Disclosure: I've made my living in manufacturing for the better part of 20 years. I also have a LOT of experience in international business and global sourcing.
The problem is that too much manufacturing that was formerly done in America is now done elsewhere, in third-world nations like China, Mexico and India.
I've been to China and Mexico on a professional basis. I've worked there. There is more manufacturing (by revenue) done in the US than in all three of those countries combined. In fact the US manufacturing sector is larger than the GDP of every country on earth except for Japan, China, Germany, France and maybe Great Britain depending on which numbers you look at.
In the past, domestic manufacturing provided the solid foundation upon which the strong American economy was built.
America has a $2.7 Trillion (yes with a T) manufacturing sector and it is GROWING despite all the hand wringing you hear. (the last two years are due to other causes than fundamental weakness in US manufacturing) Yet employment in manufacturing is dropping. How could this be? The reason is the same as what happened to farming over the last two hundred years. Automation, technology, and productivity have gone up and fewer people are needed to do the same work. It used to be that over 90% of the US workforce was in agriculture. Now it is around 2% and yet no one would argue that the US hasn't done well. Manufacturing is undergoing a similar process.
The jobs in the US are going to be less and less in manufacturing in years to come. This does not need to be a bad thing. Yes it will be hard on quite a few people - fundamental changes in the economy never are easy - but trying to keep jobs in industries where the wages are uncompetitive is pointless and damaging. Where will the jobs be? I don't know and neither does anyone else. That's the scary bit but that's also where the opportunity is. All I can tell you is that the job growth won't be in manufacturing for the next 20 years. It may be that wages in the US fall back to more competitive levels with elsewhere in the world. There is no fundamental reason wages in the US must be higher than elsewhere. But if the US invests in promising industries and provides an environment with sufficient capital, labor mobility and appropriate regulations then the US will be fine. The economy of 2040 will look nothing like the economy of 1940 and that is something to be celebrated.
Thanks mainly to Nixon in the 1970s and NAFTA in the 1990s, those jobs are gone.
The reason those jobs are disappearing is because labor costs too much in the US relative to elsewhere for certain jobs. End of discussion. Labor intensive work migrates to where labor is cheapest. It always has and always will. Work is either labor intensive or capital intensive (by definition it cannot be both) and the manufacturing that is capital intensive is staying here in the US and doing just fine. NAFTA and the other stuff you mention plays a role but it's a minor one. Blaming NAFTA misses the big trends. The US manufacturing jobs are fundamentally a victim of success. Companies made money, wages went up but some work requires relatively high inputs of labor and those jobs inevitably will head where labor is cheap.
They probably won't come back unless the federal government does the right thing and impose trade barriers against nations that have an oversupply of labor, and unsafe working conditions, and unsuitable wages.
The concept of an "oversupply of labor" is ridiculous. That's like saying a country has an oversupply of coal, or timber, or gold. Yes, some countries have a lot of labor. It's an asset like any other. The US has the third highest population in the world so you really could only be referring to two other countries if you are talking about population. Yet labor is mor
A lot of the big charities these days seem to be focused on "awareness" rather than "finding a cure".
The awareness campaigns are designed to get the word out that there is a problem so that real money can ultimately be directed towards research for a cure. A good example is what happened with HIV. Compared to other diseases HIV has a relatively small patient population in the US but it has received vast amounts of media attention and as a result, money for research. This happened largely due to an awareness campaign by members of the most affected communities. Breast cancer is another good example. It is only the fifth most common cause of cancer death but it gets huge amounts of research money due to awareness campaigns.
The short version is that if no one is aware of a problem, no money is going to go towards a finding a cure. No awareness = no money for research = no cure.
If you can charge a customer fifty grand for one course of chemo treatment for the rest of his life, then what is the incentive to find a cure?
For the people charging the fifty grand probably not much unless their patent protection is about to run out. For everyone else who can charge nothing because they don't have a patented cure of their own there is plenty of incentive. Just because one drug company develops a treatment doesn't mean every other drug company and research institution will suddenly and forevermore stop all research on that topic.
Well, I follow the news, so I am sure I will hear if they actually cure cancer.
"Cure cancer" is a stupid phrase uttered by naive people. That's like saying you're going to "cure viruses" or "fix government". Cancer isn't one disease with a single cause. There never will be a "cure for cancer" because the phrase itself is almost meaningless. Doctors don't even refer to it as cancer amongst themselves. There might be a cure for a neuroblastoma or melanoma (and even those might ultimately refer to categories rather than specific conditions) but the word cancer is too broad to be meaningful in the context of a cure or even a treatment.
None of these are energy *sources*. They all take oil to manufacture...
I should know better than to argue with an AC but that's the most retarded argument I've heard in some time. Hydrogen is what powers the Sun and it in no way shape or form requires oil to be a source of energy. Without hydrogen, oil as we know it (along with everything else) doesn't exist. Oil is at it's root a product of photosynthesis which does not require any oil or other man-made product.
Just for a little perspective - a $1M revenue company is a teeny-tiny company. We're talking mom and pop stores in a strip mall here. $1M in revenue is not hard to achieve - in fact if you don't care about profits it is very easy to achieve. (A business selling $2 bills for $1 will have all the revenue they can handle but will also be incredibly unprofitable) When these companies make $1M in profits, I'll be significantly more impressed. If you ever look at magazines like Inc they will always quote revenue figures in their articles and ads because it sounds impressive but really is pretty meaningless.
That said, its nice to see some traction in open source businesses even if it is small.
...nothing else even comes close to the energy density of oil.
Want to try again? Oil is definitely not at the top of the heap on energy density. I agree completely with you regarding it's importance and versatility and ubiquity but it's not the most energy dense substance out there.
Seems like I'm not the one who needs to read Buffett, hmm?
Yes you do need to read more Buffett. Go to the Berkshire Hathaway web site and read every one of their annual reports. (I have) He's made his career on long term investments and doesn't provide much if any guidance to the market. He's not unaware of the short term focus of other investors but he literally put his MONEY on long term investments. Just noting that other people act shortsightedly and irresponsibly doesn't mean that is what he recommends actually doing.
Very nice of you to take a few minor and off topic remarks completely out of context though.
If you think that the markets reward long term investments that don't turn up in quarterly reports, you're not paying attention.
I'll take Warren Buffet's opinion on that over yours. Here's a hint: he disagrees with you. Yes the markets can be myopic but long term success gets rewarded handsomely. Companies of all sizes make investments with time horizons measured in decades on a daily basis. If few thought long term, the companies that did would have a heck of an advantage.
Moving jobs to third world countries is rewarded in the stock market, not building American factories to employ American workers.
Actually neither of those things is rewarded in the stock market. Profits and growth of profits are rewarded. Nothing else. If you can grow profits with American workers, the stock market is fine with that.
I know far more people who have been screwed over by doctors, mechanics, and contractors than by accountants or investors.
I am a certified accountant. If you believe that, you don't understand accounting at all. I have a textbook downstairs which is all about how accountants can fudge the numbers. Even the best financial records have a lot of slop in them and it is REALLY easy to commit fraud as an accountant often on a very large scale. Even if no laws are broken, finance experts can seriously screw you, often without you even being aware of it. I'm not required to take classes on ethics every year because accountants have been so honorable in the past. If accountants were so honest there would be little need for audits.
No, I'm afraid accountants and finance professionals are no more ethical than anyone else.
Yes, teachers should be paid more, but there should be higher standards for teachers as well.
You get paid more for doing things that either A) other people can't do or B) other people don't want to do. Teaching generally falls into neither category. The ability to teach is not a rare ability and plenty of people chose it as a career. (note that I did not say teach well - that's a different issue) Ergo supply being relatively high compared with demand dictates that teaching will not be a lucrative profession.
There's no reason that teaching should be any less a noble profession (as determined by the general population, not Slashdotters) than being a doctor or professor.
Who said it is less noble? It just pays less. Being a college professor or a doctor requires a PhD or an MD and there are fewer people who have the brainpower and dedication to earn those degrees. Nobility of a profession isn't determined by pay and being a teacher is generally quite well respected.
US will NEVER do this, it's impossible. It will print and print USD into hyper-inflation.
That's a nice theory. Complete nonsense of course. The US has been in this situation before multiple times.
The US has never defaulted. Not once - even when the national debt was a much higher percent of GDP than it is now, which happened after WWII. It also was approximately as high as it is now around 1880 as well as throughout the 1930s and in the 1950s and 1960s. Sure the numbers are bigger (inflation does that) but our GDP is bigger too. The solution to the deficit is fairly simple - cut spending on some combination of the military, social security and/or medicare. Not politically easy of course but certainly possible.
The reason your argument is nonsense is that if the US were to continue to just print money without regard to the consequences, the economy would crater since no one would trade with the US, and the government would be cast out of office. Your assumption that people can never accept any legislation that is good for the country but not them personally is demonstrably wrong and pathetically cynical. It also assumes that the people in charge have no clue or sense of responsibility or fear of losing power. As much as we criticize our government, they aren't complete fools - at least not all the time.
Absolutely netbooks are fine for content creation. Use mine for that all the time - I'm typing this post on one. Not for every kind of content of course but for word processing, email, spreadsheets, accounting, low end photo editing, web page creation and more it works great. Yes you can edit video on a netbook. No you wouldn't do high end work (wouldn't use an iPad either) but for casual/occasional use it is fine. Plus I can plug it into a larger monitor if for some reason I need more screen real estate.
Mix music? How many DSP plugins do you think a Netbook can handle when editing audio?
As many as I'm ever going to use it for. Your mileage may vary. If you have serious hardware needs for a specific purpose, neither an iPad or a netbooks is likely to suit you. Different tools for different jobs.
And netbooks are just small notebooks: with all the limitations that a notebook has.
True but that's a glass half empty way of stating it. They also are small notebooks with most/all of the advantages a notebook has. Not the least of which is a built in keyboard. If your work habits are like mine, a keyboard is not a minor issue.
I'd agree that netbooks are barely content creation devices, they are convenient to carry, read some e-mails, surf the web, maybe do a little writing but they really aren't that great at any of it.
I'm typing this on a netbook (an Asus Eee 1000HE) and you are greatly underestimating netbooks. It's true that their screen size/resolution is limiting at times BUT not nearly as much as you might think. I use mine for email, web surfing, word processing, spreadsheets, dreamweaver, gimp, quickbooks (I'm an accountant), quicken, and most everything else I use my desktop for except games. When I need more screen real estate I plug it into my 20 inch monitor and viola, I have 1280x1024 resolution. In fact I probably use it plugged into a monitor between 25%-50% of the time since I'm not always traveling. When I travel it's compact and I'm generally unlikely to do much work that requires large screen real estate anyway. I DO however need a keyboard most of the time for MY work and an iPad would be an inconvenient choice for me. A netbook suits me fine at the moment.
The iPad is much more portable and easy to handle than a netbook...
That depends very much on what your are doing with it. I guarantee the iPad is not more portable or easier to handle than my netbook for what I use my netbook for. Your mileage may vary of course for your particular needs.
performs better on content consumption and almost as well on content creation
Again, depends on what you are doing. I wouldn't touch an iPad for serious spreadsheet work and it would need a keyboard for any serious writing at which point you might as well at least consider a netbook. If I'm reading something on the go or wanting to watch a movie though the iPad could be a superior choice. I think if they came out with an optional stylus the iPad could be awesome for note taking at schools but I doubt that will happen.
The iPad is cool but it's not better than a netbook (or any other pc) for all purposes. The superiority of one over the other depends on the particular application and your particular usage habits/needs.
Disclosure: I don't own an iPad and have no intention of buying one anytime soon.
You are aware of the iPad's poor ergonomics for longer term use, right?
That depends on exactly what the use is. If the use is watching movies or reading while traveling, it's better than a laptop. For any meaningful spreadsheet work I wouldn't touch the iPad with a ten foot cattle prod. The iPad is better for some uses and worse for others. Use what suits your particular needs best at the time.
No they aren't, and apps are censored by Apple meaning there will be fewer than there otherwise would be.
So what? More does not equal better. 10,000 crappy applications are worth less than one really good one. I don't care how many total applications there are. I do care how many good applications there are for my needs. I don't really care if those applications don't suit your needs.
Is it asking too much to think that the body charged under our Constitution with writing the laws of the land be the same one that decides whether or not the Federal Government should regulate internet services and in what manner?
There is nothing preventing Congress from stepping in to the debate at any time. I'm not entirely sure I trust Congress to do a better job however.
Seize their American assets and sell them to the highest bidder.
Ahh. Expropriation is your solution? I think you are not fully considering the consequences of that action.
What I'm reading here is that basically we get to put up with the destruction of a major fishery because, well, it's too hard to make a large multinational pay for their incompetence.
Who said it's too hard to make them pay up? Heck, they are volunteering to pay to some degree. The question is what is an appropriate payment/sanction? Not an easy question and neither you nor I have sufficient facts to answer that at this time.
You are proposing severe sanctions such as jail for "all involved". Does that include the oil workers on the platform? How about the accountant that does the payroll? Do you mean everyone in the company? Sure - let's send everyone who was remotely connected to this problem to jail. I'm exaggerating of course but with a point. A lynch mob mentality solves nothing. Yes, BP should be investigated in due course but let's do it in a rational and sensible manner.
There might be criminal negligence but there also is the chance there might not be. That's why we have a justice department and a court system and if needed a legislature. IF there was incompetence rising to the level of criminality I hope appropriate parties are punished appropriately. I'm not ready at this time to declare jail time for anyone appropriate until more facts are discovered. Make no mistake I'm more than willing to consider jail time if appropriate once we learn more.
In short, the environment and the livelihoods of ordinary people are expendable in the never-ending need for cheap energy.
All of whom use that same "cheap" energy. You are aware of course that oil is used for far more than just energy right? Plastics, fertilizer, lubricants, coolants, detergents, medicines, asphalt, cosmetics, tar, wax, and countless other products require oil. It is an unfortunate and inescapable truth that modern society as we know it could not exist without oil. I don't like it and I'm sure you don't like it but us not liking it doesn't change a thing. If you can figure out how to eliminate the need by ALL of us for oil, I'm sure there is a Nobel prize out there for you.
Tell me, what is your solution?
Start by fixing the leak. Then we deal with cleanup. BP gets to pay for that plus ALL the cleanup costs. That includes lost revenue to fishermen, shipping firms, tourism, etc plus of course environmental reconstruction. There will be lawsuits and probably punitive damages like with Exxon Valdez. Change regulations to ensure that oil firms must have state of the art technology installed to prevent future leaks like this. They also should be required by law to have ready-to-go contingency plans in place in case of the failure of that technology. Finally the case should be remanded to the justice department to determine if there was any evidence of criminal negligence and appropriate action taken if any such evidence comes to light.
1. There was a constant inspection regime paid for entirely by the industry. In other words, there is an armed government official with absolute power to stop drilling, and his salary paid entirely by whoever owns the well and the platform.
Bit of a conflict of interest there don't you think? Do you seriously expect an inspector to readily shut down production on the person that pays their salary? If so you are FAR more optimistic and trusting of human nature than I am.
2. All caps on liability were removed and the owners of the well and platform were forced to pay all costs of a spills, without limit of any kind.
I'm not aware that there are any caps on liability (please cite if you know of any) other than the flesh eating lawyers employed by the oil companies. Given the results of previous litigation the oil companies seem to be able to defend themselves rather effectively.
3. Any evidence of ignoring of safety requirements would lead to lengthy prison sentences for all involved, and a ban on the companies involved in the accident of no less than five years from any extraction.
Sounds great on paper but the problem is in the details. How do you decide who goes do jail and who doesn't? It is NOT an easy question to answer. Furthermore the companies involved are huge multinationals. BP isn't an American company and most of their revenue does not come from the US. Explain to me how you plan to shut down BPs operations in the US gracefully and not seriously disrupt the energy prices and product flow. If you think that is a simple thing to do you haven't really thought about it.
Who pays for the mistakes? Who pays for the environmental impact?
Possibly a combination of BP and the US taxpayer - though it should be 100% BP and BP's CEO has said publicly that BP would shoulder the cost. Depending on how much pressure gets put on Congress (I'm expecting a lot) I doubt Congress is going to be in much of a mood to bail out BP especially in light of the economic conditions and the fact that the Democrats are presently in power.
If BP were forced to shoulder the entire cost of this mistake, they would go bankrupt.
HIGHLY unlikely. BP makes a profit of $16-20 Billion annually and has approximately $13 Billion in cash and cash equivalents right now. The total cost of the cleanup is unknown but estimates of $5 Billion have been put forth (not including litigation). For comparison the Exxon Valdez spill was estimated to cost $2 billion to clean up (not including litigation).
That said even if it did drive BP out of business (which it won't) that is nothing to shed tears over. Companies go out of business due to greed and stupidity and poorly considered risks all the time. See Lehman Brothers if you need an example.
This isn't a free rider problem, unless you consider companies to own potential profits. In reality, knock-off products are produced with a person's own materials.
Free riders in this case are getting the research for free. Invention costs money. If you spend the money to develop a drug (expensive!) and I can simply look at your hard work and copy it, I can undercut you on price because I have no research costs to recoup. No rational businessman is going to make that investment if they can immediately be undercut by an identical copy.
Patents exist to protect the economic incentive to invent. Despite all their flaws patents have been wildly successful at doing this.
The free-rider problem only exists when there is some scarce resource involved.
Invention is not free nor is the capital required to conduct invention. In many cases it is extremely expensive. Explain to me how you came to the (ridiculous) conclusion that capital for R&D is not a scarce resource.
The situation with patents is starting to become unmanageable.
Arguably true. I'm with you on that.
Removing patents would make it a lot better.
There we disagree. I think the patent system need serious reform but I completely disagree that removing it would be a better situation. If you are going to make this case I'll demand some actual researched evidence from you. Just asserting that the current system is broken isn't good enough.
You demand that a replacement must be not just better, but absolutely perfect, and if it can't be then the broken system must be kept.
Point out exactly where I demanded a "perfect" replacement. You can't because I didn't. I'd be fine with a better system and frankly the notion of a "perfect" system is laughable.
The patent system exists for a very good reason - to create incentives to invent and create in the face of the free rider problem. Removing the patent system altogether without any replacement is NOT an improvement because the free rider problem hasn't gone away. Huge swaths of the world economy depend on patents and copyright. You think just doing away with them will not have devastating consequences?
Knockoffs compete just fine. Ask any drug manufacturer if generics (a knock off even though a legal one) hurt their business.
I call that "competition".
It's not competition if the original product never gets developed. Patents aren't there to prohibit competition for all time on existing products. They are there to ensure that people continue to have an economic incentive to create NEW products. For all their flaws, patents have been wildly successful for this purpose.
It's more companies entering the marketplace, driving prices down, and adding more variety and competition.
That's why patents expire. You haven't addressed how to deal with free riders crushing the incentive to invent. THAT is why patents exist and it is not even remotely a question that patents create powerful incentives for invention.
I agree with the arguments that patents (often) last too long, are too easily granted, shouldn't be granted on software (copyright covers that fine) or business models, etc. There are LOTS of changes that can and should be made. Just throwing the whole system out because it needs updating though is stupid, short sighted, naive and would have vast economic and social consequences that you haven't remotely addressed.
Of course they will. Competition hurts any business competing in a free market.
You can't have competition if the product never gets produced in the first place. Without patent protection incentives are significantly reduced to conduct research. Far less money will be spent by corporations to invent something if anyone else can (and they will) simply copy your work. While innovation wouldn't stop (see academia and open source for proof of that) it would slow dramatically. The free rider problem is a real problem with potentially massive consequences.
Yes, they need money for their R&D budget. If they've got enough money to bombard me with ED commercials, then they've got too much money.
I've argued this very same point myself but it's not a valid argument against patents. The fact that people want to buy little blue pills for adult recreation and the business model involves marketing has little to do with whether patents are a good idea or a bad idea. If you want to criticize something there, criticize Viagra being covered by insurance. The fact that ED pills are patented is something about which I'm utterly unconcerned. Be more concerned by whether Lipitor has patent protection because people's lives actually depend on that drug.
The patent system itself is one big loophole. I think you've understated the problem.
You can argue that the patent system is badly flawed and I'd agree with you most likely. But if you claim that it doesn't work at all I'm going to say you have come no where close to making that case.
Last I checked teacher's unions don't have a lot of pull in the district attorney's office.
While false accusations are a real problem, I'm pretty sure I've never heard of a case of a teacher's union covering for a real sexual abuse case. Care to link to some actual proof for your assertion?
Slashdot Mirror
Disclosure: I've made my living in manufacturing for the better part of 20 years. I also have a LOT of experience in international business and global sourcing.
The problem is that too much manufacturing that was formerly done in America is now done elsewhere, in third-world nations like China, Mexico and India.
I've been to China and Mexico on a professional basis. I've worked there. There is more manufacturing (by revenue) done in the US than in all three of those countries combined. In fact the US manufacturing sector is larger than the GDP of every country on earth except for Japan, China, Germany, France and maybe Great Britain depending on which numbers you look at.
In the past, domestic manufacturing provided the solid foundation upon which the strong American economy was built.
America has a $2.7 Trillion (yes with a T) manufacturing sector and it is GROWING despite all the hand wringing you hear. (the last two years are due to other causes than fundamental weakness in US manufacturing) Yet employment in manufacturing is dropping. How could this be? The reason is the same as what happened to farming over the last two hundred years. Automation, technology, and productivity have gone up and fewer people are needed to do the same work. It used to be that over 90% of the US workforce was in agriculture. Now it is around 2% and yet no one would argue that the US hasn't done well. Manufacturing is undergoing a similar process.
The jobs in the US are going to be less and less in manufacturing in years to come. This does not need to be a bad thing. Yes it will be hard on quite a few people - fundamental changes in the economy never are easy - but trying to keep jobs in industries where the wages are uncompetitive is pointless and damaging. Where will the jobs be? I don't know and neither does anyone else. That's the scary bit but that's also where the opportunity is. All I can tell you is that the job growth won't be in manufacturing for the next 20 years. It may be that wages in the US fall back to more competitive levels with elsewhere in the world. There is no fundamental reason wages in the US must be higher than elsewhere. But if the US invests in promising industries and provides an environment with sufficient capital, labor mobility and appropriate regulations then the US will be fine. The economy of 2040 will look nothing like the economy of 1940 and that is something to be celebrated.
Thanks mainly to Nixon in the 1970s and NAFTA in the 1990s, those jobs are gone.
The reason those jobs are disappearing is because labor costs too much in the US relative to elsewhere for certain jobs. End of discussion. Labor intensive work migrates to where labor is cheapest. It always has and always will. Work is either labor intensive or capital intensive (by definition it cannot be both) and the manufacturing that is capital intensive is staying here in the US and doing just fine. NAFTA and the other stuff you mention plays a role but it's a minor one. Blaming NAFTA misses the big trends. The US manufacturing jobs are fundamentally a victim of success. Companies made money, wages went up but some work requires relatively high inputs of labor and those jobs inevitably will head where labor is cheap.
They probably won't come back unless the federal government does the right thing and impose trade barriers against nations that have an oversupply of labor, and unsafe working conditions, and unsuitable wages.
The concept of an "oversupply of labor" is ridiculous. That's like saying a country has an oversupply of coal, or timber, or gold. Yes, some countries have a lot of labor. It's an asset like any other. The US has the third highest population in the world so you really could only be referring to two other countries if you are talking about population. Yet labor is mor
A lot of the big charities these days seem to be focused on "awareness" rather than "finding a cure".
The awareness campaigns are designed to get the word out that there is a problem so that real money can ultimately be directed towards research for a cure. A good example is what happened with HIV. Compared to other diseases HIV has a relatively small patient population in the US but it has received vast amounts of media attention and as a result, money for research. This happened largely due to an awareness campaign by members of the most affected communities. Breast cancer is another good example. It is only the fifth most common cause of cancer death but it gets huge amounts of research money due to awareness campaigns.
The short version is that if no one is aware of a problem, no money is going to go towards a finding a cure. No awareness = no money for research = no cure.
If you can charge a customer fifty grand for one course of chemo treatment for the rest of his life, then what is the incentive to find a cure?
For the people charging the fifty grand probably not much unless their patent protection is about to run out. For everyone else who can charge nothing because they don't have a patented cure of their own there is plenty of incentive. Just because one drug company develops a treatment doesn't mean every other drug company and research institution will suddenly and forevermore stop all research on that topic.
Well, I follow the news, so I am sure I will hear if they actually cure cancer.
"Cure cancer" is a stupid phrase uttered by naive people. That's like saying you're going to "cure viruses" or "fix government". Cancer isn't one disease with a single cause. There never will be a "cure for cancer" because the phrase itself is almost meaningless. Doctors don't even refer to it as cancer amongst themselves. There might be a cure for a neuroblastoma or melanoma (and even those might ultimately refer to categories rather than specific conditions) but the word cancer is too broad to be meaningful in the context of a cure or even a treatment.
None of these are energy *sources*. They all take oil to manufacture...
I should know better than to argue with an AC but that's the most retarded argument I've heard in some time. Hydrogen is what powers the Sun and it in no way shape or form requires oil to be a source of energy. Without hydrogen, oil as we know it (along with everything else) doesn't exist. Oil is at it's root a product of photosynthesis which does not require any oil or other man-made product.
Just for a little perspective - a $1M revenue company is a teeny-tiny company. We're talking mom and pop stores in a strip mall here. $1M in revenue is not hard to achieve - in fact if you don't care about profits it is very easy to achieve. (A business selling $2 bills for $1 will have all the revenue they can handle but will also be incredibly unprofitable) When these companies make $1M in profits, I'll be significantly more impressed. If you ever look at magazines like Inc they will always quote revenue figures in their articles and ads because it sounds impressive but really is pretty meaningless.
That said, its nice to see some traction in open source businesses even if it is small.
...nothing else even comes close to the energy density of oil.
Want to try again? Oil is definitely not at the top of the heap on energy density. I agree completely with you regarding it's importance and versatility and ubiquity but it's not the most energy dense substance out there.
Seems like I'm not the one who needs to read Buffett, hmm?
Yes you do need to read more Buffett. Go to the Berkshire Hathaway web site and read every one of their annual reports. (I have) He's made his career on long term investments and doesn't provide much if any guidance to the market. He's not unaware of the short term focus of other investors but he literally put his MONEY on long term investments. Just noting that other people act shortsightedly and irresponsibly doesn't mean that is what he recommends actually doing.
Very nice of you to take a few minor and off topic remarks completely out of context though.
If you think that the markets reward long term investments that don't turn up in quarterly reports, you're not paying attention.
I'll take Warren Buffet's opinion on that over yours. Here's a hint: he disagrees with you. Yes the markets can be myopic but long term success gets rewarded handsomely. Companies of all sizes make investments with time horizons measured in decades on a daily basis. If few thought long term, the companies that did would have a heck of an advantage.
Moving jobs to third world countries is rewarded in the stock market, not building American factories to employ American workers.
Actually neither of those things is rewarded in the stock market. Profits and growth of profits are rewarded. Nothing else. If you can grow profits with American workers, the stock market is fine with that.
I know far more people who have been screwed over by doctors, mechanics, and contractors than by accountants or investors.
I am a certified accountant. If you believe that, you don't understand accounting at all. I have a textbook downstairs which is all about how accountants can fudge the numbers. Even the best financial records have a lot of slop in them and it is REALLY easy to commit fraud as an accountant often on a very large scale. Even if no laws are broken, finance experts can seriously screw you, often without you even being aware of it. I'm not required to take classes on ethics every year because accountants have been so honorable in the past. If accountants were so honest there would be little need for audits.
No, I'm afraid accountants and finance professionals are no more ethical than anyone else.
Yes, teachers should be paid more, but there should be higher standards for teachers as well.
You get paid more for doing things that either A) other people can't do or B) other people don't want to do. Teaching generally falls into neither category. The ability to teach is not a rare ability and plenty of people chose it as a career. (note that I did not say teach well - that's a different issue) Ergo supply being relatively high compared with demand dictates that teaching will not be a lucrative profession.
There's no reason that teaching should be any less a noble profession (as determined by the general population, not Slashdotters) than being a doctor or professor.
Who said it is less noble? It just pays less. Being a college professor or a doctor requires a PhD or an MD and there are fewer people who have the brainpower and dedication to earn those degrees. Nobility of a profession isn't determined by pay and being a teacher is generally quite well respected.
US will NEVER do this, it's impossible. It will print and print USD into hyper-inflation.
That's a nice theory. Complete nonsense of course. The US has been in this situation before multiple times.
The US has never defaulted. Not once - even when the national debt was a much higher percent of GDP than it is now, which happened after WWII. It also was approximately as high as it is now around 1880 as well as throughout the 1930s and in the 1950s and 1960s. Sure the numbers are bigger (inflation does that) but our GDP is bigger too. The solution to the deficit is fairly simple - cut spending on some combination of the military, social security and/or medicare. Not politically easy of course but certainly possible.
The reason your argument is nonsense is that if the US were to continue to just print money without regard to the consequences, the economy would crater since no one would trade with the US, and the government would be cast out of office. Your assumption that people can never accept any legislation that is good for the country but not them personally is demonstrably wrong and pathetically cynical. It also assumes that the people in charge have no clue or sense of responsibility or fear of losing power. As much as we criticize our government, they aren't complete fools - at least not all the time.
If you put anything under the mattress, it shouldn't be US dollars or any other fiat currency. Gold has never gone to zero.
Neither has the US dollar. If you want to compare metals aluminum has never gone to zero and neither has boron, tungsten, copper, zinc or nickel.
Netbook a content creation device? Please...
Absolutely netbooks are fine for content creation. Use mine for that all the time - I'm typing this post on one. Not for every kind of content of course but for word processing, email, spreadsheets, accounting, low end photo editing, web page creation and more it works great. Yes you can edit video on a netbook. No you wouldn't do high end work (wouldn't use an iPad either) but for casual/occasional use it is fine. Plus I can plug it into a larger monitor if for some reason I need more screen real estate.
Mix music? How many DSP plugins do you think a Netbook can handle when editing audio?
As many as I'm ever going to use it for. Your mileage may vary. If you have serious hardware needs for a specific purpose, neither an iPad or a netbooks is likely to suit you. Different tools for different jobs.
And netbooks are just small notebooks: with all the limitations that a notebook has.
True but that's a glass half empty way of stating it. They also are small notebooks with most/all of the advantages a notebook has. Not the least of which is a built in keyboard. If your work habits are like mine, a keyboard is not a minor issue.
I'd agree that netbooks are barely content creation devices, they are convenient to carry, read some e-mails, surf the web, maybe do a little writing but they really aren't that great at any of it.
I'm typing this on a netbook (an Asus Eee 1000HE) and you are greatly underestimating netbooks. It's true that their screen size/resolution is limiting at times BUT not nearly as much as you might think. I use mine for email, web surfing, word processing, spreadsheets, dreamweaver, gimp, quickbooks (I'm an accountant), quicken, and most everything else I use my desktop for except games. When I need more screen real estate I plug it into my 20 inch monitor and viola, I have 1280x1024 resolution. In fact I probably use it plugged into a monitor between 25%-50% of the time since I'm not always traveling. When I travel it's compact and I'm generally unlikely to do much work that requires large screen real estate anyway. I DO however need a keyboard most of the time for MY work and an iPad would be an inconvenient choice for me. A netbook suits me fine at the moment.
The iPad is much more portable and easy to handle than a netbook...
That depends very much on what your are doing with it. I guarantee the iPad is not more portable or easier to handle than my netbook for what I use my netbook for. Your mileage may vary of course for your particular needs.
performs better on content consumption and almost as well on content creation
Again, depends on what you are doing. I wouldn't touch an iPad for serious spreadsheet work and it would need a keyboard for any serious writing at which point you might as well at least consider a netbook. If I'm reading something on the go or wanting to watch a movie though the iPad could be a superior choice. I think if they came out with an optional stylus the iPad could be awesome for note taking at schools but I doubt that will happen.
The iPad is cool but it's not better than a netbook (or any other pc) for all purposes. The superiority of one over the other depends on the particular application and your particular usage habits/needs.
Disclosure: I don't own an iPad and have no intention of buying one anytime soon.
You are aware of the iPad's poor ergonomics for longer term use, right?
That depends on exactly what the use is. If the use is watching movies or reading while traveling, it's better than a laptop. For any meaningful spreadsheet work I wouldn't touch the iPad with a ten foot cattle prod. The iPad is better for some uses and worse for others. Use what suits your particular needs best at the time.
No they aren't, and apps are censored by Apple meaning there will be fewer than there otherwise would be.
So what? More does not equal better. 10,000 crappy applications are worth less than one really good one. I don't care how many total applications there are. I do care how many good applications there are for my needs. I don't really care if those applications don't suit your needs.
Except that the FCC aren't politicians. They are bureaucrats whom aren't directly accountable to the people.
We live in a republic. The President is not (technically) directly elected by the people either. If you think this doesn't matter see the results of the 2000 Presidential Election.
The president appoints the commissioners of the FCC and they are confirmed by the Senate.
Is it asking too much to think that the body charged under our Constitution with writing the laws of the land be the same one that decides whether or not the Federal Government should regulate internet services and in what manner?
There is nothing preventing Congress from stepping in to the debate at any time. I'm not entirely sure I trust Congress to do a better job however.
Seize their American assets and sell them to the highest bidder.
Ahh. Expropriation is your solution? I think you are not fully considering the consequences of that action.
What I'm reading here is that basically we get to put up with the destruction of a major fishery because, well, it's too hard to make a large multinational pay for their incompetence.
Who said it's too hard to make them pay up? Heck, they are volunteering to pay to some degree. The question is what is an appropriate payment/sanction? Not an easy question and neither you nor I have sufficient facts to answer that at this time.
You are proposing severe sanctions such as jail for "all involved". Does that include the oil workers on the platform? How about the accountant that does the payroll? Do you mean everyone in the company? Sure - let's send everyone who was remotely connected to this problem to jail. I'm exaggerating of course but with a point. A lynch mob mentality solves nothing. Yes, BP should be investigated in due course but let's do it in a rational and sensible manner.
There might be criminal negligence but there also is the chance there might not be. That's why we have a justice department and a court system and if needed a legislature. IF there was incompetence rising to the level of criminality I hope appropriate parties are punished appropriately. I'm not ready at this time to declare jail time for anyone appropriate until more facts are discovered. Make no mistake I'm more than willing to consider jail time if appropriate once we learn more.
In short, the environment and the livelihoods of ordinary people are expendable in the never-ending need for cheap energy.
All of whom use that same "cheap" energy. You are aware of course that oil is used for far more than just energy right? Plastics, fertilizer, lubricants, coolants, detergents, medicines, asphalt, cosmetics, tar, wax, and countless other products require oil. It is an unfortunate and inescapable truth that modern society as we know it could not exist without oil. I don't like it and I'm sure you don't like it but us not liking it doesn't change a thing. If you can figure out how to eliminate the need by ALL of us for oil, I'm sure there is a Nobel prize out there for you.
Tell me, what is your solution?
Start by fixing the leak. Then we deal with cleanup. BP gets to pay for that plus ALL the cleanup costs. That includes lost revenue to fishermen, shipping firms, tourism, etc plus of course environmental reconstruction. There will be lawsuits and probably punitive damages like with Exxon Valdez. Change regulations to ensure that oil firms must have state of the art technology installed to prevent future leaks like this. They also should be required by law to have ready-to-go contingency plans in place in case of the failure of that technology. Finally the case should be remanded to the justice department to determine if there was any evidence of criminal negligence and appropriate action taken if any such evidence comes to light.
1. There was a constant inspection regime paid for entirely by the industry. In other words, there is an armed government official with absolute power to stop drilling, and his salary paid entirely by whoever owns the well and the platform.
Bit of a conflict of interest there don't you think? Do you seriously expect an inspector to readily shut down production on the person that pays their salary? If so you are FAR more optimistic and trusting of human nature than I am.
2. All caps on liability were removed and the owners of the well and platform were forced to pay all costs of a spills, without limit of any kind.
I'm not aware that there are any caps on liability (please cite if you know of any) other than the flesh eating lawyers employed by the oil companies. Given the results of previous litigation the oil companies seem to be able to defend themselves rather effectively.
3. Any evidence of ignoring of safety requirements would lead to lengthy prison sentences for all involved, and a ban on the companies involved in the accident of no less than five years from any extraction.
Sounds great on paper but the problem is in the details. How do you decide who goes do jail and who doesn't? It is NOT an easy question to answer. Furthermore the companies involved are huge multinationals. BP isn't an American company and most of their revenue does not come from the US. Explain to me how you plan to shut down BPs operations in the US gracefully and not seriously disrupt the energy prices and product flow. If you think that is a simple thing to do you haven't really thought about it.
Who pays for the mistakes? Who pays for the environmental impact?
Possibly a combination of BP and the US taxpayer - though it should be 100% BP and BP's CEO has said publicly that BP would shoulder the cost. Depending on how much pressure gets put on Congress (I'm expecting a lot) I doubt Congress is going to be in much of a mood to bail out BP especially in light of the economic conditions and the fact that the Democrats are presently in power.
If BP were forced to shoulder the entire cost of this mistake, they would go bankrupt.
HIGHLY unlikely. BP makes a profit of $16-20 Billion annually and has approximately $13 Billion in cash and cash equivalents right now. The total cost of the cleanup is unknown but estimates of $5 Billion have been put forth (not including litigation). For comparison the Exxon Valdez spill was estimated to cost $2 billion to clean up (not including litigation).
That said even if it did drive BP out of business (which it won't) that is nothing to shed tears over. Companies go out of business due to greed and stupidity and poorly considered risks all the time. See Lehman Brothers if you need an example.
This isn't a free rider problem, unless you consider companies to own potential profits. In reality, knock-off products are produced with a person's own materials.
Free riders in this case are getting the research for free. Invention costs money. If you spend the money to develop a drug (expensive!) and I can simply look at your hard work and copy it, I can undercut you on price because I have no research costs to recoup. No rational businessman is going to make that investment if they can immediately be undercut by an identical copy.
Patents exist to protect the economic incentive to invent. Despite all their flaws patents have been wildly successful at doing this.
The free-rider problem only exists when there is some scarce resource involved.
Invention is not free nor is the capital required to conduct invention. In many cases it is extremely expensive. Explain to me how you came to the (ridiculous) conclusion that capital for R&D is not a scarce resource.
The situation with patents is starting to become unmanageable.
Arguably true. I'm with you on that.
Removing patents would make it a lot better.
There we disagree. I think the patent system need serious reform but I completely disagree that removing it would be a better situation. If you are going to make this case I'll demand some actual researched evidence from you. Just asserting that the current system is broken isn't good enough.
You demand that a replacement must be not just better, but absolutely perfect, and if it can't be then the broken system must be kept.
Point out exactly where I demanded a "perfect" replacement. You can't because I didn't. I'd be fine with a better system and frankly the notion of a "perfect" system is laughable.
The patent system exists for a very good reason - to create incentives to invent and create in the face of the free rider problem. Removing the patent system altogether without any replacement is NOT an improvement because the free rider problem hasn't gone away. Huge swaths of the world economy depend on patents and copyright. You think just doing away with them will not have devastating consequences?
Knockoffs compete just fine. Ask any drug manufacturer if generics (a knock off even though a legal one) hurt their business.
I call that "competition".
It's not competition if the original product never gets developed. Patents aren't there to prohibit competition for all time on existing products. They are there to ensure that people continue to have an economic incentive to create NEW products. For all their flaws, patents have been wildly successful for this purpose.
It's more companies entering the marketplace, driving prices down, and adding more variety and competition.
That's why patents expire. You haven't addressed how to deal with free riders crushing the incentive to invent. THAT is why patents exist and it is not even remotely a question that patents create powerful incentives for invention.
I agree with the arguments that patents (often) last too long, are too easily granted, shouldn't be granted on software (copyright covers that fine) or business models, etc. There are LOTS of changes that can and should be made. Just throwing the whole system out because it needs updating though is stupid, short sighted, naive and would have vast economic and social consequences that you haven't remotely addressed.
Of course they will. Competition hurts any business competing in a free market.
You can't have competition if the product never gets produced in the first place. Without patent protection incentives are significantly reduced to conduct research. Far less money will be spent by corporations to invent something if anyone else can (and they will) simply copy your work. While innovation wouldn't stop (see academia and open source for proof of that) it would slow dramatically. The free rider problem is a real problem with potentially massive consequences.
Yes, they need money for their R&D budget. If they've got enough money to bombard me with ED commercials, then they've got too much money.
I've argued this very same point myself but it's not a valid argument against patents. The fact that people want to buy little blue pills for adult recreation and the business model involves marketing has little to do with whether patents are a good idea or a bad idea. If you want to criticize something there, criticize Viagra being covered by insurance. The fact that ED pills are patented is something about which I'm utterly unconcerned. Be more concerned by whether Lipitor has patent protection because people's lives actually depend on that drug.
The patent system itself is one big loophole. I think you've understated the problem.
You can argue that the patent system is badly flawed and I'd agree with you most likely. But if you claim that it doesn't work at all I'm going to say you have come no where close to making that case.
I'm not convinced the free rider problem applies to patents, or more precisely that the benefits of patents outweigh the burden of patents.
The free rider problem is 100% of the reason the patent (and copyright) system was created in the first place. This is not even remotely a debate.
Whether there is a better way to handle the problem is a separate issue.
I would refrain from pedophile jokes because frankly it is not funny.
Anything can be funny under the right circumstances. If you think otherwise you are taking life far too seriously.
The biggest threat to Christianity is not atheists. It is Christians.
I would have said it's logic but no one ever accused Christians of that...
(if you are tempted to mod this troll or flamebait see above)
Not the schools, but the teacher unions do.
Last I checked teacher's unions don't have a lot of pull in the district attorney's office.
While false accusations are a real problem, I'm pretty sure I've never heard of a case of a teacher's union covering for a real sexual abuse case. Care to link to some actual proof for your assertion?