Well, I live in Brazil. Public schools here are extremely expensive to the government, much more than private ones, and teachers earn a lot less there than in private schools. Private schools are much better without exception, less costly, pay more to their employees and most accept any student as long as the parents can pay the fees.
Public schools are a bad idea. Period. I am not against public funding for education, but I believe that the tax money is much better spent in a voucher system and private charter schools than it would possibly be even in relatively well managed public schools.
Private schools are cheaper than their public counterparts anywhere in the world, even in places where most schools are private, like Hong Kong and where public schools are only for the highest achievers.
Those public schools are not falling apart because of low budget or insufficient taxes. The total budget given to education is considerably higher by student than the expenses of private schools, and still private schools are much better. Government is wasteful and will always be. Money just doesn't get there, because it disappears because of corruption, inefficiency, incompetence and lack of focus.
You are very confused my friend. Inefficiency and incompetence wastes resources. Economical greedy actually generates them.
Governments are indeed greedy, but greedy for power not money or resources. A politician will always do something that gives him and his group more power, even if it is economically absurd and a huge waste of resources. The resources are after all other people's money and they will keep flowing in at least in short term, which is all that matters for them.
A private company has no such luxury. It must be efficient to survive and profit. So its greed forces it to be efficient.
Oh there is a key difference, in the private sector if a company fails it dies, unless government decides to bail it out, but that is again the government's fault. In the public sector if you fail you get more funding.
Private companies even when they are in oligopolistic or monopolistic may be bad, but they are still much better than governments. You are fooling yourself if you think both are even remotely at the same level of incompetence.
Oh, and there is nothing wrong with being greedy, by the way.
They are still much better than government companies. And they manage to survive being so inefficient only because the government protects their monopoly and oligopoly through concessions and limits competition.
And he is wrong. Peak demand happens exactly in the hours he is starting to pull energy back from the grid. He is actually giving energy in the hours that demand is bellow the peak and taking energy when demand is critical.
On a day-to-day and month-to-month accounting basis, my utility (Salt River Project in Arizona) gives me a kWh-for-kWh credit. If I generate 20 kWh during the day, use 15 kWh during the day, and another 5 kWh during the night, I have net zero usage.
You have just shown how right the GP is. If they pay to you the same you pay to them they can produce cheaper energy themselves. If you manage to get even at the end of the money, for example, you are using their grid as a power storage facility and paying nothing for the trouble.
Your arguments are largely irrelevant. Taxes apply to all competitors equally, and alter the end price equally. At the point market buying capacity starts to influence on how much of it can be passed ahead to the consumer some companies start to lose interest in the market and the lower competition allows for more control over the end price. It is a self adapting system, that only collapses when the taxation is so high that it completely sabotages the viability of that economic activity.
Sure they are. Personally I do not believe their slogan as all corporations have their skeleton in their closets, but their policies are by far better for the users than Apple's or Microsoft, for example.
Oh, and all business, be they small or large, have as their primary goal to make money, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Nobody is a saint in the corporate world, but not all corporations are equally rotten either. In comparison to most Google is still the better guy, and in this specific fight it is in most people's best interest for it to prevail.
There is no easy way to reign in corporate abuses, but the truth is that bigger governments make it worse not better. Corporations of the size we have today are a result of concessions, government barriers to competition and cronyism for example. They would never have achieved the size and power they have today without government help.
Freer markets do not make corporation abuse to disappear, but they make it more difficult for them to turn into monopolies and oligopolies. Add some general laws to that (and never regulation bodies or bureaucratic entry barriers please) to prevent and punish the most obnoxious practices, make the judicial system less costly to the normal citizen and quicker and let the people sue when they feel wronged.
That, in my opinion would have at least some chance of working, unlike regulatory bodies, which have none.
Both left and right wing governments bailed out banks. The problem is not specifically with leftist governments, but with leftist ideology, which tends to require more and more government, which always implies in more regulatory bodies to be bought, subverted and used to ensure that corporations stay unchallenged in their interests. The bigger the state gets the more powerful corporations and banks become.
Sure I did. I blamed leftists because they defend more government, more regulations, and most of all more regulatory bodies, which is exactly what allows bit corporations and banks to practice their Cronyism to its full potential.
Nope. I didn't claim such thing. I claimed that bank bailouts were made by governments. I also claimed that those who defend governments as an effective measure against bank or any corporate abuse, which are basically the left, are delusional.
As far as I know Reagan didn't defend more government, and he was the first to admit that governments are poor regulators. Bush was a demagogue and his position about basically anything changed with the wind.
This "arm race" wouldn't ever occur. Apple and MS are considerably more hostile towards developers and the developers just accept it. Making the OS, Hardware and Store owner mad at you is not a recipe for success if you want to be an app developer.
Women, gays, and black people aren't taking over. That is a silly fallacy on your part and has nothing to do with the satire to which this article refers.
Some groups are using cultural Marxism, polarizing people, creating enemy classes, manipulating the masses and gaining a lot of money and political power in the process.
Feminists, LGBT groups, and racial some of most proeminent of those. The current activists subverted the objectives of the original movements with the same names, which were basically the achievement of equal legal rights and then in thought police enforcement units.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I live in Brazil. Public schools here are extremely expensive to the government, much more than private ones, and teachers earn a lot less there than in private schools. Private schools are much better without exception, less costly, pay more to their employees and most accept any student as long as the parents can pay the fees.
Public schools are a bad idea. Period. I am not against public funding for education, but I believe that the tax money is much better spent in a voucher system and private charter schools than it would possibly be even in relatively well managed public schools.
Private schools are cheaper than their public counterparts anywhere in the world, even in places where most schools are private, like Hong Kong and where public schools are only for the highest achievers.
Those public schools are not falling apart because of low budget or insufficient taxes. The total budget given to education is considerably higher by student than the expenses of private schools, and still private schools are much better. Government is wasteful and will always be. Money just doesn't get there, because it disappears because of corruption, inefficiency, incompetence and lack of focus.
You are very confused my friend. Inefficiency and incompetence wastes resources. Economical greedy actually generates them.
Governments are indeed greedy, but greedy for power not money or resources. A politician will always do something that gives him and his group more power, even if it is economically absurd and a huge waste of resources. The resources are after all other people's money and they will keep flowing in at least in short term, which is all that matters for them.
A private company has no such luxury. It must be efficient to survive and profit. So its greed forces it to be efficient.
Oh there is a key difference, in the private sector if a company fails it dies, unless government decides to bail it out, but that is again the government's fault. In the public sector if you fail you get more funding.
Private companies even when they are in oligopolistic or monopolistic may be bad, but they are still much better than governments. You are fooling yourself if you think both are even remotely at the same level of incompetence.
Oh, and there is nothing wrong with being greedy, by the way.
They are still much better than government companies. And they manage to survive being so inefficient only because the government protects their monopoly and oligopoly through concessions and limits competition.
Only those banks and business are that bad because they are maintained as oligopolies due to special licenses given by governments.
Sure it does, but even at their best and least corrupt, governments are still inefficient and horrible in management.
And he is wrong. Peak demand happens exactly in the hours he is starting to pull energy back from the grid. He is actually giving energy in the hours that demand is bellow the peak and taking energy when demand is critical.
Peak demand happens around 6 PM, when he doesn't have much to provide. He is probably taking energy during at least part of the peak demand hours.
On a day-to-day and month-to-month accounting basis, my utility (Salt River Project in Arizona) gives me a kWh-for-kWh credit. If I generate 20 kWh during the day, use 15 kWh during the day, and another 5 kWh during the night, I have net zero usage.
You have just shown how right the GP is. If they pay to you the same you pay to them they can produce cheaper energy themselves. If you manage to get even at the end of the money, for example, you are using their grid as a power storage facility and paying nothing for the trouble.
There isn't any other kind of management when governments are involved.
Your arguments are largely irrelevant. Taxes apply to all competitors equally, and alter the end price equally. At the point market buying capacity starts to influence on how much of it can be passed ahead to the consumer some companies start to lose interest in the market and the lower competition allows for more control over the end price. It is a self adapting system, that only collapses when the taxation is so high that it completely sabotages the viability of that economic activity.
Sure they are. Personally I do not believe their slogan as all corporations have their skeleton in their closets, but their policies are by far better for the users than Apple's or Microsoft, for example.
Oh, and all business, be they small or large, have as their primary goal to make money, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Nobody is a saint in the corporate world, but not all corporations are equally rotten either. In comparison to most Google is still the better guy, and in this specific fight it is in most people's best interest for it to prevail.
There is no easy way to reign in corporate abuses, but the truth is that bigger governments make it worse not better. Corporations of the size we have today are a result of concessions, government barriers to competition and cronyism for example. They would never have achieved the size and power they have today without government help.
Freer markets do not make corporation abuse to disappear, but they make it more difficult for them to turn into monopolies and oligopolies. Add some general laws to that (and never regulation bodies or bureaucratic entry barriers please) to prevent and punish the most obnoxious practices, make the judicial system less costly to the normal citizen and quicker and let the people sue when they feel wronged.
That, in my opinion would have at least some chance of working, unlike regulatory bodies, which have none.
Both left and right wing governments bailed out banks. The problem is not specifically with leftist governments, but with leftist ideology, which tends to require more and more government, which always implies in more regulatory bodies to be bought, subverted and used to ensure that corporations stay unchallenged in their interests. The bigger the state gets the more powerful corporations and banks become.
Sure I did. I blamed leftists because they defend more government, more regulations, and most of all more regulatory bodies, which is exactly what allows bit corporations and banks to practice their Cronyism to its full potential.
Nope. I didn't claim such thing. I claimed that bank bailouts were made by governments. I also claimed that those who defend governments as an effective measure against bank or any corporate abuse, which are basically the left, are delusional.
As far as I know Reagan didn't defend more government, and he was the first to admit that governments are poor regulators. Bush was a demagogue and his position about basically anything changed with the wind.
The bankers can only get away with their robbing because the government those leftist so much defend go to bed with them and always will.
This "arm race" wouldn't ever occur. Apple and MS are considerably more hostile towards developers and the developers just accept it. Making the OS, Hardware and Store owner mad at you is not a recipe for success if you want to be an app developer.
No they are not the responsible. The actions done were. Blaming your actions in other people's words is intellectual dishonesty and cowardice.
Women, gays, and black people aren't taking over. That is a silly fallacy on your part and has nothing to do with the satire to which this article refers. Some groups are using cultural Marxism, polarizing people, creating enemy classes, manipulating the masses and gaining a lot of money and political power in the process. Feminists, LGBT groups, and racial some of most proeminent of those. The current activists subverted the objectives of the original movements with the same names, which were basically the achievement of equal legal rights and then in thought police enforcement units.
Bad words are not able to "harm" the brain. They are only able to harm the feeble egos of people that should know better as adults.