I believe allowing corruption to flourish is covered under "economic policy". They have chosen not to get rid of corruption thus they incur the economic costs of corruption.
Have you ever thought that perhaps the reason they do not have the money is because their tax rate is so high (and unknown due to corruption) that it does not attract investment? The only people able to invest are those able to bribe officials. Thus, when investors see a high tax rate for their factory they choose to allocate it elsewhere.
That must be by there is no problem with genocide in Africa and everyone is one big happy poor family. Somalia called they want the society you described back.
Yuppie kids or their parents also produce more in a day than people in Brazil produce in a year. Hence, they get paid more. Brazil's economic woes are due to a) their economic policy and b) the fact that their people produce less than the western setup. If everyone in Brazil made the same amount of money they'd still be poor. Being poor is a result of being a thief and not the other way around. Everyone steals and destroys in Brazil rather than producing.
People don't realize that profit is a COST of efficiency, if you don't pay for it you don't get it. By allocating capital to where it is best used Goldman Sachs produces huge wealth for everyone. If you can do a better job than Goldman, the market WILL pay you more than Goldman, just look at how much wealth Buffet has made by allocating capital.
Income equality means almost nothing statistically...
What really matters is purchasing power, I was recently reading an economics text that dealt with this subject so I'll paraphrase as best I can and give the stats to the best of my recollection. Look at a country like Russia during communism or India pre-1990, income equality was much more even but people had much less purchasing power. Or for example compare 1970 and 2000 in terms of purchasing power, in 2000 the purchasing power of a person in the bottom 20% was higher than than that of the 50th percentile in 1970. Income equality doesn't put food on the table purchasing power does.
Also if you look at who comprises the bottom 20% and the top 20% you'll find that the young comprise the bottom and those in their 40s comprise the top. Generally a person at different points in their life are in different quintiles of earning. The percentage of people who stay poor or stay rich throughout their lives are very very small. 4/5ths of millionaires in the United States held a minimum wage job.
People with experience SHOULD earn more than people with out those skills, it is the differentiation in prices that allocates scarce resources to where they can best be used. Income inequality is a reflection of reality and not the other way around, you can get rid of income inequality but it means that resources will be poorly allocated. In a free market a company cannot pay their CEO substantially more than they produce or they will eventually go out of business. If a CEO is the only person that can find the 1% of the budget to shave on a 9 billion dollar a year business then they really are worth 50 million dollars, if they are not a companies will be driven to people who can do the job for less money.
I think you mean Californians, not Americans, most American's wouldn't care because they know that person would be paying his share of the heat he used.
Actually, both can be wrong, there is no gaurantee that one is right. There is debate in the scientific community, one side is funded by the gov't, hippies and "green" business, which gain by having "global warming" and the scientists that profit from getting more grants. Imagine if they said "oh, there is no global warming" do you think they'd get more grant money for studying global warming?
The other side is funded by companies who produce CO2 or have products that eventually produce CO2.
Thus debate exists within the scientific community, and most "scientists" have just as little pedigree in climate science as the rest of us. A biologist saying there are less polar bears than last year so it must be global warming is just as good of evidence as some guy with a thermometer saying "it's 1 degree hotter than it was last summer".
Getting the US off foreign oil doesn't necessarily improve national security. Also, its probably not beneficial economically which is probably worse in economic terms.
When all is said an done 911 didn't really do much to the US economically. The US could have bought Iraqi oil with out invading Iraq, all they had to do was repeal the oil sanctions or flagrantly violate them. Given the climate in Iraq it probably would have been better to flagrantly violate them because it prevents other nations from buying the oil from that country thus getting the US a better price and an economic advantage over those who buy from OPEC.
A pine beetle infestation in one province does not a global warming make. Plus, even if we are experiencing human caused global warming, it doesn't mean its economically bad. The nice part about the forests dying from pine beetles is it shuts up the environmentalists about logging them.
That is like having a big billboard in front of your store and free stuff in the back, and suing someone because they are telling people that you can bypass the billboard and go straight to the back.
Copyright is artificial scarcity and thus economic manipulation by the gov't for the promotion of one sector over another. (Think min wage laws, rent control, farm subsidies, taxes for various industries) Ironically, the Russian government does not interfere with the free market in this sector as much as other nations. It isn't "pirated" music in the same way that going to Amsterdam to smoke pot isn't a violation FDA rules on restricted drugs. What they are doing is importing music that was copied in a region with lower production costs. The RIAA calls it piracy because the Russian government values other industries more than music companies.
The assertion is that Novell is in violation of the GPL. You can't assert or rather, can't prove that something isn't. JAINAL or more importantly JAINAJ (Jeremy Allison is not a Judge). If Novell is in violation of the GPL perhaps someone should setup something for resolving disputes of copyright and bring their case there.
Exactly how does acquiring resources or selling land for storage set the third world back?
They get cash in exchange for land that isn't useful. Using that cash they can build irrigation systems or buy food. It's a win-win situation.
Given the life spans achieved in the third world using it as a dumping ground for toxic chemicals makes good business, as the length of time needed to see the affects isn't reached by most of the populace. Cross the bridge of what do to when population has a reasonable life span when you get to that bridge.
The problem is there is lots of evidence that the climate is changing, what is lacking is that is evidence that we are causing this change or capable of correcting it. Also, there are widely varying estimates of what happens if we do nothing.
Basically, what we know is that in the places we measured temperature 150 years ago, it is hotter now. We have pretty good estimates that it is hotter now than it was 300 years ago overall, and it might be a little bit hotter than it was 500 years ago, but probably not.
If he tried to defraud Google then Google should press their case. Since they do not feel like pressing their case and have given no reason for not pressing it we can only assume they do not believe he defrauded them.
Also, being able to create a program to generate "clicks" makes you very valuable.
Canada is no panacea either.
Here is how Canada works.
For the most part things that are common get covered, myself I pay about $100 a month for insurance to the state (provincial level), $50 for my group plan from my employer (a similar non-group plan would cost $300 for my family). My health insurance would be more to the state but because my wife is stay at home we put the kids under her free plan from the state. (For some reason there is no law requiring a family claim together). I think it would be around $200 a month if we claimed together and her and the kids would pay a whole bunch of user fees and lose a bunch of benefits. That is the funny thing, I pay more and am covered for less.
Anyway, so how it works is anything that is expensive doesn't get covered, or they don't have enough machines so you merely die on a waiting list rather than getting denied coverage. In anything cutting edge we are far behind the latest technology so that it doesn't cost so much. Basically, health care in Canada is cheap because we ride on the coattails of the expensive US system that develops the technology. And the system weasels its way out of anything expensive that isn't common. Get Cancer in Canada and you will spend $3000 a month buying drugs.
The funny thing is its also ripe with corruption and misallocation of resources.
If you want to fund public schools you get to put your message in them.
The problem is the public wants public schools but doesn't want to pay for them.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
The first problem is compulsory education, the second problem schools recieving public money, get rid of those two fundamental problems and it becomes a non-issue.
The problem is that the US doesn't want to engage the enemy. If you have a desire to kill the enemy you will win. Their desire to kill the enemy comes second to respect for international law. People don't like the ugly truth of war.
Read about the medieval warm period and what lengths the usual suspects will go to get rid of it. Hint: Weighting one model of temperature prediction by 326 times during that period to get rid of it. The other thing is that most of these models fail to predict the cooling during 1940-1980. This is primarily because they leave out the effects of the sun on global warming. The models are crap and they just pick and choose a model to predict a certain time period but over the data we have they fail to align to the past with out fudging the numbers. Different time period, different fudged numbers.
The real inconvienient truth is that there is no valid prediction for global warming and nothing we can do if the sun turns up the heat. Also, on a global scale global warming is profitable because it produces more arable land on the poles than it claims in the tropics. And improves the shipping situation.
Patents cannot be extended unlike copyright. The term is still 17 years. The only way to make a patent longer is to refile it with additional details before it gets approved.
It's a decent argument to put to a judge if he is sleeping. Contracts generally require mutual benefit, but the hook in the GPL is that the code is by default protected by copyright so if you invalidate the license you fall straight into standard non-compliance with the licensing terms.
The problem with the GPL is that once you distribute the code you give license to the patents contained with in the code.
Thus if Microsoft distributes Linux it licenses the patents contained in the code. Also, enforcing a patent against the GPL revokes the license putting MS in very hot water.
Murder and robbery, (I don't believe there is a statute relating to the specific institution/person you rob), are not regulation of the market but rather something known as fundamental justice.
Hence, you will find these laws codified into laws given the title "Criminal Code", etc. These laws are also backed by thousands of years of "common law".
Also, they make no regulation about commerce. Since Murder and rape are non-consentual by definition (excluding some recent convictions in Germany for consentual killing) they cannot be considered commerce since the underpinning of commerce is an agreement with an exchange of goods or services to mutual benefit, in other words a contract agreed to with out duress. Thus the state prohibiting murder and robbery is not a regulation of the market because such activities are non-market activities.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe allowing corruption to flourish is covered under "economic policy". They have chosen not to get rid of corruption thus they incur the economic costs of corruption.
Have you ever thought that perhaps the reason they do not have the money is because their tax rate is so high (and unknown due to corruption) that it does not attract investment? The only people able to invest are those able to bribe officials. Thus, when investors see a high tax rate for their factory they choose to allocate it elsewhere.
Really?
That must be by there is no problem with genocide in Africa and everyone is one big happy poor family. Somalia called they want the society you described back.
Yuppie kids or their parents also produce more in a day than people in Brazil produce in a year. Hence, they get paid more. Brazil's economic woes are due to a) their economic policy and b) the fact that their people produce less than the western setup. If everyone in Brazil made the same amount of money they'd still be poor. Being poor is a result of being a thief and not the other way around. Everyone steals and destroys in Brazil rather than producing.
People don't realize that profit is a COST of efficiency, if you don't pay for it you don't get it. By allocating capital to where it is best used Goldman Sachs produces huge wealth for everyone. If you can do a better job than Goldman, the market WILL pay you more than Goldman, just look at how much wealth Buffet has made by allocating capital.
Income equality means almost nothing statistically...
What really matters is purchasing power, I was recently reading an economics text that dealt with this subject so I'll paraphrase as best I can and give the stats to the best of my recollection. Look at a country like Russia during communism or India pre-1990, income equality was much more even but people had much less purchasing power. Or for example compare 1970 and 2000 in terms of purchasing power, in 2000 the purchasing power of a person in the bottom 20% was higher than than that of the 50th percentile in 1970. Income equality doesn't put food on the table purchasing power does.
Also if you look at who comprises the bottom 20% and the top 20% you'll find that the young comprise the bottom and those in their 40s comprise the top. Generally a person at different points in their life are in different quintiles of earning. The percentage of people who stay poor or stay rich throughout their lives are very very small. 4/5ths of millionaires in the United States held a minimum wage job.
People with experience SHOULD earn more than people with out those skills, it is the differentiation in prices that allocates scarce resources to where they can best be used. Income inequality is a reflection of reality and not the other way around, you can get rid of income inequality but it means that resources will be poorly allocated. In a free market a company cannot pay their CEO substantially more than they produce or they will eventually go out of business. If a CEO is the only person that can find the 1% of the budget to shave on a 9 billion dollar a year business then they really are worth 50 million dollars, if they are not a companies will be driven to people who can do the job for less money.
I think you mean Californians, not Americans, most American's wouldn't care because they know that person would be paying his share of the heat he used.
Actually, both can be wrong, there is no gaurantee that one is right. There is debate in the scientific community, one side is funded by the gov't, hippies and "green" business, which gain by having "global warming" and the scientists that profit from getting more grants. Imagine if they said "oh, there is no global warming" do you think they'd get more grant money for studying global warming? The other side is funded by companies who produce CO2 or have products that eventually produce CO2. Thus debate exists within the scientific community, and most "scientists" have just as little pedigree in climate science as the rest of us. A biologist saying there are less polar bears than last year so it must be global warming is just as good of evidence as some guy with a thermometer saying "it's 1 degree hotter than it was last summer".
Getting the US off foreign oil doesn't necessarily improve national security. Also, its probably not beneficial economically which is probably worse in economic terms. When all is said an done 911 didn't really do much to the US economically. The US could have bought Iraqi oil with out invading Iraq, all they had to do was repeal the oil sanctions or flagrantly violate them. Given the climate in Iraq it probably would have been better to flagrantly violate them because it prevents other nations from buying the oil from that country thus getting the US a better price and an economic advantage over those who buy from OPEC.
A pine beetle infestation in one province does not a global warming make. Plus, even if we are experiencing human caused global warming, it doesn't mean its economically bad. The nice part about the forests dying from pine beetles is it shuts up the environmentalists about logging them.
That is like having a big billboard in front of your store and free stuff in the back, and suing someone because they are telling people that you can bypass the billboard and go straight to the back.
Copyright is artificial scarcity and thus economic manipulation by the gov't for the promotion of one sector over another. (Think min wage laws, rent control, farm subsidies, taxes for various industries) Ironically, the Russian government does not interfere with the free market in this sector as much as other nations. It isn't "pirated" music in the same way that going to Amsterdam to smoke pot isn't a violation FDA rules on restricted drugs. What they are doing is importing music that was copied in a region with lower production costs. The RIAA calls it piracy because the Russian government values other industries more than music companies.
Thurgood Marshall just called, he'd wants to talk to you about the 14th Ammendment and the Southern Pacific Railroad.
The assertion is that Novell is in violation of the GPL. You can't assert or rather, can't prove that something isn't. JAINAL or more importantly JAINAJ (Jeremy Allison is not a Judge). If Novell is in violation of the GPL perhaps someone should setup something for resolving disputes of copyright and bring their case there.
Exactly how does acquiring resources or selling land for storage set the third world back?
They get cash in exchange for land that isn't useful. Using that cash they can build irrigation systems or buy food. It's a win-win situation.
Given the life spans achieved in the third world using it as a dumping ground for toxic chemicals makes good business, as the length of time needed to see the affects isn't reached by most of the populace. Cross the bridge of what do to when population has a reasonable life span when you get to that bridge.
The problem is there is lots of evidence that the climate is changing, what is lacking is that is evidence that we are causing this change or capable of correcting it. Also, there are widely varying estimates of what happens if we do nothing. Basically, what we know is that in the places we measured temperature 150 years ago, it is hotter now. We have pretty good estimates that it is hotter now than it was 300 years ago overall, and it might be a little bit hotter than it was 500 years ago, but probably not.
If he tried to defraud Google then Google should press their case. Since they do not feel like pressing their case and have given no reason for not pressing it we can only assume they do not believe he defrauded them. Also, being able to create a program to generate "clicks" makes you very valuable.
Canada is no panacea either. Here is how Canada works. For the most part things that are common get covered, myself I pay about $100 a month for insurance to the state (provincial level), $50 for my group plan from my employer (a similar non-group plan would cost $300 for my family). My health insurance would be more to the state but because my wife is stay at home we put the kids under her free plan from the state. (For some reason there is no law requiring a family claim together). I think it would be around $200 a month if we claimed together and her and the kids would pay a whole bunch of user fees and lose a bunch of benefits. That is the funny thing, I pay more and am covered for less. Anyway, so how it works is anything that is expensive doesn't get covered, or they don't have enough machines so you merely die on a waiting list rather than getting denied coverage. In anything cutting edge we are far behind the latest technology so that it doesn't cost so much. Basically, health care in Canada is cheap because we ride on the coattails of the expensive US system that develops the technology. And the system weasels its way out of anything expensive that isn't common. Get Cancer in Canada and you will spend $3000 a month buying drugs. The funny thing is its also ripe with corruption and misallocation of resources.
What's the problem?
If you want to fund public schools you get to put your message in them.
The problem is the public wants public schools but doesn't want to pay for them.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
The first problem is compulsory education, the second problem schools recieving public money, get rid of those two fundamental problems and it becomes a non-issue.
The problem is that the US doesn't want to engage the enemy. If you have a desire to kill the enemy you will win. Their desire to kill the enemy comes second to respect for international law. People don't like the ugly truth of war.
Read about the medieval warm period and what lengths the usual suspects will go to get rid of it. Hint: Weighting one model of temperature prediction by 326 times during that period to get rid of it. The other thing is that most of these models fail to predict the cooling during 1940-1980. This is primarily because they leave out the effects of the sun on global warming. The models are crap and they just pick and choose a model to predict a certain time period but over the data we have they fail to align to the past with out fudging the numbers. Different time period, different fudged numbers.
The real inconvienient truth is that there is no valid prediction for global warming and nothing we can do if the sun turns up the heat. Also, on a global scale global warming is profitable because it produces more arable land on the poles than it claims in the tropics. And improves the shipping situation.
Patents cannot be extended unlike copyright. The term is still 17 years. The only way to make a patent longer is to refile it with additional details before it gets approved.
It's a decent argument to put to a judge if he is sleeping. Contracts generally require mutual benefit, but the hook in the GPL is that the code is by default protected by copyright so if you invalidate the license you fall straight into standard non-compliance with the licensing terms.
Remington makes such a solution. However most nations find it unpalatable.
The problem with the GPL is that once you distribute the code you give license to the patents contained with in the code. Thus if Microsoft distributes Linux it licenses the patents contained in the code. Also, enforcing a patent against the GPL revokes the license putting MS in very hot water.
All your accounts are belong to us.
Murder and robbery, (I don't believe there is a statute relating to the specific institution/person you rob), are not regulation of the market but rather something known as fundamental justice.
Hence, you will find these laws codified into laws given the title "Criminal Code", etc. These laws are also backed by thousands of years of "common law".
Also, they make no regulation about commerce. Since Murder and rape are non-consentual by definition (excluding some recent convictions in Germany for consentual killing) they cannot be considered commerce since the underpinning of commerce is an agreement with an exchange of goods or services to mutual benefit, in other words a contract agreed to with out duress. Thus the state prohibiting murder and robbery is not a regulation of the market because such activities are non-market activities.