And dependence on Big Media to supply us with what is best for our entertainment, education, and news. If they take something off the air, it's for the good of the consumer!
Yeah. Either build zero maintenance roads or force licensed drivers to do repairs for free. I can see it now: Chain gangs of SUV owners, singing songs and laying down asphalt... the right will support this, too, as 'nobody forces you to get a license', and the truly wealthy hire drivers to drive them around so it 'creates jobs'...
*chuckle* and the right wing supports keeping people as slave-like as possible. They would like nothing more than reducing the bulk of the US workforce to third-world levels of pay and education, as long as the wealthy get to stay on top. The fact that this would eliminate the most lucrative market in the world doesn't bother them, they think they'll be able to sell goods in China. Suckers.
Well I know that many of my friends that still have jobs are terrified of losing them - because without those jobs, there is no possible healthcare. Going into business for yourself? There will be no insurance for YOU. Leave because a job is intolerable? Finding a job that pays enough to pay school loans, food, shelter AND insurance is damned near impossible - and even then you are looking at at least 6 months as a 'contract' employee before they will consider giving you a 'permanent' job - and then? Most states are 'at will' employers, and employers can and will fire you (with no legal repercussions) for if you look at them sideways - even for activities outside of work settings, or for political views - and then you are in an even WORSE position, as most employers will only hire people that are currently employed, if at all.
When your life depends on work (and, having had cancer, I know whereof I speak) you will do ANYTHING to stay alive.
It's not as simple as you depict it. Not everything is a luxury, not even work.
Cite evidence please, as I have NOT observed this piece of economic dogma in action. If you start poor, you end poor, in the overwhelming number of cases. If you disagree, you probably haven't been poor.
Now, now. Free markets work GREAT when all transactions are perfectly reversible, all goods and services are luxuries, all markets are infinite (for example, you can always just go out and get another job, the job market is unlimited), there is no collusion (explicit or implicit) between businesses, there are no barriers to entry for new businesses, people live forever (giving the market time to 'correct'), supply and demand are unskewed by concerns like "I will DIE unless I get food/water/shelter", and protecting consumer rights costs nothing.
Oh - you have to ignore that the 'invisible hand' in any nominal democratic society or republic is manifested through regulations that have been voted in (directly or indirectly).
As long as these simple requirements are met, free markets are AWESOME.
"Actually, THIS Libertarian got his economic theory from studying to get an economics degree in college"
Well good! You are more likely to know something on the subject, then. (It's no guarantee though - I remember when supply-side economics was sold to students as gospel) Not me though. Math, Physics and Philosophy were my majors. I've been watching 'Libertarians' try to isolate government from the market for many years. That's not possible; in a democracy, even a Republican democracy where the people are isolated by one remove from direct voting. When the people are abused (people are a vital part of almost all large markets, I'm sure you'll agree) the people correct that market through regulation. Most of the free marketeers and Libertarians I've spoken with over the years tend to invent assumptions to prop up their dogma; namely that all things are luxuries (when you are staring at death or starvation there IS no balance between supply and demand for example), or that segments of the market are infinite (you can always go and get another job), or deny that the goal of all business is monopoly (heck many of the libertarians I've spoken to deny that there is any such thing as a monopoly) or blather on about unions not being a free market phenomena - as if they are anti-capitalist, somehow (when, once again, they are the end product of 'self-regulating' business abuses of the workforce). And the most hilarious are the 'Laffer drones' that conveniently ignore the other side of the Laffer curve - the side that points out that indeed if you reduce taxes BELOW the peak (37-42% IIRC) of the curve the government's revenue drops precipitously - IOW, reducing taxes to increase revenue only works to a point, and the citizens are not well served past that point.
Nope, IMO finite markets need boundaries, the boundaries are the result of businesses abusing their power, and are generally called 'laws' or 'regulations'. Without them, the market will consume itself and dry up.
The ones that cannot see that, and instead espouse Bugs Bunny econ (a never ending spiral of pay increases, production increases and price drops brought about by industry) if only the government (conveniently forgetting that government is the representation of the people's part of the market) would get out of the way. Those are the ones I find sophomoric... *smile*
*shrug* Fear, uncertainty, doubt, hatred - ALL outsell bravery, certainty, confidence and love.
Murdoch simply holds money in higher regard than honesty.
Right-wingers of all stripes (economic, religious, narcissistic, etc) love that pragmatic approach. After all, the Supreme Court clarified the Constitutional right to free speech (and it's a natural right) means that he can peddle bile and call it news with impunity... He's just following the market, folks. Is it Murdoch's fault so many Americans fight so hard for the right to be venal? That so many Americans want us to have a two-class system with themselves on top?
Is it Murdoch's fault that so many people (I'm looking at you, Libertarians) get their economic theory from '60s Bugs Bunny cartoons?
It's CERTAINLY not his fault that so many Americans hold science in contempt, and think that legislation trumps both mathematics and natural law.
Is it his fault that so many here believe to their core that they are better than anyone else? That all other people should be glad at our attempts to dominate them?
Is it Murdoch's fault when he panders to the tastes of a nation in serious economic trouble, threatened only by starving tribesmen and parts of underdeveloped/third-world nations, that flirts with economic oblivion so that we have enough weapons to take on every other nation on earth at once?
Current, hell. The US government hasn't cared since Reagan. YOU haven't cared since Obama got elected, maybe - You may WANT to pin everything wrong with the government on the Democrats, but it ain't gonna work. SOME of us have longer memories than the proverbial goldfish.
Google has irrevocably released all of its patents on VP8 as a royalty-free format - and while the "lead developer of the H.264 encoder x264, raised concerns about the similarity between VP8 and H.264", "other researchers cite evidence that On2 made a particular effort to avoid any MPEG LA patents"
"Patent indemnity" is a smokescreen, of course. Why won't MICROSOFT offer patent indemnity after all? Who's going to go to bat for you when your company is the target of a H.264 patent troll?
Slashdot Mirror
And dependence on Big Media to supply us with what is best for our entertainment, education, and news. If they take something off the air, it's for the good of the consumer!
Cool! What society are you in? It ain't the West, and it ain't the East, north OR south.
Oh! I get it! Send the UFO around right away!
Tell that to a Jersey boy...
So - you agree that a baseline of social healthcare is important then? It's just a question of how much?
How... reasonable! You vote that way too, I hope.
A. Promote the General Welfare _IS_ mentioned in the preamble. It may not be a duty, but it IS a goal.
B. Really. So having a military that outspends all other militaries in the world _combined_ is all about peace, eh?
C. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Non-Military-Industrial-Complex funded citation requested, please.
Yeah. Just reboot it will be fine. /s
Why not? It's the same level of patenting that patent trolls use, typically.
It's like deregulating the market. If it didn't work, that means you just didn't try hard enough. You must BELIEVE until you TRANSCEND reality.
Wow politicians told you it wouldn't be there and to pay anyway? Which ones? Names please.
Yeah. Either build zero maintenance roads or force licensed drivers to do repairs for free. I can see it now: Chain gangs of SUV owners, singing songs and laying down asphalt... the right will support this, too, as 'nobody forces you to get a license', and the truly wealthy hire drivers to drive them around so it 'creates jobs'...
Nah - you see, since religion is the opiate of the masses, we get free religion instead. Helps the budget.
*chuckle* and the right wing supports keeping people as slave-like as possible. They would like nothing more than reducing the bulk of the US workforce to third-world levels of pay and education, as long as the wealthy get to stay on top. The fact that this would eliminate the most lucrative market in the world doesn't bother them, they think they'll be able to sell goods in China. Suckers.
Competing through lawsuits isn't even innovation anymore. Its just pathetic.
If we did it would be a happier country.
Not perfect, maybe - but happier.
Well I know that many of my friends that still have jobs are terrified of losing them - because without those jobs, there is no possible healthcare. Going into business for yourself? There will be no insurance for YOU. Leave because a job is intolerable? Finding a job that pays enough to pay school loans, food, shelter AND insurance is damned near impossible - and even then you are looking at at least 6 months as a 'contract' employee before they will consider giving you a 'permanent' job - and then? Most states are 'at will' employers, and employers can and will fire you (with no legal repercussions) for if you look at them sideways - even for activities outside of work settings, or for political views - and then you are in an even WORSE position, as most employers will only hire people that are currently employed, if at all.
When your life depends on work (and, having had cancer, I know whereof I speak) you will do ANYTHING to stay alive.
It's not as simple as you depict it. Not everything is a luxury, not even work.
Cite evidence please, as I have NOT observed this piece of economic dogma in action. If you start poor, you end poor, in the overwhelming number of cases. If you disagree, you probably haven't been poor.
Now, now. Free markets work GREAT when all transactions are perfectly reversible, all goods and services are luxuries, all markets are infinite (for example, you can always just go out and get another job, the job market is unlimited), there is no collusion (explicit or implicit) between businesses, there are no barriers to entry for new businesses, people live forever (giving the market time to 'correct'), supply and demand are unskewed by concerns like "I will DIE unless I get food/water/shelter", and protecting consumer rights costs nothing.
Oh - you have to ignore that the 'invisible hand' in any nominal democratic society or republic is manifested through regulations that have been voted in (directly or indirectly).
As long as these simple requirements are met, free markets are AWESOME.
So hurry and patent EVERYTHING, before everybody else does... Whether you ACTUALLY invented or not is irrelevant - Prior art no longer matters!
Yeah THAT's a good idea.
"Actually, THIS Libertarian got his economic theory from studying to get an economics degree in college"
Well good! You are more likely to know something on the subject, then. (It's no guarantee though - I remember when supply-side economics was sold to students as gospel) Not me though. Math, Physics and Philosophy were my majors. I've been watching 'Libertarians' try to isolate government from the market for many years. That's not possible; in a democracy, even a Republican democracy where the people are isolated by one remove from direct voting. When the people are abused (people are a vital part of almost all large markets, I'm sure you'll agree) the people correct that market through regulation. Most of the free marketeers and Libertarians I've spoken with over the years tend to invent assumptions to prop up their dogma; namely that all things are luxuries (when you are staring at death or starvation there IS no balance between supply and demand for example), or that segments of the market are infinite (you can always go and get another job), or deny that the goal of all business is monopoly (heck many of the libertarians I've spoken to deny that there is any such thing as a monopoly) or blather on about unions not being a free market phenomena - as if they are anti-capitalist, somehow (when, once again, they are the end product of 'self-regulating' business abuses of the workforce). And the most hilarious are the 'Laffer drones' that conveniently ignore the other side of the Laffer curve - the side that points out that indeed if you reduce taxes BELOW the peak (37-42% IIRC) of the curve the government's revenue drops precipitously - IOW, reducing taxes to increase revenue only works to a point, and the citizens are not well served past that point.
Nope, IMO finite markets need boundaries, the boundaries are the result of businesses abusing their power, and are generally called 'laws' or 'regulations'. Without them, the market will consume itself and dry up.
The ones that cannot see that, and instead espouse Bugs Bunny econ (a never ending spiral of pay increases, production increases and price drops brought about by industry) if only the government (conveniently forgetting that government is the representation of the people's part of the market) would get out of the way. Those are the ones I find sophomoric... *smile*
*shrug* Fear, uncertainty, doubt, hatred - ALL outsell bravery, certainty, confidence and love.
Murdoch simply holds money in higher regard than honesty.
Right-wingers of all stripes (economic, religious, narcissistic, etc) love that pragmatic approach. After all, the Supreme Court clarified the Constitutional right to free speech (and it's a natural right) means that he can peddle bile and call it news with impunity... He's just following the market, folks. Is it Murdoch's fault so many Americans fight so hard for the right to be venal? That so many Americans want us to have a two-class system with themselves on top?
Is it Murdoch's fault that so many people (I'm looking at you, Libertarians) get their economic theory from '60s Bugs Bunny cartoons?
It's CERTAINLY not his fault that so many Americans hold science in contempt, and think that legislation trumps both mathematics and natural law.
Is it his fault that so many here believe to their core that they are better than anyone else? That all other people should be glad at our attempts to dominate them?
Is it Murdoch's fault when he panders to the tastes of a nation in serious economic trouble, threatened only by starving tribesmen and parts of underdeveloped/third-world nations, that flirts with economic oblivion so that we have enough weapons to take on every other nation on earth at once?
Yes, spy. If you leave your front door unlocked, that doesn't mean its legal for everyone to come in and take pictures of you sleeping in the nude...
Yes.
You are insane. Maybe you looked the other way because it was 'your team' before and they can do no wrong?
Current, hell. The US government hasn't cared since Reagan. YOU haven't cared since Obama got elected, maybe - You may WANT to pin everything wrong with the government on the Democrats, but it ain't gonna work. SOME of us have longer memories than the proverbial goldfish.
Google has irrevocably released all of its patents on VP8 as a royalty-free format - and while the "lead developer of the H.264 encoder x264, raised concerns about the similarity between VP8 and H.264", "other researchers cite evidence that On2 made a particular effort to avoid any MPEG LA patents"
"Patent indemnity" is a smokescreen, of course. Why won't MICROSOFT offer patent indemnity after all? Who's going to go to bat for you when your company is the target of a H.264 patent troll?