Well, I can't think of any privatisation that ended in a privately-held company, all these privatised companies were, at least partially, split into shares which anyone on the planet can buy.
The point that you're missing, and the one I'm trying to make, is that the interest of the shareholders is directed towards monetary gain, yes, but that gain depends on the effeciency of the company in question in conducting its business. A company that doesn't run smoothly isn't necessarily a good investment.
On the other hand the government has only a passing interest in its agencies running efficiently (as can be seen from the HUGE national debt, the high price and exclusivity of government contracts, the pending bankruptcy of the social security system, etc...)
Yeah, we should do that for our voting system too. The more money you have, the more your vote counts.
Yeah, but that's exactly how the current political system in the US works. Why else do you think so much money ($600M+) was spent to campaign for the recent elections?
Sure, but you've got one vote, and that single vote is diluted among the power that the government holds over many different businesses. If you had one vote for each separate government business, then your point might be valid, but we don't.
Your premise that capitalism is equivalent to fascism is laughable. Especially since fascism has historically ridden on the back of nationalist socialism.
Your enron Example is interesting. I would say that it's a bad idea to invest in a company whose board members do not divest any power or display full accountability to their shareholders. You could say that government agencies are accountable to the voting public, but in reality they barely are, certainly to a lesser extent than the boards of publicly traded corporations. Who in their right mind, for example, would invest in the US social security system if they had the choice?
As far as government owning things, I'd argue that all it needs to own is national security infrastructure, presumably an army and a police force, and the infrastructure necessary for the judiciary and legislature. Beyond that I'd say that no, historically government has not proven itself capable of running its other businesses effectively.
No Im not kidding. I'm serious: every person's influence is proportional to their interest in the company. If you've got a fairer system...
Hypothetically everyone could have an equal influence regardless of their interest, but then there wouldn't be any incentive to own more than one share in each company. A person could concievably own a share in every company. But what meaning would the value of a share of the company have? None that I can concieve.
funny that this is in a discussion of newton's principia which discusses the calculus of limits, or infinitessimals.
Who said I was even American? But if I was, I wouldn't be a republican, guess again.
To change (an industry or business, for example) from governmental or public ownership or control to private enterprise...
Yeah, but privatization of state-owned entities more often than not results in a publicly tradable commodity. The influence that the public at large has over a tradable entity is arguably larger than the influence it has over the state.
When was the last time you heard of a member of the public standing up in congress directly influencing a vote on the running of a state-owned entity? On the other hand, anyone, even the poor can buy stock in a publicly traded company and influence the decisions of its board. On the other hand, who do you think has the most influence over your congressman, the rich or the poor?
Not unlike a description of the general process of privatizing the public sphere, really...
except that privatization usually involves taking something away from the influence of a select few whose sole motivation is political gain and placing it under the influence of an arbitrarily large subset of the public whose sole motivation is the increase of its value (which is linked, in most cases, to its operating efficiency).
I've read it, and I have to say it makes for a pretty frustrating read. He spends pages upon pages basically reinventing calculus in the context of each problem. You'll probably spend most of the book wondering why he didn't just listen to leibnitz in the first place. He probably would have saved himself a whole lot of time (and ink).
it's not so much an attack on the GPL, it's just saying tht you can't relicense derivatives under something like the GPL. In much the same way as you can't relicense derivatives of GPL work under any other license.
but exchange doesn't use POP-style checks (unless you've enabled the POP service) it sends notifications to the clients only when new mail has arrived...
you can develop quite sophisticated workflow applications using outlook and exchange. macros are essential for this. they also allow you to integrate with the rest of office, or any other set of COM components for that matter. There's a huge market for vertical applications based off of this stuff, it's quite powerful, really.
yeah, but if you leave your wife's diamond ring on a table in your yard sale marked "free stuff" and someone takes it, you cant really bith too much when you realize tht you put it there by mistake. this is hardly a case of breaking and entering.
Slashdot Mirror
amazing, well try looking up both fascism and capitalism and finding the common ground.
we do, but in order to buy one you have to sign an affadavit stating that you haven't read the other.
wow, that guy needs to be locked in a cube, a very small, padded one.
you need to look up what fascist means in a dictionary...
The point that you're missing, and the one I'm trying to make, is that the interest of the shareholders is directed towards monetary gain, yes, but that gain depends on the effeciency of the company in question in conducting its business. A company that doesn't run smoothly isn't necessarily a good investment.
On the other hand the government has only a passing interest in its agencies running efficiently (as can be seen from the HUGE national debt, the high price and exclusivity of government contracts, the pending bankruptcy of the social security system, etc...)
what's the alternative? get rid of money, and all move to a valueless society?
Your premise that capitalism is equivalent to fascism is laughable. Especially since fascism has historically ridden on the back of nationalist socialism.
Your enron Example is interesting. I would say that it's a bad idea to invest in a company whose board members do not divest any power or display full accountability to their shareholders. You could say that government agencies are accountable to the voting public, but in reality they barely are, certainly to a lesser extent than the boards of publicly traded corporations. Who in their right mind, for example, would invest in the US social security system if they had the choice?
As far as government owning things, I'd argue that all it needs to own is national security infrastructure, presumably an army and a police force, and the infrastructure necessary for the judiciary and legislature. Beyond that I'd say that no, historically government has not proven itself capable of running its other businesses effectively.
I'm not trolling, to say so is fatuous.
Hypothetically everyone could have an equal influence regardless of their interest, but then there wouldn't be any incentive to own more than one share in each company. A person could concievably own a share in every company. But what meaning would the value of a share of the company have? None that I can concieve.
funny that this is in a discussion of newton's principia which discusses the calculus of limits, or infinitessimals.
When was the last time you heard of a member of the public standing up in congress directly influencing a vote on the running of a state-owned entity? On the other hand, anyone, even the poor can buy stock in a publicly traded company and influence the decisions of its board. On the other hand, who do you think has the most influence over your congressman, the rich or the poor?
I'd recommend the first one (the blue one). The attention to detail wrt. the translation is amazing.
I've read it, and I have to say it makes for a pretty frustrating read. He spends pages upon pages basically reinventing calculus in the context of each problem. You'll probably spend most of the book wondering why he didn't just listen to leibnitz in the first place. He probably would have saved himself a whole lot of time (and ink).
And that's a blatent rip-off of a South-Park episode.
it's not so much an attack on the GPL, it's just saying tht you can't relicense derivatives under something like the GPL. In much the same way as you can't relicense derivatives of GPL work under any other license.
but exchange doesn't use POP-style checks (unless you've enabled the POP service) it sends notifications to the clients only when new mail has arrived...
you can develop quite sophisticated workflow applications using outlook and exchange. macros are essential for this. they also allow you to integrate with the rest of office, or any other set of COM components for that matter. There's a huge market for vertical applications based off of this stuff, it's quite powerful, really.
That should answer your question.
mathematical proofs are irrefutable. either that or they're incorrect. there's no debate, they're sttements of fact.
yeah, but if you leave your wife's diamond ring on a table in your yard sale marked "free stuff" and someone takes it, you cant really bith too much when you realize tht you put it there by mistake. this is hardly a case of breaking and entering.
for some.
It's not.
well there's that, and also the fact that the condition should be:
c == '\\'