No evidence is presented; bombing simply commences on the country believed to be the home of the prime suspect. We went to the folks in charge in that country and said "Give him up. Don't talk, don't dick around, just give him up" and they said "no." We said "The clock is ticking." they said "no." We said "Time's running out." they said "Tell you what... We'll try him in OUR OWN courts" we said "That's not the deal. Give him up. the hourglass is running out of sand, folks." They said "We'll give him up to a neutral third party." we said "Time's up." We are now attacking those who protected the guy who sent the planes into the buildings. What part of this did you manage to avoid learning? Bombs didn't fly the day the planes crashed. (Like when our embasies were bombed under a certain other administration.) Heck, they didn't fly the next day or the next week. I believe your perspective is a little warped.
Oh, and if you insist on the old west metaphors, picture the sherif standing in front of the saloon saying "Come on out or we'll burn the place down." Don't want to get burned alive? Come on out. Simple, really. And as for "vigalantism" keep in mind that the UN and NATO both gave us the green light before the first fuse was lit.
If they're on the way out anyway, and they don't have IP concerns anymore, they should release their installer so somebody else can pick up where they left off. (If they've already done this, mod me into oblivion. I didn't bother to check first as their site was/.'ed)
If I cache one of their pages, this will mess with their statistics, and mess with their banner ads. In other words, this will piss them off.
If you DDoS them and their regular customers can't get through to the site, this will also piss them off. You can't prevent pissing off somebody who is looking to get pissed off.
The other side of the coin is that they might be appreciative of you sparing them the DDoS, or they might be appreciative of the traffic. Six of one, half dozen of the other. Don't walk on eggshells. You aren't doing anybody any favors.
Okay, so he answered the question about caching the pages. That doesn't mean that it wouldn't be the inteligent thing to do.
If I cache one of their pages, this will mess with their statistics, and mess with their banner ads. In other words, this will piss them off.
And if you link to them and give them a hundred thousand hits that they would not otherwise have had, you're messing with their statistics.
So perhaps we could draw the line at sites that don't have ads. They are, after all, much more likely to buckle under the pressure of all those unexpected hits. But what happens if I cache the site, and they update themselves? Once again, I'm transmitting data that I shouldn't be, only this time my cache is out of date!
If they change the content the article refers to, then your article is out of date. If you have a cache, you have the original text for readers to refer to and the readers can see the site for the update. Best of both worlds.
I could try asking permission, but do you want to wait 6 hours for a cool breaking story while we wait for permission to link someone?
It could take 6 hours for their site to recover for the DDoS slashdot imposes on them. *shrug*
Actually, the inteligent thing to do would be for slashdot to cache a copy of the page the way google does (wget, anyone?) BEFORE the article gets posted then make the cache link available as well. Heck. Make the cache link prominent and add a "original story" link at the bottom of the headline posting.
Wait a minute! I thought the RIAA and MPAA were unstopable! I thought that there was nothing anybody could do to stop them from waving their cash in front of congressmen and buying legislation. At least, that's what I learned by reading/.
But this legislation didn't make it into the bill. What happened? Could it be that "Corporate America" or "Big Money" or "They" (collectively) or whoever the boogey man is doesn't actually own the whole country and that this is an instance of class warfare rhetoric falling flat on it's face?
As that article states, there is not just 1 bill, but 3, the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), the Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act, and the Uniting and Strengthening (USA) Act. You are right in that the USA Act is the one being talked about here.
Okay. Now I'm just a little more confused. PATRIOT is basically the house's version of USA which they apparently dropped in favor of the senate's version so it's a moot point although looking it over, I don't see the boogey man in that one either, and the full text of ATA (HR2896) is only about 2k. Basically, it's just a finding of fact and a broad-handed prohibition of firearms on aircraft. (silly idea, but that's another topic altogether)
Is there some other bill which is being called by the popular medea the ATA which is not really the one which is titled "Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001?" I still don't see what language has people so worked up about these bills except the conspicuous abcense of the sunset clause in USA (S.1510)
Oh, and the article you linked to mentions the USA Act, the PATRIOT Act, and the "Combating Terrorism Act." This third one, I just don't see at all. Could somebody toss me it's actual bill number so I can look it up?
Author's note: I hate reading legislation. It gives me a headache. I may have skimmed over something. Please feel free to quote the bill and point out what clause/article/whatever you're talking about. I'm not kidding either. I'd be more than happy to send an avalanche of communication to my reps but I need to know what I'm talking about when I do so and so far I just don't see what everyone else seems to see. Somebody please show me what I'm missing.
A friend of mine had sent out a mass email about the ATA telling all of his friends to "Sign this, we have to protect our kids!", yet it did not mention the actual text of the Act at all.
Actually, nobody has really mentioned the text of the bill. I certainly haven't seen it on/.
Heck. I haven't even seen mention of it's actuall name or number. For the reccord, it's called the `Uniting and Strengthening America Act' or the `USA Act of 2001'.
It's number is S.1510.
It says nothing about encryption that I can see. It does't have any clauses that would put "hackers" in jail forever without a trail. It doesn't have any provisions for bamboo shoots under your fingernails if you send an "unaproved" email. It does have some language that I don't like so much, but I'd be interested to know presicely what it is in the bill that people on this forum are so stirred up about. (BTW... if this thing doesn't end up with a sunset clause, I'm going to be really pissed.)
This doesn't damage them in any way. The number one reason Microsoft is #1 on the desktop is integration. If you are making your decision of PS2 + tivo or XBox + MStivo95 you're going to go for the pair that works together just like you do with your office suite/operating system/web browser. THAT is what's going on here. Dreams of compatability and interoperability dancing in consumers' heads will help fuel Xbox sales. That's the point of this vaporware information leak.
Okay. I just registered Xsploit.org for this purpose. The site should be available as soon as the databases refresh. (Probably tomorrow morning) Anybody who wants to throw together some copy for an index.html can mail it to david@linuxbrains.n3t s/3/e/:)
I am actually glad to see that you clarified your point instead of getting offended at me. (Although I'd question the part about having more respect for someone who actually dies for his beliefs. Makes it hard to fully respect someone who hasn't done so, doesn't it?) I see this kind of thing all the time. Most people are not nearly as biased as you might expect from the way they phrase their thoughts. Sometimes we all have to have this pointed out to us in order to make sure we are forming our oppinions and arguments inteligently. (Myself included (though rarely(this is a joke, son(said in the voice of FogHorn)))) for example, a post pointing out the fair-weather anti-abortionists (I'm against abortion, but NOT IF IT COULD HELP MY PROBLEM!) _AND_ the fair-weather-scientists (Oh, I'm all for science and research, but NOT IF IT MEANS DOING SOMETHING THAT MAKES ME UNCOMFORTABLE!) would have gotten the same basic point across but without the port list.
And before the flamers start up again, would I have jumped on the bias thing had it been slaming the liberals instead of the conservatives? No. Probably not. But only because I am biased too, and sometimes I need it pointed out to me.:)
I wonder just how many hypocrites the future will show the lifer demographic to have...
While I understand that with this troll you are intending to imply that the pro-life crowd are a bunch of hypocrites who's motives should be questioned and scrutinized, I can't help but pose the question: By definition, wouldn't a pro-life hypocrite also be a pro-dea^H^H^Hchoice hypocrite?
Allow me to illustrate. (And don't worry. I'll use small words.)
Langevin is a quadriplegic and even though he is "Pro-choice" and supports stem cell research, the hope of getting elected is apparently more compelling to him than his belief that the common good of the people is at stake with this research
What's this you're oozing all over my shoe? Oh, never mind. That's just your liberal bias. I'm used to drowning in that.
The hardcore left, the hardcore right... A hyper-oppinionated
and verbose bunch to be sure. But I'll bet you a dollar that none of them touches this question.
The attitude that the government owes us and that if they don't shovel out the cash, we're being done wrong is one of the most potent and ugly poisons affecting society today (Not just American society, mind you.) The only other thing that comes close is cable TV.
(Well, maybe Brittany Spears fits in there somewhere... You be the judge.)
AIDS infects others for many years, and then kills its host.
Um... Actually, doesn't AIDS simply leave root holes open so that other attackers can come in and eventually bring the host down? That's actually very similar to Code Red II
Your post would have been right on target if you had said "new beetle" You forget something. The old beetle was engineered to be totally utilitarian. it's physical shape was intended to be aerodynamic (and was for it's time) so that it's economical engine could actually push it at highway speeds (barely.) It's engine was simple, easy to work on by the average person with even a shred of mechanical aptitude. The air cooled design was intended to thwart the problems liquid coolers had in the harsh winters as well as to eliminate a complicated cooling system. Oh, and the old beetle was considered to be horribly ugly.
The Karmann-Ghia was VW's attempt to produce the same car but with any amount of class. It wasn't until sometime in the early nineties when the little girls who thought they were hippies started driving that VWs started to really become popular for being "cute" rather than functional. The VW was an ugly cheap utilitarian car. BTW, it also happened to be THE best selling automobile ever (Much like the intel platform versus any other platform)
It's counterpart, the NEW beetle is a horrid monstrosity. A true bastardization of what the old beetle was supposed to be. It's not aerodynamic by today's standards, it's made to be cute rather than utilitarian. It's got a complicated modern engine. You open the hood and can't even see the spark plugs. User servicable? Forget it. The new beetle is more closely analogous to the mac and the old beetle to the beige workhorse commodity PC. Oh, and while we're drawing analogies, the new beetle which is selling on the superficial merit of being "cute" is also way overpriced and isn't selling nearly like expected. Certainly not selling like the old beetle did.
... Do you really think these companys were passing on their labor savings to their consumers?
A business sells it's prudct for (whatever it costs to produce * (some multiplier)) so long as that equation produces enough revenue to be worthwhile. Were they passing on savings to their customers? That depends... If they found a way to make a product at a lower cost they would either
A) Lower their prices in an attempt to compete via price with their rivals or
B) not change their prices and hope to compete via some other factor growing the bottom line.
Fine. Whatever. That's a moot point. We're not talking about what would happen if we were able to drive the unions out. We're not talking about lowering the the cost of production. We're talking about raising the cost of production and you can damned well rest assured that the increased cost WILL be passed along.
Do I think that if we drove the unions out it would reduce prices? Who cares. That's a straw man which is irrelavant to what we KNOW will happen when you introduce them.
And you're only mostly right about the pizza. It doesn't cost $500 because I wouldn't be willing to pay that much. Fine. Great. But why does it cost $17.95? Surely I'd be willing to pay an even $18, $19, heck... maybe even $20. Since we no longer buy or sell based on individual bargaining (pay attention, you may be creative enough to draw some parallels between this and the union thing) the market price is determined by averages. Some people answered a survey and said they'd pay $20, some said $15, you get something in the middle. Once the price is fixed, good luck negotiating it. Pizza Hut can't sell you a pizza for $2 over the menu price even if you're willing to pay it (for some reason.) Likewise, they won't sell it for $2 under the menu price if you think it's too expensive because they won't negotiate the price. If you think $17 is too much for a pizza, they won't sell you one at $15 and your only option is to leave and not participate in the market. This isn't ultimately in the best interest of pizza hut or the consumer.
...The market charges the highest price that a product will sell for
Not quite... See above. For another example, witness gas prices. Was gas selling for the max the market would bear two years ago? If so, how did it manage to go up so high? The price seems to have gone up yet demand hasn't grown all that much. The same people who have always bought gas are still buying it. How do you explain this? Maybe gas wasn't selling for the max the market would bear, eh? why not? Because if one company tried to push prices to the actual max, another company would undercut them, steal all their business, and blow them out of the water in their ads. Supply and demand dictate a range for prices. competition helps push prices down toward the bottom of that range.
Don't bring Adam Smith into this. We've left him behind in favor of collective bargaining which is a disgrace and does a disservice to everyone involved. Supply side might work if we'd actually give it a chance and not try tinkering with it. It used to in the past.
...does not take a lot of looking at history to see how many things I have are as a result of union activity.
I suppose I'm going to have to point out how entirely selfish this is since nobody else seems to be able to.
Apparently, as far as/. readers (and most people I have this conversation with) are concerned, there are only 3 sides to this.
1) the union
2) the employer
3) the employee
There is a fourth side to this which should be considered. Let's take a good ol-fassioned deeply entrenched union that everyone in the US takes for granted. The steelworkers. Steelworkers will go on and on about how greatly the quality of life for the average steelworker has improved since the unions took over "back in the day.' They'll go on and on and on about how much higher the pay is now than it was before, how much better the benefits are now... whatever.
What they fail to see is who pays for this. You think that USX allowed it's bottom line to fluctuate every time the union got it's briefs in a bunch and decided to do something that cost a ton of money? Heck no. Who paid for it? The consumer. Some poor schmuck who works washing dishes in a restaurant pays more for his car now. Pays more for the parts to fix it. Pays more for a new refridgerator, pays more for silverware, pays more for anything that in any way was affected by the price of steel. He orders a pizza. The pizza is delivered by a guy in a car which costs more. The pizza was cooked in a big-ol HOBART oven. The oven cost the pizza joint more. The only number in this picture which didn't go up is the pay scale of the poor schmuck who washes the dishes.
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, folks. when the auto workers unionized, vehicles got more expensive to produce, and therefore purchase. When the truckers unionized, goods got more expensive to ship. Sure. Great for them. But what about for everybody else? Your grandma living on her fixed income pays more for her veggies at the store, but hey, some truck driver can afford a big screen TV now! Great.
When something like this happens, you either screw the consumer, or you raise EVERYBODY's wage including the dishwasher. When everybody's wage goes up, the prices of all goods and services go up. What's that called, kids? Inflation. The unions do something which tampers with the fundamentals of supply and demand. The extra cost of business gets passed to the consumer. Any consumer who doesn't get a cost of living adjustment gets screwed and ends up making sacrifices to subsidize the union employees. Well, guess what? It ain't gonna happen. Not every worker in the country is going to get a COL adjustment. That only leaves room for option number two.
Anybody who'd care to point how the flaw in this line of economic reasoning?
Slashdot Mirror
Would she change her name to Kathleen Taco or Kathleen Fent-Taco?
especially if you want to get any real work done.
Care to explain what, exactly, "real work" means?
If 'inquireing' minds wanted to know that bloody badly, they'd go read the damned FAQ!
I've ignored this thread long enough.
No evidence is presented; bombing simply commences on the country believed to be the home of the prime suspect.
We went to the folks in charge in that country and said "Give him up. Don't talk, don't dick around, just give him up" and they said "no." We said "The clock is ticking." they said "no." We said "Time's running out." they said "Tell you what... We'll try him in OUR OWN courts" we said "That's not the deal. Give him up. the hourglass is running out of sand, folks." They said "We'll give him up to a neutral third party." we said "Time's up." We are now attacking those who protected the guy who sent the planes into the buildings. What part of this did you manage to avoid learning? Bombs didn't fly the day the planes crashed. (Like when our embasies were bombed under a certain other administration.) Heck, they didn't fly the next day or the next week. I believe your perspective is a little warped.
Oh, and if you insist on the old west metaphors, picture the sherif standing in front of the saloon saying "Come on out or we'll burn the place down." Don't want to get burned alive? Come on out. Simple, really. And as for "vigalantism" keep in mind that the UN and NATO both gave us the green light before the first fuse was lit.
If they're on the way out anyway, and they don't have IP concerns anymore, they should release their installer so somebody else can pick up where they left off. (If they've already done this, mod me into oblivion. I didn't bother to check first as their site was /.'ed)
PS.
If I cache one of their pages, this will mess with their statistics, and mess with their banner ads. In other words, this will piss them off.
If you DDoS them and their regular customers can't get through to the site, this will also piss them off. You can't prevent pissing off somebody who is looking to get pissed off.
The other side of the coin is that they might be appreciative of you sparing them the DDoS, or they might be appreciative of the traffic. Six of one, half dozen of the other. Don't walk on eggshells. You aren't doing anybody any favors.
Okay, so he answered the question about caching the pages. That doesn't mean that it wouldn't be the inteligent thing to do.
If I cache one of their pages, this will mess with their statistics, and mess with their banner ads. In other words, this will piss them off.
And if you link to them and give them a hundred thousand hits that they would not otherwise have had, you're messing with their statistics.
So perhaps we could draw the line at sites that don't have ads. They are, after all, much more likely to buckle under the pressure of all those unexpected hits. But what happens if I cache the site, and they update themselves? Once again, I'm transmitting data that I shouldn't be, only this time my cache is out of date!
If they change the content the article refers to, then your article is out of date. If you have a cache, you have the original text for readers to refer to and the readers can see the site for the update. Best of both worlds.
I could try asking permission, but do you want to wait 6 hours for a cool breaking story while we wait for permission to link someone?
It could take 6 hours for their site to recover for the DDoS slashdot imposes on them. *shrug*
Actually, the inteligent thing to do would be for slashdot to cache a copy of the page the way google does (wget, anyone?) BEFORE the article gets posted then make the cache link available as well. Heck. Make the cache link prominent and add a "original story" link at the bottom of the headline posting.
Wait a minute! I thought the RIAA and MPAA were unstopable! I thought that there was nothing anybody could do to stop them from waving their cash in front of congressmen and buying legislation. At least, that's what I learned by reading /.
But this legislation didn't make it into the bill. What happened? Could it be that "Corporate America" or "Big Money" or "They" (collectively) or whoever the boogey man is doesn't actually own the whole country and that this is an instance of class warfare rhetoric falling flat on it's face?
I'm one of those crazy /. readers that reads the pages linked to by the article.
:)
So you're the one! I guess somebody has to do it.
As that article states, there is not just 1 bill, but 3, the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), the Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act, and the Uniting and Strengthening (USA) Act. You are right in that the USA Act is the one being talked about here.
Okay. Now I'm just a little more confused. PATRIOT is basically the house's version of USA which they apparently dropped in favor of the senate's version so it's a moot point although looking it over, I don't see the boogey man in that one either, and the full text of ATA (HR2896) is only about 2k. Basically, it's just a finding of fact and a broad-handed prohibition of firearms on aircraft. (silly idea, but that's another topic altogether)
Is there some other bill which is being called by the popular medea the ATA which is not really the one which is titled "Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001?" I still don't see what language has people so worked up about these bills except the conspicuous abcense of the sunset clause in USA (S.1510)
Oh, and the article you linked to mentions the USA Act, the PATRIOT Act, and the "Combating Terrorism Act." This third one, I just don't see at all. Could somebody toss me it's actual bill number so I can look it up?
Author's note: I hate reading legislation. It gives me a headache. I may have skimmed over something. Please feel free to quote the bill and point out what clause/article/whatever you're talking about. I'm not kidding either. I'd be more than happy to send an avalanche of communication to my reps but I need to know what I'm talking about when I do so and so far I just don't see what everyone else seems to see. Somebody please show me what I'm missing.
BTW... Nice choice of wheels. I've got a '68 Cougar, myself that I need to get cracking on. Coolest car I've owned. (And I've owned a LOT of cars.)
A friend of mine had sent out a mass email about the ATA telling all of his friends to "Sign this, we have to protect our kids!", yet it did not mention the actual text of the Act at all.
/.
Actually, nobody has really mentioned the text of the bill. I certainly haven't seen it on
Heck. I haven't even seen mention of it's actuall name or number. For the reccord, it's called the `Uniting and Strengthening America Act' or the `USA Act of 2001'.
It's number is S.1510.
It says nothing about encryption that I can see. It does't have any clauses that would put "hackers" in jail forever without a trail. It doesn't have any provisions for bamboo shoots under your fingernails if you send an "unaproved" email. It does have some language that I don't like so much, but I'd be interested to know presicely what it is in the bill that people on this forum are so stirred up about. (BTW... if this thing doesn't end up with a sunset clause, I'm going to be really pissed.)
How many bugs don't we know about?
:P
If nobody knows about it, it's not a bug.
This doesn't damage them in any way. The number one reason Microsoft is #1 on the desktop is integration. If you are making your decision of PS2 + tivo or XBox + MStivo95 you're going to go for the pair that works together just like you do with your office suite/operating system/web browser. THAT is what's going on here. Dreams of compatability and interoperability dancing in consumers' heads will help fuel Xbox sales. That's the point of this vaporware information leak.
I agree. This _IS_ a genius idea.
:)
Okay. I just registered Xsploit.org for this purpose. The site should be available as soon as the databases refresh. (Probably tomorrow morning) Anybody who wants to throw together some copy for an index.html can mail it to david@linuxbrains.n3t s/3/e/
I am actually glad to see that you clarified your point instead of getting offended at me. (Although I'd question the part about having more respect for someone who actually dies for his beliefs. Makes it hard to fully respect someone who hasn't done so, doesn't it?) I see this kind of thing all the time. Most people are not nearly as biased as you might expect from the way they phrase their thoughts. Sometimes we all have to have this pointed out to us in order to make sure we are forming our oppinions and arguments inteligently. (Myself included (though rarely(this is a joke, son(said in the voice of FogHorn)))) for example, a post pointing out the fair-weather anti-abortionists (I'm against abortion, but NOT IF IT COULD HELP MY PROBLEM!) _AND_ the fair-weather-scientists (Oh, I'm all for science and research, but NOT IF IT MEANS DOING SOMETHING THAT MAKES ME UNCOMFORTABLE!) would have gotten the same basic point across but without the port list.
:)
And before the flamers start up again, would I have jumped on the bias thing had it been slaming the liberals instead of the conservatives? No. Probably not. But only because I am biased too, and sometimes I need it pointed out to me.
I wonder just how many hypocrites the future will show the lifer demographic to have...
While I understand that with this troll you are intending to imply that the pro-life crowd are a bunch of hypocrites who's motives should be questioned and scrutinized, I can't help but pose the question: By definition, wouldn't a pro-life hypocrite also be a pro-dea^H^H^Hchoice hypocrite?
Allow me to illustrate. (And don't worry. I'll use small words.) Langevin is a quadriplegic and even though he is "Pro-choice" and supports stem cell research, the hope of getting elected is apparently more compelling to him than his belief that the common good of the people is at stake with this research
What's this you're oozing all over my shoe? Oh, never mind. That's just your liberal bias. I'm used to drowning in that.
The hardcore left, the hardcore right... A hyper-oppinionated and verbose bunch to be sure. But I'll bet you a dollar that none of them touches this question.
The attitude that the government owes us and that if they don't shovel out the cash, we're being done wrong is one of the most potent and ugly poisons affecting society today (Not just American society, mind you.) The only other thing that comes close is cable TV. (Well, maybe Brittany Spears fits in there somewhere... You be the judge.)
Dnyup.net provides this service for free.
AIDS infects others for many years, and then kills its host.
Um... Actually, doesn't AIDS simply leave root holes open so that other attackers can come in and eventually bring the host down? That's actually very similar to Code Red II
Confucius said "Treat others as you would have them treat you," in exactly those words more than 200 years before the birth of Christ.
$SMARTASS=1;
if ($SMARTASS) {
print "Confucius spoke modern english in 200 BC?\n";
}
$SMARTASS=0;
Your post would have been right on target if you had said "new beetle" You forget something. The old beetle was engineered to be totally utilitarian. it's physical shape was intended to be aerodynamic (and was for it's time) so that it's economical engine could actually push it at highway speeds (barely.) It's engine was simple, easy to work on by the average person with even a shred of mechanical aptitude. The air cooled design was intended to thwart the problems liquid coolers had in the harsh winters as well as to eliminate a complicated cooling system. Oh, and the old beetle was considered to be horribly ugly.
The Karmann-Ghia was VW's attempt to produce the same car but with any amount of class. It wasn't until sometime in the early nineties when the little girls who thought they were hippies started driving that VWs started to really become popular for being "cute" rather than functional. The VW was an ugly cheap utilitarian car. BTW, it also happened to be THE best selling automobile ever (Much like the intel platform versus any other platform)
It's counterpart, the NEW beetle is a horrid monstrosity. A true bastardization of what the old beetle was supposed to be. It's not aerodynamic by today's standards, it's made to be cute rather than utilitarian. It's got a complicated modern engine. You open the hood and can't even see the spark plugs. User servicable? Forget it. The new beetle is more closely analogous to the mac and the old beetle to the beige workhorse commodity PC. Oh, and while we're drawing analogies, the new beetle which is selling on the superficial merit of being "cute" is also way overpriced and isn't selling nearly like expected. Certainly not selling like the old beetle did.
... Do you really think these companys were passing on their labor savings to their consumers?
...The market charges the highest price that a product will sell for
A business sells it's prudct for (whatever it costs to produce * (some multiplier)) so long as that equation produces enough revenue to be worthwhile. Were they passing on savings to their customers? That depends... If they found a way to make a product at a lower cost they would either
A) Lower their prices in an attempt to compete via price with their rivals or
B) not change their prices and hope to compete via some other factor growing the bottom line.
Fine. Whatever. That's a moot point. We're not talking about what would happen if we were able to drive the unions out. We're not talking about lowering the the cost of production. We're talking about raising the cost of production and you can damned well rest assured that the increased cost WILL be passed along.
Do I think that if we drove the unions out it would reduce prices? Who cares. That's a straw man which is irrelavant to what we KNOW will happen when you introduce them.
And you're only mostly right about the pizza. It doesn't cost $500 because I wouldn't be willing to pay that much. Fine. Great. But why does it cost $17.95? Surely I'd be willing to pay an even $18, $19, heck... maybe even $20. Since we no longer buy or sell based on individual bargaining (pay attention, you may be creative enough to draw some parallels between this and the union thing) the market price is determined by averages. Some people answered a survey and said they'd pay $20, some said $15, you get something in the middle. Once the price is fixed, good luck negotiating it. Pizza Hut can't sell you a pizza for $2 over the menu price even if you're willing to pay it (for some reason.) Likewise, they won't sell it for $2 under the menu price if you think it's too expensive because they won't negotiate the price. If you think $17 is too much for a pizza, they won't sell you one at $15 and your only option is to leave and not participate in the market. This isn't ultimately in the best interest of pizza hut or the consumer.
Not quite... See above. For another example, witness gas prices. Was gas selling for the max the market would bear two years ago? If so, how did it manage to go up so high? The price seems to have gone up yet demand hasn't grown all that much. The same people who have always bought gas are still buying it. How do you explain this? Maybe gas wasn't selling for the max the market would bear, eh? why not? Because if one company tried to push prices to the actual max, another company would undercut them, steal all their business, and blow them out of the water in their ads. Supply and demand dictate a range for prices. competition helps push prices down toward the bottom of that range.
Don't bring Adam Smith into this. We've left him behind in favor of collective bargaining which is a disgrace and does a disservice to everyone involved. Supply side might work if we'd actually give it a chance and not try tinkering with it. It used to in the past.
...does not take a lot of looking at history to see how many things I have are as a result of union activity. /. readers (and most people I have this conversation with) are concerned, there are only 3 sides to this.
I suppose I'm going to have to point out how entirely selfish this is since nobody else seems to be able to.
Apparently, as far as
1) the union
2) the employer
3) the employee
There is a fourth side to this which should be considered. Let's take a good ol-fassioned deeply entrenched union that everyone in the US takes for granted. The steelworkers. Steelworkers will go on and on about how greatly the quality of life for the average steelworker has improved since the unions took over "back in the day.' They'll go on and on and on about how much higher the pay is now than it was before, how much better the benefits are now... whatever.
What they fail to see is who pays for this. You think that USX allowed it's bottom line to fluctuate every time the union got it's briefs in a bunch and decided to do something that cost a ton of money? Heck no. Who paid for it? The consumer. Some poor schmuck who works washing dishes in a restaurant pays more for his car now. Pays more for the parts to fix it. Pays more for a new refridgerator, pays more for silverware, pays more for anything that in any way was affected by the price of steel. He orders a pizza. The pizza is delivered by a guy in a car which costs more. The pizza was cooked in a big-ol HOBART oven. The oven cost the pizza joint more. The only number in this picture which didn't go up is the pay scale of the poor schmuck who washes the dishes.
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, folks. when the auto workers unionized, vehicles got more expensive to produce, and therefore purchase. When the truckers unionized, goods got more expensive to ship. Sure. Great for them. But what about for everybody else? Your grandma living on her fixed income pays more for her veggies at the store, but hey, some truck driver can afford a big screen TV now! Great.
When something like this happens, you either screw the consumer, or you raise EVERYBODY's wage including the dishwasher. When everybody's wage goes up, the prices of all goods and services go up. What's that called, kids? Inflation. The unions do something which tampers with the fundamentals of supply and demand. The extra cost of business gets passed to the consumer. Any consumer who doesn't get a cost of living adjustment gets screwed and ends up making sacrifices to subsidize the union employees. Well, guess what? It ain't gonna happen. Not every worker in the country is going to get a COL adjustment. That only leaves room for option number two.
Anybody who'd care to point how the flaw in this line of economic reasoning?