Well, the good thing about a free market is that true monopolies are usually not long-lived. If Wal-Mart begins to hike prices or piss off their customers, then it wont be long before small competition will begin to pop back up again.
The good thing about the free market is that everything is kept in check.
But even with your examples, realize that there are alternatives to Windows: Apple, Linux, or build your own.
CDs are a special case because the mfg of that product is granted a limited monopoly on that product by the government in the form of a copyright (exclusive right to copy, distribute, etc).
The price of gas is an entirely different situation for several reasons. First off crude petroleum prices are set by a cartel (OPEC). Secondly, there is a massive choke point in the production chain called refineries. Because the government doesn't allow any new refineries to be built, the price of oil goes up because refinment capacity is limited. Also, if you discover oil on your land, good luck trying to get it out! It's very expensive for the permits and the licenses to pump your own crude. So governmental regulations are also prohibiting free-market economics from taking effect.
Monopolies themselves are not necessarily a bad thing. The problem is if they are predatorial or anti-competitive. Or if they use their power in the marketplace to muscle out their competition or force price collusion, etc.
Not everyone buys on price. Some people buy on convenience. Some people buy on spec. Some people buy on brand name or availability.
When I purchase computer hard ware and don't know the ins and outs, I'll do as much of my own research first, and if I cant figure it out or find what Im looking for, then sure I'll go to joe's computer store right down the road where I can talk to a human being. For major computer purchases, (motherboard, HDD, CPU etc) then typically the only place I can get that type of hardware IS from the local computer shop. Of course I could order it but i'd have to pay for shipping, wait 5 days, AND if it doesn't work or if I have to return it it's a major hassle. Contrast this to just going down the road and returning or getting basic support.
To be honest, I buy a lot of my groceries at the wal-mart because its close to my house and I can get most anything I need in one stop (and the prices are a bit lower than other places). Wal-Mart does of course help the local economy, and so do small businesses but in different ways. Small businesses help the local economy because it keeps the bulk of the earnings and amassed wealth IN the local economy. Wal-Mart helps the local economy because they pass on savings and lower prices to their customers. The downside to Wal-Mart is that they do tend to put a lot of local businesses OUT of business because they simply cannot compete with Wal-Mart on price.
Well, as long as everyone is playing fair and not being predatorial, then the government should be lassie-fare. As soon as Wal-Mart (or anyone else) starts to use their position to muscle their competition out of the market place, essentially being anti-competitive, that's when they should be slammed under anti-trust/monopoly laws.
It's not extortion... Small independent businesses in rural and outlying areas don't have the buying power and shipping infrastructure that these multinational mega corps have. In other words, because Wal Mart buys 100,000 hammers in a year they get them for $5 a piece and only ya $.25 to have them shipped. The mom and pop store in Podunk, Nowhere (BFE) might only buy 100 hammers a year. Because they dont get a bulk rate, they have to pay $7 per hammer, and $.75 for shipping per hammer.
This is just an example but it goes to show that with massive pockets comes distribution and an ability to get bulk rates.
...in their advertisements by "blazing fast processor speeds"
But seriously, I hope that Dell will offer to pay for things if this guy has no insurance even if for no other reason than good PR. A new laptop would be nice too - ha ha.
I'd be happy to deposit some of my seed for this project! At least one donation a day for the next 60 years... it's not getting used anywhere else, might as well give it away to a good cause!
The 17th Amendment to the US Const should be repealed. This essentially allows Senators to be elected by a popular vote which is absolutely contrary to what was intended by the Framers. The Senate was designed for STATES to have a voice. The PEOPLE's voice is what the House of Rep is for.
The 17th and 16th Amendments were the first legs in which the Federal Government began to stand on in order to usurp power traditionally and legally reserved to the States.
The Interstate Commerce Clause states that the Fed is only to make Interstate Commerce "regular" between the States. Meaning that states are not allowed to have trade wars, import tariffs, or other such nonsense. In other words, the ICC is designed to allow for true free trade inside the US borders.
It's all based upon allodial title (Wiki it for more info). Prior to the US 'War Between the States' people actually owned their land and what was below it. After the War Between the States that changed. Now we only own the surface, and everything above it to a few dozen feet.
There is a great video set on YouTube by Michael Badnarik who teaches a class on the US Constitution in which he discusses this. His point is that if we have to perpetually pay taxes on it, then we don't really own it do we? Why would we pay someone else for use of something that we own? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8321747074 978323622&q=michael+badnarik
Perhaps... but that's because they only have a few years to make money off of that patent before it becomes free for everyone to produce without royalty. Also, in order to bring a new drug to market it costs the companies about $1 billion. A large part of these costs are FDA regulations that must be followed.
If we want cheaper drugs, we should abolish the FDA which by the way has no Constitutional authority to exist (Article 1, Section 8).
Well, first off, in the US it's illegal (unconstitutional). Congress is not authorized by the states in the Constitution to institute a national ID.
Secondly, good citizens are always distrustful of their government, whether liberal, conservative, green, libertarian, Republican, Democrat etc. This country was founded and designed to be free with all rights inherent with the people (or the states). Liberty was gained by the US founding fathers from the British crown, and has been passed down in the form of a constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives (legislators). To give liberty and freedom away again is to violate everything the US was founded upon.
I think you are confusing a bit between the publishers and the record companies.
When you write a song, you own the copyright to that song. If someone (besides you) wants to record that song, you can say no unless it has been previously recorded. However once it is recorded and distributed the first time, you can't say no to someone else recording (covering) that song.
Generally when a songwriter writes a song, they shop it around to publishers. Then publishers will take that song and shop it around to producers and/or A&R types of record companies in hopes of getting that song recorded.
In order to record a song that has already been recorded, one must pay (in the US anyway) a compulsory license fee of $.07 per copy of that song.
After a song is recorded the record company will then distribute that song (CD/album/whatever) and will only own the copyright to the sound recording. There are two types of copyright here on this issue. The copyright of the song composition, and the copyright of the audio recording.
I am not a copyright attorney, but I have a degree in the recording industry and I took two copyright law course in college. Also, you might consider getting an entertainment attorney that specializes in copyright law to help get your work. These guys are a dime a dozen here in Nashville and often times all it takes is a letter on a law firm's letterhead.
It's not insurance, it's a royalty payment plain and simple. Some people consider it extortion. In the US these payments are made to all or either one of 3 orgs: BMI, SESAC, and/or ASCAP.
If the government can regulate it, or if we need a license to do it, then it isn't a right. Rights cannot be abridged without due process (a trial etc).
It seems to me that if this law passes, any court that sees or hears a case based on this law, would have to deem it unconstitutional by default if that court has any integrity at all.
85% of all American millionaires are first generation, you do realize that, right?
There are two books on the subject written by the same guys: The Millionaire Next Door and The Millionaire Mind If you Amazon for them you'll be able to find it out.
Also, if you notice the Income Tax actually prohibits people from moving into the upper class. The Income Tax was designed to limit upward class mobility BY guess who?... John D Rockefeller! That's right. The Income Tax is a tool of the super wealthy to limit those who can join their club.
If you create something while working then it is yours unless it was created 'within the scope of your employment".
So what the judge will weigh is whether or not this specific program written by the employee was within his scope of employment.
For instance, if you are an IT guy and happen to paint an oil masterpiece at work on company time, then you still own it, because the painting was not within the scope of your employment.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the good thing about a free market is that true monopolies are usually not long-lived. If Wal-Mart begins to hike prices or piss off their customers, then it wont be long before small competition will begin to pop back up again.
The good thing about the free market is that everything is kept in check.
But even with your examples, realize that there are alternatives to Windows: Apple, Linux, or build your own.
CDs are a special case because the mfg of that product is granted a limited monopoly on that product by the government in the form of a copyright (exclusive right to copy, distribute, etc).
The price of gas is an entirely different situation for several reasons. First off crude petroleum prices are set by a cartel (OPEC). Secondly, there is a massive choke point in the production chain called refineries. Because the government doesn't allow any new refineries to be built, the price of oil goes up because refinment capacity is limited. Also, if you discover oil on your land, good luck trying to get it out! It's very expensive for the permits and the licenses to pump your own crude. So governmental regulations are also prohibiting free-market economics from taking effect.
Monopolies themselves are not necessarily a bad thing. The problem is if they are predatorial or anti-competitive. Or if they use their power in the marketplace to muscle out their competition or force price collusion, etc.
Not everyone buys on price. Some people buy on convenience. Some people buy on spec. Some people buy on brand name or availability.
When I purchase computer hard ware and don't know the ins and outs, I'll do as much of my own research first, and if I cant figure it out or find what Im looking for, then sure I'll go to
joe's computer store right down the road where I can talk to a human being. For major computer purchases, (motherboard, HDD, CPU etc) then typically the only place I can get that type of hardware IS from the local computer shop. Of course I could order it but i'd have to pay for shipping, wait 5 days, AND if it doesn't work or if I have to return it it's a major hassle. Contrast this to just going down the road and returning or getting basic support.
To be honest, I buy a lot of my groceries at the wal-mart because its close to my house and I can get most anything I need in one stop (and the prices are a bit lower than other places). Wal-Mart does of course help the local economy, and so do small businesses but in different ways. Small businesses help the local economy because it keeps the bulk of the earnings and amassed wealth IN the local economy. Wal-Mart helps the local economy because they pass on savings and lower prices to their customers. The downside to Wal-Mart is that they do tend to put a lot of local businesses OUT of business because they simply cannot compete with Wal-Mart on price.
Well, as long as everyone is playing fair and not being predatorial, then the government should be lassie-fare. As soon as Wal-Mart (or anyone else) starts to use their position to muscle their competition out of the market place, essentially being anti-competitive, that's when they should be slammed under anti-trust/monopoly laws.
What kind of tax do you suggest then?
It's not extortion... Small independent businesses in rural and outlying areas don't have the buying power and shipping infrastructure that these multinational mega corps have. In other words, because Wal Mart buys 100,000 hammers in a year they get them for $5 a piece and only ya $.25 to have them shipped. The mom and pop store in Podunk, Nowhere (BFE) might only buy 100 hammers a year. Because they dont get a bulk rate, they have to pay $7 per hammer, and $.75 for shipping per hammer.
This is just an example but it goes to show that with massive pockets comes distribution and an ability to get bulk rates.
...in their advertisements by "blazing fast processor speeds"
But seriously, I hope that Dell will offer to pay for things if this guy has no insurance even if for no other reason than good PR. A new laptop would be nice too - ha ha.
I'd be happy to deposit some of my seed for this project! At least one donation a day for the next 60 years... it's not getting used anywhere else, might as well give it away to a good cause!
I think what you are looking for is the Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/
Because of this they will have to revamp their psycho-evaluation methods. From now on they will have to send a probe to Uranus.
The 17th Amendment to the US Const should be repealed. This essentially allows Senators to be elected by a popular vote which is absolutely contrary to what was intended by the Framers. The Senate was designed for STATES to have a voice. The PEOPLE's voice is what the House of Rep is for.
The 17th and 16th Amendments were the first legs in which the Federal Government began to stand on in order to usurp power traditionally and legally reserved to the States.
Both should be repealed.
The Interstate Commerce Clause states that the Fed is only to make Interstate Commerce "regular" between the States. Meaning that states are not allowed to have trade wars, import tariffs, or other such nonsense. In other words, the ICC is designed to allow for true free trade inside the US borders.
It's all based upon allodial title (Wiki it for more info). Prior to the US 'War Between the States' people actually owned their land and what was below it. After the War Between the States that changed. Now we only own the surface, and everything above it to a few dozen feet.
4 978323622&q=michael+badnarik
There is a great video set on YouTube by Michael Badnarik who teaches a class on the US Constitution in which he discusses this. His point is that if we have to perpetually pay taxes on it, then we don't really own it do we? Why would we pay someone else for use of something that we own?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=832174707
Perhaps... but that's because they only have a few years to make money off of that patent before it becomes free for everyone to produce without royalty. Also, in order to bring a new drug to market it costs the companies about $1 billion. A large part of these costs are FDA regulations that must be followed.
If we want cheaper drugs, we should abolish the FDA which by the way has no Constitutional authority to exist (Article 1, Section 8).
Congress has no authority to pass a law requiring pharmas to do that. Read Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution sometime.
Well, first off, in the US it's illegal (unconstitutional). Congress is not authorized by the states in the Constitution to institute a national ID.
Secondly, good citizens are always distrustful of their government, whether liberal, conservative, green, libertarian, Republican, Democrat etc. This country was founded and designed to be free with all rights inherent with the people (or the states). Liberty was gained by the US founding fathers from the British crown, and has been passed down in the form of a constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives (legislators). To give liberty and freedom away again is to violate everything the US was founded upon.
I think you are confusing a bit between the publishers and the record companies.
When you write a song, you own the copyright to that song. If someone (besides you) wants to record that song, you can say no unless it has been previously recorded. However once it is recorded and distributed the first time, you can't say no to someone else recording (covering) that song.
Generally when a songwriter writes a song, they shop it around to publishers. Then publishers will take that song and shop it around to producers and/or A&R types of record companies in hopes of getting that song recorded.
In order to record a song that has already been recorded, one must pay (in the US anyway) a compulsory license fee of $.07 per copy of that song.
After a song is recorded the record company will then distribute that song (CD/album/whatever) and will only own the copyright to the sound recording. There are two types of copyright here on this issue. The copyright of the song composition, and the copyright of the audio recording.
I am not a copyright attorney, but I have a degree in the recording industry and I took two copyright law course in college. Also, you might consider getting an entertainment attorney that specializes in copyright law to help get your work. These guys are a dime a dozen here in Nashville and often times all it takes is a letter on a law firm's letterhead.
It's not insurance, it's a royalty payment plain and simple. Some people consider it extortion.
r ganisation
In the US these payments are made to all or either one of 3 orgs: BMI, SESAC, and/or ASCAP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_rights_o
Actually sampling is still unlawful even if the size of the sample is not discernable.
Which is why the government should be small and not regulating the market place.
First off, most of the major media consolidation during the 90's was during Clinton's term.
. view&friendID=12769786&blogID=218378970&MyToken=fe 263c22-2d98-4cbb-8d0c-81221ec444fb
Secondly, the Democrats are JUST as bad about corporate contributions as the Republicans are. Don't believe me? I can prove it:
Read a quick write-up I did about this here:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog
If the government can regulate it, or if we need a license to do it, then it isn't a right. Rights cannot be abridged without due process (a trial etc).
It seems to me that if this law passes, any court that sees or hears a case based on this law, would have to deem it unconstitutional by default if that court has any integrity at all.
I took two copyright law courses my senior year of college
85% of all American millionaires are first generation, you do realize that, right?
There are two books on the subject written by the same guys:
The Millionaire Next Door
and
The Millionaire Mind
If you Amazon for them you'll be able to find it out.
Also, if you notice the Income Tax actually prohibits people from moving into the upper class. The Income Tax was designed to limit upward class mobility BY guess who?... John D Rockefeller! That's right. The Income Tax is a tool of the super wealthy to limit those who can join their club.
If you create something while working then it is yours unless it was created 'within the scope of your employment".
So what the judge will weigh is whether or not this specific program written by the employee was within his scope of employment.
For instance, if you are an IT guy and happen to paint an oil masterpiece at work on company time, then you still own it, because the painting was not within the scope of your employment.