As mentioned in another post, safety IS a market force. Airlines take a loss when one of their planes go down obviously. So does Amtrak, and so do drug companies.
And on that subject, drug regulation by the FDA (which has no legal grounds for existing in the first place; but that's another subject) actually causes more deaths than it helps. First off, it artifically increases the cost of R&D of a drug to delivery through excess regulation. Secondly, many people need a specific drug, but can't get it because the FDA hasn't approved it yet even though the drug co is confident that it works.
And while you are right, drug companies, or any industry for that matter, is indeed in business to make a profit. That's the nature of the beast. However, they don't tend to stay in business very long by ripping off the customer, or worse killing them. Companies like that tend to get sued or go out of business in short order.
I am not denying that a majority 55-70% of Libertarians are former Republicans. But the party also has its share of former Democrats too.
The Libertarian and Constitution parties are very similar, they both want to return to the basic fundamentals of government. The Libertarian party is based upon a political philosophy (libertarianism) and the idea that government at all levels should be limited.
The Constitution Party tends to be more constitutional conservatives, meaning they would rather have more powers in the hands of the individual states than the federal government.
The Libertarians are very strong on civil liberties as the Democrats claim to be, but mostly give lip service too like the Republicans give to fiscal conservatism.
Without attacking you personally, I would say that you should study things before making ignorant statements like this.
There are many books on the subject, but the concept of libertarianism is based off of a few key points: -limited government -free markets -individual liberties -personal responsibility
Libertarians are actually split on abortion and they don't usually discuss it because it tends to divide. Some libertarians think that it is the right of the mother to choose, other libertarians think that the unborn child is an individual and is entitled to the same liberty that every other human individual is.
And your gay marriage comment especially shows your ignorance about libertarianism. Most libertarians think that marriage is between two people (and their deity if they choose), and the government has nothing to do with it. In otherwords why would the government need to get involved in a contract between two people or a religious belief?
So again, with all due respect, please know about what you are discussing before you make a post.
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Dinner for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
The problem is that different drivers (speakers) do not operate all at the same efficiency level.
For example, a really efficient driver may only need x watts to produce a given sound at 1 meter at 100dB SPL (sout pressure level).
While a less efficient driver may need y wats to produce that same sound at 1 meter at 100dB SPL.
Therefore, limiting the output of the device will limit the types of drivers (speakers) you can use with the device. If you limit it much, then really crappy low efficiency speakers won't produce enough dB SPL to overcome the noise floor of ambient noise.
The world has never seen a true version of communism in a developed nation. And neither have we seen a true example of free-market capitalism either*
Most of societal structures these days tend to lean heavily in one direction or another, but are usually eclectic mixes of various ecopolitical systems.
And I agree that having the system manipulaetd by various special interests (business interests, consumer interests, idealists, etc) is harmful all the way around. This is why a society that leans libertarian with limited governmental intervention doesn't have the power or the reach to pander to special interests. These interests would be forced to allow the natural market forces to work unabated and not use the government as a tool for their cause or business.
But I think that selfishness is a basic human principle that we have to train ourselves to grow away from. A lot of people vote in the US based on the question "which one of these canididates will do the most for me?" They are overlooking what is best for the country based upon their own personal interests. This reduces elections and campaigns to nothing more than a contest between the canididates of which each is trying to promise more handouts to more people than the next guy. In the early-mid 90's this type of campaign was briefly upset by Ross Perot because he talked facts, figures, and used rational logic - not just feel-good emotional soundbytes.
So yes often times the people don't know what is best for themselves, but this is why the US is a democratic-republic. It is also why we have a bicamaral legislative system. And in my opinion, the US Senators should revert to the original way of elections - voted delegates by the state legislatures; NOT by the general populace. Most Senators prior to the early 20th century were former governers, retired legislators, those with litte or no political ambition but with lots of experience. This sort of kept them proxied from normal political pressures and typical knee-jerk reactions to current events.
*The only exception I could think of would be Hong Kong under British rule. It was a true bastion of unbridled capitalism.
If you think we have a true free market in the US you are mistaken.
The problem is that big business LIKES big government.
When the government is big and has the power to regulate and extend into every aspect of the life of its citizens, then it also has the power to regulate and legislate in favor of special interests.
For example, to start a business in this country you have to have an attorney, accountant, and maybe even a tax lawyer. This does not include the piles of work you have to go through on the local and state level.
When McDonalds opens a new location, they have a team of accountants and attorneys on staff to handle the red tape put in place by the government. Their resources are larger, and their professionals are concentrated. Therefore more regulation and big government stifiles competition and regulates IN FAVOR of the big business. A small or independent business doesn't have the resources/time/money to allocate to dealing with the same regulations.
If the US government returned to its roots then the economy would be much more prosperous. If you noticed, the transforming part of US history, the industrial revolution, happened during a lassie-faire era of limited government. Why? Because they let unbridled capitalism run it's course and more progress was seen in a short number of years than ever before.
Well there were a lot of bad thigns that went on during that period. Terrible worker abuses, horrible working conditions, etc. The government didn't have to step in to fix it. Why? Because the people organized into private unions to have large negtioating power with their employers.
If you notice the biggest true monolopies are either government-granted (power, water, cable, phone, copyrights, patents), or are a result of excessive governmental regulation causing high barriers of entry by independent firms into the marketplace. So I hate to break it to you but in TRUE 'free-market capitalism' true monolopies are rare and usually don't last very long because competition can spring up at a moment's notice.
And about the poor... Private charities usually only provide limtied or one-time assistance to people in need. They don't usually continue to support lifestyles that are non-productive. This encourages people to pull their own weight. Also with a smaller amount of the economy going into taxes which are wasted, those funds could be allocated for private charities. For those that are truly unable to due to illness, age, dissability etc, then there are private foundations, charities, (and even one's own family) etc that are better equipped to deal with that situation.
A prime example of the government's ineptness is the Katrina situation. The government is ok at restoring law and order and maybe doing a few emergency services, but outside of that it is like a retarded giant incapable of any but the most simple of tasks.
There are many books on the subject, but the concept of libertarianism is based off of a few points: -limited government -free markets -individual liberties -personal responsibility
I think 3 things will change life as we know it even further:
-Fusion -Genetic engineering for the common man -NASA's SATS project comes to be and jet aircraft become inexpensive enough for the average middle class man.
Abolish government schools (or at minimum do away with compulsory education laws -truancy).
Then when the kids are violent, they get thrown out. Most people don't understand that government schools are NOTHING more than a babysitting service.
With all of the kids that don't want to learn are gone, the ones that are there to learn will have an improved education. The quality of the overall program will improve because they won't have to "deal with" the problem kids more than once.
I have several websites for my business and the domains are all based off of www.directnic.com a major registrar.
All of my e-mail goes through my domains to my home ISP POP account via a redirect at the rgistrar level.
Well the morons at my ISP - rr.com (Road Runner) did an upperlevel blacklisting of iris.directnic.com the mailserver of the registrar. So now, and many of my business partners and even clients, cannot get their e-mails.
I did the process to have it unlisted and the peckerheads told me that it "could take up to 36 hours". I am losing THOUSANDS of dollars because of their asinine screwup and over zealous attempts at spam-blocking. There are too many false-positives to block a MAJOR registrar.
That chaps my ass like nothing else does! In fact I'm madder than a queer with hemroids. (and no I'm not gay - I just like crude analogies)
The government is like a huge retarded giant incapable of anything but the simplest of tasks.
Private entities and charities are better able to help and take care of people than the government is. The people should only depend on their government to protect us from invasion and foreign threats of that nature.
And back in Aug 05 I had my CC declined because I had gotten a trailer ($800) and was moving some stuff a few states a way plus buying meals, gas etc.
I didn't know why it was declined so I called up my CC co and asked what was up and they said "well we saw some unusual activity and decided to put your account on hold until we heard from you"
I was PISSED! I told them to never decline my card again to help "prevent fraud" but if they thought there was a problem they should contact me directly and get ahold of me before assuming that an extra $3k of charges within a week was fradulent.
When one is on the road for a bit and living off of their CC to make all of their essential purchases, and then that gets axed, it tends to really be detrimental to one's short term operations. I made sure they know that if it happens again I will be dropping their card within 24 hours.
I spent over $1500 a month on Google advertising for my synthetic oil distribution business.
Each lead (submission form with name, number, address request for more info etc) that came through cost us about $15 a piece. That's not what we were paying per click, but by the time we paid for all of the people who clicked on and just browsed the site without submitting information, and by the time all of the fradulent clicks were factored in, it came out to $15 a pop.
Not what we want, but it is a lot better than working a trade show where our optimum lead costs around $25.
And for the first time, I went into a Taco Bell here in downtown Nashville and saw ACTUAL Mexicans preparing the food. I guess the TB franchise is just trying to keep up its image of authentic Mexican cuisuine...
I don't know how capitalism = "screwing the customer".
In any basic business or marketing class you are first taught that a transaction only takes place when BOTH parties agree that there is a net gain to themselves. In otherwords the seller only sells if there is a benefit to him, and the buyer only buys if there is benefit to himself.
But remember the music industry isn't 100% based on capitalism because they have a government granted monolopy thus they can charge practically whatever they want since they control the (legal) supply of product.
In true capitalism, if you continue to "screw the customers" you don't stay in business very long.
A good friend of mine who was an officer in the US Navy on a sub told me that sailors on the deck of an aircraft carrier get more radiation over the course of a year than a reactor officer on a sub.
He also told me that people who fly on commercial airliners get an even greater dose than either groups because because of their altitude.
Slashdot Mirror
As mentioned in another post, safety IS a market force. Airlines take a loss when one of their planes go down obviously. So does Amtrak, and so do drug companies.
And on that subject, drug regulation by the FDA (which has no legal grounds for existing in the first place; but that's another subject) actually causes more deaths than it helps. First off, it artifically increases the cost of R&D of a drug to delivery through excess regulation. Secondly, many people need a specific drug, but can't get it because the FDA hasn't approved it yet even though the drug co is confident that it works.
And while you are right, drug companies, or any industry for that matter, is indeed in business to make a profit. That's the nature of the beast. However, they don't tend to stay in business very long by ripping off the customer, or worse killing them. Companies like that tend to get sued or go out of business in short order.
I am not denying that a majority 55-70% of Libertarians are former Republicans. But the party also has its share of former Democrats too.
The Libertarian and Constitution parties are very similar, they both want to return to the basic fundamentals of government. The Libertarian party is based upon a political philosophy (libertarianism) and the idea that government at all levels should be limited.
The Constitution Party tends to be more constitutional conservatives, meaning they would rather have more powers in the hands of the individual states than the federal government.
The Libertarians are very strong on civil liberties as the Democrats claim to be, but mostly give lip service too like the Republicans give to fiscal conservatism.
Without attacking you personally, I would say that you should study things before making ignorant statements like this.
There are many books on the subject, but the concept of libertarianism is based off of a few key points:
-limited government
-free markets
-individual liberties
-personal responsibility
Libertarians are actually split on abortion and they don't usually discuss it because it tends to divide. Some libertarians think that it is the right of the mother to choose, other libertarians think that the unborn child is an individual and is entitled to the same liberty that every other human individual is.
And your gay marriage comment especially shows your ignorance about libertarianism. Most libertarians think that marriage is between two people (and their deity if they choose), and the government has nothing to do with it. In otherwords why would the government need to get involved in a contract between two people or a religious belief?
So again, with all due respect, please know about what you are discussing before you make a post.
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Dinner for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
I hacked my gf's POP3 account in high school (8 years ago) because I thought she was getting too close to one of my good friends.
The problem is that different drivers (speakers) do not operate all at the same efficiency level.
For example, a really efficient driver may only need x watts to produce a given sound at 1 meter at 100dB SPL (sout pressure level).
While a less efficient driver may need y wats to produce that same sound at 1 meter at 100dB SPL.
Therefore, limiting the output of the device will limit the types of drivers (speakers) you can use with the device. If you limit it much, then really crappy low efficiency speakers won't produce enough dB SPL to overcome the noise floor of ambient noise.
And yes IAAAE (I am an audio engineer)
I think what you really mean is that our ears hear more accurately at higher volumes.
There is a psycho-acoustical phenomena called the Fletcher-Munson Curves or Equal Loudness Curves.
There is a good explanation of it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_loudness_curve
Yes I am an audio engineer.
Absolutely...
The world has never seen a true version of communism in a developed nation. And neither have we seen a true example of free-market capitalism either*
Most of societal structures these days tend to lean heavily in one direction or another, but are usually eclectic mixes of various ecopolitical systems.
And I agree that having the system manipulaetd by various special interests (business interests, consumer interests, idealists, etc) is harmful all the way around. This is why a society that leans libertarian with limited governmental intervention doesn't have the power or the reach to pander to special interests. These interests would be forced to allow the natural market forces to work unabated and not use the government as a tool for their cause or business.
But I think that selfishness is a basic human principle that we have to train ourselves to grow away from. A lot of people vote in the US based on the question "which one of these canididates will do the most for me?" They are overlooking what is best for the country based upon their own personal interests. This reduces elections and campaigns to nothing more than a contest between the canididates of which each is trying to promise more handouts to more people than the next guy. In the early-mid 90's this type of campaign was briefly upset by Ross Perot because he talked facts, figures, and used rational logic - not just feel-good emotional soundbytes.
So yes often times the people don't know what is best for themselves, but this is why the US is a democratic-republic. It is also why we have a bicamaral legislative system. And in my opinion, the US Senators should revert to the original way of elections - voted delegates by the state legislatures; NOT by the general populace. Most Senators prior to the early 20th century were former governers, retired legislators, those with litte or no political ambition but with lots of experience. This sort of kept them proxied from normal political pressures and typical knee-jerk reactions to current events.
*The only exception I could think of would be Hong Kong under British rule. It was a true bastion of unbridled capitalism.
If you think we have a true free market in the US you are mistaken.
The problem is that big business LIKES big government.
When the government is big and has the power to regulate and extend into every aspect of the life of its citizens, then it also has the power to regulate and legislate in favor of special interests.
For example, to start a business in this country you have to have an attorney, accountant, and maybe even a tax lawyer. This does not include the piles of work you have to go through on the local and state level.
When McDonalds opens a new location, they have a team of accountants and attorneys on staff to handle the red tape put in place by the government. Their resources are larger, and their professionals are concentrated. Therefore more regulation and big government stifiles competition and regulates IN FAVOR of the big business. A small or independent business doesn't have the resources/time/money to allocate to dealing with the same regulations.
If the US government returned to its roots then the economy would be much more prosperous. If you noticed, the transforming part of US history, the industrial revolution, happened during a lassie-faire era of limited government. Why? Because they let unbridled capitalism run it's course and more progress was seen in a short number of years than ever before.
Well there were a lot of bad thigns that went on during that period. Terrible worker abuses, horrible working conditions, etc. The government didn't have to step in to fix it. Why? Because the people organized into private unions to have large negtioating power with their employers.
If you notice the biggest true monolopies are either government-granted (power, water, cable, phone, copyrights, patents), or are a result of excessive governmental regulation causing high barriers of entry by independent firms into the marketplace. So I hate to break it to you but in TRUE 'free-market capitalism' true monolopies are rare and usually don't last very long because competition can spring up at a moment's notice.
And about the poor... Private charities usually only provide limtied or one-time assistance to people in need. They don't usually continue to support lifestyles that are non-productive. This encourages people to pull their own weight. Also with a smaller amount of the economy going into taxes which are wasted, those funds could be allocated for private charities. For those that are truly unable to due to illness, age, dissability etc, then there are private foundations, charities, (and even one's own family) etc that are better equipped to deal with that situation.
A prime example of the government's ineptness is the Katrina situation. The government is ok at restoring law and order and maybe doing a few emergency services, but outside of that it is like a retarded giant incapable of any but the most simple of tasks.
There are many books on the subject, but the concept of libertarianism is based off of a few points:
-limited government
-free markets
-individual liberties
-personal responsibility
Dumbo + Jackass = DumbAss
Tired of DumbAss government? Vote for a third party!
You just described the libertarian principles in a nutshell:
-limited government
-free markets
-personal freedom
-individual responsibility
According to your post you are a libertarian (lower case "L").
Don't believe me?
Take this test and find out:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
I think 3 things will change life as we know it even further:
-Fusion
-Genetic engineering for the common man
-NASA's SATS project comes to be and jet aircraft become inexpensive enough for the average middle class man.
It's real simple.
Abolish government schools (or at minimum do away with compulsory education laws -truancy).
Then when the kids are violent, they get thrown out. Most people don't understand that government schools are NOTHING more than a babysitting service.
With all of the kids that don't want to learn are gone, the ones that are there to learn will have an improved education. The quality of the overall program will improve because they won't have to "deal with" the problem kids more than once.
This might be OT BUT
I have several websites for my business and the domains are all based off of www.directnic.com a major registrar.
All of my e-mail goes through my domains to my home ISP POP account via a redirect at the rgistrar level.
Well the morons at my ISP - rr.com (Road Runner) did an upperlevel blacklisting of iris.directnic.com the mailserver of the registrar. So now, and many of my business partners and even clients, cannot get their e-mails.
I did the process to have it unlisted and the peckerheads told me that it "could take up to 36 hours". I am losing THOUSANDS of dollars because of their asinine screwup and over zealous attempts at spam-blocking. There are too many false-positives to block a MAJOR registrar.
That chaps my ass like nothing else does! In fact I'm madder than a queer with hemroids. (and no I'm not gay - I just like crude analogies)
I would say 80% effort/presistance, 10% intelligence, and 10% luck.
The government, especially the feds, have no business on this issue whatsoever.
This is a prime example of a bloated, far reaching, wasteful, controlling, socialist government type of action.
Where in the US Constitution does it say that the gov has the ability to study gaming?
The government is like a huge retarded giant incapable of anything but the simplest of tasks.
Private entities and charities are better able to help and take care of people than the government is. The people should only depend on their government to protect us from invasion and foreign threats of that nature.
Well private entities and charities are better able to help and take care of people than the government is.
The government is like a huge retarded giant incapable of anything but the simplest of tasks.
I travel sporadically.
And back in Aug 05 I had my CC declined because I had gotten a trailer ($800) and was moving some stuff a few states a way plus buying meals, gas etc.
I didn't know why it was declined so I called up my CC co and asked what was up and they said "well we saw some unusual activity and decided to put your account on hold until we heard from you"
I was PISSED! I told them to never decline my card again to help "prevent fraud" but if they thought there was a problem they should contact me directly and get ahold of me before assuming that an extra $3k of charges within a week was fradulent.
When one is on the road for a bit and living off of their CC to make all of their essential purchases, and then that gets axed, it tends to really be detrimental to one's short term operations. I made sure they know that if it happens again I will be dropping their card within 24 hours.
I spent over $1500 a month on Google advertising for my synthetic oil distribution business.
Each lead (submission form with name, number, address request for more info etc) that came through cost us about $15 a piece. That's not what we were paying per click, but by the time we paid for all of the people who clicked on and just browsed the site without submitting information, and by the time all of the fradulent clicks were factored in, it came out to $15 a pop.
Not what we want, but it is a lot better than working a trade show where our optimum lead costs around $25.
I've been eating at Taco Bell all of my life.
And for the first time, I went into a Taco Bell here in downtown Nashville and saw ACTUAL Mexicans preparing the food. I guess the TB franchise is just trying to keep up its image of authentic Mexican cuisuine...
uhh...errr...wait a minute...
Yeah - short skirts usually cause an inflation for me! But it isn't in the pocket that holds my wallet! :-)
I don't know how capitalism = "screwing the customer".
In any basic business or marketing class you are first taught that a transaction only takes place when BOTH parties agree that there is a net gain to themselves. In otherwords the seller only sells if there is a benefit to him, and the buyer only buys if there is benefit to himself.
But remember the music industry isn't 100% based on capitalism because they have a government granted monolopy thus they can charge practically whatever they want since they control the (legal) supply of product.
In true capitalism, if you continue to "screw the customers" you don't stay in business very long.
Well the thing is that most girls (even blondes) have intelligent DNA in them. The problem is that they tend to spit it out.
A good friend of mine who was an officer in the US Navy on a sub told me that sailors on the deck of an aircraft carrier get more radiation over the course of a year than a reactor officer on a sub.
He also told me that people who fly on commercial airliners get an even greater dose than either groups because because of their altitude.