Include the indirect subsidies like costs due to direct pollution and contributions to global warming while you're at it. Fossil fuels get the public to pay for an awful lot of the costs fossil fuels incur.
We can't make the externality taxes perfect. We can set them so the internalized costs are at least closer to the total costs, and then the market will do a better job than it does now. Having a carbon tax that's not quite what it should be is a lot better than using tax dollars to try to mitigate the effects later.
Now, ten people are selling something for $1. Five of them suddenly get a $1 tax. One of the others raises its price to $1.95, and suddenly loses business to the ones still at $1. There are multiple economic entities involved in power generation, not just a fossil-fuel company and a non-fossil-fuel company.
Companies can't just pass costs on to their customers. Study some microeconomics. If the cost of coal power goes up, power companies will move to other power sources, and customers will buy less power. Some households try to reduce the electricity bill, and some don't. More will if the price goes up.
We can deal with transition costs that poor people have.
The turbine costs a lot more than just the energy to make it and put it in place, so if it would never make up that energy in its lifetime it would be hideously costly to put up, even with subsidies. Since we're putting up a lot of them, and lots of other countries are too, your statement is prima facie wrong and stupid.
The FDA is not paid by the number of drugs it accepts, but by the number submitted, and there is no alternative to submitting to the FDA if a company wants permission to sell a drug in the US. If a pharma company believes the FDA is acting against their interests, what are they going to do? Submit the drug to the FAA? Sell it in the US without FDA approval? They're not going to figure it's too much hassle to sell it in the US, because that's where the big profits are. There's no harm in making the pharma companies pay for the approval process, and it puts the burden of cost in the right place.
"It just makes sense." - words that should never be relied on in US medical billing. Look to actual practice instead.
3) Interstellar travel is way impractical, and we have a lot of science and technology to develop before we can even recognize the physical basis of their Internet-equivalent. In a million years, we can be collective n00bs with ancient and incredibly advanced races trying to teach us nettiquette.
There's nothing mathematically wrong with the equation. The problems are that, in the later coefficients, we're making wild-ass guesses from a sample size of 1, so the science is wildly speculative. Also, real statisticians have no problems with time or infinity.
Good read, but very implausible. The aliens evolved intelligence and developed technology in a wildly unstable environment, which presumably took hundreds of millions or billions of years (generalizing from a sample of N=1, of course). At that point, they'd have adapted to pretty much anything that could be expected to happen on their planet in the next ten to a hundred million years, and wouldn't need to embark on a crash conquest. Since they can make superpowerful computers out of single protons, they'd have no problems predicting the orbital mechanics of the system for a long time to come, and I'd suspect a civilization capable of sending significant mass to Earth at 0.01c would be able to modify their planet's orbit.
Humans are outnumbered in their own bodies. I don't know how many species of bacteria and similar stuff there were in assorted astronauts, but they went off-planet also.
We really don't know how long there will be intelligent life on Earth and perhaps elsewhere in the Solar System (considering "intelligent" to be roughly human or greater). So far, it's only been a very small time in the planet's history, but we may think differently in half a billion years.
Trump wasn't getting majorities in primary votes while there were still several candidates in the hunt. If everybody but one candidate had dropped out earlier, Trump would have done better in the primaries, and probably gotten more delegates.
Sanders is a socialist, and that's Communist, you know. Regrettably, there's a lot of people on Slashdot who fall for that crap, and there's a lot in the US that do.
Sanders looks good relative to Clinton because Republicans have been throwing anything they can find that looks like mud at Clinton for a long time now. Nobody's been seriously targeting him.
It is a real problem that such jobs are not that common now, but manufacturing will never again generate a lot of those jobs. US manufacturing has many fewer jobs, and many of them require more skill. Non-US manufacturing employs more or less workers in their home countries. We need new answers (and it would be nice to get them without having to have some sort of revolution).
No, Clinton did not commit sexual harassment. The decision in the Paula Jones case was that, if all her claims were admitted as true, they didn't legally add up to sexual harassment that warranted damages. What the trial showed us is that Bill Clinton can be a real jerk, but that's not unusual among US Presidents.
Getting sexual favors from subordinates, or asking for them, is not itself sexual harassment. If there's a hint that sexual favors might advance a career, or denial might hinder it, or the sexual environment is consistently making people uncomfortable, it is.
The sheer volume of manufactured scandals has made me believe that none of them are true. If Hillary were caught in a threesome with Angela Merkel and Vladimir Putin, after playing poker with Top Secret documents, I wouldn't trust it enough to bother to validate it.
We all learn something if there's a conflagration that destroys a few houses and kills a few people, yes. There is no obvious definition of "reasonable precautions" here, and the delivery company has some pressure to rate "reasonable precautions" as less safe than the people in the community would. Bridging that gap is a job for government, somehow or other, and I'd rather have the precautions listed explicitly than to find what the courts rule when people whose homes or cars have been destroyed, or who have lost loved one, sue the delivery company.
I had a surveyor come in once and find out exactly where my property ends. It doesn't extend all the way to the sidewalk. It isn't a matter of right-of-way. The front meter or so of my front lawn isn't mine.
Except that a store doesn't know all the tax laws in a state by virtue of having several stores in that state. Sales taxes can vary across non-obvious boundaries. The Target near Snelling and Highway 36 needs to know the tax laws that apply to that specific location, which may or may not be the state tax and nothing more. If all sales tax was uniform across a state, it wouldn't be much of a problem. (There would still be questions on what tax category different things belong to in different states.)
I'm in a HMO. I can see a doctor any time I need one, and typically can get a next-day appointment with my primary physician. My appointments with him involve both of us explaining things and asking questions, and do not feel hurried. It can be done, guys.
So you believe that something that works reasonably well in literally every other developed country in the world would only get screwed up here? So you're another one who thinks the US is special as in Special Ed or the Special Olympics? Where did this can't-do attitude come from?
Would that work in the US (well, with a million and a half dollars)? Transplant eligibility is based on the ability to pay for the transplant and follow-up, along with tissue matches, so the money does show you can pay for everything. Do you really want a new kidney now that's not a good match and is likely to be rejected?
Slashdot Mirror
Include the indirect subsidies like costs due to direct pollution and contributions to global warming while you're at it. Fossil fuels get the public to pay for an awful lot of the costs fossil fuels incur.
We can't make the externality taxes perfect. We can set them so the internalized costs are at least closer to the total costs, and then the market will do a better job than it does now. Having a carbon tax that's not quite what it should be is a lot better than using tax dollars to try to mitigate the effects later.
Now, ten people are selling something for $1. Five of them suddenly get a $1 tax. One of the others raises its price to $1.95, and suddenly loses business to the ones still at $1. There are multiple economic entities involved in power generation, not just a fossil-fuel company and a non-fossil-fuel company.
Companies can't just pass costs on to their customers. Study some microeconomics. If the cost of coal power goes up, power companies will move to other power sources, and customers will buy less power. Some households try to reduce the electricity bill, and some don't. More will if the price goes up.
We can deal with transition costs that poor people have.
The turbine costs a lot more than just the energy to make it and put it in place, so if it would never make up that energy in its lifetime it would be hideously costly to put up, even with subsidies. Since we're putting up a lot of them, and lots of other countries are too, your statement is prima facie wrong and stupid.
The FDA is not paid by the number of drugs it accepts, but by the number submitted, and there is no alternative to submitting to the FDA if a company wants permission to sell a drug in the US. If a pharma company believes the FDA is acting against their interests, what are they going to do? Submit the drug to the FAA? Sell it in the US without FDA approval? They're not going to figure it's too much hassle to sell it in the US, because that's where the big profits are. There's no harm in making the pharma companies pay for the approval process, and it puts the burden of cost in the right place.
"It just makes sense." - words that should never be relied on in US medical billing. Look to actual practice instead.
From what you said, it isn't Bubba and Cletus in at least one of those companies. That doesn't fill me with confidence.
And, yes, the regulators would be guessing, but they'd at least be setting minimum standards that look reasonable.
3) Interstellar travel is way impractical, and we have a lot of science and technology to develop before we can even recognize the physical basis of their Internet-equivalent. In a million years, we can be collective n00bs with ancient and incredibly advanced races trying to teach us nettiquette.
There's nothing mathematically wrong with the equation. The problems are that, in the later coefficients, we're making wild-ass guesses from a sample size of 1, so the science is wildly speculative. Also, real statisticians have no problems with time or infinity.
Good read, but very implausible. The aliens evolved intelligence and developed technology in a wildly unstable environment, which presumably took hundreds of millions or billions of years (generalizing from a sample of N=1, of course). At that point, they'd have adapted to pretty much anything that could be expected to happen on their planet in the next ten to a hundred million years, and wouldn't need to embark on a crash conquest. Since they can make superpowerful computers out of single protons, they'd have no problems predicting the orbital mechanics of the system for a long time to come, and I'd suspect a civilization capable of sending significant mass to Earth at 0.01c would be able to modify their planet's orbit.
Humans are outnumbered in their own bodies. I don't know how many species of bacteria and similar stuff there were in assorted astronauts, but they went off-planet also.
We really don't know how long there will be intelligent life on Earth and perhaps elsewhere in the Solar System (considering "intelligent" to be roughly human or greater). So far, it's only been a very small time in the planet's history, but we may think differently in half a billion years.
Trump wasn't getting majorities in primary votes while there were still several candidates in the hunt. If everybody but one candidate had dropped out earlier, Trump would have done better in the primaries, and probably gotten more delegates.
Sanders is a socialist, and that's Communist, you know. Regrettably, there's a lot of people on Slashdot who fall for that crap, and there's a lot in the US that do.
Sanders looks good relative to Clinton because Republicans have been throwing anything they can find that looks like mud at Clinton for a long time now. Nobody's been seriously targeting him.
Too bad there hasn't been a party for conservatives for quite a few years now.
It is a real problem that such jobs are not that common now, but manufacturing will never again generate a lot of those jobs. US manufacturing has many fewer jobs, and many of them require more skill. Non-US manufacturing employs more or less workers in their home countries. We need new answers (and it would be nice to get them without having to have some sort of revolution).
No, Clinton did not commit sexual harassment. The decision in the Paula Jones case was that, if all her claims were admitted as true, they didn't legally add up to sexual harassment that warranted damages. What the trial showed us is that Bill Clinton can be a real jerk, but that's not unusual among US Presidents.
Getting sexual favors from subordinates, or asking for them, is not itself sexual harassment. If there's a hint that sexual favors might advance a career, or denial might hinder it, or the sexual environment is consistently making people uncomfortable, it is.
The sheer volume of manufactured scandals has made me believe that none of them are true. If Hillary were caught in a threesome with Angela Merkel and Vladimir Putin, after playing poker with Top Secret documents, I wouldn't trust it enough to bother to validate it.
We all learn something if there's a conflagration that destroys a few houses and kills a few people, yes. There is no obvious definition of "reasonable precautions" here, and the delivery company has some pressure to rate "reasonable precautions" as less safe than the people in the community would. Bridging that gap is a job for government, somehow or other, and I'd rather have the precautions listed explicitly than to find what the courts rule when people whose homes or cars have been destroyed, or who have lost loved one, sue the delivery company.
I had a surveyor come in once and find out exactly where my property ends. It doesn't extend all the way to the sidewalk. It isn't a matter of right-of-way. The front meter or so of my front lawn isn't mine.
Except that a store doesn't know all the tax laws in a state by virtue of having several stores in that state. Sales taxes can vary across non-obvious boundaries. The Target near Snelling and Highway 36 needs to know the tax laws that apply to that specific location, which may or may not be the state tax and nothing more. If all sales tax was uniform across a state, it wouldn't be much of a problem. (There would still be questions on what tax category different things belong to in different states.)
I'm in a HMO. I can see a doctor any time I need one, and typically can get a next-day appointment with my primary physician. My appointments with him involve both of us explaining things and asking questions, and do not feel hurried. It can be done, guys.
And it's embarrassing when your best praise is "slightly better than Cuba".
So you believe that something that works reasonably well in literally every other developed country in the world would only get screwed up here? So you're another one who thinks the US is special as in Special Ed or the Special Olympics? Where did this can't-do attitude come from?
Would that work in the US (well, with a million and a half dollars)? Transplant eligibility is based on the ability to pay for the transplant and follow-up, along with tissue matches, so the money does show you can pay for everything. Do you really want a new kidney now that's not a good match and is likely to be rejected?