"will have to cite what regulations could possibly have been preventing Ma Bell from providing better service"
But it's not even that: regulations prevent innovation directly - that's just one of their indirect & unintended effects. When regulated as a public utility, the company is to some extent protected from competition (and thus the need to innovate and improve service).
Well, it depends on the market area. But think about it - should ISPness become a "public utility", do you honestly expect more or less competition to evolve there?
Am I alone in seeing it as an absurd concern for state legislatures to ponder? If the price of having a "state university" is having elected politicians micromanage academic issues, isn't that a little too high?
Thanks for the grammar tweak, but I believe I was using the terms correctly. Here, "ipso facto" modifies the "that is" as an adverb, not "evidence" as an adjective.
"I mean, there's a reason why we have education accreditation boards, right?"
That would make a good line in a lullaby.
Government accreditation, certification, regulation, are all just well-intentioned market-suppression efforts. With information flowing so freely now, these will be routed around.
"If a U.S. company designs products in one country, manufactures them in another country, and sells them in a third, in which jurisdiction should the company pay tax? The country in which it's domiciled?"
Why, none of the above. Taxes should be on consumption or cost-recovery basis or something... Oh, but you don't mean "should, according to fche", but "should, according to law". Why, then the Double Irish is perfectly right. Oh, but you don't mean "should, according to law", but "should, according to macsimon". Well, then obviously they should pay 100% of their net income as tax, because that's fair.
You were implying that because apple products were supposedly designed in the states, this taints them with such a strong us nexus that foreign sales to foreign individuals should naturally be included in apple's us taxes. Because Design!
You've changed tacks a couple of times now. Try a third one, maybe it'll be less of a reach.
So your theory of tax fairness is based on infrastructure usage cost? The foreign transactions with foreigners should be 0% taxed, by that metric, and probably there goes progressive taxation on personal incomes too...
... or campaign to get the feds to bud out of this issue entirely, so that there would be no lobbyists to be feted by, and no telco companies to bail out.
It's not "always wrong, no matter what". It merely lacks incentives and feedbacks to produce what the people actually value. It has power without responsibility. It can be wrong, and suffers nothing. (Was the FCC wrong to make the "standard" 3/1M so long? How has it suffered for that? A business wrong for too long would die.)
"When 80 percent of Americans can access 25-3, that's a standard. We have a problem that 20 percent can't. We have a responsibility to that 20 percent,"
So the FCC gets to change its own standards, then impose its jurisdiction on the new stragglers. Typical regulator. No skin in the game, but always knows what's good for everyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
"I think everyone already knew it was possible to print something that looks like a jet engine." ... except the university's funding agencies.
No word on whether the thing was ever powered up, or is simply a neat toy.
"will have to cite what regulations could possibly have been preventing Ma Bell from providing better service"
But it's not even that: regulations prevent innovation directly - that's just one of their indirect & unintended effects. When regulated as a public utility, the company is to some extent protected from competition (and thus the need to innovate and improve service).
If you think back to those transitions (like suddenly cheaper long distance), they coincide with -deregulation- rather than new -regulation-.
"if you actually HAVE competitors"
Well, it depends on the market area.
But think about it - should ISPness become a "public utility", do you honestly expect more or less competition to evolve there?
The competitors should make each other nervous.
The government squatting more regulation on us all should make us all nervous.
... but the converse does not hold.
error bars cannot compensate for questionable underlying assumptions
"PROXIES OF TEMPERATURE" ... part of the problem is that so-called proxies of temperature aren't.
Am I alone in seeing it as an absurd concern for state legislatures to ponder? If the price of having a "state university" is having elected politicians micromanage academic issues, isn't that a little too high?
I assume you have a deep well of information to justify that little ditty, but think we just can't handle it. Thank you for protecting us.
Homeschool! (State monopoly on education would be vile.)
Thanks for the grammar tweak, but I believe I was using the terms correctly. Here, "ipso facto" modifies the "that is" as an adverb, not "evidence" as an adjective.
You could've abbreviated those last two paragraphs to "I disagree, because XXXX". You just forgot the XXXX.
Now now, don't call them names. They're so well-intentioned.
... and if girls didn't get in with equal numbers, that is ipso facto evidence of having been steered away for sexist reasons then or earlier in life.
"I mean, there's a reason why we have education accreditation
boards, right?"
That would make a good line in a lullaby.
Government accreditation, certification, regulation, are all just well-intentioned market-suppression efforts. With information flowing so freely now, these will be routed around.
"If a U.S. company designs products in one country, manufactures them in another country, and sells them in a third, in which jurisdiction should the company pay tax? The country in which it's domiciled?"
Why, none of the above. Taxes should be on consumption or cost-recovery basis or something ... Oh, but you don't mean "should, according to fche", but "should, according to law". Why, then the Double Irish is perfectly right. Oh, but you don't mean "should, according to law", but "should, according to macsimon". Well, then obviously they should pay 100% of their net income as tax, because that's fair.
You were implying that because apple products were supposedly designed in the states, this taints them with such a strong us nexus that foreign sales to foreign individuals should naturally be included in apple's us taxes. Because Design!
You've changed tacks a couple of times now. Try a third one, maybe it'll be less of a reach.
On the "design" part, i.e., salaries of the designers, Apple & the employees pay tax aplenty already.
So your theory of tax fairness is based on infrastructure usage cost? The foreign transactions with foreigners should be 0% taxed, by that metric, and probably there goes progressive taxation on personal incomes too...
"to avoid paying their fair share"
That phrase "fair share" is dishonest. It is vague and subjective, while pretending to be objectively normative.
... or campaign to get the feds to bud out of this issue entirely, so that there would be no lobbyists to be feted by, and no telco companies to bail out.
It's not "always wrong, no matter what". It merely lacks incentives and feedbacks to produce what the people actually value. It has power without responsibility. It can be wrong, and suffers nothing. (Was the FCC wrong to make the "standard" 3/1M so long? How has it suffered for that? A business wrong for too long would die.)
"When 80 percent of Americans can access 25-3, that's a standard. We have a problem that 20 percent can't. We have a responsibility to that 20 percent,"
So the FCC gets to change its own standards, then impose its jurisdiction on the new stragglers. Typical regulator. No skin in the game, but always knows what's good for everyone else.