It has nothing to do with my empathy for corporations. It has everything to do with what I feel is best for the US. Abolishing corporate taxes would eliminate tax havens and send many foreign companies our way. The tax revenue can be made up by jacking up taxes on the people who own and work for corporations (us). The tax would be more direct and more efficient. Corporate taxes are about 1/4 that of individual income taxes, and only about 1/6 if you include social security payments... so it's not like I'm talking about huge increases in tax burden. Jack up capital gains a bit, maybe hike the top tax brackets a bit. And I guarantee that tax revenue would go up simply because of the extra business done in country.
If you screw the businesses in one country they can move to another.
This is also why I support abolishing the corporate income tax. To me, it makes no sense to tax the artificial economic entity, and then tax every employee and owner of said entity. Let's keep our taxes limited to actual, real people.
Being "as hungry and willing to use any means necessary to dominate" is peachy-keen so long as people still have a choice. MS got in trouble because they continued to use aggressive tactics after already becoming a monopoly, and they used their monopoly to muscle into other markets.
Apple has a monopoly on exactly nothing.
Besides, Apple will probably never dominate any market since they don't do low-end. They want profit margins and you don't get that by chasing the low-end. See Dell for a lesson in this.
The market will be distorted when you intervene with the government - that is inevitable. My opinion is that trying to further "tweak" the market will only result in even more distortion and inefficiency as you introduce more regulation. As long as corn syrup seems to be harmless, I don't really care whether we'd be using beet sugar instead. This study certainly shows that we need to look more carefully at the safety of corn syrup.
The US is still susceptible to drought. The US is still susceptible to pests and disease. The US is still susceptible to volcanic ash, earthquakes, floods, and other large-scale disasters that could reduce our food supply.
Better to have some built-in margin, even if that means that food is slightly more expensive or we are a little less efficient.
Causing nationwide health problems by using the corn stockpile to create an inferior sugar substitute isn't.
Let's not get too ahead of ourselves... This is one study, which was conducted on rats, which contradicts other seemingly rigorous studies, and which has not been repeated. If stronger evidence emerges, then yes, this is not a good policy. We can always make ethanol out of it instead:)
You are also correct, though your comment has very little to do with Hadlock's post... he said he was giving Biden "a pass", presumably because despite being in the Senate, this was not a tie vote.
I mean this as a genuine question: why is the US so far behind Europe in this?
Are we really so far behind? I can write a check anywhere in the 3.5 million square miles of the US to any of the 300 million inhabitants. Any of those people can take that piece of paper to any bank or check cashing establishment that they desire and get their money. If for some reason I don't have a checking account, I can get a money order from any convenience store and use that in exactly the same way.
Furthermore, most of our bills can be paid electronically, and most banks allow free electronic transfers between linked accounts. The number of checks one has to write each month is actually vanishingly small.
So Europe may have a more technologically advanced system, and it may be less susceptible to fraud, and it may be cheaper for the banks... but is it really "ahead"?
If MS had this policy, they wouldn't control 90% of the market. Apple's policy is more like how when you go to Disney World everything is controlled by Disney.
Isn't that the ultimate in sampling bias? You can go to the library and find their transcripts because they survive... how many lesser artists' notes and letters have been lost?
I'd bet that people will find a way to preserve, say, Linus's old code and notes as opposed to a handful of geeks who read Slashdot:)
VHS to DVD was an obvious improvement in both quality and convenience.
Even then, I didn't buy a DVD player until they were $15 and the video store had a vanishing VHS section. Even then, the back catalog of DVDs took years to catch up to VHS.
Maybe I just grew up watching snowy pictures... or maybe I still remember being awed by the picture on a Sony Trinitron, but picture quality is pretty far down my list on things that make a movie more enjoyable. Home sound has gotten absurd as well... how many channels do we need in a 12x18 room?
I always felt that by George W. Bush touting bio fuels through corn was exceedingly stupid and shortsighted - even for him.
I think the argument was that you needed to start getting the infrastructure in place to handle ethanol. Now you have a bunch of cars that can handle it, and service stations which can dish it out. So now if a private company has a process to make ethanol from scraps, they actually can get it to market without having to build an entire fuel infrastructure from scratch.
Bush even helped your fuel cells, if they happen to work with ethanol. There is absolutely no way fuel cells will ever get off the ground if the nation's gas stations are still only pumping diesel and gasoline.
...the Energy Department estimates that if algae fuel replaced all the petroleum fuel in the United States, it would require 15,000 square miles, which is a few thousand miles larger than Maryland.
The fundamental problem, explains Al Darzins, who coordinates alga research at the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado, is that although algae grow very quickly, most of their biomass is usually carbohydrate. To trigger a higher proportion of oil, you have to stress the algae in some way - starve them of nutrients such as nitrogen, say - which in turn limits their growth rate. As a result, Darzins thinks 42 tonnes per hectare is a more realistic target.
Unless my math is wrong, that is about 3600 gal/acre. The US uses almost 400 million gallons per day, so that's about 41 million acres to make a year's worth of gasoline... 64,000 square miles. For scale, the Gulf of Mexico is about 600,000 square miles.
So while you'd be talking about a lot of ocean, you certainly aren't using all of it.
Slashdot Mirror
You got modded funny, but that's exactly what I'd do. One of the actions I presume you'd want to do is raise capital gains taxes on stock.
It has nothing to do with my empathy for corporations. It has everything to do with what I feel is best for the US. Abolishing corporate taxes would eliminate tax havens and send many foreign companies our way. The tax revenue can be made up by jacking up taxes on the people who own and work for corporations (us). The tax would be more direct and more efficient. Corporate taxes are about 1/4 that of individual income taxes, and only about 1/6 if you include social security payments... so it's not like I'm talking about huge increases in tax burden. Jack up capital gains a bit, maybe hike the top tax brackets a bit. And I guarantee that tax revenue would go up simply because of the extra business done in country.
How about instead we:
Why are these things exclusive of one another. A corporation is not a person, period.
I agree with what you propose (1 & 2), but unfortunately it looks like a constitutional amendment is required.
If you screw the businesses in one country they can move to another.
This is also why I support abolishing the corporate income tax. To me, it makes no sense to tax the artificial economic entity, and then tax every employee and owner of said entity. Let's keep our taxes limited to actual, real people.
Being "as hungry and willing to use any means necessary to dominate" is peachy-keen so long as people still have a choice. MS got in trouble because they continued to use aggressive tactics after already becoming a monopoly, and they used their monopoly to muscle into other markets.
Apple has a monopoly on exactly nothing.
Besides, Apple will probably never dominate any market since they don't do low-end. They want profit margins and you don't get that by chasing the low-end. See Dell for a lesson in this.
Or that any graphics intensive games will work with.
Games... right... wasn't this a Linux discussion? Games threads belong in discussions attached to Mac stories!
The market will be distorted when you intervene with the government - that is inevitable. My opinion is that trying to further "tweak" the market will only result in even more distortion and inefficiency as you introduce more regulation. As long as corn syrup seems to be harmless, I don't really care whether we'd be using beet sugar instead. This study certainly shows that we need to look more carefully at the safety of corn syrup.
The US is still susceptible to drought. The US is still susceptible to pests and disease. The US is still susceptible to volcanic ash, earthquakes, floods, and other large-scale disasters that could reduce our food supply.
Better to have some built-in margin, even if that means that food is slightly more expensive or we are a little less efficient.
Causing nationwide health problems by using the corn stockpile to create an inferior sugar substitute isn't.
Let's not get too ahead of ourselves... This is one study, which was conducted on rats, which contradicts other seemingly rigorous studies, and which has not been repeated. If stronger evidence emerges, then yes, this is not a good policy. We can always make ethanol out of it instead :)
Unfortunately, we have unions... therefore, our trains still have drivers and actual people to make the doors open and close.
I have to agree with you here. Food security trumps having a more efficient market, IMHO.
Here's the list, by the way.
You are also correct, though your comment has very little to do with Hadlock's post... he said he was giving Biden "a pass", presumably because despite being in the Senate, this was not a tie vote.
it's not unusual nor inappropriate for the VP to be absent from the Senate during votes unless there is the chance of a tie vote.
And presumably, this is why Hadlock said, "...but I'll give him a pass on this."
He's also the President of the Senate - parent is correct.
I mean this as a genuine question: why is the US so far behind Europe in this?
Are we really so far behind? I can write a check anywhere in the 3.5 million square miles of the US to any of the 300 million inhabitants. Any of those people can take that piece of paper to any bank or check cashing establishment that they desire and get their money. If for some reason I don't have a checking account, I can get a money order from any convenience store and use that in exactly the same way.
Furthermore, most of our bills can be paid electronically, and most banks allow free electronic transfers between linked accounts. The number of checks one has to write each month is actually vanishingly small.
So Europe may have a more technologically advanced system, and it may be less susceptible to fraud, and it may be cheaper for the banks... but is it really "ahead"?
If MS had this policy, they wouldn't control 90% of the market. Apple's policy is more like how when you go to Disney World everything is controlled by Disney.
Isn't that the ultimate in sampling bias? You can go to the library and find their transcripts because they survive... how many lesser artists' notes and letters have been lost?
I'd bet that people will find a way to preserve, say, Linus's old code and notes as opposed to a handful of geeks who read Slashdot :)
Outsourcing!
The "reductions" in federal head count are just politicians beating their chests - the employees all get replaced by contractors.
The government is not smaller today than it was in the 70s or 80s... just look at the budget!
You are slightly younger than me... when I went to college my desktop had a CD-ROM player that still used a caddy. DVDs weren't even on the radar.
A real libertarian wouldn't support the government interference in the free market called "copyright".
VHS to DVD was an obvious improvement in both quality and convenience.
Even then, I didn't buy a DVD player until they were $15 and the video store had a vanishing VHS section. Even then, the back catalog of DVDs took years to catch up to VHS.
Maybe I just grew up watching snowy pictures... or maybe I still remember being awed by the picture on a Sony Trinitron, but picture quality is pretty far down my list on things that make a movie more enjoyable. Home sound has gotten absurd as well... how many channels do we need in a 12x18 room?
I agree with you. In fact, I think you'd have to be a real wing-nut to disagree with the premise that something needs to be done after the 2008 crash.
But nevertheless, constraining the oil markets too much would result in shortages. You have to allow some speculation or you'll have shortages.
I always felt that by George W. Bush touting bio fuels through corn was exceedingly stupid and shortsighted - even for him.
I think the argument was that you needed to start getting the infrastructure in place to handle ethanol. Now you have a bunch of cars that can handle it, and service stations which can dish it out. So now if a private company has a process to make ethanol from scraps, they actually can get it to market without having to build an entire fuel infrastructure from scratch.
Bush even helped your fuel cells, if they happen to work with ethanol. There is absolutely no way fuel cells will ever get off the ground if the nation's gas stations are still only pumping diesel and gasoline.
The amount of algae growth required for powering America's fleet of vehicles would cover every ocean and kill every single fish on the planet.
You sure about that? The US Dept. of Energy says:
And then there is The US National Renewable Energy Laboratory:
Unless my math is wrong, that is about 3600 gal/acre. The US uses almost 400 million gallons per day, so that's about 41 million acres to make a year's worth of gasoline... 64,000 square miles. For scale, the Gulf of Mexico is about 600,000 square miles.
So while you'd be talking about a lot of ocean, you certainly aren't using all of it.