Not to mention the "uncluttered by regulations" part tends to result in highly unsafe products. The list goes on. Somehow, I don't equate "being able to make random knockoffs but cannot do anything without governments approval" to be "true capitalism"
The safety of products sold is a prime reason to use a retailer and not buy wholesale yourself. Will Amazon or CVS or Wal-Mart sell unsafe products? They add their profit overhead to cover their infrastructure, but also to insure against buying faulty or dangerous products. If a product is deemed dangerous, they'll remove it from the market. If they find a large number of dangerous products from a given source, say China, they may go so far as to test products themselves before releasing them to the market. A large retailer can do way more, way faster, than the FDA, USDA or other organizations can. See: Underwriters Laboratories.
As for regulations, China is definitely not a regulated economy as much as the US is. China's provinces ("States") have varying degrees of regulations, with the least regulated ones growing the fastest. Doug Casey says about Shanghai "The dozens of hotels that can compete with those in Bangkok are starting to draw not just businessmen, but tourists. They like the beaches, and the shopping in a tax and regulation-free environment is incredible."
I've visitd Beijing and Shanghai, and I can tell you that government is quickly backing off of entrepreneurs and the business market. The booms in growth are amazing, along with the freedom that even a non-citizen has in starting new businesses. The same can be said about Dubai, where I'd love to at least have residency because of the unlimited opportunity to grow and blossom a business.
My #1 reason I am against the idea of patents and intellectual property is because it is proven time and again that the market of demand and supply is the most justified market in terms of what is good for consumers and producers.
I am inspired repeatedly by what I see in China. We are going this Christmas again, to be wowed by the explosion caused by freedom and true capitalism (uncluttered by regulations and taxes). I am happy to call myself a Pirate, one who has no care for copyright, patents or trademarks. They're useless old mercantilistic protections for corporate-State entities that wish to monopolize something for a long period of time.
Individuals who invent do so because something else inspired them. If that inspiration was a product that was lacking features, then they showed the original inventor the shortcomings of their invention. If someone releases a product cheaper or with more features than your product, you must move forward to beat them. Competition drives innovation, not monopoly IP protection. So what if you spent 5 years designing something new? Just having an original product doesn't guarantee success -- you need finances, marketing, customer support and repair facilities. It is a combination of all these things that will bring you success, with the R&D stage merely a blip. Who comes up with an idea first may be lacking all the other needs for a profitable product.
For my own creations, I designed moralIP which is my view on how to morally protect designs. I never copyright or patent my writings or inventions -- and even if others steal them, my market base grows with new people interested in what I have to say, or what I've invented. That's the unseen hand of the market at work, and I love every minute of it.
This makes no sense. For this post, I won't actually fight against copyright. Let us all agree that copyright exists, and that there are current penalties for violating it.
First of all, Congress has NO power to set prices for any reason -- none. No government should ever set price caps or minimums. Doing so creates high prices and restricted inventories (or none at all). Let the market set pricing.
If the license-owners of music want to charge a given rate, let them. Those who can pay the rate will, those who can't will either move to different content, or pirate said content.
Here's where it gets exciting: piracy. With the huge number of people who want to transmit online, and the huge amount of countries and provinces to transmit from, it could be more expensive for the license-owners to go after someone streaming to 40 people than they'd get from the outcome. The amount of bandwidth on the web is virtually unlimited versus radio, and the reach is virtually unlimited. This means a virtually unlimited supply of music -- regardless of demand, the price will fall. If the license-owners think they can charge more than the market is willing to pay, they won't last long. The days of the power of copyright are quickly sliding through their fingers, into the open hands and mouths of those who want to spend their time providing a service that others want.
That service is NOT necessarily music, but a specific combination of music (and maybe commentary). It is THIS part of the service that the end users will pay for (either directly, or through advertising sponsorship). One specific song is NOT the important part, in fact it is the least important part. There are virtually unlimited songs to choose from, even in a given genre. There are NOT unlimited people who are talented in packaging these songs together into a format that someone else wants, and spend the same time marketing to the audience at large. The income is generated for the new labor created -- as the market should work. Old labor in the form of an easily copy-able song should fall to nearly zero. The bands who are played on these stations should be excited to get free marketing to promote their future concerts, personal appearances, or other live labor expenditures that they can sell in real time to their fans. Their labors, in real time, are worth way more than a pre-recorded, easily copied song worth zero or close to zero due to oversupply.
Get the tyrants in Congress out. These people have no understanding of the specific powers provided to them, by the People, through the Constitution. Congress does not have unlimited power.
When old groups of individuals breaks apart, it shows the strength of the individual in society. Too often we think of "big bad corporations" who "control" their employees -- but in reality the employee is always allowed to leave. In some situations, employees make a bad decision and sign away their rights to compete, which only shows that the individual does not feel the risk of considering competing in a market is greater than giving up that ability in the future.
Everyone has talents of value to others. Sometimes that talent is not something you might want to do (for example, prostitution or sewing clothes), but keeping your individuality is key to building a better future for yourself and your family/household. When your employer doesn't offer you compensation (not always financial!) compared to the labor you expend, you can always try to go elsewhere. If someone else offers you better compensation (again, not always financial), you know the market works.
For me, I've never had a "real job" because I've always put my personal value above what any one employer could offer. I saw no reason to lock myself in, even if the financial reward might have been better. I've passed on jobs worth 3 times what I made in a year on my own because I kept my own individuality, and worked hard to build my value so I could exceed what the employer offered me. During that time, though, I was also free to pursue tasks and ideas that I would be locked out of if I had a salaried position.
This goes to show everyone that they should always look at what they're getting versus what they're giving -- and always consider what the market needs that there is a limited supply of. Point yourself in that direction, and grow beyond just being another W4. It can be done.
Re:They did not go up in price, the dollar went do
on
$60 Games Are Here To Stay
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
You conveniently leave out the causes of the depressions and bubbles that occurred prior to the great depression (hint: speculation does not require fiat currency to occur).
No, I didn't. The Federal Reserve went on a massive inflationary credit/money creation spree from 1924 to 1929. This easy money gave everyone, even the shoe shiners, a huge increase in the value of the stock markets. But it was that easy money that made the stock markets rise, not actual increased profitability of companies invested. In 1924, a few early investors had early access to the new easy credit. The stock markets ticked up, and as that new money trickled down into the economy, more and more people invested -- causing the market to swell artificially even more so. The Fed did nothing but create more and more credit, which flew into the stock market pushing it higher and higher. Government inflation caused the market to bubble. The Fed tried to control the market boom by restricting that easy money, so those who were holding the stocks (namely, a decent portion of the population) had no one to sell to -- no more easy credit meaning no one else to buy those stocks. Quickly people sold off stocks, but the banks were restricted in paying out deposits because the Fed was trying to deflate the currency base.
The Fed caused the Great Depression.
The boom-bust cycle is nothing new, and not a product of inflation. Inflation is part of the boom-bust cycle.
I'm amazed people give you any trust or value, honestly. Inflation causes the boom-bust cycle as I easily explained in this post and in previous ones in the same threads. Inflation, the creation of money, gives people false indicators of a growing market. In a free market, stocks go up in value because they either pay more dividends, or because the company is truly worth more money now or in the near future. In an inflationary economy, stocks go up usually because another sucker used easy credit/money to buy stocks from a previous sucker, at a higher price. That's boom-bust. It is NOT part of a healthy economy.
I'll go out on a limb and say that over time, the boom-bust cycle is healthy. It promotes advancement during boom cycles, then weeds out the weak during bust cycles. In the long run, the boom-bust cycle promotes technological advances that result in increased standard-of-living across the board. The key is to mitigate the bust cycles so that the economy doesn't collapse.
Society blossomed during a stable currency base during the Industrial Revolution. Why? Companies and individuals found ways to become more efficient, introduce more products and services to the market, and reduce prices for everyone (deflation). This happened pre-fed, during a strong dollar that didn't fall more than a few percent in value over 150 years. The dollar has lost 98% of value since 1913, because of inflation/the Fed. In a strong dollar economy, people still create, but do so wisely because they find profitability in efficiency or new inventions. In an inflationary economy, companies sell nothing or junk (dotcom, housing) because they have easy access to easy credit, used to fool foolish investors.
The dot com bubble happened because of INFLATION? The dot com bubble made Many Many Many people wealthy, and kept the economy going for quite a few years. Then the charlatans became too common and the economy corrected. Inflation had ZERO to do with it. Over eager investment in stupid ideas is why the bubble burst.
Over-eager investment is encouraged because of inflation -- people have easy access to easy money/easy credit. Both bubbles happened because of this, instigated by a combination of our government's inflationary creation of credit, combined with the government's low standards for that credit. Banks loan out all the credit they can get/create, because they feel relatively protected by government's backing of those investments. FNMA created a mess of housing, the SEC created a mess out of the dotcom bubble. It is always inflation that creates bubbles, which are never healthy.
A boom/bust cycle is NORMAL and HEALTHY. Every thing in the world is cyclical. If you have no cycle, you have no growth period and no correction period. If there is no cycle, the economy becomes stagnant and unless you already have money there is no way to earn good money. Sitting on my cash in the hopes that deflation will cause its value to grow slowly is a great plan to avoid risk and an even better plan to avoid reward.
The desire for profit is what creates a vibrant economy -- profit for both parties in a given transaction. One party profits with a gain in money, the other party profits with a gain in items or services to make their lives better or easier or more entertaining. Bubbles don't create any more, or less, than the efficiency of a market with a stable money supply. If anything, bubbles shift funds from those who don't have enough to those who have more than enough. Bubbles are government-created, always.
In a slow deflation economy, you have two choices: sit on your money until you want/need to spend it, or invest it in something that has a higher risk but may have a higher reward. In a high inflation economy as we've lived in since 1913, you have two choices: sit on your money and let it inflate to worthlessless, or invest it in a risky venture that may only be "profiting" because other suckers with easy credit are also investing there. You never know if a growing market is truly growing because of profitability and market share gains, or because other suckers are buying in (housing, dotcom, etc).
Re:They did not go up in price, the dollar went do
on
$60 Games Are Here To Stay
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
If what you're saying is true:
Fantastic questions, by the way.
1) Why don't bond purchasers demand a higher premium (interest rate) for loaning money that's going to depreciate that fast -- and they *have* noticed that the government inflates the money supply by now.
Mostly because past history has shown that major losses have been covered by the government through future taxes. Also, we have an entity in the U.S. called the Plunge Protection Team which uses U.S. owned assets to buy stocks ands bonds to prevent market crashes. This intervention can't last forever -- they don't have unlimited access to real assets (gold, land, etc). The PPT has been trying to keep housing funds afloat, along with U.S. manufacturers. They're slowly losing that battle, and the market will be terribly harmed.
Look at Bear Stearns' recent bond report. One bond is now worth $0 on the dollar (yes, $0 on the dollar, their official statement). Another bond is now worth 9 cents on the dollar. These are billion dollar bonds, now worthless. Yet many of these bond issues are diversified through CDOs, which are increasingly becoming dangerous. We're talking possibly $1 trillion in CDOs that are in danger of collapse - yet the average person has no clue about it. Things could go from bad to horrific in very short order, affecting markets unrelated to the bond issues quickly.
Over time, if the government DOESN'T intervene and bail-out the investments, then bond investors WILL demand a higher return or some sort of reserve to back up the bond. We'll see if that happens. I just checked the city and state bond issues, and some states have unfunded liabilities of over $100 billion coming up (see Florida). It's bad, really bad. They'll issue bonds based on future tax income, but they'll have to raise taxes to meet those liabilities.
2) Name the basket of commoditiy futures I can buy that predictably appreciates at the "true" 10-12% inflation rate you claim.
Impossible because inflationary income causes people to invest unwisely, so inflation moves from market to market. When a bubble pops, those who pulled profits out before the crash will still have all that money -- but they will take time to reinvest it to create another bubble they can profit from. How many people lost their rears in the housing crash in the 90s? All those profits taken out before the crash created the dotcom bubble -- plus new money from Greenspan's inflationary printing cycle. That crashed, hurting hundreds of thousands of late comers, but the profits that were taken out (including all that newly printed money) still existed in someone's pocket -- someone who invested in home builders and land. As that money flooded housing, and the new money that Bernanke created came in too, housing went crazy. Housing is crashing now massively, but the early profit takers got out with billions, if not trillions. That money still exists, and it is now flooding into the stock market -- causing new bubbles waiting to burst.
I know a lot of friends, family and customers who are rallying on the stock market, not realizing that many companies that are growing in dollar price are NOT profitable -- it is just old and new money flooding into the market to create a new bubble. Those who exit early will make a ton of profit, but they'll leave the bag held by all the suckers who saw all that money and figured they could get rich, too.
The rich get richers, the poor and middle class get poorer -- thanks to inflation.
Re:They did not go up in price, the dollar went do
on
$60 Games Are Here To Stay
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Man, enough already. You've been posting this gold-standard bullshit for years, and it's never made any sense. You have no credible sources for any of this. Give it up.
The Great Depression happened because of inflation. The dotcom bubble happened becaues of inflation. The housing bubble? Inflation. None of these things happen in a solid-currency economy. Read this reply I just made to another person who doesn't believe that soft deflation is good, and all inflation is bad.
The Austrians have shown time and again that soft deflation is a good thing. Keynesians have never proven inflation is good -- they keep changing their opinion whenever another bubble pops.
Re:They did not go up in price, the dollar went do
on
$60 Games Are Here To Stay
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Deflation is just as bad for an economy, possibly even worse, than inflation, because when you have deflation there's much less incentive to invest money instead of hoarding it.
So untrue. Deflation is fine -- if you sit on your money, it doesn't become worthless. But this also gives you reason to invest properly and wisely, to get a better return than just what the deflation offers. Right now, easy credit and easy money have created all the bubbles we've experienced since 1913, including the Great Depression. All these bubbles followed by recession/depression happen because new money is printed, people spend it/invest it, causing prices to rise, giving people the idea that the investment was a good idea because "prices always go up." Eventually, people start buying MORE than they need to speculate (see, dotcom, housing bubble, etc). When there are no new speculators to sell to, the bubble pops, leaving the late buyers holding the bag. Inflation is the worst thing about economic stability ever. It has destroyed empires for thousands of years.
Soft deflation hurts no one because you don't HAVE to invest to get a return on your money. You CAN, but you'll be safer know your investment is safe from the bubble-markets we're familiar with today. Inflation also steals from the poor, who don't have enough money to save to invest. In a slow deflation market, the poor are helped the most -- they can actually save, in hopes of investing in themselves in the future. The poor can't do that today.
Prices should fall over time, unless there is a supply shortage of something. This is good for everyone.
So, your solution is to create a corporation? WTF?
Incorporating makes sense for MANY people who don't realize it. Not because of the limited liability, but because it offers you tax benefits (many of them, in fact), corporate rates, the ability to join other corporations for bigger discounts (hotels, airfare, loans, etc) and more.
I can't imagine NOT incorporating. Most of my employees are subcontractors (they work for more than just me, because the IRS frowns on companies turning W2 employees into 1099 contractors if they only work for one company) and THEY get huge benefits if they have an LLC or a S-corp that contracts work for me. I can't imagine the taxes you'd have to pay if you didn't get the write-offs being incorporated.
They did not go up in price, the dollar went down.
on
$60 Games Are Here To Stay
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Prices don't go up because people are "greedy," prices go up because your government decides every day to ruin the value of your money.
Games now have many international ties (design, programming, etc). Because the U.S. dollar is being inflated as fast as it is (and has been since 1913), more dollars means that the dollars out there are worth less, especially versus foreign currencies. This means that prices seem to cost most.
The flipside of inflation is that some people, especially the banking elite, get the new money earlier than others -- so it is usually the middle and lower classes who are harmed with prices inflating faster than their wages do. Eventually wages DO increase because of the easy money out there, but usually it is too little, too late.
Prices go up in any inflationary market. Prices also go up because of a limited supply for a highly-demanded item. Generally, though, in a market with a currency backed by something other than fiat/force, prices go down slowly -- soft deflation. The benefit of this is that you actually can SAVE your money and earn value on it, unlike today where even the stock market gains don't keep up with the TRUE cost of inflation.
Sidenote: Government inflation figures are lies, plain and simple. Find some old credit card statements and see what inflation really is in your life. You may be surprised that it is 10-12% annually for the past 3-4 years.
Everything else is just stuff to distract you from the fact that your phone network quality suddenly degraded to 3rd world levels.
My phone dials out VoIP if it finds a WiFi connection (it would use 3G but T-Mobile is limited to EDGE right now). Quality is great. T-Mobile's network quality in my regular areas (Chicago, Las Vegas, Savannah, and Miami) is perfect. I've never had a dropped call in those regions.
For me, it isn't "just a phone." I own a few different businesses in a variety of markets. I am constantly trying to maximize my efficiency so I don't have to work more than a few hours in any work-focused part of the day. I try to do the 4 hours in the morning, 4 hours in the evening type of deal, and having a truly multicapable PDA (with a phone) makes complete sense. I can do my billing, I can check my FedEx and UPS accounts, I can view PDFs (important when you run a Print Shop, I run an IT business, I maintain blogs and forums, etc, etc. By making my time management more efficient, I save a ton of time, and time is money.
If it wasn't for my ability to respond to customers, employees and people contacting me quickly, I would not be as efficient, and I would not be in the ultra-competitive businesses that I am in.
YOU may need a phone, but that's why the free market is great -- we can all get what we want, at the price we want, with the quality we want.
I've always had high tech devices -- PDAs that were tethered to phones, micro laptops, etc. None of them worked well enough. I still had to spend time hitting a workstation, especially to download large files.
That all changed with the HTC -- EDGE is really fast, it is always connected, I can view HTML e-mails (get a lot of them) and I can proof PDFs (I own a not-for-profit print shop, too). I easily save 10 hours a week not having to hit a broadband connected workstation to do my work. Just 10 minutes here and 10 minutes there a day and it adds up quickly.
On top of all that, I can read all my RSS feeds from my phone (not while driving). So all those 5 minute or 10 minute "do nothing" time periods are spent actually doing something I'd normally try to do setting aside an hour at the end of the day (or the beginning).
I buy all my phones from Australia or Hong Kong -- unlocked and ready to roll. I currently run the HTC Trinity with a cooked WM6 rom, and I love it. $600 from Hong Kong.
My friends can't believe I shelled out $600 for a phone I'll use for a year. But the phone saves me between 10 and 15 hours a week (additional productivity) and I do a vast majority of my web browsing, blogging, and e-mailing from it. Why did I pick it? All the features I want, with nothing locked out.
Why do manufacturers lock phones and reduce features? Because consumers in America want free or cheap phones with long contracts. It's ridiculous. I haven't had a T-Mobile contract for years -- but we have 12 phones on my corporate account (maybe more, not sure). All our phones are imports with the features that are important to us.
All my friends are locked into contracts and have NO negotiating ability. If they're co-op together (cheap LLC, let's say) they could get a better corporate rate, and even negotiate it (T-Mobile Corporate Customer Care/Retention is really fantastic) based on their needs. Instead, they want a "free" $250 phone, and they pay 10c for text messages over a specific number. Idiotic.
People have to realize that "free" is not free, and it is usually wiser to just pay for a great phone -- and save on your monthly bill -- than it is to do what they're currently doing.
The market is providing exactly the crappy service, and pricing, and hardware, that people want.
There are some companies out there(i.e. http://www.collectiveintellect.com/) that are using AI to mine RSS feeds and specifically the blogosphere, and selling that data to corporations for various reasons.
Sounds like a fantastic market, actually. I recently picked up a client in the casino management market because I had made some comments on a blog regarding their lack of insight towards proper marketing and keeping a decent percentage of return customers. They actually contacted me, and I've spent a large amount of time parsing through literally hundreds of RSS feeds covering different search terms (the company, the company's competitors, key words of the market, etc, etc). They're always impressed when I hit them up to 50-100 new blogs, news reports, and websites condemning or supporting various new tactics or old dogs. I think that selling companies information that can help them (fix or spin) the problem is a huge market waiting to be tapped properly.
Lets say you're a drug company that is releasing a potentially controversial drug. You can mine the data of the blogosphere and issue press releases as a pre-emptive strike to larger media stories. This starts the real beginning of being able to effectively monitor and even potentially control some of the social aspects of the internet. I think it's a great innovation indeed, with potentially scary side-effects.
I'm not sure I'd call any of the side-effects scary, though. Honestly, I hit Google Blogsearch and Technorati before I hit Google News. What is most important to me, though, is a personal rating system so I can give weight to certain information providers that have given me good information. Lately, I've had better luck from blogs than from the mainstream media. That's a nail in the coffin for the MSM if they don't move with the speed that today's news readers desire.
The benefit of the "free market of information" on the web is that you can now see way more than the black and white sides of things. A drug company may put a spin on bad news, but the issue isn't just "bad news" and "good news." There might be 3 or 4 degrees of separation between the actual negative news and what others may say that could have a positive effect. With the growing (and shrinking?) anonymity of the web, whistle-blowers also have a chance to get the word out -- but again, without a positive history of truth, they may not have a high ranking with me.
Personally it is nice to be able to filter through a billion RSS feeds to find information that I'm interested in though.
I've been sorting through thousands of RSS feeds for a few years now, and have been using some collaborative filtering sites and systems to try to give weight to what I consider the better news sources. Collaborative filtering will be a necessary element to an AI filter because what matters to YOU personally may be missed, but if you use a collaborative ranking, you will also gather information that is important to people who have similar views/needs that you do.
I find a lot more power in the collaborative filtering market than in the AI market. The downside of collaborative filtering is that it can be gamed (see Digg). The upside is that metamoderating of other collaborators can work to fix the gaming individual at a time.
I don't believe that copyright drives innovation -- innovation usually means providing a new direction or addition to a previous product that someone else likely designed, which was "innovated" from a previous product that another designed. New ideas based on old ideas, etc.
What drives innovation is a desire to capture a particular market share for a demand, in effect providing a new supply stream for an existing demand, or hoping to create demand due to a new supply stream for a new product or feature.
In my opinion, it is the combination of features, at a given price, backed by a given support structure, with promises to function at a given level of operation, that matter most. In this case, it isn't copyright that provides for a "winner" in that market of supply and demand, it is the person who releases the best combination of features+price+support+quality to a market that desires it, that wins, if that person markets the product properly.
Copyright merely restricts competition from doing better than the originator of that particular product or service, and does the market a disservice by reducing the opportunity for other producers to do something one step better.
I use a high end MCE 2005 machine right now for our household, and it works fairly well. Unencrypted HD, 4 tuners total, household distribution (we have 2 boarders who rent from us and utilize their Xbox 360's as remote hubs). System is very stable, the wife can watch all her HGTV and TLC shows, I can download my aXXo first releases, and we're happy. The downside is no HD, because the CableCARD system just doesn't work well with PCs that aren't designed for it. Tried it, failed repeatedly. And I'm a techie.
This sounds to me like a great idea -- there's a ton of HD content over Comcast that I'd probably watch an hour or two a week of, more if I am sick or after a long stretch of work in the winter. I haven't found much HD content available over bittorrent sites, just a few RIPs. But I don't know if I really feel like paying for cable (and then a TIVO monthly bill) for what we get. From a legal perspective, I'd probably buy downloads (PPV online) if they were available and were high quality. But they're not available, so I resort to my own form of PPV. We generally buy movies we download, yet still keep the downloaded version on the PC to watch. I assume Tivos can't accept an XVid Video, so there is a downside.
This leaves a lot to be desired, but it's a step in the right direction. What I want in addition is:
1. Ability to download my own content, or RIP my own content. 2. Ability to remove commercials "real-time": we use a MCE plug-in that works well. 3. Ability to speed up shows without affecting speech tone (plug-in). 4. Remote access capability to a PC or a video game console (preferably both).
Tivo doesn't offer any of these, AFAIK. That's a big limiting factor. Someone needs to step up and provide these services, and their market will blossom.
I've been using PDAs forever -- starting with my original Newton MessagePad (I do miss it). Over the years, I've become accustomed to the tiny on-screen keyboards with no tactile feedback. I grow my right hand thumbnail long, file it down so I have a bit of an edge leaning left, and I can type VERY fast with it -- probably faster than the average layperson on a regular PC keyboard.
As my friends slowly pick up PDA phones without "real" keyboards, they've also mimicked my thumbnail mod and found they can type incredibly fast, especially with the faster processor PDAs (HTC Trinity is what I use) which offer almost no delay when typing. Disable any sound response, and you can type even faster.
I'm sure that the iPhone will make huge leaps in efficiency, but I'm happy with where I am with the "old fashioned" touchscreen typing. I've blogged, read and written on slashdot, and posted to forums from my tiny 320x240 screen, all because of a simple thumbnail mod.
Try it -- it may save you quite a bit of time, and not cause you to have to learn some new fandangled invention.
Notepad, pen. Never had a problem with casino security or management. Rules are you can't have electronics when playing (was told to put my cell phone away a few times at the craps tables), but nothing is wrong with having a notepad and a pen. In fact, I have a very close friend and business partner who plays video poker a few times a year at big values, and he writes down everything. He also has all the "Perfect Play" mathematical payout odds written on his notepad on pages 1-10. Again, no security issues.
Casinos don't care about that stuff as long as you are not using electronics which may be used for the wrong reasons (communicating with another player during a poker event, or videotaping/audiotaping employees or other customers). Also, there is a comp-ruse that some people have used at the craps table (one player playing the pass, one player playing the don't pass, in hopes of breaking even but generating huge comps for both players) -- the casino management and tracking software now flags these players within 5 rolls of the dice, and then the pit boss will reduce their comps slowly as they continue to try to scam the system.
Vegas is great for a few things: easy access to decent shows (see Beatles' LOVE), decent buffets, fun people after 2am at almost any hotel bar (usually employees off duty), and the pinball machine museum (awesome, rent a car to get there and back). Also hiking at Red Rock is amazing (rent a car).
I've spent some time with slot machine code -- I actually love the old reel machines (which are generally the only ones you can own based on most state laws), and I've done some minor consulting with casinos in Las Vegas. The near misses are not encoded into the machine.
It is easy to believe the machines are built to take your money, but it has nothing to do with preset expectations. They truly are random, but each wheel has a specific number of possible results. Each wheel is independently picked from a random number generator with numbers picked at the instant you hit the spin button or pull the lever.
All 3 or 4 wheels might have a number of possible positions, numbering as high as 1024 per wheel. The first half of those numbers (say, 0-511) will be "blank" hits, so the wheel will stop on a blank. Then another 256 or so might be a symbol with a low payout, and then you get progressively less hits on the higher paying symbols. As you move further down the wheel, you get even fewer high paying "hit" numbers. The big payout only occurs on one or two numbers per wheel.
When the right combination of random numbers occurs, you win a payout. The chance is slim, with most machines paying out a percentage avering 85-92% over infinite spins, based purely on the mathematical chance of hitting a specific combination of random numbers in a spin.
Seeing those "near hits" is only because white "loser" spots on the wheel are always surrounded by symbols. Those near misses are almost always symbols that would pay SOMETHING, but rarely do you get 3 symbols that are near misses of the jackpot.
This summer, I spent a considerable amount of time in LV -- I was on a consulting project each month and stayed at the Paris casino. Over two days, I decided to "track" the play on a given slot machine, by attempting to jot down the results. The machine is certainly random, and if you watch a machine long enough and write down the actual results (landed on white space between red 7 and blue 7, landed on red 7, landed on cherry), you can eventually come up with the percentage chance of hitting a particular symbol. You need thousands of spins on a particular machine, but you'll get those percentages eventually.
In a game with less of a mathematical payout chance than 100%, the casino doesn't need to cheat. It's already guaranteed a profit on the lifetime of the machine. Some players do win in Vegas -- those who walk away after their first penny of profit. Everyone else eventually has the math get the best of them.
SIDENOTE:I don't condone gambling, but I do like the entertainment value of meeting up with a few friends and spending a few hours at the craps tables. $25 bets over a 4 hour period, betting the pass line with full odds, has a very low risk of losing your money (1.4% risk of ruin with a $2000 bankroll). The comps you receive in exchange more than make up for any loss. That's the only game in Vegas I think still has a slight player's edge, with comps and freebies added in.
That thing is the FCC. The FCC holds back broadcast technology, and in the end the medium, because it is too slow to diagnose where the market is heading and make changes to its regulations. This is done on purpose -- the FCC is provided for, and promoted, solely by those who previously controlled the distribution media like television and radio.
Right now, we have cable and satellite for TV, and for Internet, for am majority of households and businesses. Both solutions are antiquated, and ready to be replaced. WiFi routers have proven that small-band radio hardware can be shared in relatively small spaces. All of my neighbors have routers, and we all work well together without major issues. In large urban areas, there are more problems with routers, yes, but this is the FCC's fault for not opening up the spectrum. Imagine how well broadcast technology would work if most of the currently used broadcast spectrum was unlicensed.
The major television and radio networks are scared to death of what would happen if gigabit wireless because available in an unlicensed manner. "On-demand" would take on new meaning. Nielsen would be replaced with real-time, and accurate, statistics sold by Google Analytics or a variety of actual competitors (unlike Nielsen, who has no real competitors). Shows would make it, or break it, not just on mega-advertiser income, but also the chance to make an income based on direct viewer sponsorship (subscription), or a myriad of other income streams (AdSense, or who knows what else?).
It is the regulation of the spectrum that is killing television and radio, as free market capitalists look for new ways to get information to those who want it. PeerCasting is amazing technology, which I already use to broadcast live church sermons to communities. It works well, so much better than public "Channel 19" a week or two later. When you can PeerCast straight to your car or your portable radio, the commercial radio stations will be dead. When you can watch one of a thousand TV shows, and become a hub for 5 or 10 others to watch it, the need for huge servers and huge pipes out of a studio will be ended. But that day won't happen with the FCC mandating frequency use to what worked 20 years ago.
MySpace isn't the killer -- MySpace is just finding a way to be relevant using the tiny bit of wired connectivity they have available. Imagine a peercasted or torrented YouTube, shared by millions, anonymous, and unable to be regulated by the State. That's a future I'm ready for.
I use the internet for much of my work -- downloading and uploading large documents and having to view multimedia presentations in various formats. Why should I have to buy and pay for a service before discovering whether or not it is suitable?
I've been a Speakeasy customer since they opened -- they were one of the first IDSL providers in Illinois.
That being said, you use the Internet for WORK. If you're not willing to pay the price for the service your work needs, don't rely on what the broadband providers are selling "for home use." Often times, work-provisioned broadband can be a higher tier of service, with higher upload speeds, but also higher pricing. I don't see many people using broadband for work paying the piper and buying the right tier for what they need.
I own and maintain a variety of companies that rely on the Internet, but broadband is mostly a non-issue. Even for large files, as long as I get the bandwidth I am due, I'm happy. I would never relegate my business to a shared internet connection -- I prefer paying for a T1. You can get T1 speeds for under $6000 a year now. If you work and need high speed networking, 2-5% of your gross sales is NOTHING for the net. I can't understand why someone who needs to upload and download large files would keep themselves at a consumer level, when there are thousands of professional broadband suppliers available to run a T1 today. If you can't afford the T1 yourself, share it with a neighbor or three. Most terms and conditions on T1 usage allow you to do this -- cable and DSL generally do not. I am running a T1 to my home in August, and I'm giving 4 of my neighbors access for $60/month each (WiFi). It won't cost me that much to have guaranteed bandwidth, low latency, and the ability to connect to my office phone network. That's professional service at a professional price.
In what world could you call that sort of experience a good thing?
There are dozens of websites that allow you to check out an ISP before you have a line pulled. There is no excuse for getting two services then canceling them. If you're uncertain about a broadband provider, call the COMMERCIAL SALES office of that provider -- even Comcast and AT&T has a commercial services division. Explain your needs, and GET THEM TO GUARANTEE you 60 days to try it with no cancellation fee. The T1 I am pulling has a 45 day exit clause if they don't meet my needs. I will pay maybe $100 to try it out. No big deal.
If it's for your home, that's a different story. That's governed under a variety of ridiculous local, county and State laws that generally keep competition out of the market. Run your own T1 to your home. Set up a few cantennas and a few decent WiFi routers. Resell service to your neighbors for $20 a month. You'll be profitable.
Tha's it an' tha's all," as they say. I fail to see how anything can squeeze "smaller providers" out of the system more than not being in the system at all.
That's the fault of Madison residents for allowing their local government to protect the interests of two parties. It sounds to me like you should pull a few T1 lines into Madison, rent some commercial closets, and start up a decent WiFi provider like http://jimmywireless.com/ by me. They do a great job for a great rate. They even provide free WiFi service for those who can't afford top tier WiFi from them. There is no excuse for the lack of competition, except that Madison likely restricts many providers out of the market.
They've managed to arrange with the city that, if you want landline phone service or DSL, they are the only choice. Period.
So you want a Federal law that taxes me so that you can have broadband? Is that fair? Is broadband a "life necessity"? I see no reason to set standards at the Federal level when it is obvious that the local market of citizens is at fault. Find 50 people to invest $1000 each, and start up a WiFi provider. The costs are NOT that high. If you have a town of 10,000 people, you can recoup your initial investment in less than 3 years, faster than almost any other teleecom business. This is a local problem, not a national concern.
"Competition" in today's American broadband market generally means "if you don't like it, you can move."
Or you can start your own business. If there's a demand, make a supply.
I would rather have to think about moving from Mt. Horeb to Madison than wonder why I live in a country that taxes one man to pay for the entertainment of another. We don't have a strip club in my town, maybe we need a Federal law that taxes you so I can go look at single moms dancing nude? We also don't have a casino near me, maybe we should tax you so that someone can overcome the huge market costs to open one?
It makes no sense to me. Local issues should be kept locally. If the citizens allowed for their village to enact mercantilist protection laws to remove competition, that's their fault. Run for office on a "competitiveness in broadband" ticket in your community. Change the bad laws.
What? Where do you get that idea from? Or is this more unfounded anti-regulatory claptrap?
I read the bill. Did you?
Hogwash. Smaller providers can still be in the market, but if they don't meet the threshold for second generation broadband, they can't call themselves broadband. This is true of large providers as well. This leads to better information for consumers.
In a free market, there are no consumers or producers. There are two parties who negotiate a deal both hoping to get the most for themselves by giving up the least to the other party. One party may have products or services, and the other party may have cash, but this is a non-issue. Both parties could be bartering, or both parties could be trading cash (say, foreign currency conversion). In either case, it is in each party's best interest to NOT tell the other party what is the maximum they could provide. Free information is irrelevant unless the market provides that information somehow.
Another major part of the legislation is to enable better data collection, again providing better information to participants. Better information makes a market *more* free -- the free market model requires perfect access to information among participants.This law aids the free market. It does not force out smaller players. If you want to say that they'll be uncompetitive because of slower speeds, and will go out of business because the market will not buy from them, that's an effect of the free market with better information.
Speed is irrelevant to the market. I don't need speed, I need low latency. Some people need 99.999% uptime. Some people need the ability to serve data on certain ports. Some people need great customer service. Broadband should only be defined by the provider of the service, and the user of the service. The definition of broadband differs to different people.
Did you read it fully? You seem to have a pretty awful misunderstanding of the bill. You make a lot of assumptions (monopoly provision).
Of course I did. Did you? The bill has some amazing loopholes to help big industry:
17 (b) EXCEPTION.--The Commission shall exempt an 18 entity from the reporting requirements of subsection 19 (a)(3) if the Commission determines that a compliance by 20 that entity with the requirements is cost prohibitive, as 21 defined by the Commission.
So certain parties can be exempt if the cost is too high. I wonder who those parties would be?
4 (2) COMPETITIVE BASIS.--Any grant under 5 subsection (b) shall be awarded on a competitive 6 basis.
So the government will be giving out grants to expand broadband. On a competitive basis? Like Haliburton competitive basis? I'm sure that'll help the little guy. Who's going to pay for these grants?
13 (A) with members representing a cross sec14 tion of the community, including representatives 15 of business, telecommunications labor organiza16 tions, K-12 education, health care, libraries, 17 higher education, community-based organiza18 tions, local government, tourism, parks and 19 recreation, and agriculture; and
So now they want to include labor unions, unionized educators, and the whole gamut of subsidized parties into the mix. That's a free market, right? NOT.
Please explain, in detail, what parts of this bill will kill smaller competitors, and why. You make a big leap in logic, and I'm curious as to what provisions of this bill you think will squeeze out smaller competition -- particularly in contrast to the current broadband environment.
There's no need -- a simple review of the bill will show you that it is too vague, and it is definitely written by the larger mercantilist powers in the telecom market. They'll reap the benefits, and new competitors will not be able to withstand the new bureaucracies involved. It is typical of the Federal government's bills in the past decades.
It is tempting to say that you must have all or nothing solutions, but politics is about compromise. I'd rather have slow change than no change at all.
In your personal life, slow changes make sense. You slowly learn a new trade, or you slowly fix your home, or you slowly save for retirement. It's just you, so you know what your goals are.
In politics, slow always means "more tyranny," because the people voting for a bill today will not be the ones to enforce it tomorrow. When the Executive takes on new powers, you have to consider what future executives will do with those powers. When today's Congress enacts new legislation, you have to think of how that legislation will "slowly" change in the future.
I don't trust politicians to do anything slowly in my favor. When I have a heavy stone, and a hill, I know I can push that stone slowly over the hill. I can hire people, invite friends, or do it myself, but I'll get there. When politicians are involved, along with special interests, you never know where that stone will roll, but if you're below it, I'd wager that you'll get crushed eventually.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention the "uncluttered by regulations" part tends to result in highly unsafe products. The list goes on. Somehow, I don't equate "being able to make random knockoffs but cannot do anything without governments approval" to be "true capitalism"
The safety of products sold is a prime reason to use a retailer and not buy wholesale yourself. Will Amazon or CVS or Wal-Mart sell unsafe products? They add their profit overhead to cover their infrastructure, but also to insure against buying faulty or dangerous products. If a product is deemed dangerous, they'll remove it from the market. If they find a large number of dangerous products from a given source, say China, they may go so far as to test products themselves before releasing them to the market. A large retailer can do way more, way faster, than the FDA, USDA or other organizations can. See: Underwriters Laboratories.
As for regulations, China is definitely not a regulated economy as much as the US is. China's provinces ("States") have varying degrees of regulations, with the least regulated ones growing the fastest. Doug Casey says about Shanghai "The dozens of hotels that can compete with those in Bangkok are starting to draw not just businessmen, but tourists. They like the beaches, and the shopping in a tax and regulation-free environment is incredible."
I've visitd Beijing and Shanghai, and I can tell you that government is quickly backing off of entrepreneurs and the business market. The booms in growth are amazing, along with the freedom that even a non-citizen has in starting new businesses. The same can be said about Dubai, where I'd love to at least have residency because of the unlimited opportunity to grow and blossom a business.
My #1 reason I am against the idea of patents and intellectual property is because it is proven time and again that the market of demand and supply is the most justified market in terms of what is good for consumers and producers.
I am inspired repeatedly by what I see in China. We are going this Christmas again, to be wowed by the explosion caused by freedom and true capitalism (uncluttered by regulations and taxes). I am happy to call myself a Pirate, one who has no care for copyright, patents or trademarks. They're useless old mercantilistic protections for corporate-State entities that wish to monopolize something for a long period of time.
Individuals who invent do so because something else inspired them. If that inspiration was a product that was lacking features, then they showed the original inventor the shortcomings of their invention. If someone releases a product cheaper or with more features than your product, you must move forward to beat them. Competition drives innovation, not monopoly IP protection. So what if you spent 5 years designing something new? Just having an original product doesn't guarantee success -- you need finances, marketing, customer support and repair facilities. It is a combination of all these things that will bring you success, with the R&D stage merely a blip. Who comes up with an idea first may be lacking all the other needs for a profitable product.
For my own creations, I designed moralIP which is my view on how to morally protect designs. I never copyright or patent my writings or inventions -- and even if others steal them, my market base grows with new people interested in what I have to say, or what I've invented. That's the unseen hand of the market at work, and I love every minute of it.
This makes no sense. For this post, I won't actually fight against copyright. Let us all agree that copyright exists, and that there are current penalties for violating it.
First of all, Congress has NO power to set prices for any reason -- none. No government should ever set price caps or minimums. Doing so creates high prices and restricted inventories (or none at all). Let the market set pricing.
If the license-owners of music want to charge a given rate, let them. Those who can pay the rate will, those who can't will either move to different content, or pirate said content.
Here's where it gets exciting: piracy. With the huge number of people who want to transmit online, and the huge amount of countries and provinces to transmit from, it could be more expensive for the license-owners to go after someone streaming to 40 people than they'd get from the outcome. The amount of bandwidth on the web is virtually unlimited versus radio, and the reach is virtually unlimited. This means a virtually unlimited supply of music -- regardless of demand, the price will fall. If the license-owners think they can charge more than the market is willing to pay, they won't last long. The days of the power of copyright are quickly sliding through their fingers, into the open hands and mouths of those who want to spend their time providing a service that others want.
That service is NOT necessarily music, but a specific combination of music (and maybe commentary). It is THIS part of the service that the end users will pay for (either directly, or through advertising sponsorship). One specific song is NOT the important part, in fact it is the least important part. There are virtually unlimited songs to choose from, even in a given genre. There are NOT unlimited people who are talented in packaging these songs together into a format that someone else wants, and spend the same time marketing to the audience at large. The income is generated for the new labor created -- as the market should work. Old labor in the form of an easily copy-able song should fall to nearly zero. The bands who are played on these stations should be excited to get free marketing to promote their future concerts, personal appearances, or other live labor expenditures that they can sell in real time to their fans. Their labors, in real time, are worth way more than a pre-recorded, easily copied song worth zero or close to zero due to oversupply.
Get the tyrants in Congress out. These people have no understanding of the specific powers provided to them, by the People, through the Constitution. Congress does not have unlimited power.
When old groups of individuals breaks apart, it shows the strength of the individual in society. Too often we think of "big bad corporations" who "control" their employees -- but in reality the employee is always allowed to leave. In some situations, employees make a bad decision and sign away their rights to compete, which only shows that the individual does not feel the risk of considering competing in a market is greater than giving up that ability in the future.
Everyone has talents of value to others. Sometimes that talent is not something you might want to do (for example, prostitution or sewing clothes), but keeping your individuality is key to building a better future for yourself and your family/household. When your employer doesn't offer you compensation (not always financial!) compared to the labor you expend, you can always try to go elsewhere. If someone else offers you better compensation (again, not always financial), you know the market works.
For me, I've never had a "real job" because I've always put my personal value above what any one employer could offer. I saw no reason to lock myself in, even if the financial reward might have been better. I've passed on jobs worth 3 times what I made in a year on my own because I kept my own individuality, and worked hard to build my value so I could exceed what the employer offered me. During that time, though, I was also free to pursue tasks and ideas that I would be locked out of if I had a salaried position.
This goes to show everyone that they should always look at what they're getting versus what they're giving -- and always consider what the market needs that there is a limited supply of. Point yourself in that direction, and grow beyond just being another W4. It can be done.
You conveniently leave out the causes of the depressions and bubbles that occurred prior to the great depression (hint: speculation does not require fiat currency to occur).
No, I didn't. The Federal Reserve went on a massive inflationary credit/money creation spree from 1924 to 1929. This easy money gave everyone, even the shoe shiners, a huge increase in the value of the stock markets. But it was that easy money that made the stock markets rise, not actual increased profitability of companies invested. In 1924, a few early investors had early access to the new easy credit. The stock markets ticked up, and as that new money trickled down into the economy, more and more people invested -- causing the market to swell artificially even more so. The Fed did nothing but create more and more credit, which flew into the stock market pushing it higher and higher. Government inflation caused the market to bubble. The Fed tried to control the market boom by restricting that easy money, so those who were holding the stocks (namely, a decent portion of the population) had no one to sell to -- no more easy credit meaning no one else to buy those stocks. Quickly people sold off stocks, but the banks were restricted in paying out deposits because the Fed was trying to deflate the currency base.
The Fed caused the Great Depression.
The boom-bust cycle is nothing new, and not a product of inflation. Inflation is part of the boom-bust cycle.
I'm amazed people give you any trust or value, honestly. Inflation causes the boom-bust cycle as I easily explained in this post and in previous ones in the same threads. Inflation, the creation of money, gives people false indicators of a growing market. In a free market, stocks go up in value because they either pay more dividends, or because the company is truly worth more money now or in the near future. In an inflationary economy, stocks go up usually because another sucker used easy credit/money to buy stocks from a previous sucker, at a higher price. That's boom-bust. It is NOT part of a healthy economy.
I'll go out on a limb and say that over time, the boom-bust cycle is healthy. It promotes advancement during boom cycles, then weeds out the weak during bust cycles. In the long run, the boom-bust cycle promotes technological advances that result in increased standard-of-living across the board. The key is to mitigate the bust cycles so that the economy doesn't collapse.
Society blossomed during a stable currency base during the Industrial Revolution. Why? Companies and individuals found ways to become more efficient, introduce more products and services to the market, and reduce prices for everyone (deflation). This happened pre-fed, during a strong dollar that didn't fall more than a few percent in value over 150 years. The dollar has lost 98% of value since 1913, because of inflation/the Fed. In a strong dollar economy, people still create, but do so wisely because they find profitability in efficiency or new inventions. In an inflationary economy, companies sell nothing or junk (dotcom, housing) because they have easy access to easy credit, used to fool foolish investors.
The dot com bubble happened because of INFLATION? The dot com bubble made Many Many Many people wealthy, and kept the economy going for quite a few years. Then the charlatans became too common and the economy corrected. Inflation had ZERO to do with it. Over eager investment in stupid ideas is why the bubble burst.
Over-eager investment is encouraged because of inflation -- people have easy access to easy money/easy credit. Both bubbles happened because of this, instigated by a combination of our government's inflationary creation of credit, combined with the government's low standards for that credit. Banks loan out all the credit they can get/create, because they feel relatively protected by government's backing of those investments. FNMA created a mess of housing, the SEC created a mess out of the dotcom bubble. It is always inflation that creates bubbles, which are never healthy.
A boom/bust cycle is NORMAL and HEALTHY. Every thing in the world is cyclical. If you have no cycle, you have no growth period and no correction period. If there is no cycle, the economy becomes stagnant and unless you already have money there is no way to earn good money. Sitting on my cash in the hopes that deflation will cause its value to grow slowly is a great plan to avoid risk and an even better plan to avoid reward.
The desire for profit is what creates a vibrant economy -- profit for both parties in a given transaction. One party profits with a gain in money, the other party profits with a gain in items or services to make their lives better or easier or more entertaining. Bubbles don't create any more, or less, than the efficiency of a market with a stable money supply. If anything, bubbles shift funds from those who don't have enough to those who have more than enough. Bubbles are government-created, always.
In a slow deflation economy, you have two choices: sit on your money until you want/need to spend it, or invest it in something that has a higher risk but may have a higher reward. In a high inflation economy as we've lived in since 1913, you have two choices: sit on your money and let it inflate to worthlessless, or invest it in a risky venture that may only be "profiting" because other suckers with easy credit are also investing there. You never know if a growing market is truly growing because of profitability and market share gains, or because other suckers are buying in (housing, dotcom, etc).
If what you're saying is true:
Fantastic questions, by the way.
1) Why don't bond purchasers demand a higher premium (interest rate) for loaning money that's going to depreciate that fast -- and they *have* noticed that the government inflates the money supply by now.
Mostly because past history has shown that major losses have been covered by the government through future taxes. Also, we have an entity in the U.S. called the Plunge Protection Team which uses U.S. owned assets to buy stocks ands bonds to prevent market crashes. This intervention can't last forever -- they don't have unlimited access to real assets (gold, land, etc). The PPT has been trying to keep housing funds afloat, along with U.S. manufacturers. They're slowly losing that battle, and the market will be terribly harmed.
Look at Bear Stearns' recent bond report. One bond is now worth $0 on the dollar (yes, $0 on the dollar, their official statement). Another bond is now worth 9 cents on the dollar. These are billion dollar bonds, now worthless. Yet many of these bond issues are diversified through CDOs, which are increasingly becoming dangerous. We're talking possibly $1 trillion in CDOs that are in danger of collapse - yet the average person has no clue about it. Things could go from bad to horrific in very short order, affecting markets unrelated to the bond issues quickly.
Over time, if the government DOESN'T intervene and bail-out the investments, then bond investors WILL demand a higher return or some sort of reserve to back up the bond. We'll see if that happens. I just checked the city and state bond issues, and some states have unfunded liabilities of over $100 billion coming up (see Florida). It's bad, really bad. They'll issue bonds based on future tax income, but they'll have to raise taxes to meet those liabilities.
2) Name the basket of commoditiy futures I can buy that predictably appreciates at the "true" 10-12% inflation rate you claim.
Impossible because inflationary income causes people to invest unwisely, so inflation moves from market to market. When a bubble pops, those who pulled profits out before the crash will still have all that money -- but they will take time to reinvest it to create another bubble they can profit from. How many people lost their rears in the housing crash in the 90s? All those profits taken out before the crash created the dotcom bubble -- plus new money from Greenspan's inflationary printing cycle. That crashed, hurting hundreds of thousands of late comers, but the profits that were taken out (including all that newly printed money) still existed in someone's pocket -- someone who invested in home builders and land. As that money flooded housing, and the new money that Bernanke created came in too, housing went crazy. Housing is crashing now massively, but the early profit takers got out with billions, if not trillions. That money still exists, and it is now flooding into the stock market -- causing new bubbles waiting to burst.
I know a lot of friends, family and customers who are rallying on the stock market, not realizing that many companies that are growing in dollar price are NOT profitable -- it is just old and new money flooding into the market to create a new bubble. Those who exit early will make a ton of profit, but they'll leave the bag held by all the suckers who saw all that money and figured they could get rich, too.
The rich get richers, the poor and middle class get poorer -- thanks to inflation.
Man, enough already. You've been posting this gold-standard bullshit for years, and it's never made any sense. You have no credible sources for any of this. Give it up.
The Great Depression happened because of inflation. The dotcom bubble happened becaues of inflation. The housing bubble? Inflation. None of these things happen in a solid-currency economy. Read this reply I just made to another person who doesn't believe that soft deflation is good, and all inflation is bad.
The Austrians have shown time and again that soft deflation is a good thing. Keynesians have never proven inflation is good -- they keep changing their opinion whenever another bubble pops.
Deflation is just as bad for an economy, possibly even worse, than inflation, because when you have deflation there's much less incentive to invest money instead of hoarding it.
So untrue. Deflation is fine -- if you sit on your money, it doesn't become worthless. But this also gives you reason to invest properly and wisely, to get a better return than just what the deflation offers. Right now, easy credit and easy money have created all the bubbles we've experienced since 1913, including the Great Depression. All these bubbles followed by recession/depression happen because new money is printed, people spend it/invest it, causing prices to rise, giving people the idea that the investment was a good idea because "prices always go up." Eventually, people start buying MORE than they need to speculate (see, dotcom, housing bubble, etc). When there are no new speculators to sell to, the bubble pops, leaving the late buyers holding the bag. Inflation is the worst thing about economic stability ever. It has destroyed empires for thousands of years.
Soft deflation hurts no one because you don't HAVE to invest to get a return on your money. You CAN, but you'll be safer know your investment is safe from the bubble-markets we're familiar with today. Inflation also steals from the poor, who don't have enough money to save to invest. In a slow deflation market, the poor are helped the most -- they can actually save, in hopes of investing in themselves in the future. The poor can't do that today.
Prices should fall over time, unless there is a supply shortage of something. This is good for everyone.
So, your solution is to create a corporation? WTF?
Incorporating makes sense for MANY people who don't realize it. Not because of the limited liability, but because it offers you tax benefits (many of them, in fact), corporate rates, the ability to join other corporations for bigger discounts (hotels, airfare, loans, etc) and more.
I can't imagine NOT incorporating. Most of my employees are subcontractors (they work for more than just me, because the IRS frowns on companies turning W2 employees into 1099 contractors if they only work for one company) and THEY get huge benefits if they have an LLC or a S-corp that contracts work for me. I can't imagine the taxes you'd have to pay if you didn't get the write-offs being incorporated.
Prices don't go up because people are "greedy," prices go up because your government decides every day to ruin the value of your money.
Games now have many international ties (design, programming, etc). Because the U.S. dollar is being inflated as fast as it is (and has been since 1913), more dollars means that the dollars out there are worth less, especially versus foreign currencies. This means that prices seem to cost most.
The flipside of inflation is that some people, especially the banking elite, get the new money earlier than others -- so it is usually the middle and lower classes who are harmed with prices inflating faster than their wages do. Eventually wages DO increase because of the easy money out there, but usually it is too little, too late.
Prices go up in any inflationary market. Prices also go up because of a limited supply for a highly-demanded item. Generally, though, in a market with a currency backed by something other than fiat/force, prices go down slowly -- soft deflation. The benefit of this is that you actually can SAVE your money and earn value on it, unlike today where even the stock market gains don't keep up with the TRUE cost of inflation.
Sidenote: Government inflation figures are lies, plain and simple. Find some old credit card statements and see what inflation really is in your life. You may be surprised that it is 10-12% annually for the past 3-4 years.
It's supposed to do one thing and one thing well.
Everything else is just stuff to distract you from the fact that your phone network quality suddenly degraded to 3rd world levels.
My phone dials out VoIP if it finds a WiFi connection (it would use 3G but T-Mobile is limited to EDGE right now). Quality is great. T-Mobile's network quality in my regular areas (Chicago, Las Vegas, Savannah, and Miami) is perfect. I've never had a dropped call in those regions.
For me, it isn't "just a phone." I own a few different businesses in a variety of markets. I am constantly trying to maximize my efficiency so I don't have to work more than a few hours in any work-focused part of the day. I try to do the 4 hours in the morning, 4 hours in the evening type of deal, and having a truly multicapable PDA (with a phone) makes complete sense. I can do my billing, I can check my FedEx and UPS accounts, I can view PDFs (important when you run a Print Shop, I run an IT business, I maintain blogs and forums, etc, etc. By making my time management more efficient, I save a ton of time, and time is money.
If it wasn't for my ability to respond to customers, employees and people contacting me quickly, I would not be as efficient, and I would not be in the ultra-competitive businesses that I am in.
YOU may need a phone, but that's why the free market is great -- we can all get what we want, at the price we want, with the quality we want.
It's a good question.
I've always had high tech devices -- PDAs that were tethered to phones, micro laptops, etc. None of them worked well enough. I still had to spend time hitting a workstation, especially to download large files.
That all changed with the HTC -- EDGE is really fast, it is always connected, I can view HTML e-mails (get a lot of them) and I can proof PDFs (I own a not-for-profit print shop, too). I easily save 10 hours a week not having to hit a broadband connected workstation to do my work. Just 10 minutes here and 10 minutes there a day and it adds up quickly.
On top of all that, I can read all my RSS feeds from my phone (not while driving). So all those 5 minute or 10 minute "do nothing" time periods are spent actually doing something I'd normally try to do setting aside an hour at the end of the day (or the beginning).
I buy all my phones from Australia or Hong Kong -- unlocked and ready to roll. I currently run the HTC Trinity with a cooked WM6 rom, and I love it. $600 from Hong Kong.
My friends can't believe I shelled out $600 for a phone I'll use for a year. But the phone saves me between 10 and 15 hours a week (additional productivity) and I do a vast majority of my web browsing, blogging, and e-mailing from it. Why did I pick it? All the features I want, with nothing locked out.
Why do manufacturers lock phones and reduce features? Because consumers in America want free or cheap phones with long contracts. It's ridiculous. I haven't had a T-Mobile contract for years -- but we have 12 phones on my corporate account (maybe more, not sure). All our phones are imports with the features that are important to us.
All my friends are locked into contracts and have NO negotiating ability. If they're co-op together (cheap LLC, let's say) they could get a better corporate rate, and even negotiate it (T-Mobile Corporate Customer Care/Retention is really fantastic) based on their needs. Instead, they want a "free" $250 phone, and they pay 10c for text messages over a specific number. Idiotic.
People have to realize that "free" is not free, and it is usually wiser to just pay for a great phone -- and save on your monthly bill -- than it is to do what they're currently doing.
The market is providing exactly the crappy service, and pricing, and hardware, that people want.
There are some companies out there(i.e. http://www.collectiveintellect.com/) that are using AI to mine RSS feeds and specifically the blogosphere, and selling that data to corporations for various reasons.
Sounds like a fantastic market, actually. I recently picked up a client in the casino management market because I had made some comments on a blog regarding their lack of insight towards proper marketing and keeping a decent percentage of return customers. They actually contacted me, and I've spent a large amount of time parsing through literally hundreds of RSS feeds covering different search terms (the company, the company's competitors, key words of the market, etc, etc). They're always impressed when I hit them up to 50-100 new blogs, news reports, and websites condemning or supporting various new tactics or old dogs. I think that selling companies information that can help them (fix or spin) the problem is a huge market waiting to be tapped properly.
Lets say you're a drug company that is releasing a potentially controversial drug. You can mine the data of the blogosphere and issue press releases as a pre-emptive strike to larger media stories. This starts the real beginning of being able to effectively monitor and even potentially control some of the social aspects of the internet. I think it's a great innovation indeed, with potentially scary side-effects.
I'm not sure I'd call any of the side-effects scary, though. Honestly, I hit Google Blogsearch and Technorati before I hit Google News. What is most important to me, though, is a personal rating system so I can give weight to certain information providers that have given me good information. Lately, I've had better luck from blogs than from the mainstream media. That's a nail in the coffin for the MSM if they don't move with the speed that today's news readers desire.
The benefit of the "free market of information" on the web is that you can now see way more than the black and white sides of things. A drug company may put a spin on bad news, but the issue isn't just "bad news" and "good news." There might be 3 or 4 degrees of separation between the actual negative news and what others may say that could have a positive effect. With the growing (and shrinking?) anonymity of the web, whistle-blowers also have a chance to get the word out -- but again, without a positive history of truth, they may not have a high ranking with me.
Personally it is nice to be able to filter through a billion RSS feeds to find information that I'm interested in though.
I've been sorting through thousands of RSS feeds for a few years now, and have been using some collaborative filtering sites and systems to try to give weight to what I consider the better news sources. Collaborative filtering will be a necessary element to an AI filter because what matters to YOU personally may be missed, but if you use a collaborative ranking, you will also gather information that is important to people who have similar views/needs that you do.
I find a lot more power in the collaborative filtering market than in the AI market. The downside of collaborative filtering is that it can be gamed (see Digg). The upside is that metamoderating of other collaborators can work to fix the gaming individual at a time.
I don't believe that copyright drives innovation -- innovation usually means providing a new direction or addition to a previous product that someone else likely designed, which was "innovated" from a previous product that another designed. New ideas based on old ideas, etc.
What drives innovation is a desire to capture a particular market share for a demand, in effect providing a new supply stream for an existing demand, or hoping to create demand due to a new supply stream for a new product or feature.
In my opinion, it is the combination of features, at a given price, backed by a given support structure, with promises to function at a given level of operation, that matter most. In this case, it isn't copyright that provides for a "winner" in that market of supply and demand, it is the person who releases the best combination of features+price+support+quality to a market that desires it, that wins, if that person markets the product properly.
Copyright merely restricts competition from doing better than the originator of that particular product or service, and does the market a disservice by reducing the opportunity for other producers to do something one step better.
I use a high end MCE 2005 machine right now for our household, and it works fairly well. Unencrypted HD, 4 tuners total, household distribution (we have 2 boarders who rent from us and utilize their Xbox 360's as remote hubs). System is very stable, the wife can watch all her HGTV and TLC shows, I can download my aXXo first releases, and we're happy. The downside is no HD, because the CableCARD system just doesn't work well with PCs that aren't designed for it. Tried it, failed repeatedly. And I'm a techie.
This sounds to me like a great idea -- there's a ton of HD content over Comcast that I'd probably watch an hour or two a week of, more if I am sick or after a long stretch of work in the winter. I haven't found much HD content available over bittorrent sites, just a few RIPs. But I don't know if I really feel like paying for cable (and then a TIVO monthly bill) for what we get. From a legal perspective, I'd probably buy downloads (PPV online) if they were available and were high quality. But they're not available, so I resort to my own form of PPV. We generally buy movies we download, yet still keep the downloaded version on the PC to watch. I assume Tivos can't accept an XVid Video, so there is a downside.
This leaves a lot to be desired, but it's a step in the right direction. What I want in addition is:
1. Ability to download my own content, or RIP my own content.
2. Ability to remove commercials "real-time": we use a MCE plug-in that works well.
3. Ability to speed up shows without affecting speech tone (plug-in).
4. Remote access capability to a PC or a video game console (preferably both).
Tivo doesn't offer any of these, AFAIK. That's a big limiting factor. Someone needs to step up and provide these services, and their market will blossom.
I've been using PDAs forever -- starting with my original Newton MessagePad (I do miss it). Over the years, I've become accustomed to the tiny on-screen keyboards with no tactile feedback. I grow my right hand thumbnail long, file it down so I have a bit of an edge leaning left, and I can type VERY fast with it -- probably faster than the average layperson on a regular PC keyboard.
As my friends slowly pick up PDA phones without "real" keyboards, they've also mimicked my thumbnail mod and found they can type incredibly fast, especially with the faster processor PDAs (HTC Trinity is what I use) which offer almost no delay when typing. Disable any sound response, and you can type even faster.
I'm sure that the iPhone will make huge leaps in efficiency, but I'm happy with where I am with the "old fashioned" touchscreen typing. I've blogged, read and written on slashdot, and posted to forums from my tiny 320x240 screen, all because of a simple thumbnail mod.
Try it -- it may save you quite a bit of time, and not cause you to have to learn some new fandangled invention.
Notepad, pen. Never had a problem with casino security or management. Rules are you can't have electronics when playing (was told to put my cell phone away a few times at the craps tables), but nothing is wrong with having a notepad and a pen. In fact, I have a very close friend and business partner who plays video poker a few times a year at big values, and he writes down everything. He also has all the "Perfect Play" mathematical payout odds written on his notepad on pages 1-10. Again, no security issues.
Casinos don't care about that stuff as long as you are not using electronics which may be used for the wrong reasons (communicating with another player during a poker event, or videotaping/audiotaping employees or other customers). Also, there is a comp-ruse that some people have used at the craps table (one player playing the pass, one player playing the don't pass, in hopes of breaking even but generating huge comps for both players) -- the casino management and tracking software now flags these players within 5 rolls of the dice, and then the pit boss will reduce their comps slowly as they continue to try to scam the system.
Vegas is great for a few things: easy access to decent shows (see Beatles' LOVE), decent buffets, fun people after 2am at almost any hotel bar (usually employees off duty), and the pinball machine museum (awesome, rent a car to get there and back). Also hiking at Red Rock is amazing (rent a car).
I've spent some time with slot machine code -- I actually love the old reel machines (which are generally the only ones you can own based on most state laws), and I've done some minor consulting with casinos in Las Vegas. The near misses are not encoded into the machine.
It is easy to believe the machines are built to take your money, but it has nothing to do with preset expectations. They truly are random, but each wheel has a specific number of possible results. Each wheel is independently picked from a random number generator with numbers picked at the instant you hit the spin button or pull the lever.
All 3 or 4 wheels might have a number of possible positions, numbering as high as 1024 per wheel. The first half of those numbers (say, 0-511) will be "blank" hits, so the wheel will stop on a blank. Then another 256 or so might be a symbol with a low payout, and then you get progressively less hits on the higher paying symbols. As you move further down the wheel, you get even fewer high paying "hit" numbers. The big payout only occurs on one or two numbers per wheel.
When the right combination of random numbers occurs, you win a payout. The chance is slim, with most machines paying out a percentage avering 85-92% over infinite spins, based purely on the mathematical chance of hitting a specific combination of random numbers in a spin.
Seeing those "near hits" is only because white "loser" spots on the wheel are always surrounded by symbols. Those near misses are almost always symbols that would pay SOMETHING, but rarely do you get 3 symbols that are near misses of the jackpot.
This summer, I spent a considerable amount of time in LV -- I was on a consulting project each month and stayed at the Paris casino. Over two days, I decided to "track" the play on a given slot machine, by attempting to jot down the results. The machine is certainly random, and if you watch a machine long enough and write down the actual results (landed on white space between red 7 and blue 7, landed on red 7, landed on cherry), you can eventually come up with the percentage chance of hitting a particular symbol. You need thousands of spins on a particular machine, but you'll get those percentages eventually.
In a game with less of a mathematical payout chance than 100%, the casino doesn't need to cheat. It's already guaranteed a profit on the lifetime of the machine. Some players do win in Vegas -- those who walk away after their first penny of profit. Everyone else eventually has the math get the best of them.
SIDENOTE:I don't condone gambling, but I do like the entertainment value of meeting up with a few friends and spending a few hours at the craps tables. $25 bets over a 4 hour period, betting the pass line with full odds, has a very low risk of losing your money (1.4% risk of ruin with a $2000 bankroll). The comps you receive in exchange more than make up for any loss. That's the only game in Vegas I think still has a slight player's edge, with comps and freebies added in.
That thing is the FCC. The FCC holds back broadcast technology, and in the end the medium, because it is too slow to diagnose where the market is heading and make changes to its regulations. This is done on purpose -- the FCC is provided for, and promoted, solely by those who previously controlled the distribution media like television and radio.
Right now, we have cable and satellite for TV, and for Internet, for am majority of households and businesses. Both solutions are antiquated, and ready to be replaced. WiFi routers have proven that small-band radio hardware can be shared in relatively small spaces. All of my neighbors have routers, and we all work well together without major issues. In large urban areas, there are more problems with routers, yes, but this is the FCC's fault for not opening up the spectrum. Imagine how well broadcast technology would work if most of the currently used broadcast spectrum was unlicensed.
The major television and radio networks are scared to death of what would happen if gigabit wireless because available in an unlicensed manner. "On-demand" would take on new meaning. Nielsen would be replaced with real-time, and accurate, statistics sold by Google Analytics or a variety of actual competitors (unlike Nielsen, who has no real competitors). Shows would make it, or break it, not just on mega-advertiser income, but also the chance to make an income based on direct viewer sponsorship (subscription), or a myriad of other income streams (AdSense, or who knows what else?).
It is the regulation of the spectrum that is killing television and radio, as free market capitalists look for new ways to get information to those who want it. PeerCasting is amazing technology, which I already use to broadcast live church sermons to communities. It works well, so much better than public "Channel 19" a week or two later. When you can PeerCast straight to your car or your portable radio, the commercial radio stations will be dead. When you can watch one of a thousand TV shows, and become a hub for 5 or 10 others to watch it, the need for huge servers and huge pipes out of a studio will be ended. But that day won't happen with the FCC mandating frequency use to what worked 20 years ago.
MySpace isn't the killer -- MySpace is just finding a way to be relevant using the tiny bit of wired connectivity they have available. Imagine a peercasted or torrented YouTube, shared by millions, anonymous, and unable to be regulated by the State. That's a future I'm ready for.
I use the internet for much of my work -- downloading and uploading large documents and having to view multimedia presentations in various formats. Why should I have to buy and pay for a service before discovering whether or not it is suitable?
I've been a Speakeasy customer since they opened -- they were one of the first IDSL providers in Illinois.
That being said, you use the Internet for WORK. If you're not willing to pay the price for the service your work needs, don't rely on what the broadband providers are selling "for home use." Often times, work-provisioned broadband can be a higher tier of service, with higher upload speeds, but also higher pricing. I don't see many people using broadband for work paying the piper and buying the right tier for what they need.
I own and maintain a variety of companies that rely on the Internet, but broadband is mostly a non-issue. Even for large files, as long as I get the bandwidth I am due, I'm happy. I would never relegate my business to a shared internet connection -- I prefer paying for a T1. You can get T1 speeds for under $6000 a year now. If you work and need high speed networking, 2-5% of your gross sales is NOTHING for the net. I can't understand why someone who needs to upload and download large files would keep themselves at a consumer level, when there are thousands of professional broadband suppliers available to run a T1 today. If you can't afford the T1 yourself, share it with a neighbor or three. Most terms and conditions on T1 usage allow you to do this -- cable and DSL generally do not. I am running a T1 to my home in August, and I'm giving 4 of my neighbors access for $60/month each (WiFi). It won't cost me that much to have guaranteed bandwidth, low latency, and the ability to connect to my office phone network. That's professional service at a professional price.
In what world could you call that sort of experience a good thing?
There are dozens of websites that allow you to check out an ISP before you have a line pulled. There is no excuse for getting two services then canceling them. If you're uncertain about a broadband provider, call the COMMERCIAL SALES office of that provider -- even Comcast and AT&T has a commercial services division. Explain your needs, and GET THEM TO GUARANTEE you 60 days to try it with no cancellation fee. The T1 I am pulling has a 45 day exit clause if they don't meet my needs. I will pay maybe $100 to try it out. No big deal.
If it's for your home, that's a different story. That's governed under a variety of ridiculous local, county and State laws that generally keep competition out of the market. Run your own T1 to your home. Set up a few cantennas and a few decent WiFi routers. Resell service to your neighbors for $20 a month. You'll be profitable.
Tha's it an' tha's all," as they say. I fail to see how anything can squeeze "smaller providers" out of the system more than not being in the system at all.
That's the fault of Madison residents for allowing their local government to protect the interests of two parties. It sounds to me like you should pull a few T1 lines into Madison, rent some commercial closets, and start up a decent WiFi provider like http://jimmywireless.com/ by me. They do a great job for a great rate. They even provide free WiFi service for those who can't afford top tier WiFi from them. There is no excuse for the lack of competition, except that Madison likely restricts many providers out of the market.
They've managed to arrange with the city that, if you want landline phone service or DSL, they are the only choice. Period.
So you want a Federal law that taxes me so that you can have broadband? Is that fair? Is broadband a "life necessity"? I see no reason to set standards at the Federal level when it is obvious that the local market of citizens is at fault. Find 50 people to invest $1000 each, and start up a WiFi provider. The costs are NOT that high. If you have a town of 10,000 people, you can recoup your initial investment in less than 3 years, faster than almost any other teleecom business. This is a local problem, not a national concern.
"Competition" in today's American broadband market generally means "if you don't like it, you can move."
Or you can start your own business. If there's a demand, make a supply.
I would rather have to think about moving from Mt. Horeb to Madison than wonder why I live in a country that taxes one man to pay for the entertainment of another. We don't have a strip club in my town, maybe we need a Federal law that taxes you so I can go look at single moms dancing nude? We also don't have a casino near me, maybe we should tax you so that someone can overcome the huge market costs to open one?
It makes no sense to me. Local issues should be kept locally. If the citizens allowed for their village to enact mercantilist protection laws to remove competition, that's their fault. Run for office on a "competitiveness in broadband" ticket in your community. Change the bad laws.
What? Where do you get that idea from? Or is this more unfounded anti-regulatory claptrap?
I read the bill. Did you?
Hogwash. Smaller providers can still be in the market, but if they don't meet the threshold for second generation broadband, they can't call themselves broadband. This is true of large providers as well. This leads to better information for consumers.
In a free market, there are no consumers or producers. There are two parties who negotiate a deal both hoping to get the most for themselves by giving up the least to the other party. One party may have products or services, and the other party may have cash, but this is a non-issue. Both parties could be bartering, or both parties could be trading cash (say, foreign currency conversion). In either case, it is in each party's best interest to NOT tell the other party what is the maximum they could provide. Free information is irrelevant unless the market provides that information somehow.
Another major part of the legislation is to enable better data collection, again providing better information to participants. Better information makes a market *more* free -- the free market model requires perfect access to information among participants.This law aids the free market. It does not force out smaller players. If you want to say that they'll be uncompetitive because of slower speeds, and will go out of business because the market will not buy from them, that's an effect of the free market with better information.
Speed is irrelevant to the market. I don't need speed, I need low latency. Some people need 99.999% uptime. Some people need the ability to serve data on certain ports. Some people need great customer service. Broadband should only be defined by the provider of the service, and the user of the service. The definition of broadband differs to different people.
Did you read it fully? You seem to have a pretty awful misunderstanding of the bill. You make a lot of assumptions (monopoly provision).
Of course I did. Did you? The bill has some amazing loopholes to help big industry:
17 (b) EXCEPTION.--The Commission shall exempt an
18 entity from the reporting requirements of subsection
19 (a)(3) if the Commission determines that a compliance by
20 that entity with the requirements is cost prohibitive, as
21 defined by the Commission.
So certain parties can be exempt if the cost is too high. I wonder who those parties would be?
4 (2) COMPETITIVE BASIS.--Any grant under
5 subsection (b) shall be awarded on a competitive
6 basis.
So the government will be giving out grants to expand broadband. On a competitive basis? Like Haliburton competitive basis? I'm sure that'll help the little guy. Who's going to pay for these grants?
13 (A) with members representing a cross sec14
tion of the community, including representatives
15 of business, telecommunications labor organiza16
tions, K-12 education, health care, libraries,
17 higher education, community-based organiza18
tions, local government, tourism, parks and
19 recreation, and agriculture; and
So now they want to include labor unions, unionized educators, and the whole gamut of subsidized parties into the mix. That's a free market, right? NOT.
Please explain, in detail, what parts of this bill will kill smaller competitors, and why. You make a big leap in logic, and I'm curious as to what provisions of this bill you think will squeeze out smaller competition -- particularly in contrast to the current broadband environment.
There's no need -- a simple review of the bill will show you that it is too vague, and it is definitely written by the larger mercantilist powers in the telecom market. They'll reap the benefits, and new competitors will not be able to withstand the new bureaucracies involved. It is typical of the Federal government's bills in the past decades.
It is tempting to say that you must have all or nothing solutions, but politics is about compromise. I'd rather have slow change than no change at all.
In your personal life, slow changes make sense. You slowly learn a new trade, or you slowly fix your home, or you slowly save for retirement. It's just you, so you know what your goals are.
In politics, slow always means "more tyranny," because the people voting for a bill today will not be the ones to enforce it tomorrow. When the Executive takes on new powers, you have to consider what future executives will do with those powers. When today's Congress enacts new legislation, you have to think of how that legislation will "slowly" change in the future.
I don't trust politicians to do anything slowly in my favor. When I have a heavy stone, and a hill, I know I can push that stone slowly over the hill. I can hire people, invite friends, or do it myself, but I'll get there. When politicians are involved, along with special interests, you never know where that stone will roll, but if you're below it, I'd wager that you'll get crushed eventually.