So you're saying the seller is worse off? Or are you saying the buyer is worse off? Why did he consent to the exchange then? Even if they're each exactly as well-off as before, why did they do the transaction? Why not just skip it if there's no improvement?
Obviously, both parties benefit. Thus, free transactions are a positive-sum game.
---
A consumable item (HINT: "CONSUME") has been bought. It may later be sold, in exchange for ANOTHER transfer of wealth/capital.
The nature of the item has no relevence. The quality of the lives of the buyer and seller (i.e. their "wealth") are the issue.
You know, they sell dirt, too, which is free.
Again, the item doesn't matter. The buyer has decided he's better off with the dirt than the cash. His personal situation improves with the purchase.
The amount of investment capital in the world is not fixed, but the very nature of a capitalistic system dictates the the wealthy are diametrically opposed from the poor - hence my statement that economics is basically a zero-sum game of people trying to take a finite resource from each other.
Huh? I don't understand the rules of logic in this statement. Is it equally true that "the moon is made of green cheese, therefore my parents owned rabbits"? Basically, you've used an unsupportable opinion to indicate the truth of something that's simply false.
One bit makes sense. Resources are "scarce" (i.e. not immediately, infinitely available). That's true. That's what all these free transactions are about. The result is the maximum economic efficiency in the use of the resources.
You seem to be saying that iron ore in the ground is of no more value than after it's been used to create a flour mill. Maybe you're also saying that the process to create that flour mill hurt the poor in some way. It's really hard to tell.
When you buy something, you're exchanging money for an item. It's because you value the item more than you value the money. The seller values the money more than the item.
After the exchange, you, the buyer, are better off. The seller is also better off. The total value for both parties is higher. Value (a.k.a. wealth) has been created.
This happens a billion times a day. Funny that you missed it.
Except things aren't getting more polluted. They're getting less polluted.
--
And we have a way of measuring production and consumption. It's called money. If I work for one week and I can use the resulting cash to buy exactly 1 week worth of food, I've produced exactly what I've consumed.
So when we get this reform, everything I buy will be cheaper so my life will be better.
And companies like Sony will decide what products to make based on what their customers want, rather than whether they'll get sued or not. So I'll get better products -- closer to what I want anyway.
And there'll be no more stupid lawsuits (two on Slashdot today alone).
And all I have to do is take the risk I might not get a huge, unjust payout?
Legal reforms would limit (or completely eliminate) this type of lawsuit. Legal reforms that limit lawsuits are consistently blocked by Democrats. That's true.
Democrats get rewarded by trial lawyers with large campaign contributions. That's also true.
Support for Democrats tends to also help support these types of lawsuits. Slashdotters should consider that before they blindly support their local Democrats. That's advice - to think about what you're getting with your candidate.
You said some stuff that doesn't have anything to do with any of those things.
I don't support Jack Thompson for anything. If he's who you say he is, he should grow up and try to get an honest job and make something decent of his life.
I've followed my own advice. I don't support the bad guy - the guy who's part of the problem. Slashdotters should do likewise, even if it makes them a "tool of big business".
Given all those "facts", the woman should still have recieved exactly $0. She spilled the coffee on herself. At 81 years old, she should be responsible enough not to spill the coffee on herself.
The reason this legal crap happens is because the Democrats cover for these sleazy lawyers at every turn. The lawyers reward them with huge campaign contributions.
The Republicans are trying to fix this lawsuit nonsense. Of course, that makes them a "tool of big business" for taking Sony's side in fights like this. That's right. If you're on Sony's side in this lawsuit, you're a tool of big business.
This lawsuit problem would be fixed if the Democrats would get out of the way.
Please consider this before you automatically support the Democrats next time. Some of us would really like these types of lawsuits to stop.
---
This was originally posted here but it got modded down even though it's factually correct.
It's worth considering that you don't have to defend the lawsuits to oppose the outlawers. It's also worth considering that the outlawers have rarely been successful at outlawing any kind of "content", while these lawsuits happen every day.
And the outlawing problem is hardly a Republican-only one. See breast-implants, cigarettes (soon), cell-phones, SUVs (someday), political-advertising, guns, fireworks, ten-commandments tablets, and a host of other things for examples of things the Democrats have outlawed.
Republicans (as a group) are wrong sometimes. Democrats are wrong THIS time.
Yes, stupid lawsuits ARE a Democrat-only problem. There's one party trying to fix it, and one party standing in the way. The Democrats are standing in the way.
The reason this legal crap happens is because the Democrats cover for these sleazy lawyers at every turn. The lawyers reward them with huge campaign contributions.
The Republicans are trying to fix this lawsuit nonsense. Of course, that makes them a "tool of big business" for taking Sony's side in fights like this. That's right. If you're on Sony's side in this lawsuit, you're a tool of big business.
This lawsuit problem would be fixed if the Democrats would get out of the way.
Please consider this before you automatically support the Democrats next time. Some of us would really like these types of lawsuits to stop.
The laws need to be REPEALED. 'Flexible' laws are laws that are flexibly enforced. Flexible enforcement is another term for persecution.
You pass a lot of laws and then you enforce those laws against "them". "They" are whatever group of people needs to be controlled, minimalized, or put down. In the USA, some of these groups are blacks, homosexuals, and conservative Republicans.
The correct answer is to repeal the laws and replace them with "guidelines". If most traffic laws were repealed, would you start intentionally hitting other cars or pedestrians? I wouldn't.
If my car told someone I was bad at keeping within the "guidelines" and I got a letter saying "Please do a better job!", would that be a threat? No.
Freedom is the only correct answer to most of these questions.
A communist government shoots you if you try to get out. This actually happened.
A worker in a (capitalist) company town faces uncertainties and takes a common economic risk when he leaves. It's not the same.
History has answered these questions. You don't need to make up ridiculous hypotheticals when your argument is correct. Why not look to reality to be your guide?
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying the seller is worse off? Or are you saying the buyer is worse off? Why did he consent to the exchange then? Even if they're each exactly as well-off as before, why did they do the transaction? Why not just skip it if there's no improvement?
Obviously, both parties benefit. Thus, free transactions are a positive-sum game.
---
A consumable item (HINT: "CONSUME") has been bought. It may later be sold, in exchange for ANOTHER transfer of wealth/capital.
The nature of the item has no relevence. The quality of the lives of the buyer and seller (i.e. their "wealth") are the issue.
You know, they sell dirt, too, which is free.
Again, the item doesn't matter. The buyer has decided he's better off with the dirt than the cash. His personal situation improves with the purchase.
The amount of investment capital in the world is not fixed, but the very nature of a capitalistic system dictates the the wealthy are diametrically opposed from the poor - hence my statement that economics is basically a zero-sum game of people trying to take a finite resource from each other.
Huh? I don't understand the rules of logic in this statement. Is it equally true that "the moon is made of green cheese, therefore my parents owned rabbits"? Basically, you've used an unsupportable opinion to indicate the truth of something that's simply false.
One bit makes sense. Resources are "scarce" (i.e. not immediately, infinitely available). That's true. That's what all these free transactions are about. The result is the maximum economic efficiency in the use of the resources.
You seem to be saying that iron ore in the ground is of no more value than after it's been used to create a flour mill. Maybe you're also saying that the process to create that flour mill hurt the poor in some way. It's really hard to tell.
Every free transaction proves this false.
When you buy something, you're exchanging money for an item. It's because you value the item more than you value the money. The seller values the money more than the item.
After the exchange, you, the buyer, are better off. The seller is also better off. The total value for both parties is higher. Value (a.k.a. wealth) has been created.
This happens a billion times a day. Funny that you missed it.
Except things aren't getting more polluted. They're getting less polluted.
--
And we have a way of measuring production and consumption. It's called money. If I work for one week and I can use the resulting cash to buy exactly 1 week worth of food, I've produced exactly what I've consumed.
"what is the optimal population?"
Since the average individual produces MUCH more than he consumes, the obvious answer is A LOT higher than the current population.
This goes for Americans too. We also produce much more than we consume.
Are we supposed to like Bob Barr or hate him? I can't remember, and my group-think-ophone is out of service.
I need to know before I read the article so I can dismiss everything he says as biased or accept it all as enlightened.
If half the elected Democrats change their stance, the problem gets fixed. Since they're close to united in perpetuating the problem, it remains.
I didn't make this a party-line issue. They did.
So when we get this reform, everything I buy will be cheaper so my life will be better.
And companies like Sony will decide what products to make based on what their customers want, rather than whether they'll get sued or not. So I'll get better products -- closer to what I want anyway.
And there'll be no more stupid lawsuits (two on Slashdot today alone).
And all I have to do is take the risk I might not get a huge, unjust payout?
Ok, it's a deal.
Legal reforms would limit (or completely eliminate) this type of lawsuit. Legal reforms that limit lawsuits are consistently blocked by Democrats. That's true.
Democrats get rewarded by trial lawyers with large campaign contributions. That's also true.
Support for Democrats tends to also help support these types of lawsuits. Slashdotters should consider that before they blindly support their local Democrats. That's advice - to think about what you're getting with your candidate.
You said some stuff that doesn't have anything to do with any of those things.
I don't support Jack Thompson for anything. If he's who you say he is, he should grow up and try to get an honest job and make something decent of his life.
I've followed my own advice. I don't support the bad guy - the guy who's part of the problem. Slashdotters should do likewise, even if it makes them a "tool of big business".
After reading this story, I'm convinced Justin Timberlake is the next one to be sued.
Given all those "facts", the woman should still have recieved exactly $0. She spilled the coffee on herself. At 81 years old, she should be responsible enough not to spill the coffee on herself.
The reason this legal crap happens is because the Democrats cover for these sleazy lawyers at every turn. The lawyers reward them with huge campaign contributions.
The Republicans are trying to fix this lawsuit nonsense. Of course, that makes them a "tool of big business" for taking Sony's side in fights like this. That's right. If you're on Sony's side in this lawsuit, you're a tool of big business.
This lawsuit problem would be fixed if the Democrats would get out of the way.
Please consider this before you automatically support the Democrats next time. Some of us would really like these types of lawsuits to stop.
---
This was originally posted here but it got modded down even though it's factually correct.
I was talking about how Democrat legislators vote on lawsuit-reform.
What are _you_ talking about?
Please explain how I could persuade people that "Democrats are the main culprits in allowing lawsuit abuse" in an "unbiased" way.
Just because other things are done by other politicians doesn't change the facts in THIS situation.
You're somewhat correct.
It's worth considering that you don't have to defend the lawsuits to oppose the outlawers. It's also worth considering that the outlawers have rarely been successful at outlawing any kind of "content", while these lawsuits happen every day.
And the outlawing problem is hardly a Republican-only one. See breast-implants, cigarettes (soon), cell-phones, SUVs (someday), political-advertising, guns, fireworks, ten-commandments tablets, and a host of other things for examples of things the Democrats have outlawed.
Republicans (as a group) are wrong sometimes. Democrats are wrong THIS time.
See the links to the FEC in that article? Research it yourself.
If the RNC says the sky is blue, do you automatically assume the sky is yellow?
The Democrats vote as a block to oppose lawsuit-reform bills. One Senator can't block a bill, it takes at least 41.
Do a web search. All the info is easy to find.
No, the real problem is that the Democrats are on the side of lawyers and block every bill that will reform these lawsuits.
Maybe I'll have to link to a zillion articles, because you guys would rather just blindly disbelieve rather than do a couple simple web searches.
No. 100% genuine. Here's a quick link:
h 07 0803.htm
http://www.rnc.org/Newsroom/RNCResearch/Researc
It's not video-game related, but it shows who eats out of the lawyer's trough.
Yes, stupid lawsuits ARE a Democrat-only problem. There's one party trying to fix it, and one party standing in the way. The Democrats are standing in the way.
Just FYI:
The reason this legal crap happens is because the Democrats cover for these sleazy lawyers at every turn. The lawyers reward them with huge campaign contributions.
The Republicans are trying to fix this lawsuit nonsense. Of course, that makes them a "tool of big business" for taking Sony's side in fights like this. That's right. If you're on Sony's side in this lawsuit, you're a tool of big business.
This lawsuit problem would be fixed if the Democrats would get out of the way.
Please consider this before you automatically support the Democrats next time. Some of us would really like these types of lawsuits to stop.
Here's the mail fraud complaint form.
Hint: Select "False Bill or Notice" when you fill this out.
Wealth isn't distributed. Wealth is earned.
People have a god-given right to freedom. That includes freedom to drive a car you own.
The laws need to be REPEALED. 'Flexible' laws are laws that are flexibly enforced. Flexible enforcement is another term for persecution.
You pass a lot of laws and then you enforce those laws against "them". "They" are whatever group of people needs to be controlled, minimalized, or put down. In the USA, some of these groups are blacks, homosexuals, and conservative Republicans.
The correct answer is to repeal the laws and replace them with "guidelines". If most traffic laws were repealed, would you start intentionally hitting other cars or pedestrians? I wouldn't.
If my car told someone I was bad at keeping within the "guidelines" and I got a letter saying "Please do a better job!", would that be a threat? No.
Freedom is the only correct answer to most of these questions.
A communist government shoots you if you try to get out. This actually happened.
A worker in a (capitalist) company town faces uncertainties and takes a common economic risk when he leaves. It's not the same.
History has answered these questions. You don't need to make up ridiculous hypotheticals when your argument is correct. Why not look to reality to be your guide?