Okay I'm growing tired of this argument. The company owes the maximum utility to their shareholders, money is only one element of the total utility the shareholder recieves from owning the stock. To illustrate this, say you have the choice of buying two stocks, stock A and stock B. Say they are very consistent stocks, and you know you will make a dollar from stock A and 1.05 from stock B. However stock A say is a kitten adoption company and stock B makes death rays. Which stock are you going to buy? Most people will buy stock A, because they value the positive feeling they get from buying stock A over stock B more than the 5 cents. Mistaking profit for utility is a very common mistake that is often passed off as economics.
My other problem is you could use this argument to justify anything and excuse companies of any moral responsibility, ie enron.
All these nuclear accidents are at traditional nuclear power plants, which are not the newer type being researched in China. The Chinese reactors are pebble-bed reactors, and cannot meltdown. They are designed so that as the temperature increases there is a negative feedback on the atomic reaction. The nuclear fuel is stored in small spheres, which makes them much easier to dispose of and much harder to use for weapons. The Chinese designs also use helium instead of water to transfer the heat, which eliminates radioactive steam, the source of most contamination and accidents. So not to say the newer plants will be perfect, but they should be much safer than the current plants.
What does improving air quality mean? This is a vague and unmeasurable statement(Yes I heard him say it too). My hunch is that this is referring to particulates, sulfur dioxide, or something of this sort, which likely have improved. Certainly it is not talking about reduced CO2 emissions, and most other greenhouse gases, which have worsened signifigantly under Bush.
People keep pointing out that we didn't join Kyoto because the developing countries, ie China, didn't have strict limits. Thats true. Yes joining would put us at an economic disadvantage. However, when it comes to preventing a global catastrophe, I think its time to stop talking about who's playing fair, and take action. Whats more important, giving your grandchildren a chance to live in a world similar to the one you were given, or your stocks going up a couple points?
As to the thinning and forest management, this was a gift to the timber industries, and is much more than is required to prevent forest fires.
If you want to compare Bush's record to other presidents, have a look at the total amount of land reserved for preservation. His doesn't even compare to other presidents.
While I agree Microsoft built through its own abilities built a monopoly, and it is different than the phone companies, etc, economically it doesn't actually matter.
Monopolies will price their product over the market price. Consumers won't be able to buy as much as they'd like, and they'll have to pay more. This results in a very large deadweight loss. So while breaking up monopolies may seem unfair, it is needed for the economy to run efficiently.
Lastly, consumer choice is good. Taking it away is bad. Giving it back, thus, is good.
Again you missed the point. Microsoft can offer IE for "free" because they make such a whopping profit on their OS. You can even think of it as you are buying windows XP and IE together, so you are paying some amount for it. You just aren't aware of the explicit cost of it. Also, not having to advertise it because they bundle it with the OS saves them money as well. Opera has neither of these advantages, and so is relegated to a tiny market share even though it is vastly better.
This is a very simplistic view of the economics of monopoly.
1) Customers can't vote with their feet, choose a different product because microsoft's monopoly ensured there wouldn't be (a viable) one.
2) And as to it makes it cheaper for customers to buy a windows PC, yes it is cheaper than if the customer bought the pc + the OS at an exorbant price, but its still overpriced when bought as a bundle. (You can't assume that the standalone price is the true competitive market price)
Note I'm not a standard anti-microsoft slashdotter, I'm typing this on XP right now. However you can't discount the chilling effect Microsoft's practices have had on the amount of innovation in the market. And you certainly can't just look at the end effect and use that to justify how we got here.
I know I shouldn't even ask this, but did anyone actually RTFA? The nurses were almost always getting shifts at the maximum rate!
"I usually make a bid once a week, which is very easy to do," she said, noting that the top hourly rate is $37.50. And more often than not, she said, the top rate is obtainable.
So I think the nurses are doing pretty well, its just a more efficient way of allocating overtime hours, not a health care scam, or a way of cheating employees.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay I'm growing tired of this argument. The company owes the maximum utility to their shareholders, money is only one element of the total utility the shareholder recieves from owning the stock. To illustrate this, say you have the choice of buying two stocks, stock A and stock B. Say they are very consistent stocks, and you know you will make a dollar from stock A and 1.05 from stock B. However stock A say is a kitten adoption company and stock B makes death rays. Which stock are you going to buy? Most people will buy stock A, because they value the positive feeling they get from buying stock A over stock B more than the 5 cents. Mistaking profit for utility is a very common mistake that is often passed off as economics.
My other problem is you could use this argument to justify anything and excuse companies of any moral responsibility, ie enron.
All these nuclear accidents are at traditional nuclear power plants, which are not the newer type being researched in China. The Chinese reactors are pebble-bed reactors, and cannot meltdown. They are designed so that as the temperature increases there is a negative feedback on the atomic reaction. The nuclear fuel is stored in small spheres, which makes them much easier to dispose of and much harder to use for weapons. The Chinese designs also use helium instead of water to transfer the heat, which eliminates radioactive steam, the source of most contamination and accidents. So not to say the newer plants will be perfect, but they should be much safer than the current plants.
What does improving air quality mean? This is a vague and unmeasurable statement(Yes I heard him say it too). My hunch is that this is referring to particulates, sulfur dioxide, or something of this sort, which likely have improved. Certainly it is not talking about reduced CO2 emissions, and most other greenhouse gases, which have worsened signifigantly under Bush.
People keep pointing out that we didn't join Kyoto because the developing countries, ie China, didn't have strict limits. Thats true. Yes joining would put us at an economic disadvantage. However, when it comes to preventing a global catastrophe, I think its time to stop talking about who's playing fair, and take action. Whats more important, giving your grandchildren a chance to live in a world similar to the one you were given, or your stocks going up a couple points?
As to the thinning and forest management, this was a gift to the timber industries, and is much more than is required to prevent forest fires.
If you want to compare Bush's record to other presidents, have a look at the total amount of land reserved for preservation. His doesn't even compare to other presidents.
While I agree Microsoft built through its own abilities built a monopoly, and it is different than the phone companies, etc, economically it doesn't actually matter. Monopolies will price their product over the market price. Consumers won't be able to buy as much as they'd like, and they'll have to pay more. This results in a very large deadweight loss. So while breaking up monopolies may seem unfair, it is needed for the economy to run efficiently. Lastly, consumer choice is good. Taking it away is bad. Giving it back, thus, is good.
Again you missed the point. Microsoft can offer IE for "free" because they make such a whopping profit on their OS. You can even think of it as you are buying windows XP and IE together, so you are paying some amount for it. You just aren't aware of the explicit cost of it. Also, not having to advertise it because they bundle it with the OS saves them money as well. Opera has neither of these advantages, and so is relegated to a tiny market share even though it is vastly better.
This is a very simplistic view of the economics of monopoly. 1) Customers can't vote with their feet, choose a different product because microsoft's monopoly ensured there wouldn't be (a viable) one. 2) And as to it makes it cheaper for customers to buy a windows PC, yes it is cheaper than if the customer bought the pc + the OS at an exorbant price, but its still overpriced when bought as a bundle. (You can't assume that the standalone price is the true competitive market price) Note I'm not a standard anti-microsoft slashdotter, I'm typing this on XP right now. However you can't discount the chilling effect Microsoft's practices have had on the amount of innovation in the market. And you certainly can't just look at the end effect and use that to justify how we got here.
I know I shouldn't even ask this, but did anyone actually RTFA? The nurses were almost always getting shifts at the maximum rate! "I usually make a bid once a week, which is very easy to do," she said, noting that the top hourly rate is $37.50. And more often than not, she said, the top rate is obtainable. So I think the nurses are doing pretty well, its just a more efficient way of allocating overtime hours, not a health care scam, or a way of cheating employees.