The reason people in the US hate regulation is because the federal, state, and local governments have proved so bad at implementing them.
This! So much this. Question: If the above is true, why would you want more of it? If you are true to what you say above, you can only conclude that the alternative - less government - is a better solution, no?
Great bunch of posts monger.....you are a much more patient man than I am. I am a business owner too and I gave up trying to discuss business or economics on slashdot. Simply put: there is so much astounding ignorance about "how things work" that I came to the conclusion it is pointless to try. Throw in fundamental differences in philosophies between USA / Europe and it just all melts down into mental masturbation.
It's like coding a Java app and your peer turns to you and says "J2EE is a great substitute for MySQL" Full stop. WTF? Sorry dude, I don't think this is going to work out. You....just....don't make any sense so I can't respond.
Agreed. A few years ago, we bought some very nice Vaios for some of our users. NEVER AGAIN. Not only is crapware an issue but the hardware itself is flaky.
Since then, we replaced them with Lenovos and wow....the difference is night and day.
Sony should be a case study at Harvard Business School on how not to do business as a "technology" company. Almost everything they do is customer-hostile, including their continued insistence on using proprietary technologies when the entire world is moving towards more openness.
You write a good post. But you aim at the wrong subject. You should ask yourself: Why does Yahoo find themselves in this position in the first place? (hint: it has something to do with not giving customers what they want)
Strong companies don't have these problems with "hedge fund" guys. Weak ones do. Like nature, american enterprise and the markets can be very cruel. It seems odd to me that you complain when things work the way they are supposed to work. What did you think was supposed to happen when you don't give customers what they want? (ie: you are not successful in the marketplace - for whatever reason).
a) We don't use oil for producing power. We use oil, almost exclusively for transportation.
b) Coal is a fossil fuel. So is natty gas.
c) How the hell did this get modded +5 insightful?
This - right here - is exactly what my post referred to. For some reason realityimpaired thinks he/she is entitled to more than they really are. That's common on slashdot but unfortunately, the unimpaired reality is quite different. Certain types of large scale layoffs in large companies are governed by some law (ie: the WARN act). However, most layoffs and firings are covered by common employment law. Employment law, in most venues, is hire and fire at will, which means your employer can cut you loose at any time and you are not entitled to anything more than your pay (and maybe vacation time, depending on venue). Anything beyond that is being done because your employer (or ex) is a "good company" and they don't want to be on the front page news for being assholes.
But let's be clear -- a severance payment is not required by law in the US.
I wish you luck sir, on your future negotiations with your employer. To your employer, there is no difference between laying off and firing. They are one and the same but one just sounds a little "nicer" so its more palatable to you (and your peers).
Ok, don't sign. That's fine.
Here is the door. Good luck to you, sir. Your paycheck that will include today's work will be sent on XYZ date.
Oh, did you think a severance was something you are entitled to? I see your line of reasoning a lot of slashdot. The time to negotiate is not when you are being laid off/fired. Consider yourself lucky for getting anything above and beyond a pink slip.
Turn it down and try to negotiate at your own risk.
Actually, I understand how markets work in excruciating detail. They are far more than a GA that you surmise but I will leave that discussion for another day. We agree that unrestrained capitalism doesn't work and we agree that there situations where markets fail. That's never been in dispute and any capitalist that doesn't acknowledge that is simply ignorant.
However, those nuances were not what his or my post was about. The GP insinuated that a centrally planned economy is better at allocating resources than a market based economy. That is what I was responding to and that is the piece that is in direct conflict with history.
Despite it's shortcomings, capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than another other system in the history of the world -- including centrally planned ones.
You may find an minor failure here and there but the evidence is incontrovertible.
If you know exactly what to produce, ....and that is the problem right there. To date, no "authority" (country, king, politburo, etc) has even come close to knowing what needs to be produced, when, and where.
This has been one major difference between capitalism and the other models. Capitalism solves this problem by leaving it up to the market. Sure, there are few mistakes made but eventually the market fixes them (Adam Smith's invisible hand). That is not true in a centrally planned economy. Those mistakes live a long time and are usually never solved (see USSR and other failed communist states).
Invest != Trade. Did you actually read the article you linked to? Of course they trade oil and other commodities. They trade for their clients. However, Dodd-Frank specifically forbids them from "investing" (with their own money). Remember all the hullabaloo about "proprietrary trading". That's what it is when the Big Banks "invest" in commodities such as oil. That is not what they are doing.
You are the one who is wrong here. Big Banks are not investing "big time" in oil commodities. They are certainly trading big time.....but that is at the bequest of their clients. Big difference.
You can't corner the market with multiple entities COMPETING to do so. What you lay out is out a classical cornering of the market. Hedge funds (who are competing with each other) can not corner the market unless they act in collusion. Some may, in fact, collude but that is very different from what you are arguing and it certainly doesn't mean they have cornered a market. If there were (1) hedge fund trying to corner a market somewhere, I might agree with you.
Methinks you need to go back and read up some more....
The company's aren't anymore responsible for this hacktivism crime than my dog. Your attempt to paint some culpability upon them is a laughable. All you are doing is trying to rationalize criminal behavior under the guise of "they deserved it" (according to you).
What is ethical and what is legal are very different things. Companies are really only required to follow what is legal. However, it is normally in their best interests to act ethically as well -- but we don't require, as a matter of law, people or companies to act ethically. ie: we don't throw people in jail for acting unethically. We throw them in jail for acting illegally.
Your attempt to confuse the two topics seriously discredits your post because it has no meaning. It's like calling for a war against jealousy....
My comment wasn't intending to analyze the policy. It was to clarify the history of the policy.
Yes, of course I think our policy needs to be reviewed. However, it doesn't take a lot of thought to understand why it hasn't. Cuba is still, by self definition, a communist country. Raul and Fidel have no fondness for America and they make it known by consistently associating with and supporting America's enemies such as Chavez, Morales, etc.
While personally, I can't wait to travel to Cuba, the situation is more complex than you describe. It is common for things of this nature to take decades or even a century to work themselves out.
That's how wars start, sir. It's the "they'll just authorize" part of your description that's problematic. Nation states (certainly not India) can't go around just authorizing whatever the hell they want to. There are and will be reactions to said lawlessness. World commerce has never turned a blind eye to something like this and this situation won't be any different.
Cuba wasn't embargoed because it was sponsoring terrorists. It was embargoed because they were in bed with the USSR, a fully communist devoted country at the time. Having the USSR try to place strategic nuclear weapons 90 miles off the coast of the US didn't help. Cuba was a proxy for disagreements between the USA and USSR.
That you think it has anything to do with terrorists is laughable. The policy is only bizarre to you because you clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
That we are talking about a government is especially egregious! You don't see why Company A will choose not to play next time?
You are right that more Indians will get cancer treatment.....today. However, in 10 years, I guarantee that less people will get served because fewer companies want to participate in the Indian market when the government wantonly steals from them.
Yes, you are right that espionage becomes a serious concern. However, again....business isn't stupid. They will do what they need to do to protect themselves. They will also require the same of anyone they work with (such as universities, governments, etc). Don't forget, there are also world bodies that don't look kindly on what India did here (WTO, UN, etc)
The other thing to keep in mind is that this stuff happens over the course of a decade (or more). It won't happen instantaneously. It will happen as more and more businessmen run the cost/benefit calculations and decide not to do business in India. You can see almost the same exact thing happening with China over the last decade. Many people got burned outsourcing their high-tech designs and now, as word starts spreading, who doesn't know that the Chinese are stealing stuff right and left???? Everyone knows now! (and many companies are having 2nd thoughts about what they have built in China. Certainly they are more aware now)
As a businessman myself, I don't begrudge India or take it personally because I know....in the long run.....it is self serving and they only undermine themselves. Who will they steal from when there is noone left to steal from? At some point, innovation matters and that is where the USA excels far beyond the rest of the world....
NO! You can't just go around stealing designs for whatever you want and begin making it. The world does not work that way.
Haven't we been through this all before? Just because you know HOW to do something does not mean it is legal to do it. If you want to rewrite the rules, then fine. But don't sit here and pretend its fine when a government steals. It's not fine and there are real world ramifications.
To give an non-comedic answer......companies will just go elsewhere next time. They, simply, will not offer their wares in countries where they can't make any money and/or get ripped off.
Why do you think there is so much business being done in Somalia?
Closer to home, why aren't more people investing in Mexico?
Answer: Because they are completely lawless.
It's the same reason we are discussing this. Business isn't stupid. India will get away with this exactly once. After that, I assure you that the Indian people are the one's who will take the worst of it. They won't even know that there are better cancer meds being sold outside their country. And when they ask, "why can't we buy these" -- the answer will be simple: because you can't pay what we charge and you steal from us when we come into your market. Therefore, we choose not to serve you. Good luck with your healthcare needs.
Hopefully, the Indian people/group/whatever who approved this robbery can find the funding to start their own cancer R&D for their people. If they are lucky, it will be 1/100th as good as what they just stole.
*note: Please excuse my ignorance. I knew/know enough to be dangerous so I am certain I made many mistakes in describing things. Despite the inaccuracies, the overall point still stands.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason people in the US hate regulation is because the federal, state, and local governments have proved so bad at implementing them.
This! So much this. Question: If the above is true, why would you want more of it? If you are true to what you say above, you can only conclude that the alternative - less government - is a better solution, no?
Great bunch of posts monger.....you are a much more patient man than I am. I am a business owner too and I gave up trying to discuss business or economics on slashdot. Simply put: there is so much astounding ignorance about "how things work" that I came to the conclusion it is pointless to try. Throw in fundamental differences in philosophies between USA / Europe and it just all melts down into mental masturbation.
It's like coding a Java app and your peer turns to you and says "J2EE is a great substitute for MySQL" Full stop. WTF? Sorry dude, I don't think this is going to work out. You....just....don't make any sense so I can't respond.
Agreed. A few years ago, we bought some very nice Vaios for some of our users. NEVER AGAIN. Not only is crapware an issue but the hardware itself is flaky.
Since then, we replaced them with Lenovos and wow....the difference is night and day.
Sony should be a case study at Harvard Business School on how not to do business as a "technology" company. Almost everything they do is customer-hostile, including their continued insistence on using proprietary technologies when the entire world is moving towards more openness.
Mod this up. The fact that an employer / employee is involved changes everything. This is not a case of TOS and Customers violating said TOS.
but Yahoo isn't a weak company. It just hasn't kept up with Google.
I believe you made my point better than I could. Weakness is the same as "not keeping up" in a capitalist economy.
You write a good post. But you aim at the wrong subject. You should ask yourself: Why does Yahoo find themselves in this position in the first place? (hint: it has something to do with not giving customers what they want)
Strong companies don't have these problems with "hedge fund" guys. Weak ones do. Like nature, american enterprise and the markets can be very cruel. It seems odd to me that you complain when things work the way they are supposed to work. What did you think was supposed to happen when you don't give customers what they want? (ie: you are not successful in the marketplace - for whatever reason).
a) We don't use oil for producing power. We use oil, almost exclusively for transportation.
b) Coal is a fossil fuel. So is natty gas.
c) How the hell did this get modded +5 insightful?
This - right here - is exactly what my post referred to. For some reason realityimpaired thinks he/she is entitled to more than they really are. That's common on slashdot but unfortunately, the unimpaired reality is quite different. Certain types of large scale layoffs in large companies are governed by some law (ie: the WARN act). However, most layoffs and firings are covered by common employment law. Employment law, in most venues, is hire and fire at will, which means your employer can cut you loose at any time and you are not entitled to anything more than your pay (and maybe vacation time, depending on venue). Anything beyond that is being done because your employer (or ex) is a "good company" and they don't want to be on the front page news for being assholes.
But let's be clear -- a severance payment is not required by law in the US.
I wish you luck sir, on your future negotiations with your employer. To your employer, there is no difference between laying off and firing. They are one and the same but one just sounds a little "nicer" so its more palatable to you (and your peers).
Ok, don't sign. That's fine.
Here is the door. Good luck to you, sir. Your paycheck that will include today's work will be sent on XYZ date.
Oh, did you think a severance was something you are entitled to? I see your line of reasoning a lot of slashdot. The time to negotiate is not when you are being laid off/fired. Consider yourself lucky for getting anything above and beyond a pink slip.
Turn it down and try to negotiate at your own risk.
Actually, I understand how markets work in excruciating detail. They are far more than a GA that you surmise but I will leave that discussion for another day. We agree that unrestrained capitalism doesn't work and we agree that there situations where markets fail. That's never been in dispute and any capitalist that doesn't acknowledge that is simply ignorant.
However, those nuances were not what his or my post was about. The GP insinuated that a centrally planned economy is better at allocating resources than a market based economy. That is what I was responding to and that is the piece that is in direct conflict with history.
Despite it's shortcomings, capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than another other system in the history of the world -- including centrally planned ones.
You may find an minor failure here and there but the evidence is incontrovertible.
If you know exactly what to produce,
....and that is the problem right there. To date, no "authority" (country, king, politburo, etc) has even come close to knowing what needs to be produced, when, and where.
This has been one major difference between capitalism and the other models. Capitalism solves this problem by leaving it up to the market. Sure, there are few mistakes made but eventually the market fixes them (Adam Smith's invisible hand). That is not true in a centrally planned economy. Those mistakes live a long time and are usually never solved (see USSR and other failed communist states).
The whole concept just boggles the mind, frankly...
I am not surprised. You clearly have no idea how capitalism works in a modern capitalist economy.
Invest != Trade. Did you actually read the article you linked to? Of course they trade oil and other commodities. They trade for their clients. However, Dodd-Frank specifically forbids them from "investing" (with their own money). Remember all the hullabaloo about "proprietrary trading". That's what it is when the Big Banks "invest" in commodities such as oil. That is not what they are doing.
You are the one who is wrong here. Big Banks are not investing "big time" in oil commodities. They are certainly trading big time.....but that is at the bequest of their clients. Big difference.
You can't corner the market with multiple entities COMPETING to do so. What you lay out is out a classical cornering of the market. Hedge funds (who are competing with each other) can not corner the market unless they act in collusion. Some may, in fact, collude but that is very different from what you are arguing and it certainly doesn't mean they have cornered a market. If there were (1) hedge fund trying to corner a market somewhere, I might agree with you.
Methinks you need to go back and read up some more....
Despite your lengthy reply, you did not answer the question. What are the mechanics of speculation that work to drive up gas prices?
Please.....walk through it slowly and speak to us as though we are Labrador retrievers.
Which is why Keystone is going to the golf coast
Good god, man. My eyes! I am hoping this was just a brain fart and you really do know how to spell "Gulf of Mexico".
The company's aren't anymore responsible for this hacktivism crime than my dog. Your attempt to paint some culpability upon them is a laughable. All you are doing is trying to rationalize criminal behavior under the guise of "they deserved it" (according to you).
What is ethical and what is legal are very different things. Companies are really only required to follow what is legal. However, it is normally in their best interests to act ethically as well -- but we don't require, as a matter of law, people or companies to act ethically. ie: we don't throw people in jail for acting unethically. We throw them in jail for acting illegally.
Your attempt to confuse the two topics seriously discredits your post because it has no meaning. It's like calling for a war against jealousy....
My comment wasn't intending to analyze the policy. It was to clarify the history of the policy.
Yes, of course I think our policy needs to be reviewed. However, it doesn't take a lot of thought to understand why it hasn't. Cuba is still, by self definition, a communist country. Raul and Fidel have no fondness for America and they make it known by consistently associating with and supporting America's enemies such as Chavez, Morales, etc.
While personally, I can't wait to travel to Cuba, the situation is more complex than you describe. It is common for things of this nature to take decades or even a century to work themselves out.
That's how wars start, sir. It's the "they'll just authorize" part of your description that's problematic. Nation states (certainly not India) can't go around just authorizing whatever the hell they want to. There are and will be reactions to said lawlessness. World commerce has never turned a blind eye to something like this and this situation won't be any different.
Cuba wasn't embargoed because it was sponsoring terrorists. It was embargoed because they were in bed with the USSR, a fully communist devoted country at the time. Having the USSR try to place strategic nuclear weapons 90 miles off the coast of the US didn't help. Cuba was a proxy for disagreements between the USA and USSR.
That you think it has anything to do with terrorists is laughable. The policy is only bizarre to you because you clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
That we are talking about a government is especially egregious! You don't see why Company A will choose not to play next time?
You are right that more Indians will get cancer treatment.....today. However, in 10 years, I guarantee that less people will get served because fewer companies want to participate in the Indian market when the government wantonly steals from them.
Yes, you are right that espionage becomes a serious concern. However, again....business isn't stupid. They will do what they need to do to protect themselves. They will also require the same of anyone they work with (such as universities, governments, etc). Don't forget, there are also world bodies that don't look kindly on what India did here (WTO, UN, etc)
The other thing to keep in mind is that this stuff happens over the course of a decade (or more). It won't happen instantaneously. It will happen as more and more businessmen run the cost/benefit calculations and decide not to do business in India. You can see almost the same exact thing happening with China over the last decade. Many people got burned outsourcing their high-tech designs and now, as word starts spreading, who doesn't know that the Chinese are stealing stuff right and left???? Everyone knows now! (and many companies are having 2nd thoughts about what they have built in China. Certainly they are more aware now)
As a businessman myself, I don't begrudge India or take it personally because I know....in the long run.....it is self serving and they only undermine themselves. Who will they steal from when there is noone left to steal from? At some point, innovation matters and that is where the USA excels far beyond the rest of the world....
NO! You can't just go around stealing designs for whatever you want and begin making it. The world does not work that way.
Haven't we been through this all before? Just because you know HOW to do something does not mean it is legal to do it. If you want to rewrite the rules, then fine. But don't sit here and pretend its fine when a government steals. It's not fine and there are real world ramifications.
To give an non-comedic answer......companies will just go elsewhere next time. They, simply, will not offer their wares in countries where they can't make any money and/or get ripped off.
Why do you think there is so much business being done in Somalia?
Closer to home, why aren't more people investing in Mexico?
Answer: Because they are completely lawless.
It's the same reason we are discussing this. Business isn't stupid. India will get away with this exactly once. After that, I assure you that the Indian people are the one's who will take the worst of it. They won't even know that there are better cancer meds being sold outside their country. And when they ask, "why can't we buy these" -- the answer will be simple: because you can't pay what we charge and you steal from us when we come into your market. Therefore, we choose not to serve you. Good luck with your healthcare needs.
Hopefully, the Indian people/group/whatever who approved this robbery can find the funding to start their own cancer R&D for their people. If they are lucky, it will be 1/100th as good as what they just stole.
I had this *exact* same issue with Cox Communications. Same argument/discussion, etc.
Here was my post about it over at DSL Reports.
*note: Please excuse my ignorance. I knew/know enough to be dangerous so I am certain I made many mistakes in describing things. Despite the inaccuracies, the overall point still stands.