Why would companies choose to go into areas that are heavily saturated? This would only be feasible if they have some dramatic innovation to offer, which would benefit the people living on that street.
If I choose to pay for the fiber, then I make the deal to get profits from additional customers gained on that line of fiber, if not, good for my neighbor! And I've just voluntarily subsidized my entire street.
Why is it not 'feasible' to have different ISPs on the same block? And why would they operate this way? The whole problem is how we view the service itself. The service, as it is, cannot innovate because of the regulation. The innovation of firms left to their own is much more imaginative than what you or I or certainly some bureaucrat can think of. I never thought of Netflix or using the Internet in that way, but I signed right up for the service! Did the USPS work with the FCC to create that? No, it was a spontaneous product created by innovators.
Competition is the best way to spur innovation. If the revenue of the firm is based on providing a more desirable service, then they will do whatever they can to offer the most desirable service. It is not about altruism.
The Government is also not a philanthropic organization and does not even get revenues through voluntary transactions or by providing more desirable services. We have no say on how the Government spends its money. People called their Federal Representatives and Senators in record numbers to protest the TARP bill and look how much good that did. The Government is run by K Street and Wall Street.
If the Government rolls out its own broadband, it will cause the other companies to go out of business because investors know that the Government will take revenues from taxes to support the operation whereas private industry is limited to voluntary transactions. Once the Government is in control innovation will cease and bureaucracy will take over.
So why have they saddled them with massive amounts of debt that they can never hope to pay off? Why does the suicide rate continue to rise? These things to don't seem like fair trade-offs.
My thoughts exactly. I happened to log onto Drudge probably within an hour of his posting the first ACORN video (I remember being amazed that only a few thousand people had bothered to watch it). My first thought was, "how come I'm not seeing this on CNN or 60 Minutes?"
I think the destruction of the traditional media machine is one of the best things to happen for our society. We are really beginning to get a solid grasp of how the machine works - basically just supporting Wall Street and K Street.
The most popular story in these discussions is usually Watergate. But what was the real cost in terms of dollars to report on this scandal? I really don't know, but it sounds to me like the real cost was just the time of the journalists, and bloggers seem to have nothing but time. I understand I'm going on an assumption, so it would be nice if someone who actually read book could give me an idea of what it cost The Washington Post to publish that series of articles.
It's marginal for doing anything other than reading books. Doesn't have the same impact and can't have the same format as traditional printed news media. I own one, and love it, but I only use it for reading books.
I have been on/. since it launched (yeah, back then we nerds were quite resistant to ever creating logins for sites, hence my non-low account ID). And it seems in the last 6 months or so it's been going this way - I have gone to reading it in Google Reader and....
You sound just like those whiners who post in Wikipedia comments pages about how you disagree with or don't like the user generated content.
Many 'monopolistic attributes' die. Wal-Mart demanded music companies stop selling to iTunes, and they were ignored. Wal-Mart fills their store with cheap junk, so people switch to Target. Wal-Mart demands lower prices and the cheaper products end up with higher return rates and product failures, which also lead to increased legal and insurance costs.
Many manufacturers choose not to sell their products through Wal-mart while many others have their own oligopolies that Wal-Mart has to contend with, such as car batteries and name-brand pharmaceuticals.
The shipping of jobs to China is not a Wal-Mart issue nor even a China issue, it is a U.S. immigration policy and labor policy issue. For over a century the U.S. was the destination for opportunity and freedom from oppression. Immigrants would come here to seek better lives for themselves or for their children. They would come here with no skills, empty stomachs, and a strong desire to make the world a better place for themselves and others. They would work terrible hours for terrible wages in poor conditions. They saved every penny they made and lived in poverty so they could afford to send their children to good schools and better colleges. On the backs of their eager labor, entrepreneurs would make millions, employ thousands, and establish and expand schools, churches, and other not-for-profit organizations. The Smithsonian, Harvard, Stanford, Carnegie-Mellon, Howard Hughes Medical Institution are just a few of the largest and most prestigious, with countless small and mid-size organizations created by them that make daily differences in people's lives.
But today only 10,000 people who are do not have direct relatives are allowed to entry into the U.S. Even if you have a direct relative, it is still not an easy or fast process to gain citizenship. Wage laws make hiring people a significant risk with large tax liabilities and insurance payments attached to hiring. Minimum wages make it impossible to hire unskilled labor and maintain a profit. These policies mean that we are not going to make very many things that people want to purchase.
Wal-Mart cannot be held to blame for this policy for many reasons, not the least of which is that they are doing what every company in every industry in the U.S. is doing. Go to just about any non-Wal-Mart store, online and offline, and you'll find many of the products are made in China. Design a product and figure out how much it is going to cost and how many you have to sell to make a profit, and you'll quickly decide that the U.S. is not a smart choice for your manufacturing needs.
To get an even better feel, take a look at how many products are made in the U.S. China is the nation that we have the largest trade-deficit with, but it is not the only one. In fact, there are no countries with which we have a notable trade surplus. If special tariffs were created just for Chinese imports, companies would quickly move to Taiwan, Thailand, Singapore, India, South Korea, Eastern Europe, etc.
However, believe it or not, nobody enjoys doing business with China. If fact, everyone hates it. There is an 8-11 hour time difference. Simple questions take a day to get a response to. When there are warranty issues, it's hard to deal with when the supplier is in another country. The payment terms are awful, long lead times make forecasting a constant nightmare, and high minimum order quantities give headaches and nightmares to executives everywhere.
This problem is not about preference, it is about market forces. Wealth is leaving this nation at an astonishing rate and we are only doing things to increase that rate.
I didn't read this report yet, but there is definitely solid footing for debate found in this report created by Anthony Watts and his Surfacestations Project.
In this report they surveyed over 70% of the USHCN's 1221 monitoring stations and, among other things, "...found that 89 percent of the stations - nearly 9 of every 10 - fail to meet the National Weather Service own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source."
This is the only comprehensive review of the monitoring stations ever performed, and it doesn't look good. If it cannot be proven that the Earth is warming, then there can be no following correlation.
I am not a scientist, but it seems to me that if the AGW crowd were so diligent, wouldn't they have performed this survey already?
Slashdot Mirror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
Why would companies choose to go into areas that are heavily saturated? This would only be feasible if they have some dramatic innovation to offer, which would benefit the people living on that street.
If I choose to pay for the fiber, then I make the deal to get profits from additional customers gained on that line of fiber, if not, good for my neighbor! And I've just voluntarily subsidized my entire street.
Why is it not 'feasible' to have different ISPs on the same block? And why would they operate this way? The whole problem is how we view the service itself. The service, as it is, cannot innovate because of the regulation. The innovation of firms left to their own is much more imaginative than what you or I or certainly some bureaucrat can think of. I never thought of Netflix or using the Internet in that way, but I signed right up for the service! Did the USPS work with the FCC to create that? No, it was a spontaneous product created by innovators.
Competition is the best way to spur innovation. If the revenue of the firm is based on providing a more desirable service, then they will do whatever they can to offer the most desirable service. It is not about altruism.
The Government is also not a philanthropic organization and does not even get revenues through voluntary transactions or by providing more desirable services. We have no say on how the Government spends its money. People called their Federal Representatives and Senators in record numbers to protest the TARP bill and look how much good that did. The Government is run by K Street and Wall Street.
If the Government rolls out its own broadband, it will cause the other companies to go out of business because investors know that the Government will take revenues from taxes to support the operation whereas private industry is limited to voluntary transactions. Once the Government is in control innovation will cease and bureaucracy will take over.
There is no 'natural' monopoly or duopoly. These situations are only created through Government intrusion into the market.
So why have they saddled them with massive amounts of debt that they can never hope to pay off? Why does the suicide rate continue to rise? These things to don't seem like fair trade-offs.
Most of the problems I see presented on this issue stem from the fact that competition is artificially limited through regulation.
Do you suppose the Japanese pay something additional in taxes to get those high speeds?
Why can't we be a leader and make our own plan?
Harley-Davidson does it with every parts diagram. It's like finding Waldo and can be as subtle as a screw with reverse threads or an octagonal nut.
So those who want to self-publish through Amazon better read that agreement very carefully...
My thoughts exactly. I happened to log onto Drudge probably within an hour of his posting the first ACORN video (I remember being amazed that only a few thousand people had bothered to watch it). My first thought was, "how come I'm not seeing this on CNN or 60 Minutes?" I think the destruction of the traditional media machine is one of the best things to happen for our society. We are really beginning to get a solid grasp of how the machine works - basically just supporting Wall Street and K Street. The most popular story in these discussions is usually Watergate. But what was the real cost in terms of dollars to report on this scandal? I really don't know, but it sounds to me like the real cost was just the time of the journalists, and bloggers seem to have nothing but time. I understand I'm going on an assumption, so it would be nice if someone who actually read book could give me an idea of what it cost The Washington Post to publish that series of articles.
No true, there was was a link to this AP story on Monday.
It's marginal for doing anything other than reading books. Doesn't have the same impact and can't have the same format as traditional printed news media. I own one, and love it, but I only use it for reading books.
Doesn't work for users running NoScript until they allow the page.
+1000
I have been on /. since it launched (yeah, back then we nerds were quite resistant to ever creating logins for sites, hence my non-low account ID). And it seems in the last 6 months or so it's been going this way - I have gone to reading it in Google Reader and....
You sound just like those whiners who post in Wikipedia comments pages about how you disagree with or don't like the user generated content.
Many 'monopolistic attributes' die. Wal-Mart demanded music companies stop selling to iTunes, and they were ignored. Wal-Mart fills their store with cheap junk, so people switch to Target. Wal-Mart demands lower prices and the cheaper products end up with higher return rates and product failures, which also lead to increased legal and insurance costs.
Many manufacturers choose not to sell their products through Wal-mart while many others have their own oligopolies that Wal-Mart has to contend with, such as car batteries and name-brand pharmaceuticals.
The shipping of jobs to China is not a Wal-Mart issue nor even a China issue, it is a U.S. immigration policy and labor policy issue. For over a century the U.S. was the destination for opportunity and freedom from oppression. Immigrants would come here to seek better lives for themselves or for their children. They would come here with no skills, empty stomachs, and a strong desire to make the world a better place for themselves and others. They would work terrible hours for terrible wages in poor conditions. They saved every penny they made and lived in poverty so they could afford to send their children to good schools and better colleges. On the backs of their eager labor, entrepreneurs would make millions, employ thousands, and establish and expand schools, churches, and other not-for-profit organizations. The Smithsonian, Harvard, Stanford, Carnegie-Mellon, Howard Hughes Medical Institution are just a few of the largest and most prestigious, with countless small and mid-size organizations created by them that make daily differences in people's lives.
But today only 10,000 people who are do not have direct relatives are allowed to entry into the U.S. Even if you have a direct relative, it is still not an easy or fast process to gain citizenship. Wage laws make hiring people a significant risk with large tax liabilities and insurance payments attached to hiring. Minimum wages make it impossible to hire unskilled labor and maintain a profit. These policies mean that we are not going to make very many things that people want to purchase.
Wal-Mart cannot be held to blame for this policy for many reasons, not the least of which is that they are doing what every company in every industry in the U.S. is doing. Go to just about any non-Wal-Mart store, online and offline, and you'll find many of the products are made in China. Design a product and figure out how much it is going to cost and how many you have to sell to make a profit, and you'll quickly decide that the U.S. is not a smart choice for your manufacturing needs.
To get an even better feel, take a look at how many products are made in the U.S. China is the nation that we have the largest trade-deficit with, but it is not the only one. In fact, there are no countries with which we have a notable trade surplus. If special tariffs were created just for Chinese imports, companies would quickly move to Taiwan, Thailand, Singapore, India, South Korea, Eastern Europe, etc.
However, believe it or not, nobody enjoys doing business with China. If fact, everyone hates it. There is an 8-11 hour time difference. Simple questions take a day to get a response to. When there are warranty issues, it's hard to deal with when the supplier is in another country. The payment terms are awful, long lead times make forecasting a constant nightmare, and high minimum order quantities give headaches and nightmares to executives everywhere.
This problem is not about preference, it is about market forces. Wealth is leaving this nation at an astonishing rate and we are only doing things to increase that rate.
Amen, brother. This page nearly crashes my laptop.
I didn't read this report yet, but there is definitely solid footing for debate found in this report created by Anthony Watts and his Surfacestations Project.
In this report they surveyed over 70% of the USHCN's 1221 monitoring stations and, among other things, "...found that 89 percent of the stations - nearly 9 of every 10 - fail to meet the National Weather Service own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source."
This is the only comprehensive review of the monitoring stations ever performed, and it doesn't look good. If it cannot be proven that the Earth is warming, then there can be no following correlation.
I am not a scientist, but it seems to me that if the AGW crowd were so diligent, wouldn't they have performed this survey already?