anything that involves government spending is a "pork-barrel project".
No, just the things that are beyond the scope of the government's enumerated powers. Oh, and bailing out detroit isn't capitalism, in fact it's quite the opposite.
In the USA, the speed of air travel is a compelling advantage over rail. That's why passenger rail in this country declined from a major industry to a government-sponsored museum hobby.
If passenger rail travel were economically viable here, it wouldn't take tax money to keep it alive.
FWIW, those early car manufacturers got off the ground without taxpayer help. If electric cars make sense economically, it won't take handouts to get them into customers' garages.
I think Twitter can get a pretty hefty judgement against him for actual damages, and file charges for several hundred thousand counts of unauthorized use of property, too. An hour in jail per offense should have him occupied until he needs a walker to get around.
AIG's poor risk management is completely their responsibility
Sure it is, and that doesn't change the fact that it was the Fed that made the scale of their mismanagement possible. The availability of an unlimited supply of credit removes the normal mechanism of signaling scarcity of capital. They were behaving like addicts, and the Fed was the pusher.
. I don't understand how, when AIG is handing out credit-default swaps on mortgages which are clearly going into default, that this is the government's responsibility?
AIG's overextension is a symptom, not a cause. The cause is the inflation of fiat money, which will always create a bubble wherever it enters the market. The real estate bubble is only the latest one.
It can also mean that I've given up on trying to enlighten you. The evidence is all around you. We're in the midst of yet another government-induced bust that may very well turn into the greatest depression to date, and you still argue that government is the solution.
Take Standard Oil for example, at one point they controlled the entire oil refining industry, giving them a monopoly over the supply of refined oil in the U.S.
Nope. They got a very high market share, but never gained a monopoly. In fact, their market share was declining by the time the government broke them up in 1911. Increasing demand for gasoline made the oil business attractive to other investors. Rockefeller's peak was during the time when the most important petroleum products were kerosene and heating oil.
Rockefeller gained this massive market share by very aggressively dropping his prices. The upshot is that he served his customers better than the competition, and his business grew. Rockefeller's crime was not the success of Standard Oil, it was his role in creating the Federal Reserve.
You have studied U.S. History, haven't you?
I've clearly done so in rather more depth than you have.
As soon as one company reaches a critical mass, it can buy out all the competition and any future competition. Thus you inevitably end up with monopolies.
Interesting hypothesis. Got any historical examples of this happening? I know it's the standard canard that's trotted out to justify government interference in business mergers.
BTW, your claim that a company can buy out any future competition is absurd.
Read up on some economics in wikipedia
I suggest you read Adam Smith, F. A. Hayek, and Ludwig Von Mises.
Slashdot Mirror
I love trains
So do a lot of people. Personally, I love four-masted schooners, but I'm not pushing a government program for them to replace container ships.
-jcr
The trouble is, this empty suit is continuing and compounding Bush's mistakes.
-jcr
The post above is not a troll. Someone needs to read the moderator guidelines.
-jcr
Since when has it been the President's job to act a dictator of what the USA's market should do and/or wants?
Since the Roosevelt administration.
The US constitution isn't perfect, but it's better than what we have now.
-jcr
anything that involves government spending is a "pork-barrel project".
No, just the things that are beyond the scope of the government's enumerated powers. Oh, and bailing out detroit isn't capitalism, in fact it's quite the opposite.
-jcr
Southwest Airlines and their Lobby killed it.
If that's true, then good for them. They saved the taxpayers a hell of a lot of money that would have gone down a rathole.
-jcr
In the USA, the speed of air travel is a compelling advantage over rail. That's why passenger rail in this country declined from a major industry to a government-sponsored museum hobby.
If passenger rail travel were economically viable here, it wouldn't take tax money to keep it alive.
-jcr
Will it create jobs? Absolutely..
NOT.
Pork barrel schemes don't create jobs, they only move them from the wealth-creating part of the economy to the wealth-destroying part.
-jcr
Ah, yes. A rail project. Beloved by pork-barrellers at the local level for decades, now brought to the national stage.
Sorry to break it to any Obama fans here, but you clowns elected an empty suit.
-jcr
But I thought Macs were supposed to be virus-proof?
It's not a virus, it's a trojan, and no computer is stupid-user-proof.
-jcr
Do you think those underground mercenary corps will just disband and they'll all get themselves decent legit jobs?
Nope, but their income will be sharply reduced. It happened to the mafia in the USA when prohibition ended.
-jcr
The idea that you'd use OS X for something as serious as missile development / nuclear simulations is laughable.
Laugh all you want, but there are a lot of Mac users at Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos. They use Xgrid.
-jcr
That language probably came right from the EULA for Mac OS X.
-jcr
FWIW, those early car manufacturers got off the ground without taxpayer help. If electric cars make sense economically, it won't take handouts to get them into customers' garages.
-jcr
So if a 17-year-old obtains access to a system that the owner doesn't want him to have, we should disband his entire company.
But if a major corporation's product is designed to install a rootkit on every system the product is inserted into we should...do nothing?
Who said any such thing?
Sony's management should be behind bars, too.
-jcr
I think Twitter can get a pretty hefty judgement against him for actual damages, and file charges for several hundred thousand counts of unauthorized use of property, too. An hour in jail per offense should have him occupied until he needs a walker to get around.
-jcr
AIG's poor risk management is completely their responsibility
Sure it is, and that doesn't change the fact that it was the Fed that made the scale of their mismanagement possible. The availability of an unlimited supply of credit removes the normal mechanism of signaling scarcity of capital. They were behaving like addicts, and the Fed was the pusher.
-jcr
Just so everyone knows, most teenage nerds are this stupid/unethical.
That's a rather broad brush you're waving around there, sport.
-jcr
when will lawyer types understand the world is more complex than litigation.
Lawyers bill by the hour. Win or lose, it's worth it for the lawyer to pursue it.
-jcr
Why do companies go to these great lengths to censor these people?
Because it used to work. This was before the internet reached most of the people in the country, though.
-jcr
. I don't understand how, when AIG is handing out credit-default swaps on mortgages which are clearly going into default, that this is the government's responsibility?
AIG's overextension is a symptom, not a cause. The cause is the inflation of fiat money, which will always create a bubble wherever it enters the market. The real estate bubble is only the latest one.
-jcr
shows that they are out of sources or evidence
It can also mean that I've given up on trying to enlighten you. The evidence is all around you. We're in the midst of yet another government-induced bust that may very well turn into the greatest depression to date, and you still argue that government is the solution.
-jcr
Take Standard Oil for example, at one point they controlled the entire oil refining industry, giving them a monopoly over the supply of refined oil in the U.S.
Nope. They got a very high market share, but never gained a monopoly. In fact, their market share was declining by the time the government broke them up in 1911. Increasing demand for gasoline made the oil business attractive to other investors. Rockefeller's peak was during the time when the most important petroleum products were kerosene and heating oil.
Rockefeller gained this massive market share by very aggressively dropping his prices. The upshot is that he served his customers better than the competition, and his business grew. Rockefeller's crime was not the success of Standard Oil, it was his role in creating the Federal Reserve.
You have studied U.S. History, haven't you?
I've clearly done so in rather more depth than you have.
-jcr
As soon as one company reaches a critical mass, it can buy out all the competition and any future competition. Thus you inevitably end up with monopolies.
Interesting hypothesis. Got any historical examples of this happening? I know it's the standard canard that's trotted out to justify government interference in business mergers.
BTW, your claim that a company can buy out any future competition is absurd.
Read up on some economics in wikipedia
I suggest you read Adam Smith, F. A. Hayek, and Ludwig Von Mises.
-jcr
Your naivete is tragic.
-jcr