The best he can do in hindsight is to recommend that local and regional newspapers model their business model after the New York Times. The New York Times can't make the New York Times' business model work, and he thinks his newspaper could have?
The only way for these second and third tier newspapers to be successful is to recognize that the objective of a company is not to be prestigious, not to be respected, not even necessarily to be large, but rather to make a profit.
Second and third tier newspapers that are unable to make the transition to serving a niche markets will not survive. Print is a niche market. You can be profitable there, but when your organization has as much overhead as it did 5 years ago, you will not be profitable.
And second and third tier newspapers that are unable to target a broad range of niche markets will not approach the revenue they had under the old model.
And you, sir, illustrate perfectly the author's point.
The green, organic, and healthcare moral majority is no better than the last moral majority.
By your very own stated principle of indirect cost to society, a different moral majority could tax services, establishments, a products associated with homosexual sex, a practice that has a demonstrable indirect cost to society in the form of HIV/AIDS care.
But that would have you hollering up a storm, and with good reason.
You can take your majority and shove it, so long as you stand against individual liberty.
The author's point is that the federal government has no more business regulating virtue and vice in the refrigerator than in the bedroom, which is to say, it has no business at all doing either.
The point isn't whether or not it's good or bad for you. The point is that it is not a legitimate function of the federal government.
So long as we permit to go unchallenged this notion that the federal government is the nanny of the people from cradle to grave, we will be subject to the fickle tyranny of the majority with every new cause, crusade, and fad of the generation in power.
Why does an unelected government bureaucrat get to spend the money of hard-working individuals and legitimate companies on this risky, politically connected startup?
Do we really think that an unelected bureaucrat, who won't be accountable for the success or failure of his decisions in the span of his tenure, will make better investment decisions that the people who earned the money in the first place? Even if by some chance it beats the odds and is successful, does that make it right?
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss, except with a different set of special interests suckin' at the taxpayer teat.
You're absolutely right. Microsoft won't be going anywhere. They'll just continue laying off the residents of Washington state.
Then by your logic, Washington state will raise taxes to pay those laid off employees to be unemployed, rather than Microsoft pay them to be productive.
So help me understand this: 1. Microsoft is the 3rd largest employer in your state 2. You are in a recession 3. You have a 9.2% unemployment rate
4. You want to raise taxes on business.
So that your government has more money to redistribute to people who are not working, who lost their jobs because companies like Microsoft couldn't afford to keep them on in the first place.
Let me propose an alternative.
Reduce your spending and reduce taxes so that you can afford to pay your bills, and Microsoft can afford to rehire your residents.
Slashdot Mirror
The best he can do in hindsight is to recommend that local and regional newspapers model their business model after the New York Times. The New York Times can't make the New York Times' business model work, and he thinks his newspaper could have?
The only way for these second and third tier newspapers to be successful is to recognize that the objective of a company is not to be prestigious, not to be respected, not even necessarily to be large, but rather to make a profit.
Second and third tier newspapers that are unable to make the transition to serving a niche markets will not survive. Print is a niche market. You can be profitable there, but when your organization has as much overhead as it did 5 years ago, you will not be profitable.
And second and third tier newspapers that are unable to target a broad range of niche markets will not approach the revenue they had under the old model.
And you, sir, illustrate perfectly the author's point.
The green, organic, and healthcare moral majority is no better than the last moral majority.
By your very own stated principle of indirect cost to society, a different moral majority could tax services, establishments, a products associated with homosexual sex, a practice that has a demonstrable indirect cost to society in the form of HIV/AIDS care.
But that would have you hollering up a storm, and with good reason.
You can take your majority and shove it, so long as you stand against individual liberty.
The author's point is that the federal government has no more business regulating virtue and vice in the refrigerator than in the bedroom, which is to say, it has no business at all doing either.
The point isn't whether or not it's good or bad for you. The point is that it is not a legitimate function of the federal government.
So long as we permit to go unchallenged this notion that the federal government is the nanny of the people from cradle to grave, we will be subject to the fickle tyranny of the majority with every new cause, crusade, and fad of the generation in power.
Why does an unelected government bureaucrat get to spend the money of hard-working individuals and legitimate companies on this risky, politically connected startup?
Do we really think that an unelected bureaucrat, who won't be accountable for the success or failure of his decisions in the span of his tenure, will make better investment decisions that the people who earned the money in the first place? Even if by some chance it beats the odds and is successful, does that make it right?
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss, except with a different set of special interests suckin' at the taxpayer teat.
You're absolutely right. Microsoft won't be going anywhere. They'll just continue laying off the residents of Washington state.
Then by your logic, Washington state will raise taxes to pay those laid off employees to be unemployed, rather than Microsoft pay them to be productive.
This is brilliant.
So help me understand this:
1. Microsoft is the 3rd largest employer in your state
2. You are in a recession
3. You have a 9.2% unemployment rate
4. You want to raise taxes on business.
So that your government has more money to redistribute to people who are not working, who lost their jobs because companies like Microsoft couldn't afford to keep them on in the first place.
Let me propose an alternative.
Reduce your spending and reduce taxes so that you can afford to pay your bills, and Microsoft can afford to rehire your residents.