Why doesn’t all powerful and Omniscient Market take care of that?
That's like the difference between a trust fund kid and one who had to put himself through school. When one nation subsidizes their industry, it's not a market, it's unfair advantage, and needs to be dealt with.
Depends on the tariff. Was the tariff put in place on a level playing field, or one in which a nation was subsidizing their industry in order to dominate it?
"1. People are required by law to pay more for solar panels." "2. This extra money goes to corporations that did nothing to earn it."
That's a complete misrepresentation. Yes, the prices will likely increase to where the competitive market should have been in the first place, and prevents China from dominating the market unfairly.
Shielded, no. Put on a competitive field with subsidized Chinese products would be more accurate. It's not a competitive marketplace when one side has it's thumb on the scale.
UBI is coming. It's just a matter of time, and how long it will take to convince the majority that it's necessary. It's a good thing that UBI experiments are ongoing since there are many flavors of it, we need to see what works and what doesn't.
Twitter was recently caught refusing to block Rosie O'Donnell after being notified of abusive tweets from her. They refuse to follow their own rules when it's someone they agree with.
An internet run by academia probably looks better than the internet we have now.
Maybe in terms of research available, and lack of advertising. But the last thing I want is a bunch of people who don't have real world work experience telling everyone what's best for us.
Their users are the ones really in charge and the ones who should force any company to behave properly
Sure, I'd love to foster competition. I feel guilty when I go through Amazon to order stuff, but what hoops do I need to jump through to get the same price/service? I ordered a digital converter for slides yesterday morning, and it was on my doorstep by 8pm.
Jeep and AMC were also around, and separate companies from Chrysler until bought up in the late 80s. That said, the number of companies doesn't matter so much. The protectionism did, but also the fact that both the Big Three, and the UAW were busy shooting themselves in the foot with labor disputes. The mob was involved in much of that, making matters even worse. Just my POV having grown up around the industry in Detroit with many family and friends working in it.
the 240Z and the 300ZX were both designed to provide Corvette performance at half the cost,
Funny you should say this, because I purchased a new 85 Vette when I lived in Germany. My landlord's brother owned the Nissan dealership that was literally next to my house, and he gave me grief for not purchasing a Z. Then I took him for a ride down the winding road to the Mosel river..."now I understand" he said. Even the 911 wasn't up to the Vette that year. My fully loaded Vette was about $25k even. Base MSRP of a stripped 300 according to NADA was $17199 and $19699 for the Turbo according to:
The 85 Vette clocked at 0-60 in 6.0, 1/4 mi. in 14.8 and top end around 150mph (I saw 155 on the autobahn with my cat converter removed because unleaded wasn't available in Europe back then). Numbers I found for the 300: 1985 Nissan 300ZX 0-60 mph: 8.0 seconds. 1985 Nissan 300ZX Turbo Automatic 0-60 mph: 7.3 seconds...not even close. Possibly the handling was better in the 300, I don't know, but the Vette was superb for it's time.
I agree with most all of what you said. I'd just like to add that many companies skirt becoming monopolies by branching out into other areas. You also have localized monopolies (think ISPs, who should really be treated as public utilities), who have everyone by the shorthairs. We need to improve our regulation of monopolistic behavior. At some point soon, we need to do something about Amazon, Google, Walmart, ISPs and some others. I want a free market, but when there's no longer competition, there's nothing left to compete, and nothing but harm will come to the consumer.
What a lot of people fail to recognize is that every company needs to provide a return on investment (ROI). And if that ROI is too low, investors will find somewhere else to invest, leaving the company strapped, and pushing down the value of the company. Making money isn't evil, but too much (and too little) regulation is. We need to get the money out of government lobbying, and set a reasonable level of corporate taxation...I'd be in favor of a progressive level, similar to individual taxes, and then cut out all of the write-offs, with maybe an exception for depreciation of assets.
While I'd agree that those profits are better put to use investing in something, profits in the bank are not a drain on the economy. The economy is not a zero sum game. New wealth is constantly created by continued production of goods and services.
By "bending" rules I assume you mean laws and regulations. Statement of fact: If it's not illegal, then it's legal, and you can expect business to take advantage of it in order to maximize profit, ROI, and thus shareholder value. Some of you will consider that immoral, but companies aren't about morals, you need to fix the laws and regulations you want them to follow. Sure companies will do some good things for marketing/goodwill purposes...it's not because they're nice.
Not sure what you'd be referring to in respect to Apple doing "a lot of bad shit"...who have they harmed?
I'm mostly in agreement with you, but I will say that working for a large company means that those in accounting and HR and many other groups, are mostly leeching off those actually doing the work...they become the bureaucracy that keeps large companies from being agile.
Easily? In your dreams. A move like that would cost billions, not to mention that they'd no longer have the political clout to get their way in Europe or China.
Did you make up all of that on the spot, or did you spend years dreaming it up?
Are you actually blind to world politics? OPEC is the cause of every war of the last 40 years. Hell, the Dune books are practically mideast politics.
Granted, there were a few, but just a partial list (there were many others... 1979 - Soviets into Afghanistan...nope, no oil there 1982 - Falklands War 1983 - Sri Lanka 1987 - Thai-Laos 1989 - Romanian Civil War 1991 - Georgian Civil War 1992 - Bosnia 1993 - Burundi 1994 - Chechnya 1998 - Kosovo . . And, wasn't there a little something going on around the Ukraine recently.
You wouldn't have to split search, but there's no reason Google search, and Chrome, and GMail and Google Maps, etc., all need to be in one company. Those could easily be broken up. Note that I'm not picking on Google...ideally, MS would have been broken up in the antitrust case previously, and others should as well.
I really like the idea of nationalizing companies that are too big to fail,...
Break them up. Employees wouldn't lose their jobs, and shareholders end up with shares in each of the new companies. We did it before with AT&T, but we've let them grow/merge to ridiculous levels again.
Slashdot Mirror
Why doesn’t all powerful and Omniscient Market take care of that?
That's like the difference between a trust fund kid and one who had to put himself through school. When one nation subsidizes their industry, it's not a market, it's unfair advantage, and needs to be dealt with.
China puts a punishing tariff on American solar panels. Turnabout is fair play.
Which would have about zero effect on the US solar panel industry. Thanks for playing.
Depends on the tariff. Was the tariff put in place on a level playing field, or one in which a nation was subsidizing their industry in order to dominate it?
"1. People are required by law to pay more for solar panels."
"2. This extra money goes to corporations that did nothing to earn it."
That's a complete misrepresentation. Yes, the prices will likely increase to where the competitive market should have been in the first place, and prevents China from dominating the market unfairly.
Shielded, no. Put on a competitive field with subsidized Chinese products would be more accurate. It's not a competitive marketplace when one side has it's thumb on the scale.
UBI is coming. It's just a matter of time, and how long it will take to convince the majority that it's necessary. It's a good thing that UBI experiments are ongoing since there are many flavors of it, we need to see what works and what doesn't.
Flick is what I do with my middle finger. In this case, in the direction of Facebooks claim to having invented a unit of time.
Twitter was recently caught refusing to block Rosie O'Donnell after being notified of abusive tweets from her. They refuse to follow their own rules when it's someone they agree with.
An internet run by academia probably looks better than the internet we have now.
Maybe in terms of research available, and lack of advertising. But the last thing I want is a bunch of people who don't have real world work experience telling everyone what's best for us.
Their users are the ones really in charge and the ones who should force any company to behave properly
Sure, I'd love to foster competition. I feel guilty when I go through Amazon to order stuff, but what hoops do I need to jump through to get the same price/service? I ordered a digital converter for slides yesterday morning, and it was on my doorstep by 8pm.
Jeep and AMC were also around, and separate companies from Chrysler until bought up in the late 80s. That said, the number of companies doesn't matter so much. The protectionism did, but also the fact that both the Big Three, and the UAW were busy shooting themselves in the foot with labor disputes. The mob was involved in much of that, making matters even worse. Just my POV having grown up around the industry in Detroit with many family and friends working in it.
the 240Z and the 300ZX were both designed to provide Corvette performance at half the cost,
Funny you should say this, because I purchased a new 85 Vette when I lived in Germany. My landlord's brother owned the Nissan dealership that was literally next to my house, and he gave me grief for not purchasing a Z. Then I took him for a ride down the winding road to the Mosel river..."now I understand" he said. Even the 911 wasn't up to the Vette that year. My fully loaded Vette was about $25k even. Base MSRP of a stripped 300 according to NADA was $17199 and $19699 for the Turbo according to:
http://www.nadaguides.com/Clas...
http://www.nadaguides.com/Clas...
The 85 Vette clocked at 0-60 in 6.0, 1/4 mi. in 14.8 and top end around 150mph (I saw 155 on the autobahn with my cat converter removed because unleaded wasn't available in Europe back then). Numbers I found for the 300: 1985 Nissan 300ZX 0-60 mph: 8.0 seconds. 1985 Nissan 300ZX Turbo Automatic 0-60 mph: 7.3 seconds...not even close. Possibly the handling was better in the 300, I don't know, but the Vette was superb for it's time.
I agree with most all of what you said. I'd just like to add that many companies skirt becoming monopolies by branching out into other areas. You also have localized monopolies (think ISPs, who should really be treated as public utilities), who have everyone by the shorthairs. We need to improve our regulation of monopolistic behavior. At some point soon, we need to do something about Amazon, Google, Walmart, ISPs and some others. I want a free market, but when there's no longer competition, there's nothing left to compete, and nothing but harm will come to the consumer.
What a lot of people fail to recognize is that every company needs to provide a return on investment (ROI). And if that ROI is too low, investors will find somewhere else to invest, leaving the company strapped, and pushing down the value of the company. Making money isn't evil, but too much (and too little) regulation is. We need to get the money out of government lobbying, and set a reasonable level of corporate taxation...I'd be in favor of a progressive level, similar to individual taxes, and then cut out all of the write-offs, with maybe an exception for depreciation of assets.
While I'd agree that those profits are better put to use investing in something, profits in the bank are not a drain on the economy. The economy is not a zero sum game. New wealth is constantly created by continued production of goods and services.
Um no. You were chained long ago when they started collecting all of your data, and doing no *cough*...evil...*cough*
By "bending" rules I assume you mean laws and regulations. Statement of fact: If it's not illegal, then it's legal, and you can expect business to take advantage of it in order to maximize profit, ROI, and thus shareholder value. Some of you will consider that immoral, but companies aren't about morals, you need to fix the laws and regulations you want them to follow. Sure companies will do some good things for marketing/goodwill purposes...it's not because they're nice.
Not sure what you'd be referring to in respect to Apple doing "a lot of bad shit"...who have they harmed?
I'm mostly in agreement with you, but I will say that working for a large company means that those in accounting and HR and many other groups, are mostly leeching off those actually doing the work...they become the bureaucracy that keeps large companies from being agile.
Easily? In your dreams. A move like that would cost billions, not to mention that they'd no longer have the political clout to get their way in Europe or China.
Hopefully it costs Google more to retain that information than it's worth.
Oh, new business opportunity for Google. Sell the info to companies, so that they no longer need to deal with timecards.
I agree with you, but have the balls to post under your own handle.
Did you make up all of that on the spot, or did you spend years dreaming it up?
Are you actually blind to world politics? OPEC is the cause of every war of the last 40 years. Hell, the Dune books are practically mideast politics.
Granted, there were a few, but just a partial list (there were many others...
1979 - Soviets into Afghanistan...nope, no oil there
1982 - Falklands War
1983 - Sri Lanka
1987 - Thai-Laos
1989 - Romanian Civil War
1991 - Georgian Civil War
1992 - Bosnia
1993 - Burundi
1994 - Chechnya
1998 - Kosovo
.
.
And, wasn't there a little something going on around the Ukraine recently.
You wouldn't have to split search, but there's no reason Google search, and Chrome, and GMail and Google Maps, etc., all need to be in one company. Those could easily be broken up. Note that I'm not picking on Google...ideally, MS would have been broken up in the antitrust case previously, and others should as well.
I really like the idea of nationalizing companies that are too big to fail,...
Break them up. Employees wouldn't lose their jobs, and shareholders end up with shares in each of the new companies. We did it before with AT&T, but we've let them grow/merge to ridiculous levels again.
Really? What's the NSA ever done to you? Google, on the other hand, has made a pile of money off of your data.