It is all about keeping wages down:
Microsoft cuts 2,100 jobs in its latest round of layoffs (http://www.engadget.com/2014/09/18/microsoft-layoffs-round-2/)
Intel to cut over 5,000 jobs (http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/17/technology/intel-jobs/)
Cisco plans 6,000 layoffs in restructuring plan (http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2014/08/13/cisco-plans-6-000-layoffs-in-restructuring-plan.html?page=all)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
At the time that the crackdown happened to the OWS people I wrote the following:
"I’m very sorry to hear about your forceful removal from Zuccotti park where you were peacefully demonstrating against what you see as what is wrong with our country. You were exercising your free speech and free assembly rights and I hate to see this taken from you. Let me tell you that I know how you must be feeling right now. About two and a half years ago several of my friends and I joined a movement to protest the government bailing out the bankers that you are so upset with (first time I ever protested anything BTW). We had rallies around the country with the theme of promoting individualism over corporate cronyism. This movement was attacked by the press and government as being racist, gay-bashing, “Astroturf” (term for grass-roots effort sponsored by big money sources), and heartless (I’m sure there were cases where people on the fringe were causing such issues, the same can be said about the fringe in the OWS crowd, but for a majority of people I met while involved this was not the case) but now the whole movement has been marginalized. It is unfortunate that we were unable to convince you at the time of the importance of the issues we were facing and that you chose to sit on the sidelines mocking us as “Tea Baggers” and such. I do hope we can find some common ground now that you are awake and we can take our government back from the statist and big money influences we’ve ceded it to."
"But I feel MUCH better with that power in the hands of my government, than with a private citizen." What magic keeps someone in government from becoming corrupt or greedy for power? NOTHING. It was the government that bailed out the bankers. End crony capitalism by shrinking the government.
A quick search revealed that at least one embedded Linux vendor offers this too without per-phone royalties:
"Meanwhile, MontaVista added that it protects its customers from technical and legal risks through warranties on all editions of MontaVista Linux and indemnification against claims involving the code it creates and delivers."
or you could get the netflix and just watch them once for $10*12 = 120, plus you can stream a boatload of stuff from them too (though you have to return the disks after you watch them:-) )
Heh I work in open-source all day. A good flaming is good for my thick skin.
Any instance where government restricts private entities from taking actions that they would otherwise be able to take in a fully free (laissez-faire) market.
I think setting rules to keep competition healthy is great, particularly with companies that incorporate. They exist under the law for the benefit of the state in exchange for protection under that same law.
Example of indirect intervention would be government-run companies entering the market alongside private ones...
IMHO this is a conflict of interest because they _ARE_ rule setters. They can always change the rules to their benefit.
What about natural monopolies?
No choice, you have to regulate natural monopolies. I guess the difficulty here is defining what a natural monopoly is, I think you are talking about utilities and the like.
"Oh god please, not this crap again" sorry I should have not introduced this tangent.
"By the way, when you say that "capitalism should be constrained by the competition", do you imply that government has the obligation to step in and ensure competitive market, even if that means direct intervention?" heh, well there is the slippery slope. what do you see as "direct intervention"? Government take over, public option, etc no. Stopping companies from becoming "to big to fail" yes. Stopping "monopoly capitalism" yes.
Couple of things:-)
1. We are a republic not a democracy. Mob-rule would suck IMHO
2. I'm not advocating replacing the government with anarchy and capitalism, I'm saying they must work together. Letting one overwhelm the other would be bad, very bad. Government should be constrained with checks and balances, and capitalism should be constrained by competition.
I think you miss-understand me. I'm not advocating a system of only voting with one's money. I agree that we must go into the polling place an make choices about policy (how can deciding between McD's and BK make any difference in influencing the current war?) I'm saying, in the marketplace when we vote with our dollars we are causing real change. Day-to-day decisions are based on our desires and abilities. Yes we could want more and be jealous of others who have more, but we still purchase what is right for us at that time. When the market is manipulated then choice is removed and our dollar vote is void.
In both of your examples you have shown how capitalism and representative governments must work together to ensure a best-case outcome. I don't disagree with you that we need the government, I'm just saying that the "dollar vote" moves many of the mundane choices into the hands of the individuals who are best able to make the decision for themselves.
In the case that someone damages something of yours you ask to have them repair it (i.e. you sue them). Then the damage to your property is reflected in the cost of their product (because all costs are added to the cost of the product). Then the consumers of that product can choose to buy another company's products that were environmentally responsible. It is common practice today to "call out" companies that do socially unacceptable things and have consumers "vote" for another's product.
You need to think on a micro scale not macro. By voting with your dollars I'm talking about on any single item. A person with lots of money does not go out and buy lots of insurance policies (though the could). They go out and get one, and they try to get the best value, just like you and I. All that more money does, form the point of view of the consumer, is give you the option to vote on more stuff than someone with less money.
If Bill Gates wants to buy 1000 health insurance policies for himself he is welcome to. Most people only buy one. To be honest I don't follow your argument, unless you are saying a person with a zillon dollars is going to prop up a bad business and force others to use it. If that was the case I would think that that person wouldn't have a zillon dollars for long.
People vote with their money all the time. They vote their own self interests. They "take their business elsewhere". They "don't leave a tip". If you offer a better (perceived) value then even those people with a "thousand times the votes" will "vote" for you. What we have in the health insurance industry is government implemented monopolies. And, IMHO, monopoly capitalism is really the downfall of capitalism we are seeing today. Too big to fail then becomes the call of all the bad choices the executives make. In the IT world we call this single point of failure. True capitalism made of many small businesses is like having many redundant systems so if one fails others are still around to take up the load.
Heh I have to throw the irony flag on this one. You say "They have an anti-trust exemption" then say "the government is the only entity large enough to be able to compete". Isn't it the government that gave them the anti-trust exemption? How about getting rid of that?
Re:A false choice, of course...
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"Further, there isn't any choice for an insurance plan governed by democracy instead of stockholders"
First, true capitalism is democracy (People vote with their money).
Second, why the government? If you wanted profit out of the equation, why not a heath care co-op? Or not-for-profit insurance?
The US has these great trade deficits too. This is one of the roots of the problem. The U.S. has all of these "Trade Partners" who don't buy anything from us. These partners need to either buy stuff/services from the US or re-balance the currencies, otherwise the people in the US are just mortgaging the increase of the standard-of-living of these other countries.
You use the argument that Software engineers should be paid the same as electrical engineers and civil engineers. I would agree, but there is a problem with this analogy. A civil engineer does not build the structures that they design, construction workers do (who get paid less). Electrical engineers don't build the devices they design, technicians and factory workers do. Software engineers need to get out of the work of doing "construction" and into designing and engineering solutions. That is where the value will be.
I agree that AMD ships a great product, but let us not forget the following: 1. Intel still has a commanding lead on overall desktop processor sales 2. Intel is a silicon fabrication machine (great yields, great process, large volume). What they lack in cutting edge CPU features they make up in fabrication 3. Intel = server CPU. This is a very high margin area that AMD continues to fail to penetrate 4. Intel has more money than the know what to do with. This allows them to keep on redesigning their chips to keep up with AMD (see Pentium M)
This cat and mouse game will continue as follows: AMD innovates, Intel falls behind spends a boatload of money to catch up. Intel's great fabrication team steps up to the plate shrinks the process size, increases yield, increases margin, and they make another boat load of money.
Until AMD can match Intel on fabrication and chip set development they will remain the little fish in the pond:-( As for me I'll still try to cut through the marketing fluff and buy my CPUs based on the best price/performance.
Slashdot Mirror
It is all about keeping wages down: Microsoft cuts 2,100 jobs in its latest round of layoffs (http://www.engadget.com/2014/09/18/microsoft-layoffs-round-2/) Intel to cut over 5,000 jobs (http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/17/technology/intel-jobs/) Cisco plans 6,000 layoffs in restructuring plan (http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2014/08/13/cisco-plans-6-000-layoffs-in-restructuring-plan.html?page=all) https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Back in the day Janet Napolitano put out a report warning of right-wing extremist at the time of the Tea Party. Here is a bit of ranting by the progressives on how it should have been pursued: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/06/1117242/-Remember-the-DHS-Right-Wing-Extremist-Report
At the time that the crackdown happened to the OWS people I wrote the following:
"I’m very sorry to hear about your forceful removal from Zuccotti park where you were peacefully demonstrating against what you see as what is wrong with our country. You were exercising your free speech and free assembly rights and I hate to see this taken from you. Let me tell you that I know how you must be feeling right now. About two and a half years ago several of my friends and I joined a movement to protest the government bailing out the bankers that you are so upset with (first time I ever protested anything BTW). We had rallies around the country with the theme of promoting individualism over corporate cronyism. This movement was attacked by the press and government as being racist, gay-bashing, “Astroturf” (term for grass-roots effort sponsored by big money sources), and heartless (I’m sure there were cases where people on the fringe were causing such issues, the same can be said about the fringe in the OWS crowd, but for a majority of people I met while involved this was not the case) but now the whole movement has been marginalized. It is unfortunate that we were unable to convince you at the time of the importance of the issues we were facing and that you chose to sit on the sidelines mocking us as “Tea Baggers” and such. I do hope we can find some common ground now that you are awake and we can take our government back from the statist and big money influences we’ve ceded it to."
"But I feel MUCH better with that power in the hands of my government, than with a private citizen." What magic keeps someone in government from becoming corrupt or greedy for power? NOTHING. It was the government that bailed out the bankers. End crony capitalism by shrinking the government.
mod++
I'm in China (on business) and even my cab driver was on the phone. This would be the US one up-ing China
I don't see how you equate the Civil Rights laws with NN, please clarify.
A quick search revealed that at least one embedded Linux vendor offers this too without per-phone royalties:
"Meanwhile, MontaVista added that it protects its customers from technical and legal risks through warranties on all editions of MontaVista Linux and indemnification against claims involving the code it creates and delivers."
Just more FUD IMHO
Dang, I got an email just the other day saying I won this contest, but I threw it out because it was in all caps!
or you could get the netflix and just watch them once for $10*12 = 120, plus you can stream a boatload of stuff from them too (though you have to return the disks after you watch them :-) )
Is this just the latest application of the Golden Rule? He who has the gold makes the rules...
My apologies for a harsh reply, as well.
Heh I work in open-source all day. A good flaming is good for my thick skin.
Any instance where government restricts private entities from taking actions that they would otherwise be able to take in a fully free (laissez-faire) market.
I think setting rules to keep competition healthy is great, particularly with companies that incorporate. They exist under the law for the benefit of the state in exchange for protection under that same law.
Example of indirect intervention would be government-run companies entering the market alongside private ones...
IMHO this is a conflict of interest because they _ARE_ rule setters. They can always change the rules to their benefit.
What about natural monopolies?
No choice, you have to regulate natural monopolies. I guess the difficulty here is defining what a natural monopoly is, I think you are talking about utilities and the like.
"Oh god please, not this crap again" sorry I should have not introduced this tangent. "By the way, when you say that "capitalism should be constrained by the competition", do you imply that government has the obligation to step in and ensure competitive market, even if that means direct intervention?" heh, well there is the slippery slope. what do you see as "direct intervention"? Government take over, public option, etc no. Stopping companies from becoming "to big to fail" yes. Stopping "monopoly capitalism" yes.
Couple of things :-)
1. We are a republic not a democracy. Mob-rule would suck IMHO
2. I'm not advocating replacing the government with anarchy and capitalism, I'm saying they must work together. Letting one overwhelm the other would be bad, very bad. Government should be constrained with checks and balances, and capitalism should be constrained by competition.
I think you miss-understand me. I'm not advocating a system of only voting with one's money. I agree that we must go into the polling place an make choices about policy (how can deciding between McD's and BK make any difference in influencing the current war?) I'm saying, in the marketplace when we vote with our dollars we are causing real change. Day-to-day decisions are based on our desires and abilities. Yes we could want more and be jealous of others who have more, but we still purchase what is right for us at that time. When the market is manipulated then choice is removed and our dollar vote is void.
In both of your examples you have shown how capitalism and representative governments must work together to ensure a best-case outcome. I don't disagree with you that we need the government, I'm just saying that the "dollar vote" moves many of the mundane choices into the hands of the individuals who are best able to make the decision for themselves.
In the case that someone damages something of yours you ask to have them repair it (i.e. you sue them). Then the damage to your property is reflected in the cost of their product (because all costs are added to the cost of the product). Then the consumers of that product can choose to buy another company's products that were environmentally responsible. It is common practice today to "call out" companies that do socially unacceptable things and have consumers "vote" for another's product.
You need to think on a micro scale not macro. By voting with your dollars I'm talking about on any single item. A person with lots of money does not go out and buy lots of insurance policies (though the could). They go out and get one, and they try to get the best value, just like you and I. All that more money does, form the point of view of the consumer, is give you the option to vote on more stuff than someone with less money.
If Bill Gates wants to buy 1000 health insurance policies for himself he is welcome to. Most people only buy one. To be honest I don't follow your argument, unless you are saying a person with a zillon dollars is going to prop up a bad business and force others to use it. If that was the case I would think that that person wouldn't have a zillon dollars for long.
People vote with their money all the time. They vote their own self interests. They "take their business elsewhere". They "don't leave a tip". If you offer a better (perceived) value then even those people with a "thousand times the votes" will "vote" for you. What we have in the health insurance industry is government implemented monopolies. And, IMHO, monopoly capitalism is really the downfall of capitalism we are seeing today. Too big to fail then becomes the call of all the bad choices the executives make. In the IT world we call this single point of failure. True capitalism made of many small businesses is like having many redundant systems so if one fails others are still around to take up the load.
Heh I have to throw the irony flag on this one. You say "They have an anti-trust exemption" then say "the government is the only entity large enough to be able to compete". Isn't it the government that gave them the anti-trust exemption? How about getting rid of that?
"Further, there isn't any choice for an insurance plan governed by democracy instead of stockholders" First, true capitalism is democracy (People vote with their money). Second, why the government? If you wanted profit out of the equation, why not a heath care co-op? Or not-for-profit insurance?
The US has these great trade deficits too. This is one of the roots of the problem. The U.S. has all of these "Trade Partners" who don't buy anything from us. These partners need to either buy stuff/services from the US or re-balance the currencies, otherwise the people in the US are just mortgaging the increase of the standard-of-living of these other countries.
You use the argument that Software engineers should be paid the same as electrical engineers and civil engineers. I would agree, but there is a problem with this analogy. A civil engineer does not build the structures that they design, construction workers do (who get paid less). Electrical engineers don't build the devices they design, technicians and factory workers do. Software engineers need to get out of the work of doing "construction" and into designing and engineering solutions. That is where the value will be.
Stimulus bill hahahah whatever
I agree that AMD ships a great product, but let us not forget the following:
:-( As for me I'll still try to cut through the marketing fluff and buy my CPUs based on the best price/performance.
1. Intel still has a commanding lead on overall desktop processor sales
2. Intel is a silicon fabrication machine (great yields, great process, large volume). What they lack in cutting edge CPU features they make up in fabrication
3. Intel = server CPU. This is a very high margin area that AMD continues to fail to penetrate
4. Intel has more money than the know what to do with. This allows them to keep on redesigning their chips to keep up with AMD (see Pentium M)
This cat and mouse game will continue as follows:
AMD innovates, Intel falls behind spends a boatload of money to catch up. Intel's great fabrication team steps up to the plate shrinks the process size, increases yield, increases margin, and they make another boat load of money.
Until AMD can match Intel on fabrication and chip set development they will remain the little fish in the pond