
When I gave my interpretation, I was trying to think of what he might mean, if put into a "reasonableness filter", taking into account that there are multiple points of view and that we are electing a President and not a King.
If I could be President tomorrow, the first thing I'd do is put a plaque up in the Oval Office that says, "it takes two to tango and one to stop", meaning that if I want to get anything done, I have to dance with the other side. If I want it all my own way, nothing is going to happen.
Trump in particular has a track record of poor strategy and implementation, even when he has total control.
People say that, but he has a crapload of money, so he has done something right. Perhaps he put the right people in charge of projects and then moved on to other stuff, and those people did well. Well, that is a lot of what a President does, picking the right people to run each department, since he can't do it all himself.
I'd much rather have Trump than Hilary or Cruz, both of those two scare the crap out of me. I'd even take Bernie Sanders over Hilary or Cruz, if that tells you anything.
But it's not a good example. The CPU market (at least x86 compatible) is very unhealthy. It has far too few competitors and way too much too big to fail.
There doesn't HAVE to be a market for x86 compatible, you can thank IBM for the fact that we have AMD at all.
But there is plenty of competition in the CPU market, it just turns out that Intel is really good at what they do and have a better process than anyone else.
IBM made Power chips for years. ARM exists, as do others. Intel and AMD are not the only sources for CPUs, and every CPU maker does exactly what Intel does.
That should be telling, and should inform you of something.
GPU makers do it, DRAM makers do it, and so on...
It is basic good business. You're claiming that it isn't and they should stop. I'm pointing out that they aren't going to stop because the market has clearly decided they are all right.
This isn't about a few companies doing something, it is about ALL companies doing something. MANY companies over the years have tried what you suggest. Most don't exist anymore.
It only has to be made more efficient. US healthcare costs twice as much ans other similar countries. Fix this, and everything else takes care of itself.
Easy to say, but hard to do, because the basic system is broken.
The US has the best healthcare in the world, if you're well off, it also has decent care if you're completely impoverished and don't care about your credit.
It isn't actually that great if you're in the middle.
Curious, what do you think could be done to "fix this" and make health care cost less?
You're going to pop a blood vessel with all that rage and anger...
Big fucking deal, the 1% make a better ROI on Apple et al because we let them act like sociopaths
You might want to look at how many Americans own Apple stock.
Why should we continue to embrace the idea that amoral companies can do anything they choose in the name of profits?
Have you visited the USSR recently? I'm sure they would love you.
but can't we atleast say that labor shifts can't be more than 9 hours long? The underlying reason being that 1 person working for 16 hours is less effective than 2 people working 8 each?
You can say that, but it doesn't work.
The person just has 2 jobs with two 8 hour shifts and now has to move between two jobs.
In fact, depending on how things are setup, the 2 people might swap jobs, moving between 2 buildings at the 8 hour point, with each building "owned" by a different company, but really not.
You're trying to change economics by decree, it just doesn't work. Too many external factors are at play.
But who will Trump hire for housekeeping in his casinos?
Americans, and pay them a fair wage, if he wants the work done.
Example: I enjoy getting my lawn mowed for $20 a week, they do a good job as well. But what is the price of being able to get that service for that price? If we kick out half the illegals, my lawn service will likely go up to $30 a week, but I'm ok with that actually.
We'll all be better off when the balance of labor supply and demand is adjusted with 5 million fewer people willing to work for peanuts.
I'm sure he is a big supporter of NAFTA too since companies can save money by moving their workload to Canada or Mexico instead of building on US soil.
He might have been, in the past, when it suited him. Now he is rich, old, and doesn't need any more money. Instead, he can change his focus to improving the world, or at least America.
Compare Bill Gates from 1995 to Bill Gates of 2015 as an example.
Nearly everything has parts made in China and other countries and it would be nearly impossible for Apple to remain competitive price wise against imports if they make everything in the USA.
That is because you, and many others, take such comments at face value, in a vacuum, and assume nothing else changes but that one thing.
Trump's point is that the whole supply chain needs to shift, and he is not so stupid as to think this'll happen in a week. It took years to get here, it'll take years to undo it. If we don't undo it, we're finished as a major power. Is that what you want?
As a side note, you read too much media, Trump never said he would force Apple to do anything. He said he would get them to do it. Carrot vs. stick. There is more nuance involved, but it doesn't fit into a 15 second soundbite.
One of the great faults of modern democracy is the unwillingness of the average person to pay more attention to any details, thus you have what sounds like a bunch of nonsense coming from Trump, when there is detail behind it.
Bernie Sanders has the same problem. Look at the last debate with Clinton... She just keeps harping "oh, you want to raise taxes, oh you want to raise taxes!" Yea, yea, so fracking what, if you no longer have to pay health care premiums, you're net ahead. Bernie is completely right, we pay a crap ton of money for health care and have tens of millions with no coverage and millions more with poor coverage with huge deductibles.
I'm sorry but are you out of your mind??? You seriously just suggested that Mexico would simply decide to let the US put them behind a giant wall AND give the US part of their country for free?!?!?
No, you didn't read it very well. Go back and read it again, because you missed several key points.
1) I disagree the current situation cannot continue. You'll still have a country, it will be somewhat more latino but it will still be a country. That's not to say it's an ideal situation, but I submit that it's better than the outcome you propose.
Then there is nothing much further to discuss, then is there? That's fine, you're welcome to your opinion and views, I'm welcome to mine.
3) If you're really serious about stopping immigration you can build the wall and pay for it yourself as conservatives have suggested for ages. This talk about having Mexico pay for it is just bizarre, the US has more money and is the one who's most concerned about it, why is it Mexico's responsibility to protect your border?
It isn't as bizarre as you'd think... Why should Mexico care? Because they are highly dependent on the US for jobs, cash flow from families, and manufacturing. They need to work with us to stop the flow of illegal immigration. It is in their interest, as well as ours.
And as for why Mexico should pay for the wall, or at least half of it, that is to get some say as to where the wall gets put. Some sections of Northern Mexico are largely under the control of the drug cartels, the same ones that have expanded across the border and have camps on the US side. If the Mexican Government is unable to control warlords on their side of the border, we can use the US Army to do that for them. And then put the border further south. Then we'll be happy to pay for the wall.
You of course have to have some vision to understand that doesn't happen in the first 5 minutes, it is the end game, not the first move of a pawn. Mexico would have many chances along the way to work with us, to help deal with the problem. For example, were I US President, I would suggest to the Mexican Government that the US Army work with the Mexican Army to go after the drug cartels together. I would suggest that join border patrols by both armies could be implemented so they work together to stop the flow of drugs, money, and people across the border.
The level of help and effort put forth by them would determine where it goes next. If I see a good faith effort, then much of the harshness can be put aside.
---
Trump is right about one thing... If you can't control your own border, then you don't really have a country.
If you really think that is an answer to what I said, then the whole point sailed over your head.
Just because "computers" doesn't make any of this new. The basic principles still apply.
What Intel does with their CPUs is a good example. A CPU costs $20 to make and might be sold for $100, $200, or $300.
And they do it that way because that is the best way to do it. Companies that do otherwise, go out of business.
But you're free to open your own business and try and compete. You wouldn't be the first to try it.
200 years of modern capitalism says your conclusions are incorrect.
I do understand what your saying, but you have come to the wrong conclusion. Not because I think so, but the market clearly says so.
Even if you somehow get the US public to support it then you create a latino terrorist problem and make the US into an international pariah.
I don't agree with your conclusion. You clearly don't agree with mine.
What I haven't heard is another solution, because it is easy to attack someone else who has a plan, it is far harder to come up with your own plan and put it out there.
I submit that the current situation cannot continue and has to be stopped, or we'll no longer have a country. At least not a great one.
What is your solution to stopping illegal border crossings?
I agree about single payer and that is what I would love to see happen
Bernie Sanders has proposed a small tax on people and a slightly larger tax on companies, to fund Medicare for all, with no co-pays and no deductibles.
I reject the $1,000 a month BC/BS wants, but I'll support the above, and yes I pay taxes. It bypasses the profit of the middleman, and there is a LOT of waste in healthcare (my wife is a doctor, I know this first hand).
how do you expect paying for a car accident that may happen tomorrow that may result in a 200k$ hospital bill or a stroke or whatever?
I have $300K of medical coverage on my auto insurance for just that reason, and I also have uninsured/underinsured coverage, so if the other guy only has $40K total limit, my policy will pickup the difference.
I have a $500K medical policy on my home owners insurance to cover hospital costs for accidents in the home.
What the above policies do NOT cover is stuff like heart disease, diabetes, stuff like that. But if I'm in a car crash, or I fall down the stairs and break a leg, or something like that, I'm covered. The cost to add the above riders to both policies was less than $1,000 per year and covers me for a lot of the risk at 40.
It's rubbish.
You thinking it is rubbish and it actually being rubbish are two different things.
It really isn't, allow me to explain:
It sounds like they could save a cool million by just doing the tuning once and selling the more powerful product at a proper market regulated price rather than playing silly games with market segmentation. If the better product costs no more to make than the lesser product, the market will force them to sell the better product at the lesser price in order to be competitive.
You're assuming that once all the R&D time is divided over the units sold, the resulting price is one that enough people will pay to make the whole thing worth the effort. Often what really happens is the volume units are there, just to give R&D something to divide across to make the whole thing make sense, but the real profits are in the high end units.
Take cars for example. The base model of a vehicle usually is a break even, or even money losing item for a car company. They really make their money on the upgrades. The person who buys a fully loaded vehicle is subsidizing the cheap car for the poor person.
What you're suggesting is that the base price be raised and the top line price be lowered. The problem with that is you won't sell more cars to the people who could otherwise afford the higher price, they only need one car. But you WILL sell fewer cars at the lower price points. Your total R&D budget now has to divide across fewer cars, raising the price further for all of them.
A base Ford Focus might be $15K, a midlevel might be $22K, and a fully loaded might be $30K. It doesn't cost twice as much to make the fully loaded vehicle, but they need the profits to make the $15K model exist. Across all those models, they may sell 200,000 cars. But if you made them sell just one model, it might end up having to be $22K, but they may only sell 100,000 cars, and now it has to cost $25K to cover the R&D costs.
You've removed the cheaper option, you've sold fewer cars, fewer people have jobs, and costs went up for everyone, just so you could feel "fair" somehow. It is a really bad deal.
Another example is computer CPUs. Intel sells a i5-6400 for about half the price of a i7-6700K. But they are really the same CPU off the same production line. The market for $350 CPUs isn't large enough to justify selling ONLY that chip, and lowering the price to $250 still has issues. Being able to offer a $175 CPU increases their overall marketshare and overall profits, while giving the customer choice. The majority of i5-6400 chips could probably run with hyperthreading turned on, the extra 2MB L2 cache turned on, and at a higher clockspeed (yes, some are binned because they are defective, early on at least, but at some point demand calls for more i5-6400 chips than are binned, so Intel disables otherwise working features to meet the customer orders for the lower priced chip.
Why? Because it really costs maybe $20 to make each CPU. But their cost isn't in making millions and millions of chips, it was in making the first chip. The first chip might have cost $2 billion to make. Each extra chip is $20 after that. The more they can sell, the more total profit they make.
If everyone could take an i5-6400 and turn it into a i7-6700K, then their business model breaks down. That is why we have locked chips in the first place, people used to do just that. The K series exists because Intel has discovered that if they charge enough, then they don't have to care what people do with the CPU, the profits compensate them for any loss due to overclocking.
---
TL;DR - In short, it is well understood that making a single model of something and selling it at multiple price points with multiple features, is a well established way of doing business. The market has picked it over the long run, over many industries, over many companies.
There's nothing magical about combines or tractors. Sorry.
Say sorry all you like, modern combines and tractors are loaded with computers...
There is a reason that farmers are buying them, they cost less to run and do more work than the older gear did...
The only thing that's apparently complex here is the logic used to dial down power output to reduce emissions.
There is far more to a modern combine than the computer running the engine.
https://www.deere.com/en_US/pr...?
https://www.deere.com/en_US/pr...?
Modern combines and tractors don't even have to be driven by a human. And you think the only complex logic is on the engine?
There are probably ways to do that with open source.
The OP said that one of the reasons they encrypt is per the EPA, they have to make it hard to defeat the emissions control equipment.
If you want to remove the encryption, then you have to provide another acceptable way to prevent farmers from removing that equipment and controls.
All the farmers have to do is just refuse to buy tractors that aren't open. Let the dealerships know that you are deliberately putting off buying a new tractor for a few years at least until more open options are on the table, and let everyone know there are huge opportunities for new start ups.
Which farmers would those be?
Archer Daniels Midland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Smithfield Foods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Cargill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Those are huge multi-billion dollar corporations that really, really, REALLY don't care about what you care about.
So you're literally proposing they gun down women and children?
Oh yes, the "think of the children" argument...
Do you prefer the current situation, where unlimited numbers of women and children come here and destroy our country?
What will it take, what has to happen, before you'll accept that these are invaders who are destroying our way of life?
At some point, yes, you do have to shoot them. It will be the only way to stop them from coming. People do whatever is in their own best interest. If you feed, cloth, house, and educate them, THEY WILL KEEP COMING.
It really isn't that hard to understand.
If you start shooting them, they will STOP COMING.
Instead of the Border Patrol driving SUVs along the border, why don't we have tanks and armored personal carriers on the border? When the people drive across the border in their SUVs, shoot them.
You have a very distorted misunderstanding of the world.
I feel the same about you.
A problem for the US isn't just that we've outsourced manufacturing, but that we've moved so much of the production pipeline overseas that it is becoming more and more untenable to have any manufacturing done in the US. Sure, there are exceptions, but the more parts are sourced from Asia the more you will see the product manufacturing being moved wholesale to Asia.
I'm well aware of that... which is why it needs to be reversed before it is too late...
Assuming that you are human, you need health insurance.
No, I don't...
It wasn't needed 200 years ago, it wasn't needed 100 years, it wasn't needed 50 years ago, and it isn't needed today...
Insurance is an optional purchase made to cover against unexpected loss in the future...
The whole system is so messed up it isn't even funny. The only policy you can buy now covers a runny nose. I don't need insurance against that. I might, maybe, need insurance against major health issues, but those policies are gone.
5 years ago, I had health insurance. Today I do not. I'm not going to buy insurance just to make the ACA "work". Since the only way it "works" is if lots of healthy people buy insurance to cover all the sick people.
I'm 40 years old and healthy, I haven't spent more than $1,000 a year on health care... well, ever...
Might I at some point? Yes. Then I'll get insurance.
What you REALLY want is single-payer national health care. I don't have a problem with that actually, much like I enjoy a federal highway system and good police and schools. I pay taxes to pay for those.
But I'm not giving Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Texas $1,000 a month so their CEO can get his bonus. Which is really all the ACA is about.