You're missing that regulatory costs are massively inflating the capital cost of new power plants. When it takes 20-25 years to get through the regulatory construction process, everything about building a new plant becomes way more expensive and the time to get a return on investment is ridiculous.
The NRC still treats newer, safer designs worse than it treats older less safe designs in the process. It requires $millions per power plant in ongoing compliance every year. It also still insists on analog everything, rather than digital technologies. Imagine how much more your new solar plant would cost if everything controlling it had to be analog and specially designed as a one-off.
There have already been enough MW of nuclear plants under construction abandoned because they couldn't cope with the regulatory burden to replace the power from every existing coal plant in the U.S.
Socialist publication (Salon), says people like socialism, because a few people are "attempting". Yawn.
Wake us up when you want to discuss something other than obviously biased propaganda trying to further an agenda and create a narrative for the media to adopt where one doesn't already naturally exist.
Yep, and the companies she's talking about have been supporting government takeovers.
I guess (if they've thought about it) they must figure they'll be in a position to influence things so that as industry incumbents they get protection against future competition. It doesn't seem like it's totally worked out that way for them in Europe as the EU has started flexing their muscles to control parts of the Internet.
For the rest of us, let's try and stand on the one-time Schelling point of no government regulation of the Internet as long as possible. It's already been weakened by allowing more and more taxes and by the calls for the federal government to enforce rules on what ISPs must do or not do, but there's still time to say "leave us alone!" instead.
Otherwise we're going down the path where various industry players pay off the various regulators and politicians to get their views enacted in law and we just get to suffer with the limitations on innovation of whatever they happen to be.
It apparently blows right over your head that sentiments such as you quoted from FDR extended the great depression for another decade and that Germany and Israel just ran a nice experiment for us with regards to switching from European-style worker laws toward U.S. style levels of regulation instead and demonstrated quite clearly the economic and jobs damage your suggestions cause empirically.
It's amazing, if you stop passing laws either making it illegal to employ the least fortunate people among us (min. wage/living wage) or which discourages getting a job (lengthy unemployment benefits), suddenly people are working and being productive members of society.
You must really hate poor people if you're advocating for making it illegal for them to have a job. If you don't think that's what you're doing, then you don't understand economics. You might as well advocate for a law declaring everyone must have a personal fusion powerplant. That'll "solve" any energy issues in the same way.
Great, so now every tech startup has to have their very own IRB? And file yet another set of paperwork with the federal government? All so the politicians can forbid Youtube from making their videos autoplay "for the children"?
This is ridiculous. We're not the government's slaves, nor their children. We don't need them to make all of our decisions for us. They're supposed to be the servants of the people, not the other way around.
Oh, and to add a response to the original question, no one in the U.S. anywhere near a hospital or clinic can imagine a "waiting period" to get an ultrasound. That's normal equipment doctors have anywhere they might need it, so you just get one at the time you need it. Same with x-rays. At worst, you might have to wait from a few hours to a couple of days to have a full-blown MRI if you don't have anything life-threatening or particularly painful and it's just being done to help with a diagnostic. For the NHS in the UK an MRI _averages_ 6 weeks.... which they get for just an average of 9% of their income to pay for the NHS, while in the U.S. the average people pay for health insurance is 5% of their income. No thanks!
Other than perhaps a few super rich donors who have the President of a Hospital on speed-dial, people in the U.S. don't have their wait times determined by anything financial. That's probably why when the Canadian Institute for Health Information did a study on wait times in 11 countries, they discovered the private systems did the best (25%), the "mixed" systems the next best (37%), while the wait times in countries with public health systems had about double (50% average) the number of people who reported waiting more than a month for an appointment to see a specialist. The worst being Canada (58.5%), with Norway, Sweden and the UK a little better.
5% of Americans can afford health insurance, but don't bother, mostly healthier and younger people. Less than 5% of Americans are uninsured because they think health insurance is too expensive for them. That 5% are covered by State programs (which they can enroll in after treatment and still get it paid for) if they are actually poor. The best thing the U.S. could do to improve things for everyone is to remove the laws and regulations which have pushed up health and health insurance costs in the U.S. over time.
This is B.S. Most States with voter ID laws also include free or $5 IDs for people. Most very poor people already have ID, for nothing else but because it's required to be able to identify yourself in order to receive welfare.
Some politicians don't want ID and prefer all mail-in voting because they have a political machine to keep them in power which might be inconvenienced a little otherwise.
Send out a reoccurring meeting invite to all your west coast co-workers which starts at 9am EST and ends at noon EST. Call it work-prep or something like that, but make sure everyone is a required attendee and that it will show them as already busy with a meeting on their calendar.
What do you think prisoners are going to do if they can vote? Elect Lex Luthor as president?
Yeah, pretty much. As a quick web search demonstrates, it's well known that most convicts vote Democrat by large margins, which is why they want to get them to be able to vote as soon as possible.
18% of prisons isn't "a lot". They're also governed by the same rules about stuff like this as non-privatized prisons. The politicians and their selected bureaucrats set rules like this, not the local prison officials.
82% of State and Federal prisons aren't private. This has nothing to do with the 18% of privatized prisons, and 100% to do with the government officials who set the rules for all the prisons under their control, public or private.
Ummm... just use a different company who also runs their own cable?
First, this is Google laying one cable. Big deal. Second, there are lots of companies who lay cables, mostly telecoms, because that's the business they're in.
The summary makes it sound like once someone lays a cable, everyone is forced to use it. Back in reality, one more company producing a service (underwater data transport) increases the available options, it doesn't decrease them.
Your Venezuela statistic is flawed by the fact that as more businesses and industries in Venezuela were nationalized, they each began shrinking in size over time. So if you're just measuring as a percentage of GDP, it looks like over time as more were taken over (and then shrank in output), their % of the total gets smaller. In 2010 the "private" part was considered to be 2/3 of the economy and much more has been nationalized and put under government control since then.
Tl;DR version: Your stat is mostly reflecting the fact that government-run businesses tend to collapse and thus stop contributing as much to GDP.
Considering that according to the OECD most of Europe has a standard of living similar to the poorest U.S. States, you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
An income of one worker in the U.S. can live in a tiny run-down apartment with their family even easier than they can in Europe. They just choose not to because they have better opportunities here.
Meanwhile, the U.S. is at the lowest unemployment claims since 1969, which is even better considering there are a lot more people in the workforce now.
At 3.8%, a 50-year low, we're currently beyond what most economists would consider "full employment", with more job openings than people looking for work. All this reported news, combined with the 196K new jobs in March, means is that companies are restructuring and jobs are moving from less efficient uses of people's time to more efficient and valuable uses, which is exactly what we want in order to continue to build wealth in the country.
I'm sure the/. editors will be posting a story about all that anytime now....
Naw, what this proposal would accomplish (if it actually passed and wasn't just a campaign talking point) is to increase the level of executive pay for anyone who might be caught and prosecuted under the law. Less people on the margin who want the job becomes less competition for the job becomes higher compensation for the job to attract the best candidates, the ones with other options. Basic economics, which Warren hasn't ever demonstrated she understands, of course.
Now let's see the laws about holding the government bureaucrats and politicians responsible for all their own many personal data breaches. Still waiting for that to happen...
Slashdot Mirror
You're missing that regulatory costs are massively inflating the capital cost of new power plants. When it takes 20-25 years to get through the regulatory construction process, everything about building a new plant becomes way more expensive and the time to get a return on investment is ridiculous.
The NRC still treats newer, safer designs worse than it treats older less safe designs in the process. It requires $millions per power plant in ongoing compliance every year. It also still insists on analog everything, rather than digital technologies. Imagine how much more your new solar plant would cost if everything controlling it had to be analog and specially designed as a one-off.
There have already been enough MW of nuclear plants under construction abandoned because they couldn't cope with the regulatory burden to replace the power from every existing coal plant in the U.S.
Socialist publication (Salon), says people like socialism, because a few people are "attempting". Yawn.
Wake us up when you want to discuss something other than obviously biased propaganda trying to further an agenda and create a narrative for the media to adopt where one doesn't already naturally exist.
Yep, and the companies she's talking about have been supporting government takeovers.
I guess (if they've thought about it) they must figure they'll be in a position to influence things so that as industry incumbents they get protection against future competition. It doesn't seem like it's totally worked out that way for them in Europe as the EU has started flexing their muscles to control parts of the Internet.
For the rest of us, let's try and stand on the one-time Schelling point of no government regulation of the Internet as long as possible. It's already been weakened by allowing more and more taxes and by the calls for the federal government to enforce rules on what ISPs must do or not do, but there's still time to say "leave us alone!" instead.
Otherwise we're going down the path where various industry players pay off the various regulators and politicians to get their views enacted in law and we just get to suffer with the limitations on innovation of whatever they happen to be.
It apparently blows right over your head that sentiments such as you quoted from FDR extended the great depression for another decade and that Germany and Israel just ran a nice experiment for us with regards to switching from European-style worker laws toward U.S. style levels of regulation instead and demonstrated quite clearly the economic and jobs damage your suggestions cause empirically.
It's amazing, if you stop passing laws either making it illegal to employ the least fortunate people among us (min. wage/living wage) or which discourages getting a job (lengthy unemployment benefits), suddenly people are working and being productive members of society.
You must really hate poor people if you're advocating for making it illegal for them to have a job. If you don't think that's what you're doing, then you don't understand economics. You might as well advocate for a law declaring everyone must have a personal fusion powerplant. That'll "solve" any energy issues in the same way.
Great, so now every tech startup has to have their very own IRB? And file yet another set of paperwork with the federal government? All so the politicians can forbid Youtube from making their videos autoplay "for the children"?
This is ridiculous. We're not the government's slaves, nor their children. We don't need them to make all of our decisions for us. They're supposed to be the servants of the people, not the other way around.
Ok. Here's Standard Oil. AT&T was granted a monopoly by the government, so no need to explain that to everyone, is there?
Oh, and to add a response to the original question, no one in the U.S. anywhere near a hospital or clinic can imagine a "waiting period" to get an ultrasound. That's normal equipment doctors have anywhere they might need it, so you just get one at the time you need it. Same with x-rays. At worst, you might have to wait from a few hours to a couple of days to have a full-blown MRI if you don't have anything life-threatening or particularly painful and it's just being done to help with a diagnostic. For the NHS in the UK an MRI _averages_ 6 weeks.... which they get for just an average of 9% of their income to pay for the NHS, while in the U.S. the average people pay for health insurance is 5% of their income. No thanks!
Other than perhaps a few super rich donors who have the President of a Hospital on speed-dial, people in the U.S. don't have their wait times determined by anything financial. That's probably why when the Canadian Institute for Health Information did a study on wait times in 11 countries, they discovered the private systems did the best (25%), the "mixed" systems the next best (37%), while the wait times in countries with public health systems had about double (50% average) the number of people who reported waiting more than a month for an appointment to see a specialist. The worst being Canada (58.5%), with Norway, Sweden and the UK a little better.
5% of Americans can afford health insurance, but don't bother, mostly healthier and younger people. Less than 5% of Americans are uninsured because they think health insurance is too expensive for them. That 5% are covered by State programs (which they can enroll in after treatment and still get it paid for) if they are actually poor. The best thing the U.S. could do to improve things for everyone is to remove the laws and regulations which have pushed up health and health insurance costs in the U.S. over time.
Open your eyes. Here are some real pictures of Cuban Hospitals. If you think that's good healthcare, you obviously have never seen it before.
This is B.S. Most States with voter ID laws also include free or $5 IDs for people. Most very poor people already have ID, for nothing else but because it's required to be able to identify yourself in order to receive welfare.
Some politicians don't want ID and prefer all mail-in voting because they have a political machine to keep them in power which might be inconvenienced a little otherwise.
Send out a reoccurring meeting invite to all your west coast co-workers which starts at 9am EST and ends at noon EST. Call it work-prep or something like that, but make sure everyone is a required attendee and that it will show them as already busy with a meeting on their calendar.
Yeah, pretty much. As a quick web search demonstrates, it's well known that most convicts vote Democrat by large margins, which is why they want to get them to be able to vote as soon as possible.
You obviously aren't paying attentions if you think there aren't ever any new gun laws.
18% of prisons isn't "a lot". They're also governed by the same rules about stuff like this as non-privatized prisons. The politicians and their selected bureaucrats set rules like this, not the local prison officials.
Also, there's no difference in recidivism between public and private prisons.
82% of State and Federal prisons aren't private. This has nothing to do with the 18% of privatized prisons, and 100% to do with the government officials who set the rules for all the prisons under their control, public or private.
Ummm... just use a different company who also runs their own cable?
First, this is Google laying one cable. Big deal. Second, there are lots of companies who lay cables, mostly telecoms, because that's the business they're in.
The summary makes it sound like once someone lays a cable, everyone is forced to use it. Back in reality, one more company producing a service (underwater data transport) increases the available options, it doesn't decrease them.
Ummm.... anywhere in the 90% of the land mass of the worlds which are currently not very populated?
These people living in big cities need to get outside to the countryside more often...
Except that first one... that's us.
The answer to all your questions is the same, "associates" of the people making the decision to do it.
Your Venezuela statistic is flawed by the fact that as more businesses and industries in Venezuela were nationalized, they each began shrinking in size over time. So if you're just measuring as a percentage of GDP, it looks like over time as more were taken over (and then shrank in output), their % of the total gets smaller. In 2010 the "private" part was considered to be 2/3 of the economy and much more has been nationalized and put under government control since then.
Tl;DR version: Your stat is mostly reflecting the fact that government-run businesses tend to collapse and thus stop contributing as much to GDP.
By publishing their personal/direct cell/email/etc... info which isn't publicly available?
It sounds like Congressional Democrats are really bad at hiring staff.
Considering that according to the OECD most of Europe has a standard of living similar to the poorest U.S. States, you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
An income of one worker in the U.S. can live in a tiny run-down apartment with their family even easier than they can in Europe. They just choose not to because they have better opportunities here.
We're literally at the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years, and you're complaining???
You must have really lambasted Obama when he was in office over his job statistics, right?
Meanwhile, the U.S. is at the lowest unemployment claims since 1969, which is even better considering there are a lot more people in the workforce now.
At 3.8%, a 50-year low, we're currently beyond what most economists would consider "full employment", with more job openings than people looking for work. All this reported news, combined with the 196K new jobs in March, means is that companies are restructuring and jobs are moving from less efficient uses of people's time to more efficient and valuable uses, which is exactly what we want in order to continue to build wealth in the country.
I'm sure the /. editors will be posting a story about all that anytime now....
Naw, what this proposal would accomplish (if it actually passed and wasn't just a campaign talking point) is to increase the level of executive pay for anyone who might be caught and prosecuted under the law. Less people on the margin who want the job becomes less competition for the job becomes higher compensation for the job to attract the best candidates, the ones with other options. Basic economics, which Warren hasn't ever demonstrated she understands, of course.
Now let's see the laws about holding the government bureaucrats and politicians responsible for all their own many personal data breaches. Still waiting for that to happen...