I would agree completely, but for Apple's iTunes Music Store. Quite frankly it rocks. iTMS is an argument for *less* restrictions and *open* formats (i.e. AAC v. WMA). Look how well it has done with just the Mac user base, far better than BuyMusic did with millions more users. (I just bought an album today. Love new music Tuesday!)
Rumor has it they are still pinning down the licensing for the Windows version. I hope that they can point to BuyMusic and say, "See how crappy it is when the licensing is messed up? Our simplicity, consistency, and method of delivery result in *many* more downloads."
You're right, Apple Computers taste horrible, despite all of the "lickability" people talk about. Still, they do look great and kick butt over any other laptop.
(This post written from my sixth limb--a TiPB 667.)
That's an interesting thought. An even more grave example would be going to a wesbite like Slashdot and seeing blatant ads for Microsoft. Oh wait....nevermind.
I was initially skeptical at first also, but it occurred to me that if I had been able to hack Apple, I would have put it in a much more prominent place.
I tend to agree with the idea that it was an intentional "leak", since nothing posted was totally unexpected. Apple *had* to know that everyone was wanting 970s. If they have them, leaking some specs increases the fervor without giving too much away.
Keep reading, such as where it notes that the tariff reduced world trade by 66%. The Depression could have ended years sooner but for that tariff. As I said in my original post, the Smoot-Hawley tariff "largely contributed" to the Depression. Indeed, the liberalization of trade helped us get out of it, such as following the 1934 Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, mentioned in the article.
The *definition* of a free market excludes hugely restrictive standards. Besides, you can hardly claim that any of the alternatives, other than an anarchic system, don't have the restrictions you're talking about.
Sorry to be blunt, but this is *horrible* reasoning. You are equivocating the meaning of "monopoly". The reason monopolies are bad is because they can charge a higher price than the market would otherwise evoke. A single free market system does not produce higher prices because competition *within* the system is keeping them low for each individual product. You don't have to be a professor to understand that.
Since the alternative to third world wages is *no* wages, that is the kind of kindness third world nations can do without. As I noted earlier, third world nations lose $150 Billion/year to trade barriers.
So it's better to impose huge tariffs that leave the third world *totally* impoverished, while in the mean time effectively cutting your income in half through higher prices? Just imagine that effect on you alone: take all that you have bought and throw half of it away. There are better ways to encourage responsible production than saying, "If you can't play fair, we're not playing at all."
Nice source. "Howtobuyamerican.leethost.com". Try the U.S. Department of State and the additional sources they cite. (Hint: Those sources are professors, not lobbyists.)
Why doesn't Chinese or Mexican prosperity rub off on you? (Actually it does everytime you save money by buying a product that was made cheaper in China or Mexico. If you are so pro-American, I suggest you go throw away all of your electronics, clothes, and toys.) Anyway, how is it that you equate paying more to the less efficient producer with prosperity?
Maybe those governments, the EU, US, and South Korea are wrong. Tariffs and other protectionist policies make products more expensive to consumers without passing the increase in price onto the workers in that industry, because it is lost in innefficiency. The US loses $50 Billion/year in inefficiency cause by trade barriers, and the third world loses $150 Billion/year. Link. Eye-for-any-eye policies in the end make everyone blind.
I don't. Do you? Is it more than a company can raise in investment capital or debt? I guess it's a wonder that *anyone* has done it if it is so expensive. I suppose Micron just had the money sitting around. The point: if I can successfully undersell you at your monopoly prices, investors will want a piece of it. This happens all the time.
And this has *ever* actually happened in the earth's history? Nope. Besides, what's stopping a South Korean venture from kicking in to undersell Hynix in that scenario? Koreans would be paying the monopoly prices too.
Can you show that this scenario has ever *actually* happened anywhere? Tariff proponents always bring it up, but what stops someone from entering the market when Hynix doubles its prices?
So a tariff is okay because Europe did it? This reasoning means that I get to call you an idiot because you called the parent poster an idiot. My name-calling may be justified on other grounds, however, since you never even addressed his valid point that it benefits US consumers when South Koreans pay taxes to make our RAM cheaper.
Are all of those lumber mill workers still out of work? Are they all destitute? Are any of them better off because they found better jobs elsewhere? Tell the whole story. If anyone's reaction sounds knee-jerk, I am afraid yours might. Besides, why do Georgia lumber workers deserve lumber jobs more than Canadian ones? Just because you know them?
Sorry did you say *little* more cost? Try $50 Billion/year for us and $150 Billion a year for the third world. link. Steel tariffs alone are essentially paying US steel workers each something like $80,000 in inefficient prices. Yet they don't really make that much, even though we pay it. Poverty is not a measure of how much you make, but of how much you can buy. Tariffs *invariably* make consumers poorer.
Tell me this: Why do American computer geeks deserve jobs more than Mexican or Chinese computer geeks? In fact, because the effect of having that job is greater for the poor Mexican than for the geek here who had plenty of other career opportunities (even if they require new training), I say the Mexican deserves it more. Free trade is the *only* fair fight when it comes to economic competition.
Sorry to be so blunt, but this is the kind of comment a person makes because they haven't learned what makes free trade work. Dismissing it as merely "fashionable" ignores the fact that there are a good number of people who know a lot more than you *explaining why* it is such a cool thing. Indeed, if you look over American economic history, you see that we benefitted the most when our tariffs were the lowest. (Look at the Smoot-Hawley tariff that largely contributed to the Depression.) The reason free trade has replaced Keynesian theory is because it works better. If it's fashionable also, that's why.
This is ridiculous. I guess unfounded speculation is interesting to/. Have you even talked to any SCO employees to ask them what they think about the lawsuit? All you do is make gross generalisations, which are especially rash since they are based on your poor perception of their religious beliefs. Being one of the Utah Mormons, I don't care if you disagree with my religious beliefs. I don't care if you disagree with my political leanings. Indeed, more power to you for exercising your rights to do so. But I don't appreciate being called closed-minded or simple-minded *when you have never even met me*.
I understand your point, but my understanding is that "efficiency" in Economics is a measure of how much it costs to produce a good, the value of which is then measured in utility. (Utility determines demand, which contributes to the market price, which hopefully is greater than your costs.) In the first example, it is *more* efficient to move to Saipan if it costs you less to produce and sell your textiles. In the second example, it is *less* efficient to go to a digital projector if it costs you more to show the movie. (If there was a demand for digital projection that justified a higher ticket price, that is a different story.)
Slashdot Mirror
The KJV of the Bible spells it "subtil". He was just adapting that translation, you cowardly heathen.
I would agree completely, but for Apple's iTunes Music Store. Quite frankly it rocks. iTMS is an argument for *less* restrictions and *open* formats (i.e. AAC v. WMA). Look how well it has done with just the Mac user base, far better than BuyMusic did with millions more users. (I just bought an album today. Love new music Tuesday!)
Rumor has it they are still pinning down the licensing for the Windows version. I hope that they can point to BuyMusic and say, "See how crappy it is when the licensing is messed up? Our simplicity, consistency, and method of delivery result in *many* more downloads."
You're right, Apple Computers taste horrible, despite all of the "lickability" people talk about. Still, they do look great and kick butt over any other laptop.
(This post written from my sixth limb--a TiPB 667.)
That's an interesting thought. An even more grave example would be going to a wesbite like Slashdot and seeing blatant ads for Microsoft. Oh wait....nevermind.
I was initially skeptical at first also, but it occurred to me that if I had been able to hack Apple, I would have put it in a much more prominent place.
I tend to agree with the idea that it was an intentional "leak", since nothing posted was totally unexpected. Apple *had* to know that everyone was wanting 970s. If they have them, leaking some specs increases the fervor without giving too much away.
Keep reading, such as where it notes that the tariff reduced world trade by 66%. The Depression could have ended years sooner but for that tariff. As I said in my original post, the Smoot-Hawley tariff "largely contributed" to the Depression. Indeed, the liberalization of trade helped us get out of it, such as following the 1934 Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, mentioned in the article.
The *definition* of a free market excludes hugely restrictive standards. Besides, you can hardly claim that any of the alternatives, other than an anarchic system, don't have the restrictions you're talking about.
Sorry to be blunt, but this is *horrible* reasoning. You are equivocating the meaning of "monopoly". The reason monopolies are bad is because they can charge a higher price than the market would otherwise evoke. A single free market system does not produce higher prices because competition *within* the system is keeping them low for each individual product. You don't have to be a professor to understand that.
Since the alternative to third world wages is *no* wages, that is the kind of kindness third world nations can do without. As I noted earlier, third world nations lose $150 Billion/year to trade barriers.
Wow. Spelling troll, religious bigot, and coward all rolled into one. Nice trifecta.
So it's better to impose huge tariffs that leave the third world *totally* impoverished, while in the mean time effectively cutting your income in half through higher prices? Just imagine that effect on you alone: take all that you have bought and throw half of it away. There are better ways to encourage responsible production than saying, "If you can't play fair, we're not playing at all."
Nice source. "Howtobuyamerican.leethost.com". Try the U.S. Department of State and the additional sources they cite. (Hint: Those sources are professors, not lobbyists.)
Why doesn't Chinese or Mexican prosperity rub off on you? (Actually it does everytime you save money by buying a product that was made cheaper in China or Mexico. If you are so pro-American, I suggest you go throw away all of your electronics, clothes, and toys.) Anyway, how is it that you equate paying more to the less efficient producer with prosperity?
Maybe those governments, the EU, US, and South Korea are wrong. Tariffs and other protectionist policies make products more expensive to consumers without passing the increase in price onto the workers in that industry, because it is lost in innefficiency. The US loses $50 Billion/year in inefficiency cause by trade barriers, and the third world loses $150 Billion/year. Link. Eye-for-any-eye policies in the end make everyone blind.
I don't. Do you? Is it more than a company can raise in investment capital or debt? I guess it's a wonder that *anyone* has done it if it is so expensive. I suppose Micron just had the money sitting around. The point: if I can successfully undersell you at your monopoly prices, investors will want a piece of it. This happens all the time.
And this has *ever* actually happened in the earth's history? Nope. Besides, what's stopping a South Korean venture from kicking in to undersell Hynix in that scenario? Koreans would be paying the monopoly prices too.
Can you show that this scenario has ever *actually* happened anywhere? Tariff proponents always bring it up, but what stops someone from entering the market when Hynix doubles its prices?
So a tariff is okay because Europe did it? This reasoning means that I get to call you an idiot because you called the parent poster an idiot. My name-calling may be justified on other grounds, however, since you never even addressed his valid point that it benefits US consumers when South Koreans pay taxes to make our RAM cheaper.
Are all of those lumber mill workers still out of work? Are they all destitute? Are any of them better off because they found better jobs elsewhere? Tell the whole story. If anyone's reaction sounds knee-jerk, I am afraid yours might. Besides, why do Georgia lumber workers deserve lumber jobs more than Canadian ones? Just because you know them?
Sorry did you say *little* more cost? Try $50 Billion/year for us and $150 Billion a year for the third world. link. Steel tariffs alone are essentially paying US steel workers each something like $80,000 in inefficient prices. Yet they don't really make that much, even though we pay it. Poverty is not a measure of how much you make, but of how much you can buy. Tariffs *invariably* make consumers poorer.
Tell me this: Why do American computer geeks deserve jobs more than Mexican or Chinese computer geeks? In fact, because the effect of having that job is greater for the poor Mexican than for the geek here who had plenty of other career opportunities (even if they require new training), I say the Mexican deserves it more. Free trade is the *only* fair fight when it comes to economic competition.
Sorry to be so blunt, but this is the kind of comment a person makes because they haven't learned what makes free trade work. Dismissing it as merely "fashionable" ignores the fact that there are a good number of people who know a lot more than you *explaining why* it is such a cool thing. Indeed, if you look over American economic history, you see that we benefitted the most when our tariffs were the lowest. (Look at the Smoot-Hawley tariff that largely contributed to the Depression.) The reason free trade has replaced Keynesian theory is because it works better. If it's fashionable also, that's why.
This is ridiculous. I guess unfounded speculation is interesting to /. Have you even talked to any SCO employees to ask them what they think about the lawsuit? All you do is make gross generalisations, which are especially rash since they are based on your poor perception of their religious beliefs. Being one of the Utah Mormons, I don't care if you disagree with my religious beliefs. I don't care if you disagree with my political leanings. Indeed, more power to you for exercising your rights to do so. But I don't appreciate being called closed-minded or simple-minded *when you have never even met me*.
I understand your point, but my understanding is that "efficiency" in Economics is a measure of how much it costs to produce a good, the value of which is then measured in utility. (Utility determines demand, which contributes to the market price, which hopefully is greater than your costs.) In the first example, it is *more* efficient to move to Saipan if it costs you less to produce and sell your textiles. In the second example, it is *less* efficient to go to a digital projector if it costs you more to show the movie. (If there was a demand for digital projection that justified a higher ticket price, that is a different story.)
Gosh, I am a dope. Now it will be interesting to see if I get modded down for correcting my *own* spelling.