But Sue doesn't have an effective monopoly, she still has competitors like Mary who are also trying to sell to Frank and George and will undercut her if she tries to gouge. Yes. And Mary can do that even now, without UBI. This is definitely not an argument for UBI.
You seem to be reiterating that UBI will increase prices on common goods. I agree with that, but don't see the problem with it: assuming healthy competition (or regulation of allowed monopolies), this has to be accompanied with a higher sales volume No. Higher price of output (goods/service) will be caused by higher price of the input. People, creating values, will have to earn extra money, because they have to earn also for UBI payment.
...being incorrectly over-valued... Not all wealthy people are rich incorrectly. Actually you need to take money from people, who are rich because of their work. Let's assume Paris Hilton doesn't produce anything. You can take from her once, to pay X people $1000 UBI. But next month - you cannot take from her, because she didn't produce anything. So for monthly UBI - you must take from people, who do a lot.
So UBI is based on money from creators of values. As they work the same, but earns less, they will compensate with higher prices to cover their loss. And they can ask higher price, because all people have more money because of UBI.
No, I'm not. To super-simplify: I'm proposing robot shoe factories... This doesn't relate to the UBI.
This is another fallacy, because we don't need unlimited supplies As we do not have unlimited resources, we need to put priority on resources we have, how to distribute them to produce goods/services. Weight of these needs is done by pricing them.
one can live comfortably without ever going to one of his restaurants Some people would like to go there. Probably more people, than he can serve. And here comes price - how much I value my money, which represent my work? How much I'm willing to pay? How much Gordon requires to offer his service? Money is the weight on limited resources.
And taking money and giving them for free will not make services/goods more affordable, it will just raise the price bar, as the amount of limited resources remains the same
Value is always relative. Bottle of water may have value $1-2 for you. On the other hand, someone thirsty in the desert would pay $100 for it.
About Carly Fiorina - they paid for what they hoped. Their judgement was wrong, but it was their money and their responsibility to use them wisely. At the beginning, they saw big value in hiring her. And now we know the value of their mistake.
Sue is rich not because she got $10k, decided that was enough and stopped. She's rich because she was already charging Frank and George the highest prices she could. Exactly my point. Sue was charging Frank and George highest prices she could. Now she can charge them more, because they have more money.
You confuse the owners of capital with the creators of value Not all wealthy people do create value, but - you can take only from creators of value. So you will be taking from them. So they will have deficiency.
There is no need of "creators" to ensure most of the needs of regular people Actually you are proposing to take from creators. So even you need them for your theory.
The "circle" exists only if the supply is limited Supply is always limited. There isn't one thing on Earth, that isn't limited. There is only one Gordon Ramsay. There is only limited people willing to do farming. There will be only limited amount of apples this year. And so on.
Money is the value we are giving to things/service. And by willing to pay or not to pay price for something, we are giving it a priority/value.
Sue works as before, but she gets less. To achieve previous standard, she asks more (higher prices) from Frank and George. She can do that, because both of them can afford to pay higher prices, as they both have higher income. Later the system will find new equilibrium like OLD_PRICES + $1000.
Thank you very much for your response. First of all, your point of view contradicts the idea of the original article. I don't mind, as I disagree with it anyway, just pointing it out.
About your response. Money represents value - work, goods, goodwill, etc. Considering your redistribution, you are saying to take money from those, who create value and spread them evenly. So there will be a deficit on the side of creators of value. To eliminate this deficiency, creators will have to earn more money. To earn more money, they will have to raise the prices. Raised prices means that general public will have nominally more money, but can afford less-per-dollar. And the circle is closed.
That is a complete nonsese. Let's say everyone will get $1000 UBI. Does this mean, that they will earn $1000 more of value? NO. It will inflate global prices about $1000 so prices will be (TODAY_PRICES + $1000), so they will gain no value at all. No one.
Multiple containers in Firefox, assignment to open domain in designated container, and much more: https://testpilot.firefox.com/...
It was developed by Mozilla itself.
Actually, system of PINs has been hacked. Attackers had revealed all the PINs on the Internet. You can check yours, but it's there! Why are we still using them, if anyone can find them online???
http://l33tn3rdz.deviantart.co...
I think this news means, that desktop will matter less and less. It's bad news for all companies banking on desktop. Yes, I'm looking at you, Microsoft!
Lot of rude words in your post and next to none arguments. If it is not a public service, owner can public/delete posts as he wants. He must obey the law (e.g. not to pretend to be someone else, etc.). But he has zero duty to voice your opinion.
A multi-user system shouldn't allow unpriviledged users from consuming resources indefinitely
Crippling the service is not a good way to protect the server.
There are other ways to protect system from users to consume all the resources. Admin can and should setup the server the way it is protected from incompetent/malicious users.
If you make this protection by killing processes after logout, you are actually removing functionality from it. And for me, it's a step backward.
I see this as next level for all the hackers: let the airlines do all the unnecessary orders based on signals from hacked plane. Mile high club got just new meaning.
Slashdot Mirror
It already has this feature, just press "E" while on playback.
But Sue doesn't have an effective monopoly, she still has competitors like Mary who are also trying to sell to Frank and George and will undercut her if she tries to gouge.
Yes. And Mary can do that even now, without UBI. This is definitely not an argument for UBI.
Thank you for your response Issildur03.
...being incorrectly over-valued...
You seem to be reiterating that UBI will increase prices on common goods. I agree with that, but don't see the problem with it: assuming healthy competition (or regulation of allowed monopolies), this has to be accompanied with a higher sales volume
No. Higher price of output (goods/service) will be caused by higher price of the input. People, creating values, will have to earn extra money, because they have to earn also for UBI payment.
Not all wealthy people are rich incorrectly. Actually you need to take money from people, who are rich because of their work. Let's assume Paris Hilton doesn't produce anything. You can take from her once, to pay X people $1000 UBI. But next month - you cannot take from her, because she didn't produce anything. So for monthly UBI - you must take from people, who do a lot.
So UBI is based on money from creators of values. As they work the same, but earns less, they will compensate with higher prices to cover their loss. And they can ask higher price, because all people have more money because of UBI.
No, I'm not. To super-simplify: I'm proposing robot shoe factories...
This doesn't relate to the UBI.
This is another fallacy, because we don't need unlimited supplies
As we do not have unlimited resources, we need to put priority on resources we have, how to distribute them to produce goods/services. Weight of these needs is done by pricing them.
one can live comfortably without ever going to one of his restaurants
Some people would like to go there. Probably more people, than he can serve. And here comes price - how much I value my money, which represent my work? How much I'm willing to pay? How much Gordon requires to offer his service? Money is the weight on limited resources.
And taking money and giving them for free will not make services/goods more affordable, it will just raise the price bar, as the amount of limited resources remains the same
Value is always relative. Bottle of water may have value $1-2 for you. On the other hand, someone thirsty in the desert would pay $100 for it.
About Carly Fiorina - they paid for what they hoped. Their judgement was wrong, but it was their money and their responsibility to use them wisely. At the beginning, they saw big value in hiring her. And now we know the value of their mistake.
Sue is rich not because she got $10k, decided that was enough and stopped. She's rich because she was already charging Frank and George the highest prices she could.
Exactly my point. Sue was charging Frank and George highest prices she could. Now she can charge them more, because they have more money.
You confuse the owners of capital with the creators of value
Not all wealthy people do create value, but - you can take only from creators of value. So you will be taking from them. So they will have deficiency.
There is no need of "creators" to ensure most of the needs of regular people
Actually you are proposing to take from creators. So even you need them for your theory.
The "circle" exists only if the supply is limited
Supply is always limited. There isn't one thing on Earth, that isn't limited. There is only one Gordon Ramsay. There is only limited people willing to do farming. There will be only limited amount of apples this year. And so on.
Money is the value we are giving to things/service. And by willing to pay or not to pay price for something, we are giving it a priority/value.
Sue works as before, but she gets less. To achieve previous standard, she asks more (higher prices) from Frank and George. She can do that, because both of them can afford to pay higher prices, as they both have higher income. Later the system will find new equilibrium like OLD_PRICES + $1000.
Thank you very much for your response. First of all, your point of view contradicts the idea of the original article. I don't mind, as I disagree with it anyway, just pointing it out.
About your response. Money represents value - work, goods, goodwill, etc. Considering your redistribution, you are saying to take money from those, who create value and spread them evenly. So there will be a deficit on the side of creators of value. To eliminate this deficiency, creators will have to earn more money. To earn more money, they will have to raise the prices. Raised prices means that general public will have nominally more money, but can afford less-per-dollar. And the circle is closed.
That's why UBI system will not work.
That is a complete nonsese. Let's say everyone will get $1000 UBI. Does this mean, that they will earn $1000 more of value? NO. It will inflate global prices about $1000 so prices will be (TODAY_PRICES + $1000), so they will gain no value at all. No one.
Well, Google is the best big corporation there. Better than Microsoft, better than Facebook. But it has money, so politics will come to hunt them.
You Can turn on the keyboard control with gmail. Witch this enabled, "Reply to all" is done with pressing the "a" key. This is easyiest.
Multiple containers in Firefox, assignment to open domain in designated container, and much more: https://testpilot.firefox.com/... It was developed by Mozilla itself.
Dunno why moderated to 0, please moderate parent up. It was helpful.
Actually, system of PINs has been hacked. Attackers had revealed all the PINs on the Internet. You can check yours, but it's there! Why are we still using them, if anyone can find them online??? http://l33tn3rdz.deviantart.co...
Not exactly. Also slim people drink diet sodas, to stay slim. Best way to avoid this, is to drink - water.
I think this news means, that desktop will matter less and less. It's bad news for all companies banking on desktop. Yes, I'm looking at you, Microsoft!
On the other hand, I would like to buy one and shut down cameras on seesights spots. Pure fun! [some evil smiley]
Lot of rude words in your post and next to none arguments. If it is not a public service, owner can public/delete posts as he wants. He must obey the law (e.g. not to pretend to be someone else, etc.). But he has zero duty to voice your opinion.
A multi-user system shouldn't allow unpriviledged users from consuming resources indefinitely
Crippling the service is not a good way to protect the server.
There are other ways to protect system from users to consume all the resources. Admin can and should setup the server the way it is protected from incompetent/malicious users.
If you make this protection by killing processes after logout, you are actually removing functionality from it. And for me, it's a step backward.
You could upload videos to google video, it is search portal only now. In past, it was similar to youtube.
I see this as next level for all the hackers: let the airlines do all the unnecessary orders based on signals from hacked plane. Mile high club got just new meaning.
Instead, I'll send you links to the Firefox or Chrome. They will save few grand (mine or yours) and you'll get better browser. Actually, I can do it right away! http://www.google.com/support/chrome/bin/answer.py?answer=95346 http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/fx/ Glad to help (^_^)
the main reason for merging was, the slashdot could not decide if Slacware should be on top, or Ubuntu.
that's only fair. You've seen bigger picture on your bigger screen, so your bill will be bigger too. Simple as that.