The real problem with this idea is ubiquity of signal. Anyone can post anything they want, even if broadcasters closed off a single p2p service just their programs there would always be competing services. Pr0n, wicked graphic hunting shows, and real-life stuff would dominate the bandwidth, things we may want to keep our kids away from.
If the p2p part is the distribution and not the access, like bittorrent is currently, then it's identical to current web pages and such in terms of access.
What they're suggesting is not anyone-can-upload-and-you-will-see-it - which not many people would support, as then they couldn't see what they wanted to see. Instead it's "subscribe to this 'net channel' which someone is broadcasting" for your TiVO or computer, etc. A person or group of people is controlling the feed, not just anyone.
The important thing is to separate p2p transport from group control of content: they're not the same.
The proximate fault is with the ballot access laws, yes. Perhaps we can get a fair system in place eventually through changing the law.
I believe, however, that having centralized authority over the ballot is a problem, as it then becomes a political decision regarding who gets on the ballot.
This isn't necessarily a problem with a solution, but it's something to consider.
The problem has only been exacerbated by our two-party system, and may never have become an issue without it. But here we are.
Another thing to note: parliamentary systems with geographical distribution of representative choice tends to encourage multiple parties. It is very difficult, in fact, to have only one or two parties dominate the entire country, as each bloc has its own concerns.
Direct Presidential election and a single-vote system, however, encourages a two party system, as you want your man in power. With the presence of national parties and allegiances to national parties, those two parties tend to dominate representative selection as well.
I think that's why some Parliamentary systems have moderately-stable 3 and 4 viable party elections, where we do not.
I'm assuming in your aside you're being tangential, as I expressed no endorsement of the voting system (and most certainly not the "freedom" actions of my government recently, which I consider reprehensible). I merely discussed a problem with one portion of the system -- the ballot itself -- and said I wasn't sure there was a better way regarding the ballot.
That's hardly an endorsement of the system.
Anyways, you are correct: if the threshold is appropriate, there is no issue. I'm certainly impressed that other countries are able to handle the problem well, and wish we could manage the same degree of decorum here.
But we currently do have a two party system, and if there's one thing both parties agree upon, it's keeping independents and third party candidates off the ballot, so they've rigged the laws to their favor.
Some third parties are working to change it, but with little success. I recently went out getting signatures for the Libertarian Party's spot on the ballot, and had more than one or two people tell me they thought it was immoral for me to be getting those signatures, as it detracted from their candidate.
I hope everyone can join me in saying: what the fuck?
Moofie, you make a good argument about the breakdown of the current system in current conditions. I'm not certain yet about the effects of the EC on multiple-party situations when you do not have single-vote ballots.
Representing large numbers of people is more important than representing "a state".
One of the functions of a voting system in a country this large should be to provide a "centering force." To keep candidates from playing off the prejudices of areas. An urban-dominated policy can start civil wars. Many of our revolts (Whiskey Rebellion, etc) came from one area imposing law and beliefs on another area.
The structure of the constitution was to require super-majority to impose beliefs on the states. Over time, this has become less true through abuse of the commerce clause, and the tying of federal funding.
But it is still a desirable end. You want a good margin of centricity.
Keep in mind that I'm a Libertarian, and I know that such concepts hurt the chances of my third party getting in office without compromise.
Damn it, I wish I still had a link to an excellent article I read 4 years ago regarding the electoral college. Ah well, I'll do the best I can.
The electoral college works well in the typical voting situation: nearly all states have a large margin of victory for one of the parties.
One way I've had it explained to me is this: in a baseball season, the groups that go to the championship are not chosen by which team scored the most points, they're chosen by who won the most games. This ensures that a team must be more all-around good, rather than just having a hot game against certain teams.
This breaks down, however, when you have a situation where a team wins the most games, but by such a narrow margin of victory that it might just be a statistical blip. This lowers the odds that you're actually getting the best "all-around team."
But this is a rare situation in presidential voting, though it happened in the last election.
Maybe things have changed, but we don't know yet. Not really a defined trend yet, just a blip.
I hope I've explained my point. I'll try to respond if you have any counterpoints or questions - I'd be interested in both.
I think we should continue the Electoral College system. It works well.
I think we can use Condorcet, IRV, Approval, or other such voting systems to choose the winner for each state. Keep the current system, just update the decision method. Same benefits, better expression of preference.
The dilemma you mention is a serious one: do our voters know what's best for the country?
Our system of voluntary association and contract was established because it was decided that no one really knew what was best for the country, only what was best for themselves. So leave the people free to do best for themselves (within certain rules), enforce the rules, and people will do as best they can.
I don't think we should be using our votes to decide a "direction" for the country. I believe our individual actions will decide a direction. Our votes should be regarding what ground rules we want, and who we wish to enforce them.
"Only slaves pull as a team. Free men pull in all sorts of directions."
One way the two parties have "stacked" things is through the use of the so-called Australian ballot, which is pre-printed. This brings to rise the need to have an approved list of candidates, with write-in options.
Numerous states have horrible ballot access laws, mine in particular (Oklahoma).
I'm not sure there's really a better option out there at the moment, but concentrating the power to decide who will or will not be on a ballot leads to corruption.
A sibling post mentioned Borda, and he is correct, this maps to Borda.
Another issue with Borda-type systems is voting strategy.
If you run a scare campaign, you can convince people that it is vital your campaign succeed. Of course, your opponent will do likewise.
Of course, just about every presidential campaign in memory has been that way: vote for me OR ELSE.
So how does Borda deal with this? If it's vital that your opponent lose, you have to put the maximum vote on a candidate likely to defeat him. In your system, that would mean putting all 5x the available options onto one candidate. Any other option would reduce the strength of your vote.
So, Borda devolves into our current system.
You want to use a system that does not punish you for stating a preference. Condorcet does this. IRV does this better than the current system, but not as well as it could. Approval voting doesn't punish, either (though you could argue that it doesn't reward).
A large part of the issue with any voting system is you have to consider how it will be used. You will have some very intelligent people out there attempting to manipulate those votes.
In disclosure, I believe in doing either Condorcet or Approval voting, preference to Condorcet in the future, Approval today.
I haven't heard of anyone being busted on this in my lifetime. I suppose they might hit you with it if they thought you looked suspicious and you happened to have some wire cutters on you for some unknown purpose.... But even then, I doubt it. A judge around here would give the prosecutor the "you have got to be kidding me" look, and that would be that.
My pet rats once went through the entire couch, pulling out everything they found and bringing it to me. This apparently was a fun game for them.
Things they found: pens, pencils, a plastic ring like you'd get at the fair, several G. I. Joe guns and parts, a small film negative, a toothpick, and several other things I don't remember.
Funny thing is that the pens and pencils are just about all I can explain. The others look about 5+ years old, at least. It's like an archeological dig. For rats.
One of the rats used to like pulling around my car keys, but thank goodness that game got old, and the keys now stay where I put them.
I own two female pet rats, and let me tell you: they believe in higher purpose. When they get it into their heads that something is really neat, or interesting, you cannot distract them with enough food. Well, not for long.
Friend of mine occaisionally comes over, and he's allergic to the rats so doesn't want them on him. Problem is that the rats think he's really neat, so they'll constantly try to get on him, whether that involves flying leaps from the couch to his chair, climbing a pants leg, or just persistance, they'll do it.
I don't think training pet rats to find people would be all that difficult. The discipline to stick around an unconscious human and not go off to play would be the harder part.
One thing going for them, though, is that rats feel nervous in any unknown environment, and if you could generalize their sense of comfort at being around humans (ie instead of just ones they're familiar with), it would probably work well.
Who decides which private group really wants to preserve a wilderness? What if they are just lying about wanting to preserve it? What if the private group that does not want to preserve it offers the most money for it?
This is actually an old problem in law, and the solution is to create a corporation around a charter. The corporation is bound to operate according to the charter, and if it violates said charter the stockholders can sue.
So, you get a bunch of donors together and you create the charter with the advice of an environmental group, and then you purchase the land. You then distribute stock to the donors, and/or environmental watchdog groups.
When the Sierra Club and other such groups are getting your disclosure and practices filings, and can sue you for violation of contract, things get pretty cut and dry.
[1] - the company pays unless they are able to hire either a temporary worker for less or are willing to invest in another worker so as to not to have to pay what the bidder asks.
Temporary workers obviously cost more, but (assuming they're qualified) they do put a maximum on how much you can demand. Temporary workers, however, are also a part of the market: there are only so many of them, and as demand rises for them, they become more expensive, raising the maximum.
This is just wrong and absolutely disgusting. I'm a PERSON - not a thing. My services will be charged what I feel are appropriate, and not being forced to BID like a slave. Sheesh.
You may charge whatever you like, but I'm not required to hire you.
Oh, and slaves don't get to bid, btw. A slave is told what he'll do and what he'll get for doing it. Bidding allows you to choose what you want to do and what you wish to get for doing it, and you're guaranteed to not have to do more, provided you get the job.
If there is a shortage of nursing staff the solution should be to raise the incentive to be a nurse. That incentive is pay and benefits. If the industry needs more nurses it either needs to fragment the job description so that the qualified nurses can concentrate on skilled tasks while orderlies and candy stripers handle lesser tasks OR it needs to make nursing a more attractive profession.
Instead, somehow, they have managed to convince the employees to sign on to this overtime for less plan that deprives the working class of its free time and in fact devalues it. Eventually these people will ahev to pick between overtime at the hospital or part time work at Taco Bell.
Just to review...in a free market economy a scarce commodity should be worth more. This is an example of the system breaking where a scarce commodity is being devalued, thereby reducing anyone's desire to be a nurse.
What devaluation? This is actually an example of a free market system working. More labor is needed, so they need nurses to work extra shifts. They inducement is the pay they get over their normal weekly salary.
There are two situations that can arise.
The number of nurses willing to work extra shifts is below or right-at demand, in which case the auction would be very simple: the nurse bids whatever she wants, and the company pays that[1].
The number of nurses willing to work extra shifts is above demand, in which case you have to have a system to assign extra shifts to nurses. The non-market ways are to: play favorites, punish disliked nurses, or do it randomly. None of these are all that great as they either give the whip hand to the person giving out the jobs, or they don't ensure that those who need/want the money the most get it.
On the other hand, the auction method is an equal and open system to determine who gets the extra shift, and allows everyone to decide how much they want it.
The choice is between a market to divide opportunity, and an arbitrary system to divide opportunity.
As for nurses being devalued: when the supply of nurses willing to take extra shifts falls enough, or the companies' demand for extra shifts rises enough, the cost per hour will become such that it is worth it for the hospital to hire more nurses by offering additional incentives for the general nursing population.
he gave only $20,000,000 of the $50,000,000 required for the building
It's quite a bit easier to get matching funds for a large private donation than you'd think. Part of the problem with starting a large collection is getting the first donor. Many other groups, including the government, are big believers in matching funds.
The National Council for the Arts works this way: they give a small "seed" donation, which is then doubled, tripled, etc by matching funds. The very fact that the cause gets the money allows them to get much more.
I have some experience with this and writing grants for science, and that seems to be the way it works.
Specifically, you cannot carry wire cutters in your back pocket.
The law dates back to the conflicts between ranchers and farmers near the time of Texas independence. Back then, much of the land was not fenced in, so cattle herders would move their herd around, grazing. Needless to say, the farmers didn't care for that, so they put up barb wire around their lands.
Incidentally, this is a case of technology exciting a reaction: previously, farmers would've been forced to build a wooden or stone fence, and the areas were very large. A barb wire fence, however, was quick and easy to put up, so they were more likely to put one up.
Anyways, a lot of the cattle herders didn't care for these fences, so they'd cut through them with wire cutters, and go on through. Many, in fact, took to cutting barb wire fences wherever they saw them.
So, Texas outlawed casual possession of wire cutters: they can't be in your pocket. They'd better be in a tool box. This is similar to the hassle you'll get from cops if you wander around with a spraypaint bottle poking out of your jacket.
A book that lays out a good chunk of the chemistry behind cooking (and is required reading at the Culinary Institute of America) is On Food and Cooking by Harold McGee.
I highly recommend it (though who the hell am I?), especially for people who want to know about carmelization, eggs (huge subject there), and milk (another huge subject). And a lot of other stuff.
I separate the desires of the individuals from the desires of the organization, and I believe that organizations DO have desires. Just as a plant desires more sun, but doesn't have a brain.
The goal of most large systems is the system itself. I think that explains most of the effects mentioned: punishing lateral thinking (Work With The System), majority of money spent on administration (The System Needs To Grow), frequently bizarre mandates (The System Must Be Felt), and being unwilling to respect outside authority --- many schools have rulings/rules that are absolute hell to get overturned by a court (The System Is All).
My personal feeling is that the problem of public school is its central-government nature. Could be because I'm a libertarian, though. So I'm biased. Friedman's Free To Chose has a good section on public school education, if you're interested in something similar to my viewpoint.
Every time I read one of these propaganda pieces on the virtues of applying market principles to the RF spectrum, I have to ask, what about all of the users who don't have the money to buy a slice of the spectrum? Are they going to be shut out because corporate users can afford to pay far more than they could ever dream of spending? Currently, there is spectrum reserved for many people and organizations that do not have much money. Economically "efficient" is not the same thing as socially "efficient".
First, you could get together with others and pool resources to buy spectrum. I imagine a group on the level of a pirate radio station could probably buy a slice of spectrum sufficient for their purposes. Of course, no one knows for sure until it happens, but we could look to property prices in/around cities for guidance: communes still exist, and cooperatives still exist. A co-op, in fact, since it's purpose is existing, doesn't have to worry about the cost of its land (provided it can be paid for) as much as a business, which must turn a profit with that land.
Then there's the possibility of creating a charity organization and purchasing large blocks of spectrum and allocating them according to a charter.
Let's consider, however, something important: your statement that "economically 'efficient' is not the same thing as socially 'efficient'."
By this I understand you to mean that your goal is to fulfill as many people's desires as possible.
The question becomes: who makes the choice? The spectrum is a limited resource, in that there is not enough to go around. It must therefore be divided amongst those who desire it, and some will do without. Now, we know that there is no unified system of morals which we all agree upon, not even a system of valuation which we all agree upon (some value things differently than others), so the system must be chosen and implemented in a non-deterministic way: that is to say that it will be arbitrary.
What I mean is that the spectrum will be divded by men, as they see best. Their decisions may not seem fair, and they may not seem honest, and they most certainly will not seem so to everyone, as we care about things differently from one another.
So the question becomes: who will decide? Would it be better as a committee of men, or would it be better as the interactions between individuals?
For some things, a committee of men seems to be best: jurisprudence, for instance. For others, interactions of individuals: distribution of computer parts, for instance.
I understand wanting to avoid the worst case of having All Corporate All The Time, and having the less monetarily inclined shut out, but I do not think that would happen. Nevertheless, the choice is not between social efficiency and economic efficiency, the choice is between arbitrary division by committee and division by interactions of individuals.
Sorry to take up so much space, but I thought your point important.
Oh, and another thing: when you see "free market"-ism that looks more like committees than individuals, you're looking at a free market facade. There's a lot of them.
But I am calling into question a highest-bidder-takes-all approach, and the motives of those who back such an approach.
Highest-bidder-takes-all? As in "if you pay the most, you get the entire frequency spectrum"?
Wow, that really would be a bad idea, and given some of the faux de-regulation we've seen recently, I can see how you would think that was what was referred to.
My understanding is that they want a property rights system, where each person owns their spectrum, to be allocated like property (ie you can cut it into smaller parts, resell it, sublet, etc). If you started off by doing a proper auction, you'd end up with many, many owners, not one.
As a ham many areas of spectrum are underutilized because the technology does not exist to successfully exploit them. For example the repeater which takes a radio signal coming on one frequency and retransmits it on another is the basis for the entire cell phone industry.
At the time the commercial interests wanted that spectrum for expansion of paging.
What financially driven interests forget frequently is that basic non-directed research is a good thing which yields benefits down the road and often entire new industries.
I believe that the possibility of creating value (ie selling for major cash) in a spectral area (by figuring out how to exploit it) would provide for more innovation and usage than non-directed research.
Also, better frequency usage technology would come out because it would increase the value of the purchaser's property: hence he'd be willing to pay for it.
I know this isn't in direct conflict with what you said, I just wanted to mention it.
Slashdot Mirror
The real problem with this idea is ubiquity of signal. Anyone can post anything they want, even if broadcasters closed off a single p2p service just their programs there would always be competing services. Pr0n, wicked graphic hunting shows, and real-life stuff would dominate the bandwidth, things we may want to keep our kids away from.
If the p2p part is the distribution and not the access, like bittorrent is currently, then it's identical to current web pages and such in terms of access.
What they're suggesting is not anyone-can-upload-and-you-will-see-it - which not many people would support, as then they couldn't see what they wanted to see. Instead it's "subscribe to this 'net channel' which someone is broadcasting" for your TiVO or computer, etc. A person or group of people is controlling the feed, not just anyone.
The important thing is to separate p2p transport from group control of content: they're not the same.
The proximate fault is with the ballot access laws, yes. Perhaps we can get a fair system in place eventually through changing the law.
I believe, however, that having centralized authority over the ballot is a problem, as it then becomes a political decision regarding who gets on the ballot.
This isn't necessarily a problem with a solution, but it's something to consider.
The problem has only been exacerbated by our two-party system, and may never have become an issue without it. But here we are.
Another thing to note: parliamentary systems with geographical distribution of representative choice tends to encourage multiple parties. It is very difficult, in fact, to have only one or two parties dominate the entire country, as each bloc has its own concerns.
Direct Presidential election and a single-vote system, however, encourages a two party system, as you want your man in power. With the presence of national parties and allegiances to national parties, those two parties tend to dominate representative selection as well.
I think that's why some Parliamentary systems have moderately-stable 3 and 4 viable party elections, where we do not.
I'm assuming in your aside you're being tangential, as I expressed no endorsement of the voting system (and most certainly not the "freedom" actions of my government recently, which I consider reprehensible). I merely discussed a problem with one portion of the system -- the ballot itself -- and said I wasn't sure there was a better way regarding the ballot.
That's hardly an endorsement of the system.
Anyways, you are correct: if the threshold is appropriate, there is no issue. I'm certainly impressed that other countries are able to handle the problem well, and wish we could manage the same degree of decorum here.
But we currently do have a two party system, and if there's one thing both parties agree upon, it's keeping independents and third party candidates off the ballot, so they've rigged the laws to their favor.
Some third parties are working to change it, but with little success. I recently went out getting signatures for the Libertarian Party's spot on the ballot, and had more than one or two people tell me they thought it was immoral for me to be getting those signatures, as it detracted from their candidate.
I hope everyone can join me in saying: what the fuck?
Ah well.
Moofie, you make a good argument about the breakdown of the current system in current conditions. I'm not certain yet about the effects of the EC on multiple-party situations when you do not have single-vote ballots.
Representing large numbers of people is more important than representing "a state".
One of the functions of a voting system in a country this large should be to provide a "centering force." To keep candidates from playing off the prejudices of areas. An urban-dominated policy can start civil wars. Many of our revolts (Whiskey Rebellion, etc) came from one area imposing law and beliefs on another area.
The structure of the constitution was to require super-majority to impose beliefs on the states. Over time, this has become less true through abuse of the commerce clause, and the tying of federal funding.
But it is still a desirable end. You want a good margin of centricity.
Keep in mind that I'm a Libertarian, and I know that such concepts hurt the chances of my third party getting in office without compromise.
Damn it, I wish I still had a link to an excellent article I read 4 years ago regarding the electoral college. Ah well, I'll do the best I can.
The electoral college works well in the typical voting situation: nearly all states have a large margin of victory for one of the parties.
One way I've had it explained to me is this: in a baseball season, the groups that go to the championship are not chosen by which team scored the most points, they're chosen by who won the most games. This ensures that a team must be more all-around good, rather than just having a hot game against certain teams.
This breaks down, however, when you have a situation where a team wins the most games, but by such a narrow margin of victory that it might just be a statistical blip. This lowers the odds that you're actually getting the best "all-around team."
But this is a rare situation in presidential voting, though it happened in the last election. Maybe things have changed, but we don't know yet. Not really a defined trend yet, just a blip.
I hope I've explained my point. I'll try to respond if you have any counterpoints or questions - I'd be interested in both.
I think we should continue the Electoral College system. It works well.
I think we can use Condorcet, IRV, Approval, or other such voting systems to choose the winner for each state. Keep the current system, just update the decision method. Same benefits, better expression of preference.
The dilemma you mention is a serious one: do our voters know what's best for the country?
Our system of voluntary association and contract was established because it was decided that no one really knew what was best for the country, only what was best for themselves. So leave the people free to do best for themselves (within certain rules), enforce the rules, and people will do as best they can.
I don't think we should be using our votes to decide a "direction" for the country. I believe our individual actions will decide a direction. Our votes should be regarding what ground rules we want, and who we wish to enforce them.
"Only slaves pull as a team. Free men pull in all sorts of directions."
One way the two parties have "stacked" things is through the use of the so-called Australian ballot, which is pre-printed. This brings to rise the need to have an approved list of candidates, with write-in options.
Numerous states have horrible ballot access laws, mine in particular (Oklahoma).
I'm not sure there's really a better option out there at the moment, but concentrating the power to decide who will or will not be on a ballot leads to corruption.
A sibling post mentioned Borda, and he is correct, this maps to Borda.
Another issue with Borda-type systems is voting strategy.
If you run a scare campaign, you can convince people that it is vital your campaign succeed. Of course, your opponent will do likewise.
Of course, just about every presidential campaign in memory has been that way: vote for me OR ELSE.
So how does Borda deal with this? If it's vital that your opponent lose, you have to put the maximum vote on a candidate likely to defeat him. In your system, that would mean putting all 5x the available options onto one candidate. Any other option would reduce the strength of your vote.
So, Borda devolves into our current system.
You want to use a system that does not punish you for stating a preference. Condorcet does this. IRV does this better than the current system, but not as well as it could. Approval voting doesn't punish, either (though you could argue that it doesn't reward).
A large part of the issue with any voting system is you have to consider how it will be used. You will have some very intelligent people out there attempting to manipulate those votes.
In disclosure, I believe in doing either Condorcet or Approval voting, preference to Condorcet in the future, Approval today.
I haven't heard of anyone being busted on this in my lifetime. I suppose they might hit you with it if they thought you looked suspicious and you happened to have some wire cutters on you for some unknown purpose.... But even then, I doubt it. A judge around here would give the prosecutor the "you have got to be kidding me" look, and that would be that.
My pet rats once went through the entire couch, pulling out everything they found and bringing it to me. This apparently was a fun game for them.
Things they found: pens, pencils, a plastic ring like you'd get at the fair, several G. I. Joe guns and parts, a small film negative, a toothpick, and several other things I don't remember.
Funny thing is that the pens and pencils are just about all I can explain. The others look about 5+ years old, at least. It's like an archeological dig. For rats.
One of the rats used to like pulling around my car keys, but thank goodness that game got old, and the keys now stay where I put them.
So, yeah, I bet they could find your cell phone.
I own two female pet rats, and let me tell you: they believe in higher purpose. When they get it into their heads that something is really neat, or interesting, you cannot distract them with enough food. Well, not for long.
Friend of mine occaisionally comes over, and he's allergic to the rats so doesn't want them on him. Problem is that the rats think he's really neat, so they'll constantly try to get on him, whether that involves flying leaps from the couch to his chair, climbing a pants leg, or just persistance, they'll do it.
I don't think training pet rats to find people would be all that difficult. The discipline to stick around an unconscious human and not go off to play would be the harder part.
One thing going for them, though, is that rats feel nervous in any unknown environment, and if you could generalize their sense of comfort at being around humans (ie instead of just ones they're familiar with), it would probably work well.
That sounds very interesting. Any good pointers on docs to implement such a thing (not the database part, that's easy ;-)
No mod points, since I already posted on this story. I just wanted to say: damn straight.
Hope you get modded up, but rest assured I've already sent a link to this post to about 4 or 5 people.
Who decides which private group really wants to preserve a wilderness? What if they are just lying about wanting to preserve it? What if the private group that does not want to preserve it offers the most money for it?
This is actually an old problem in law, and the solution is to create a corporation around a charter. The corporation is bound to operate according to the charter, and if it violates said charter the stockholders can sue.
So, you get a bunch of donors together and you create the charter with the advice of an environmental group, and then you purchase the land. You then distribute stock to the donors, and/or environmental watchdog groups.
When the Sierra Club and other such groups are getting your disclosure and practices filings, and can sue you for violation of contract, things get pretty cut and dry.
Whoops. Forgot the footnote.
[1] - the company pays unless they are able to hire either a temporary worker for less or are willing to invest in another worker so as to not to have to pay what the bidder asks.
Temporary workers obviously cost more, but (assuming they're qualified) they do put a maximum on how much you can demand. Temporary workers, however, are also a part of the market: there are only so many of them, and as demand rises for them, they become more expensive, raising the maximum.
This is just wrong and absolutely disgusting. I'm a PERSON - not a thing. My services will be charged what I feel are appropriate, and not being forced to BID like a slave. Sheesh.
You may charge whatever you like, but I'm not required to hire you.
Oh, and slaves don't get to bid, btw. A slave is told what he'll do and what he'll get for doing it. Bidding allows you to choose what you want to do and what you wish to get for doing it, and you're guaranteed to not have to do more, provided you get the job.
If there is a shortage of nursing staff the solution should be to raise the incentive to be a nurse. That incentive is pay and benefits. If the industry needs more nurses it either needs to fragment the job description so that the qualified nurses can concentrate on skilled tasks while orderlies and candy stripers handle lesser tasks OR it needs to make nursing a more attractive profession.
Instead, somehow, they have managed to convince the employees to sign on to this overtime for less plan that deprives the working class of its free time and in fact devalues it. Eventually these people will ahev to pick between overtime at the hospital or part time work at Taco Bell.
Just to review...in a free market economy a scarce commodity should be worth more. This is an example of the system breaking where a scarce commodity is being devalued, thereby reducing anyone's desire to be a nurse.
What devaluation? This is actually an example of a free market system working. More labor is needed, so they need nurses to work extra shifts. They inducement is the pay they get over their normal weekly salary.
There are two situations that can arise.
On the other hand, the auction method is an equal and open system to determine who gets the extra shift, and allows everyone to decide how much they want it.
The choice is between a market to divide opportunity, and an arbitrary system to divide opportunity.
As for nurses being devalued: when the supply of nurses willing to take extra shifts falls enough, or the companies' demand for extra shifts rises enough, the cost per hour will become such that it is worth it for the hospital to hire more nurses by offering additional incentives for the general nursing population.
he gave only $20,000,000 of the $50,000,000 required for the building
It's quite a bit easier to get matching funds for a large private donation than you'd think. Part of the problem with starting a large collection is getting the first donor. Many other groups, including the government, are big believers in matching funds.
The National Council for the Arts works this way: they give a small "seed" donation, which is then doubled, tripled, etc by matching funds. The very fact that the cause gets the money allows them to get much more.
I have some experience with this and writing grants for science, and that seems to be the way it works.
Specifically, you cannot carry wire cutters in your back pocket.
The law dates back to the conflicts between ranchers and farmers near the time of Texas independence. Back then, much of the land was not fenced in, so cattle herders would move their herd around, grazing. Needless to say, the farmers didn't care for that, so they put up barb wire around their lands.
Incidentally, this is a case of technology exciting a reaction: previously, farmers would've been forced to build a wooden or stone fence, and the areas were very large. A barb wire fence, however, was quick and easy to put up, so they were more likely to put one up.
Anyways, a lot of the cattle herders didn't care for these fences, so they'd cut through them with wire cutters, and go on through. Many, in fact, took to cutting barb wire fences wherever they saw them.
So, Texas outlawed casual possession of wire cutters: they can't be in your pocket. They'd better be in a tool box. This is similar to the hassle you'll get from cops if you wander around with a spraypaint bottle poking out of your jacket.
Anyways, that's the story.
A book that lays out a good chunk of the chemistry behind cooking (and is required reading at the Culinary Institute of America) is On Food and Cooking by Harold McGee.
I highly recommend it (though who the hell am I?), especially for people who want to know about carmelization, eggs (huge subject there), and milk (another huge subject). And a lot of other stuff.
I separate the desires of the individuals from the desires of the organization, and I believe that organizations DO have desires. Just as a plant desires more sun, but doesn't have a brain.
The goal of most large systems is the system itself. I think that explains most of the effects mentioned: punishing lateral thinking (Work With The System), majority of money spent on administration (The System Needs To Grow), frequently bizarre mandates (The System Must Be Felt), and being unwilling to respect outside authority --- many schools have rulings/rules that are absolute hell to get overturned by a court (The System Is All).
My personal feeling is that the problem of public school is its central-government nature. Could be because I'm a libertarian, though. So I'm biased. Friedman's Free To Chose has a good section on public school education, if you're interested in something similar to my viewpoint.
Every time I read one of these propaganda pieces on the virtues of applying market principles to the RF spectrum, I have to ask, what about all of the users who don't have the money to buy a slice of the spectrum? Are they going to be shut out because corporate users can afford to pay far more than they could ever dream of spending? Currently, there is spectrum reserved for many people and organizations that do not have much money. Economically "efficient" is not the same thing as socially "efficient".
First, you could get together with others and pool resources to buy spectrum. I imagine a group on the level of a pirate radio station could probably buy a slice of spectrum sufficient for their purposes. Of course, no one knows for sure until it happens, but we could look to property prices in/around cities for guidance: communes still exist, and cooperatives still exist. A co-op, in fact, since it's purpose is existing, doesn't have to worry about the cost of its land (provided it can be paid for) as much as a business, which must turn a profit with that land.
Then there's the possibility of creating a charity organization and purchasing large blocks of spectrum and allocating them according to a charter.
Let's consider, however, something important: your statement that "economically 'efficient' is not the same thing as socially 'efficient'."
By this I understand you to mean that your goal is to fulfill as many people's desires as possible.
The question becomes: who makes the choice? The spectrum is a limited resource, in that there is not enough to go around. It must therefore be divided amongst those who desire it, and some will do without. Now, we know that there is no unified system of morals which we all agree upon, not even a system of valuation which we all agree upon (some value things differently than others), so the system must be chosen and implemented in a non-deterministic way: that is to say that it will be arbitrary.
What I mean is that the spectrum will be divded by men, as they see best. Their decisions may not seem fair, and they may not seem honest, and they most certainly will not seem so to everyone, as we care about things differently from one another.
So the question becomes: who will decide? Would it be better as a committee of men, or would it be better as the interactions between individuals?
For some things, a committee of men seems to be best: jurisprudence, for instance. For others, interactions of individuals: distribution of computer parts, for instance.
I understand wanting to avoid the worst case of having All Corporate All The Time, and having the less monetarily inclined shut out, but I do not think that would happen. Nevertheless, the choice is not between social efficiency and economic efficiency, the choice is between arbitrary division by committee and division by interactions of individuals.
Sorry to take up so much space, but I thought your point important.
Oh, and another thing: when you see "free market"-ism that looks more like committees than individuals, you're looking at a free market facade. There's a lot of them.
But I am calling into question a highest-bidder-takes-all approach, and the motives of those who back such an approach.
Highest-bidder-takes-all? As in "if you pay the most, you get the entire frequency spectrum"?
Wow, that really would be a bad idea, and given some of the faux de-regulation we've seen recently, I can see how you would think that was what was referred to.
My understanding is that they want a property rights system, where each person owns their spectrum, to be allocated like property (ie you can cut it into smaller parts, resell it, sublet, etc). If you started off by doing a proper auction, you'd end up with many, many owners, not one.
I believe that the possibility of creating value (ie selling for major cash) in a spectral area (by figuring out how to exploit it) would provide for more innovation and usage than non-directed research.
Also, better frequency usage technology would come out because it would increase the value of the purchaser's property: hence he'd be willing to pay for it.
I know this isn't in direct conflict with what you said, I just wanted to mention it.