If they could raise prices further they already would have. At least that's how it works in a market based economy. After the optimal price is reached, price increases tend to be offset by losing customers.
Bottom line is, most of these companies want to sell to Americans. If Americans decide to take steps to curtail offshoring, those companies pretty much have to suck it up. There's a stick and a carrot available.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought that only served a useful public purpose once, at IPO time. After that it's just money chasing money round in cricles. And again, while the principle is apparently sound, the practise is very much not so, as recent events have indicated. I'd be well in favour of higher taxes on higher earners, but only in conjunction with spending cuts.
Why are you even arguing with me? It's going ahead no matter what you think. Yes it will take decades, but we'll muddle along through in the meantime.
I see a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth over Germany's decision to stick with coal power plants on this site, but oddly not a single mention of the fact that Germany has both large coal resources and a massive and well subsidised coal mining industry. Typically there is a lot more to the story than discussion on these sites brings up. Believe me the world is not going to end due to a shortage of energy - should such a situation arise, efforts will be ramped up accordingly.
What you see on MTV, the rock'n'roll lifestyle, that is not representative of rich people. It's like when you see average types who hire out a limousine for a party, hands and heads hanging out screaming - rich people don't live like that.
Might it not be better just to cut say military spending in half? Nobody is going to invade the US, without coming home to a glass parking lot anyway, and all that money is just thrown down a hole. Yes military spending is to an extent recycled back into the economy, but surely we can come up with something more constructive to spend it on if one must spend that money?
Hi there. If you covered 2% of the uninhabited portions of the Sahara with solar PV, you could supply all of the world's energy requirements. Before responding, hairyfeet, stop and think about what that implies.
That really comes down to whether or not prison is an adequate deterrent for a wide variety of crimes. I'm finding it hard to muster up any sympathy for this genius though, I mean if he was calling them up on the phone with caller ID blocked, making nasty comments about the dead kid, nobody would have any doubts about whether or not he should be imprisoned. He comes across as a vicious, sadistic coward. Just because it's the internet doesn't make it different.
Battery tech has been steadily improving over the last ten or twenty years though, most people don't see it because the changes are incremental and instead of putting the new higher capacity batteries into phones, they just half the size of the existing batteries.
Interesting stuff, but that doesn't say what you claimed. All it says is that people who are motivated by money don't work at their creative best. What it doesn't say is that a highly paid artist is perforce motivated by money. It's quite likely that the best artists are well compensated because they aren't motivated by money, regardless of how well they are compensated.
So technically I really could patent the wheel? I think what we're seeing here is the shift from "an incentive to invent" to "all ideas can and should be owned by someone".
Slashdot Mirror
High inheritance taxes are a great place to hit them. Leave heirs enough to live comfortably, say a couple of million, then take the rest.
If they could raise prices further they already would have. At least that's how it works in a market based economy. After the optimal price is reached, price increases tend to be offset by losing customers.
No, but there's no question it will help significantly.
Bottom line is, most of these companies want to sell to Americans. If Americans decide to take steps to curtail offshoring, those companies pretty much have to suck it up. There's a stick and a carrot available.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought that only served a useful public purpose once, at IPO time. After that it's just money chasing money round in cricles. And again, while the principle is apparently sound, the practise is very much not so, as recent events have indicated. I'd be well in favour of higher taxes on higher earners, but only in conjunction with spending cuts.
Sure, but I'd say it would be an important part of financial discipline to reduce military spending.
Why are you even arguing with me? It's going ahead no matter what you think. Yes it will take decades, but we'll muddle along through in the meantime.
I see a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth over Germany's decision to stick with coal power plants on this site, but oddly not a single mention of the fact that Germany has both large coal resources and a massive and well subsidised coal mining industry. Typically there is a lot more to the story than discussion on these sites brings up. Believe me the world is not going to end due to a shortage of energy - should such a situation arise, efforts will be ramped up accordingly.
Defence spending might be bigger than you think: http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm Still I agree, what's needed are spending cuts.
What you see on MTV, the rock'n'roll lifestyle, that is not representative of rich people. It's like when you see average types who hire out a limousine for a party, hands and heads hanging out screaming - rich people don't live like that.
Reagan realised you could just borrow to cover your tax shortfall and let the next guy figure out how to repay it. That was all.
Unlike Uncle Scrooge, rich people don't keep all their money in a room where they can roll around in it.
Actually the single best way to get rich is just to not spend any money. Quite a lot of rich people just don't spend.
Might it not be better just to cut say military spending in half? Nobody is going to invade the US, without coming home to a glass parking lot anyway, and all that money is just thrown down a hole. Yes military spending is to an extent recycled back into the economy, but surely we can come up with something more constructive to spend it on if one must spend that money?
Please look at this: http://www.desertec.org/
All of your answers can be found here: http://www.desertec.org/ We are absolutely drowning in energy.
Yawn. Solar power is a mature technology. Wind as well. Both are cheaper than nuclear. Next!
Hi there. If you covered 2% of the uninhabited portions of the Sahara with solar PV, you could supply all of the world's energy requirements. Before responding, hairyfeet, stop and think about what that implies.
This is important information.
I for one welcome our mad scientists. This dude is awesome. We need more of this dude.
That really comes down to whether or not prison is an adequate deterrent for a wide variety of crimes. I'm finding it hard to muster up any sympathy for this genius though, I mean if he was calling them up on the phone with caller ID blocked, making nasty comments about the dead kid, nobody would have any doubts about whether or not he should be imprisoned. He comes across as a vicious, sadistic coward. Just because it's the internet doesn't make it different.
Battery tech has been steadily improving over the last ten or twenty years though, most people don't see it because the changes are incremental and instead of putting the new higher capacity batteries into phones, they just half the size of the existing batteries.
Is that a referrer link? Are you really trying to make a quick buck off 9-11?
Interesting stuff, but that doesn't say what you claimed. All it says is that people who are motivated by money don't work at their creative best. What it doesn't say is that a highly paid artist is perforce motivated by money. It's quite likely that the best artists are well compensated because they aren't motivated by money, regardless of how well they are compensated.
So technically I really could patent the wheel? I think what we're seeing here is the shift from "an incentive to invent" to "all ideas can and should be owned by someone".
What studies? Link?
It's no good without a lightning gun and a twirly moustache though.