The fix for this problem is the limit the loser pays is the amount of the loser's own lawyer bill. So, the loser pays the winner the lesser of two amounts - his own legal bill or the winner's. That way, he will limit his exposure to double what he pays his own lawyer.
But you can't dismiss the historical accuracy of it only because it falls under the label "fiction."
Sure you can, because Steinbeck is known to use "literary license" to exaggerate things to make a better story. If you don't know he does this, read "Tortilla Flat" and tell me it is 100% true to life. Next, any serious historian is going to use cited and verifiable facts. TGoW offers no enlightenment as to what in it is factual and what is not, therefore as a "real life" history it is worthless. And lastly, I know people who grew up in the time and setting of the story, who went to school with "okies", and they tell me the novel is a major exaggeration of the truth. Steinbeck is NOT a historian, he's an entertainer.
2) You're thinking of wealth as a fixed pie, that if China has a bigger slice, therefore there is less for the US. Not so. China getting wealthy EXPANDS the pie.
3) Americans are heavilly invested in corporations, both directly via stocks and indirectly via 401ks and pension plans that are invested in stocks. Next, you forget that under your scenario, every american gets less expensive cars. This means they have more money to spend on other things, raising their standard of living. What you're advocating is that every American essentially pay a tax to subsidize auto workers.
4) The mistake here is assuming that free trade does not consist of equal value flowing both ways. It does. That means that for every dollar "exported", a dollar gets "imported", in the form of either buying american goods or investing in america. All those unbalanced free trade numbers are bogus because they do not count foreign investment in America.
5)You're both wrong.
6) The government's job is to protect our rights. The government's job is not to force Joe to subsidize Jim's inefficient and uncompetitive job.
7)Do you think socialism is more sophisticated?
The problem you are having is not understanding the economic concept of "comparative advantage." Do a google search on the term.
If you want to REALLY solve the problem, either force outside workforces to comply with OUR standards, or lower OUR standards of employment to meet theirs.
That won't work. All that will do is make US corporations uncompetitive with foreign corporations, and our economy will decline as the US companies are forced out of business.
The only way to REALLY solve this problem is to lower the costs of hiring US employees. We can start with lowering the payroll tax.
It's not the only choice, that's the point. They could get rid of a lot of costs by simply reducing the ridiculously insane executive compensation--no, CEOs of corporations generally don't deserve the salaries they get, in most cases their jobs can be filled by any reasonably experienced executive.
Oh really? Why don't you start a corporation then and compete with Intel? Pay yourself little, and undercut their prices. Should be pretty easy, right? ROFL!
Perhaps you aren't old enough to notice it, but the airline manufacturers have been very effective at cutting the noise put out by jet engines. There have also been huge advances in reliability and fuel efficiency.
The reason the Concorde was an economic failure was not the sonic boom - it was a failure because of the enormous fuel consumption per passenger, as well as the enormous maintenance costs per passenger. This was true even though the airlines purchased the Concordes for $1 apiece, and there was no purchase cost to amortize.
because you cannot read a digital watch without your glasses on. I can also just elliptically glance at an analog clock, and I know what time it is. With digital, I have to focus on it to read it.
"The problem is that there are never enough used books from the last semester to completely forfill the needs of the students of the next, and the professors can't recommend an old version because if a new one is out, the publishers don't make the old one anymore."
Since there is little or no difference between successive editions of a textbook, why can't the prof say the book is "Textbook ABC, Editions 6,7,8 or 9"?
All you have to do is look at the TV show "Biography." When was the last time they ever did an episode on a scientist, engineer, or great thinker? I can't think of them ever doing that. 9 out of 10 "Biographies" are on movie stars or rock musicians.
Let's make outsourcing of jobs illegal. What happens next? American companies will be at a cost competitive disadvantage compared with foreign companies, and foreign companies will then get the contracts. What's the response to that? Make importing of foreign goods illegal. Then what happens? No US exports, either. Economy goes in the dumpster. Oh well.
Many airline crashes have been averted by the pilot doing something creative and unusual (Sioux City incident, anyone?). Having a system that controls the airplane and cannot be overridden is a recipe for disaster - machinery always breaks down and does the unexpected. Might as well not have a pilot at all if one is going to do that.
If somebody ever attempted to fly a replica of Pearse's "airplane", it's pretty obvious it would not fly. There was no airfoil to its wings, its engine produced only 15-22 HP, and had woefully inefficient propellers. Contrast this with the Wright Flyer, which had an efficient airfoil, very large lifting wing area, a 12 HP engine and a 90% efficient propeller, and still had barely enough power to get airborne. There's no way Pearse's alleged airplane could have flown. Too little power.
Ader has in common with other pretenders to the Wright's accomplishment,
There is no proof that Ader accomplished any more than a couple of ineffectual hops. The Wrights, on the other hand, have incontrovertible proof of sustained, controlled, powered flight.
Ader's machine made no contributions to aviation technology. The Wrights made numerous major contributions tracable right back to the 1903 Flyer.
Ader made no followups. At the peak of his supposed success, he quits like all the other alleged first flighters. Except the Wrights, who built successive machines, each building on the success of the previous.
Color me skeptical. And btw, the Wrights contributed a lot more innovations than just control.
Slashdot Mirror
The fix for this problem is the limit the loser pays is the amount of the loser's own lawyer bill. So, the loser pays the winner the lesser of two amounts - his own legal bill or the winner's. That way, he will limit his exposure to double what he pays his own lawyer.
But you can't dismiss the historical accuracy of it only because it falls under the label "fiction."
Sure you can, because Steinbeck is known to use "literary license" to exaggerate things to make a better story. If you don't know he does this, read "Tortilla Flat" and tell me it is 100% true to life. Next, any serious historian is going to use cited and verifiable facts. TGoW offers no enlightenment as to what in it is factual and what is not, therefore as a "real life" history it is worthless. And lastly, I know people who grew up in the time and setting of the story, who went to school with "okies", and they tell me the novel is a major exaggeration of the truth. Steinbeck is NOT a historian, he's an entertainer.
3) Americans are heavilly invested in corporations, both directly via stocks and indirectly via 401ks and pension plans that are invested in stocks.
Next, you forget that under your scenario, every american gets less expensive cars. This means they have more money to spend on other things, raising their standard of living. What you're advocating is that every American essentially pay a tax to subsidize auto workers.
4) The mistake here is assuming that free trade does not consist of equal value flowing both ways. It does. That means that for every dollar "exported", a dollar gets "imported", in the form of either buying american goods or investing in america. All those unbalanced free trade numbers are bogus because they do not count foreign investment in America.
5)You're both wrong.
6) The government's job is to protect our rights. The government's job is not to force Joe to subsidize Jim's inefficient and uncompetitive job.
7)Do you think socialism is more sophisticated?
The problem you are having is not understanding the economic concept of "comparative advantage." Do a google search on the term.
"real hardship"? The Grapes of Wrath is a novel, fer cryin' out loud. A work of fiction.
That won't work. All that will do is make US corporations uncompetitive with foreign corporations, and our economy will decline as the US companies are forced out of business.
The only way to REALLY solve this problem is to lower the costs of hiring US employees. We can start with lowering the payroll tax.
It's not the only choice, that's the point. They could get rid of a lot of costs by simply reducing the ridiculously insane executive compensation--no, CEOs of corporations generally don't deserve the salaries they get, in most cases their jobs can be filled by any reasonably experienced executive.
Oh really? Why don't you start a corporation then and compete with Intel? Pay yourself little, and undercut their prices. Should be pretty easy, right? ROFL!
after all, dot or dash anyone?
If anyone has noticed how kids treat textbooks, I expect the laptops won't last a week.
If it was profitable, they would be still in service.
Perhaps you aren't old enough to notice it, but the airline manufacturers have been very effective at cutting the noise put out by jet engines. There have also been huge advances in reliability and fuel efficiency.
The reason the Concorde was an economic failure was not the sonic boom - it was a failure because of the enormous fuel consumption per passenger, as well as the enormous maintenance costs per passenger. This was true even though the airlines purchased the Concordes for $1 apiece, and there was no purchase cost to amortize.
because you cannot read a digital watch without your glasses on. I can also just elliptically glance at an analog clock, and I know what time it is. With digital, I have to focus on it to read it.
"The problem is that there are never enough used books from the last semester to completely forfill the needs of the students of the next, and the professors can't recommend an old version because if a new one is out, the publishers don't make the old one anymore."
Since there is little or no difference between successive editions of a textbook, why can't the prof say the book is "Textbook ABC, Editions 6,7,8 or 9"?
Or is it that you also need to provide a service people are willing to pay for?
All you have to do is look at the TV show "Biography." When was the last time they ever did an episode on a scientist, engineer, or great thinker? I can't think of them ever doing that. 9 out of 10 "Biographies" are on movie stars or rock musicians.
Let's make outsourcing of jobs illegal. What happens next? American companies will be at a cost competitive disadvantage compared with foreign companies, and foreign companies will then get the contracts. What's the response to that? Make importing of foreign goods illegal. Then what happens? No US exports, either. Economy goes in the dumpster. Oh well.
What on earth (!) would you spend that paycheck on? The local martian ferrari dealer?
Many airline crashes have been averted by the pilot doing something creative and unusual (Sioux City incident, anyone?). Having a system that controls the airplane and cannot be overridden is a recipe for disaster - machinery always breaks down and does the unexpected. Might as well not have a pilot at all if one is going to do that.
Who needs a new format? HTML works just fine.
If somebody ever attempted to fly a replica of Pearse's "airplane", it's pretty obvious it would not fly. There was no airfoil to its wings, its engine produced only 15-22 HP, and had woefully inefficient propellers. Contrast this with the Wright Flyer, which had an efficient airfoil, very large lifting wing area, a 12 HP engine and a 90% efficient propeller, and still had barely enough power to get airborne. There's no way Pearse's alleged airplane could have flown. Too little power.
No, the Wright Flyer did not use a pulley/weight system to get airborne.
Color me skeptical. And btw, the Wrights contributed a lot more innovations than just control.
That's what utf-8 is for. Why on earth invent yet another encoding?
Yes, I'd love to have a removable media storage device that doesn't suffer from laser rot or all the archival problems that CDROMS have.
I've often wondered if that's the real reason why the CD sales have dropped off - people are pretty much done replacing their old vinyl.