Is it really necessary to have a snide remark at supposed government inefficiency there?
I would have thought that it was unnecessary as well, but given your subsequent remarks, it appears some of us need reminding of it. Sure, math is hard, Observing profound inefficiency in government is not.
Obama may not be a very good President, and may have had certain advantages growing up, but he seems to at least have some clue as to how the average American lives.
When was the last time that Obama worked for a business?
Boeing, SpaceX and other companies like it wouldn't exist without NASA, at least not to the degree which they do today.
I wouldn't go there. NASA has a history of interfering to the detriment of US commercial space activities. One of the main reasons I advocate ending any attempt to have NASA build a space launch vehicle is to remove incentives to cripple commercial launch vehicles whose existence might otherwise embarrass NASA or threaten the funding for NASA programs.
My view is that US space industry would be a lot further along, if NASA had as a genuine primary goal, commercial development of space, rather than the inimical outlook it had for decades.
You didn't write the first line, you wrote the reply to the first line without quoting it directly. Hence, why I included the first line. To provide both context for your post and a more accurate representation of your words.
The Russians were fooled once with Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Unbridled capitalism does not work.
A system where ownership of capital depends on your connections to the ruling class is not capitalism but cronyism. And that's still the system in place today.
By doing exactly the opposite since Reagan/Thatcher - i.e. making governments subservient to the will of big business - we are now in the shit.
Let me guess. A UK resident who still hasn't gotten over the Thatcher era. No one else whines about Thatcher.
As to Putin wanting "to remain strong", so did Reagan and Thatcher for their respective countries. The latter were far more successful than Putin has been.
I would vote Putin any day. I don't want the right to a free press which will be ignored anyway - illusions of freedom serve no purpose to anyone but the stupid.
Ah, so you're a useful idiot. One only needs to look at countries with a free press to see that your point of view is shit. Sure, there are blatant propaganda sources like Fox News in the US. But word gets around, be it in the "main stream media", the blogs, or whatever. One can't have genuine freedom if one doesn't have a clue what's going on.
There are a number of historical examples where the consequences of overthrowing a government turned out worse, such as the overthrow of the Czar of Russia or the ending of the Weimar Republic.
The first use of the Sherman Antitrust Act was to break up a recently formed union. It took more than ten years before the act was used for its intended purpose. Even then, most of the monopolies busted were already decaying. Borrowing a lot of money to buy out competitors and create monopolies that only last a few years just isn't that great a business plan.
while a foreign company has leverage to avoid it if it's not worth it to their business
In other words, a means to chase foreign companies out of EU markets. The "leverage" to run like a whipped dog is not that advantageous to foreign firms.
Or the Republicans that gave you a hereditary head of state in the form of a useless baby Bush that ran away and hid as soon as things got tough, both in the Army and as President. There plenty of Democrat examples as well but not quite so overt or recent.
Membership or leadership of just about any form of government can end up being considered a family business. There's some families that had Senators until Rome fell, then Cardinals for centuries later - it was all politics, and frequently all nepotism.
If the Republicans are "giving" the US a hereditary head of state, well, that implies the US wasn't a republic by that particular definition of "republic". If that's not what you wished to say, then fine. But I'm not arguing a strawman because that is what you wrote.
Well, since you are rolling out your own private definitions of words it's pretty fucking hard to communicate here isn't it? Of course you have no idea what I'm talking about if you are going to redefine everything at the drop of a hat.
My statements were based on standard definitions of republic, monarchy, and theocracy.
Republic (recall I was speaking of a specific definition of republic):
a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.
a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
This is a little stretched, but it's worth noting that the previous rulers of North Korea, Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il are worshiped to a degree with numerous shrines, portraits, and frequent tributes (a "cult of personality"). And Kim Jong-un does interpret the wishes of his father and grandfather, so he's taking the role of ecclesiastical authority.
it was about you pretending that the choice of a parties candidate is irrelevant to the final outcome - hence a childish oversimplification that insults your own and the readers intelligence.
I didn't say or imply that. I just pointed out that the final choice wasn't in the hands of the Republican party.
I meant that Today's Scary Leader is/will soon be sitting on a button that could blow up the world. It's not about marching troops per se anymore, it's all down to convincing that guy not to push the button.
In that situation, there probably will be some degree of "marching troops". It's worth noting that Iraq's leaders thought they were about a year away from a nuclear bomb when they invaded Kuwait in 1990. I imagine the original plan would have worked out really well, if no one had responded to the invasion. A nuclear Iraq in control of most of the Arabian peninsula would have been a pretty solid world power.
My view is that Iraq initiated the invasion because they thought both that they'd have nuclear capability in a short while and because they thought the rest of the world wouldn't respond.
Frankly, that comes directly from the Hitler playbook. It applies any time someone thinks they have strong military force coupled with weak or disinterested foes.
Not really, creating a competitor that's truly competitive requires more and more funds the more the rest of the market conglomerates into a single entity.
To the contrary, I find that companies that do too many things, tend to do them poorly. The above entity still has to deal with new companies that do individual parts of its business much better, such as the original manufacture or the shipping components. And knowing that a big company will attempt a hostile takeover, isn't disincentive. One could make good money in that way by repeatedly threatening the big company's primary markets.
It's not something that ever happens because governments eventually step in out of self interest, but claiming that competitors are guaranteed access to the market just by showing up is ridiculous.
Then competitors make their own markets. It's not magic.
and there are plenty situations, some of which we've seen in real world, where a monopoly can jack up the barrier to entry high enough that effectively no-one can compete.
Perhaps, you could discuss these "real world" situations? I'll warn you though, we'll probably find that your examples will be further evidence against your arguments.
I already noted that one can end up paying the same large fine even if one has only a small fraction of its business in the EU. That's a very effective block of foreign business.
Also the point of these fines is that they have to hurt more than what the corporation gain from breaking the regulations or they are powerless.
It's worth noting that it hurts the foreign company more than the local because there is less relevant business to absorb the fine. For example, if Google were solely an EU company, it might be worth it to pay the fine, keep doing business as usual, and just bribe the appropriate regulators to prevent the issue coming up in the future.
I'm seeing the implications here. I think a reasonable percent is 1250% tax on financial transactions. That would give everyone a million euro a MONTH. That should be enough for even the poor to live on.
I'm sure the previous poster is quite aware of these. I just find it very incredible that someone disputes the US as a republic on the basis that a couple of recent presidents (George H. W. Bush and his son George W. Bush) happened to be members of such a dynasty. There's only two other pairs of closely related presidents in US history. That strikes me as a very spurious claim.
Even if one enlarges the field to "dynasties", there's a lot of them (diluting their power, such as it is) and still a minority of presidents with extensive connections from a dynasty.
It's no Monarchy, not quite a weird Theocracy worshipping an earlier ruler,
Well, actually. it's both monarchy and theocracy. North Korea has an obvious hereditary head of state, even if the ruler isn't called a king or emperor. And previous heads of state are deified (I gather the religion is a combination of some sort of Marxist doublespeak and ancestor worship).
Also your little petty bit where you pretend that one bit of a process didn't happen because other things happened later is especially childish.
You'll need to elaborate on that. I have no idea what you are talking about. I get that I disagreed with you. Past that, I really don't understand your presence in this thread.
The definition of republic is rather specific. It doesn't claim that no hereditary position of power exists. Just that the top political position is not hereditary. So noting the presence of political or business clans in US politics or even occasional presidents related to previous presidents, doesn't imply that the US is not a republic.
For the rest of us, we realize that monopolies do pop up from time to time and in the long term everything will be owned by the same entity if governments don't step in to prevent it.
That only happens if the entity happens to be a government. Otherwise, you can always create a competitor.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it really necessary to have a snide remark at supposed government inefficiency there?
I would have thought that it was unnecessary as well, but given your subsequent remarks, it appears some of us need reminding of it. Sure, math is hard, Observing profound inefficiency in government is not.
Obama may not be a very good President, and may have had certain advantages growing up, but he seems to at least have some clue as to how the average American lives.
When was the last time that Obama worked for a business?
Boeing, SpaceX and other companies like it wouldn't exist without NASA, at least not to the degree which they do today.
I wouldn't go there. NASA has a history of interfering to the detriment of US commercial space activities. One of the main reasons I advocate ending any attempt to have NASA build a space launch vehicle is to remove incentives to cripple commercial launch vehicles whose existence might otherwise embarrass NASA or threaten the funding for NASA programs.
My view is that US space industry would be a lot further along, if NASA had as a genuine primary goal, commercial development of space, rather than the inimical outlook it had for decades.
I did not write that.
You didn't write the first line, you wrote the reply to the first line without quoting it directly. Hence, why I included the first line. To provide both context for your post and a more accurate representation of your words.
The Russians were fooled once with Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Unbridled capitalism does not work.
A system where ownership of capital depends on your connections to the ruling class is not capitalism but cronyism. And that's still the system in place today.
By doing exactly the opposite since Reagan/Thatcher - i.e. making governments subservient to the will of big business - we are now in the shit.
Let me guess. A UK resident who still hasn't gotten over the Thatcher era. No one else whines about Thatcher.
As to Putin wanting "to remain strong", so did Reagan and Thatcher for their respective countries. The latter were far more successful than Putin has been.
I would vote Putin any day. I don't want the right to a free press which will be ignored anyway - illusions of freedom serve no purpose to anyone but the stupid.
Ah, so you're a useful idiot. One only needs to look at countries with a free press to see that your point of view is shit. Sure, there are blatant propaganda sources like Fox News in the US. But word gets around, be it in the "main stream media", the blogs, or whatever. One can't have genuine freedom if one doesn't have a clue what's going on.
There are a number of historical examples where the consequences of overthrowing a government turned out worse, such as the overthrow of the Czar of Russia or the ending of the Weimar Republic.
There are consequences to throwing out a dictator without coming up with a replacement.
but I'd rather a dishonest politician who does good things
And how do you know the dishonest politician is going to do good things? At least, the honest politician stays bought.
The first use of the Sherman Antitrust Act was to break up a recently formed union. It took more than ten years before the act was used for its intended purpose. Even then, most of the monopolies busted were already decaying. Borrowing a lot of money to buy out competitors and create monopolies that only last a few years just isn't that great a business plan.
Did you think US is the only country that believes its laws apply worldwide and it knows no jurisdiction?
Why would I think that? Maybe I'm not the one who needs to think again.
while a foreign company has leverage to avoid it if it's not worth it to their business
In other words, a means to chase foreign companies out of EU markets. The "leverage" to run like a whipped dog is not that advantageous to foreign firms.
Tell that to the North Koreans. 8^)
Or the Republicans that gave you a hereditary head of state in the form of a useless baby Bush that ran away and hid as soon as things got tough, both in the Army and as President. There plenty of Democrat examples as well but not quite so overt or recent.
Membership or leadership of just about any form of government can end up being considered a family business. There's some families that had Senators until Rome fell, then Cardinals for centuries later - it was all politics, and frequently all nepotism.
If the Republicans are "giving" the US a hereditary head of state, well, that implies the US wasn't a republic by that particular definition of "republic". If that's not what you wished to say, then fine. But I'm not arguing a strawman because that is what you wrote.
Well, since you are rolling out your own private definitions of words it's pretty fucking hard to communicate here isn't it? Of course you have no idea what I'm talking about if you are going to redefine everything at the drop of a hat.
My statements were based on standard definitions of republic, monarchy, and theocracy.
Republic (recall I was speaking of a specific definition of republic):
a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.
Monarchy
a state or nation in which the supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in a monarch.
And in turn, a monarch has as it's first definition a hereditary ruler of a country, second as an absolute ruler. Both apply to North Korea.
Theocracy:
a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
This is a little stretched, but it's worth noting that the previous rulers of North Korea, Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il are worshiped to a degree with numerous shrines, portraits, and frequent tributes (a "cult of personality"). And Kim Jong-un does interpret the wishes of his father and grandfather, so he's taking the role of ecclesiastical authority.
it was about you pretending that the choice of a parties candidate is irrelevant to the final outcome - hence a childish oversimplification that insults your own and the readers intelligence.
I didn't say or imply that. I just pointed out that the final choice wasn't in the hands of the Republican party.
I meant that Today's Scary Leader is/will soon be sitting on a button that could blow up the world. It's not about marching troops per se anymore, it's all down to convincing that guy not to push the button.
In that situation, there probably will be some degree of "marching troops". It's worth noting that Iraq's leaders thought they were about a year away from a nuclear bomb when they invaded Kuwait in 1990. I imagine the original plan would have worked out really well, if no one had responded to the invasion. A nuclear Iraq in control of most of the Arabian peninsula would have been a pretty solid world power.
My view is that Iraq initiated the invasion because they thought both that they'd have nuclear capability in a short while and because they thought the rest of the world wouldn't respond.
Frankly, that comes directly from the Hitler playbook. It applies any time someone thinks they have strong military force coupled with weak or disinterested foes.
Not really, creating a competitor that's truly competitive requires more and more funds the more the rest of the market conglomerates into a single entity.
To the contrary, I find that companies that do too many things, tend to do them poorly. The above entity still has to deal with new companies that do individual parts of its business much better, such as the original manufacture or the shipping components. And knowing that a big company will attempt a hostile takeover, isn't disincentive. One could make good money in that way by repeatedly threatening the big company's primary markets.
It's not something that ever happens because governments eventually step in out of self interest, but claiming that competitors are guaranteed access to the market just by showing up is ridiculous.
Then competitors make their own markets. It's not magic.
and there are plenty situations, some of which we've seen in real world, where a monopoly can jack up the barrier to entry high enough that effectively no-one can compete.
Perhaps, you could discuss these "real world" situations? I'll warn you though, we'll probably find that your examples will be further evidence against your arguments.
I already noted that one can end up paying the same large fine even if one has only a small fraction of its business in the EU. That's a very effective block of foreign business.
and even by frequency the Commission fines a lot more European based corporations than it does foreign ones.
Or further evidence that the policy helps exclude foreign businesses from the EU market.
Also the point of these fines is that they have to hurt more than what the corporation gain from breaking the regulations or they are powerless.
It's worth noting that it hurts the foreign company more than the local because there is less relevant business to absorb the fine. For example, if Google were solely an EU company, it might be worth it to pay the fine, keep doing business as usual, and just bribe the appropriate regulators to prevent the issue coming up in the future.
I'm seeing the implications here. I think a reasonable percent is 1250% tax on financial transactions. That would give everyone a million euro a MONTH. That should be enough for even the poor to live on.
A free service can have a market force? How does that work?
A free service with pricing power! *bobble bobble*
I'm sure the previous poster is quite aware of these. I just find it very incredible that someone disputes the US as a republic on the basis that a couple of recent presidents (George H. W. Bush and his son George W. Bush) happened to be members of such a dynasty. There's only two other pairs of closely related presidents in US history. That strikes me as a very spurious claim.
Even if one enlarges the field to "dynasties", there's a lot of them (diluting their power, such as it is) and still a minority of presidents with extensive connections from a dynasty.
It's no Monarchy, not quite a weird Theocracy worshipping an earlier ruler,
Well, actually. it's both monarchy and theocracy. North Korea has an obvious hereditary head of state, even if the ruler isn't called a king or emperor. And previous heads of state are deified (I gather the religion is a combination of some sort of Marxist doublespeak and ancestor worship).
Also your little petty bit where you pretend that one bit of a process didn't happen because other things happened later is especially childish.
You'll need to elaborate on that. I have no idea what you are talking about. I get that I disagreed with you. Past that, I really don't understand your presence in this thread.
The definition of republic is rather specific. It doesn't claim that no hereditary position of power exists. Just that the top political position is not hereditary. So noting the presence of political or business clans in US politics or even occasional presidents related to previous presidents, doesn't imply that the US is not a republic.
For the rest of us, we realize that monopolies do pop up from time to time and in the long term everything will be owned by the same entity if governments don't step in to prevent it.
That only happens if the entity happens to be a government. Otherwise, you can always create a competitor.