What if India was simply paid off by Bing to accomplish just such a goal? Simply running away is not an option if you conduct a business in which there are competitors. If you base a society on such principles, you end up with a society in which there is no rule of law -- whoever pays the highest bribe wins. You can argue that we are already there, and to some degree, you'd be right. But these are matters of degree and if Bing were to in India in such a way, that would be another step in the direction of lawlessness.
It's simple: if you want to operate in India, you must follow Indian law. If you are not willing to do that, your company will be fined, just as it did in Europe.
Sure..if we are talking about laws regarding your operations in India. Any attempt to impose extra-territorial legal restrictions is always very questionable. Generally, there has to be a compelling humanitarian reason for legislating extra-territorial behavior (like outlawing human trafficking or sex tourism to countries with under-age prostitution) or an attempt to stop international criminal behavior (like drug-trafficking or maybe... maybe tax dodging). Improper application of IP laws (like patent laws)? If that were ok, then, as a poster above mentioned, US would go after bank accounts of any company producing generic versions of US drugs before they became off-patent in the US. Unless, of course, they want to claim that this is 10% of Google's operations in India, but I doubt Google does $50 billion worth of business in India.
With all the talk of "gridlock", it's there so that law is not used to enforce ideas that are not clearly shared by the majority of the population. When something clearly needs to be made into law, there is no gridlock. This thing took 2 days to go from "oh, shit I can't believe it's legal" to "there is a law to stop this now."
Russia is the story today, but just to make sure you don't get away with your lies, your links prove my point -- Saddam did at some point stop the inspectors. It wouldn't matter if he even invited them in after that (and he didn't). The moment he stopped them even once he restarted the war (and he did). The war was, therefore, completely and entirely legitimate and authorized by the UN Security Council in 1993. The blame for restarting it is on Saddam. But once again, the story today is that Russian army is still in Crimea in violation of the treaties that Russia signed and in violation of Ukraine's sovereignty.
My comment was not bull shit. It was completely factually accurate.
except in the US where the state press studiously pretended otherwise.
US does not have state-owned press. It has members of the press loyal to different parties and to different ideas, but no state-owned press. So that comment made no sense.
I be you are one of those that say 'Saddam should have let the inspectors in' huh?
He DID let them in.
For a while. But that wasn't the deal. The deal was he would let them in until the inspectors were satisfied -- not until Saddam was satisfied. The moment he stopped letting them in (and he did stop), Saddam broke the armistice and legally re-started the war. He also attempted to shoot at US planes legally patrolling airspace. Saddam agreed to have US planes patrol air space. The moment he locked radars on US planes, Saddam broke the armistice and legally re-started the war. The only accurate conclusion: Saddam started the war. Therefore, any comparison between Iraq and Ukraine is 100% inaccurate and inappropriate. The facts are not similar in any way whatsoever.
Really? Ukraine has a few nutty MPs? Should we even bother mentioning Zherenovsky? No, the actions of Russia AS A STATE are exactly the same as the actions of Hitler's Germany in retaking of the German Sudaten Land from Chechoslovakia under the pretext that the native German population was being endangered there. This is nothing but an excuse from a regime that has no better excuse.
However it fits what the US did a few years ago in Iraq to a T.
I wasn't going to comment, but this is just absurd. No, it doesn't.
Like not even in any way whatsoever. Iraq broke the terms of the armistice which ended hostilities authorized by the UN Security Council in 1993. By breaking the terms of the armistice, Iraq restarted the already-authorized war.
Russia signed a treaty with Ukraine which requires Russia to seek Ukrainian cooperation for any actions in Crimea (in regards to the Russian naval base there). While the majority of the residents of Crimea are ethnically Russian, they all have Ukrainian citizenship with full rights that come with it. At no point was the Ukrainian revolution targeting Russians as an ethnic group (despite the suggestions to the contrary on the Russian STATE-OWNED television). The revolution was very clearly and very unequivocally a revolt against he possibility of Ukraine becoming a Russian puppet state. This is why Russia invaded -- Russian wanted its puppet state. And, no, Russia did not restrict itself because of internal moderation. Russia only restricted itself (so far) because of external pressure from its trade partners.
Let's not even go so far as to attribute these actions to Russia. These are actions of Putin's regime. They are no more reflective of Russia than the actions of Jong-Un Kim are reflective of the people of North Korea.
omg what a pile of nonsense. If it were that way, then you are also utter idiots because you pay the price and then export it for free.
In a way we are. As much as all first adapters are. They always pay higher price. We consider intellectual property taken from us without compensation to be theft just for that reason. It's why we fight countries trying to make generic versions of drugs which we still have under patent -- because we spend our resources to develop those drugs. I wouldn't call it "exporting" though when it's taken from in violation of international agreements that exist. But whatever, we are not gonna stop advancing just because someone might steel our advances. We will stop advancing because the advancement will be destroyed internally by Obamacare and other socialist overtures.
Socializing any industry makes it less agile and thwarts its development.
That's another piece of nonsense.
It's not. It's absolutely accurate. And the fact that you don't like it doesn't make it any less accurate. Your example of privatization is a typical mistake made by everyone in the media. To put it into syllogism, I am saying "if A then B" and you are saying that it is not true because "if not A, then not B". Any student of logic (and I am not implying or even suggesting that you have a grasp on logic) would tell you that such a conclusion simply cannot be made. If you starve a body, it develops ailments. Those ailments will not go away if you all of a sudden feed it. Your argument essentially amounts to saying that feeding a starving body doesn't cure it, so starving it is doesn't cause it harm. Which is a ridiculous argument to make. And yet people make this argument against private enterprise all the time.
Everyone, and I mean everyone who proposes that one magic pill will solve every problem everywhere is full of shit.
No feeding someone with digestive problems will not restore their digestive system. Once you destroyed the private enterprise system, simply privating it will not solve the problems. It will take time and since you likely want to continue regulating it, you won't let fix itself in way that people fix things. Anyway, I am tired of this argument. All you doing is convincing me that people like you cannot be argued with and must be opposed in silence and in secrecy. You don't follow simple logic and you want to substitute emotions for reason. I refuse to accept such an animal state of existence.
The overhead, however, is considerable. People have jobs and houses. They have spouses with jobs. They have kids in school.
What's your point exactly? While this is true, how is it related to the discussion at hand? Adequate governing attracts people and inadequate governing pushes them away. Yeah, and people have lives... What have you proven there?
It also had the by far most expensive medical system in the world. Routine treatments that my insurance pays 50 bucks for over here are ten times as expensive in the US.
That's because we (in the US) actually foot the bill for developing the treatments. It's the price for being the most advanced -- we pay to develop the advances. Routine check ups are also around that much in the US. In fact, treatments which can take advantage of developing technology (X-rays, lasic surgeries, etc.) keep falling in price. Most of the expenses come from the innovative new treatments like cancer treatments (the reason why US has the highest cancer survival rate in the world) and now gene therapy for rare genetic conditions. I know this for a fact because my insurance recently went up in price by 30% after they were required to cover cancer treatments by law.
The destruction to the advancements in medical treatments will come from increased regulatory and increased taxation of research facilities.
No, I'll just wait a few years and then remember this argument and one of us will be laughing.
Why wait? Such an undertaking has been tried again and again. Socializing any industry makes it less agile and thwarts its development. This has been tested so many times that there is simply nothing to argue about.
Scandinavia, for example, is very high in every quality of living index even though you americans call them socialists.
Not because of their social structure though. Norway is a very large oil importer -- it's how it subsidizes its largely inefficient economy. And Finland got lucky with Nokia for a while (which started and grew during the only 5 years in Finland's history when they didn't have a Socialist in power).
I mean if any, however local, authority in the US did the same thing to a Spanish-centered store, we'd see demonstrations. Even mentioning English-only laws is considered racism now. So Canada is openly violating human rights, right? Where are the protests around the world?
A community never has any services that it could not cut or reduce further - until there's nothing at all left.
Sure there is. People are not tied to a location. They leave. There are points of diminishing return. There are trade offs and it is the balance of these trade offs that determines efficient allocation of resources.
original community is miffed and can't attract any replacements because everyone is cheaper
It doesn't work out that way. Quality attracts higher premiums. Communities with better services (education, medical, recreational, etc.) attract more able populations. There is a reason why tech companies bunch up -- their entire value is in their workforce and it is much easier to keep the work force vibrant when located in its natural habitat.
We already know. It's 3rd world cheap labour countries.
Not really. Until Obamacare came in to decimate our advanced medical system, US was the leader in medical research (look for that to wind down now... even though you probably have a whole argument laid out why it wont... even though it will). 3rd world countries can only produce 3rd world products. In order to justify 1st world advantages, we need to be producing more advanced products than can be produced in the 3rd world. Otherwise, you are not arguing for the 1st world lifestyle based on merit, but rather on a birth right. And birth right arguments never hold water.
Your world-view needs massive updating. Europe is a big place with 50 different countries. Some of them are corrupt and have pseudo-democracies, others are leading the Corruption Perceptions Index [wikipedia.org], far ahead of the USA (which barely makes it into the top 20, at #19).
Hope you realize that you are making my argument for the diversity of local governments empowered to pick their own paths.
Well, Democratic Party is a criminal organization. So I do hope anyone and everyone who can thwarts them rather than negotiates with them. If it has to be the Republicans, so be it.
Every day I drive over that "graft"
I do hope you are not trying to imply that any stimulus was spent on public works. There is simply no evidence of that. That money just disappeared.
I am accurate and honest. I stand by the usage of the word in that sentence. Oh, and if you as much as suggest that Obama is not a criminal blatantly robbing the country and violating laws faster than he can pass them, then the jackass is you.
Btw, "race to the bottom"... is that the same thing as shopping around? Would expect them NOT to shop around? There is no race to the bottom among shoe stores or food stores... there is just the market place. And responsible actors in the market place shop around. There is a price point at which the services that companies need cannot be provided. The market place will discover that price point. Isn't "race to the bottom", then, just a complaint that they refuse to overpay? If you think we'd better off if companies were walked all over like they are in Russia and Europe, we will end up with government as corrupt as they are in Russia and Europe (hint: they have elections too... they don't help). Something like 1/3 of the British Parliament has had criminal charges against them. This is the kind of people you want here? Because it's the kind of environment you get when local government stop having to compete with one another. Competition is a check on lack of merit in everything.
Really? You still believe that bullshit propaganda.
I think you missed the point there. The guy I was arguing with was basically saying that he hated corporations because they would rather leave town than do what he wants them to do. And his justification was that they stay in town because they can milk the town. I was simply saying that his conclusion doesn't follow from his premises. If he wants them to be where he is, he has to be willing to accept that they come on their terms. And if he thinks they are not worth having, then it makes no sense for him to try to look for the reasons to keep them.
Oh, I see, so they have all these benefits that they derive from dealing with crony governments, but they chose to move to the places where they get to interact with the government as little as possible. They must really hate all those profitable interactions if they are moving away from them. Tell you what, if they are so eager to run away from money, why don't both get our way. Let's let them go. You'll enjoy the benefit of not having to pay for all those crony capitalists. And I'll enjoy the benefit of seeing the market place destroy all those entities running away from this so-called free money.
Posture all you want. It's trading above it's 2 day weighed average. The reality has judged you wrong. Your arguments aren't quite enough to convince it otherwise. Still think you are anything but a religious nut? Why?
I would love to see how you can bail out bitcoin owners. You can't. There is no printing bitcoins. You are done. You have lost. Buhbye now. You can no longer pretend to be useful. It's why you are foaming at the mouth trying to characterize the first honest system by a failure that doesn't shake the system at all despite its magnitude. The stability of the bitcoin despite the failure of mt gox is the story here. I guess I should take derision from you as a compliment. When villains hate you, you are doing something right. But somehow I think you've given too much room to make your nonsense heard at this point. You must be discredited before you do any more damage by you "ideas".... ah, fuck it. Nothing you can do. The system is actually incorruptible. That's why you are in such fear of it to begin with. You have no way in. I don't need to dissuade you. It's over.
Just like talking to creationists? I can do science without considering creationists view point. Can you, kindly, not involve us in your conversation? Don't talk to us. Don't "educate" us. We can do without you. Bitcoin creators didn't ask for anyone's permission. Bitcoin will survive without anyone's permission. It is you who demands compliance without having anything to offer that we asked for. Who is the creation in this argument? You -- the nihilist.
Slashdot Mirror
What if India was simply paid off by Bing to accomplish just such a goal? Simply running away is not an option if you conduct a business in which there are competitors. If you base a society on such principles, you end up with a society in which there is no rule of law -- whoever pays the highest bribe wins. You can argue that we are already there, and to some degree, you'd be right. But these are matters of degree and if Bing were to in India in such a way, that would be another step in the direction of lawlessness.
It's simple: if you want to operate in India, you must follow Indian law. If you are not willing to do that, your company will be fined, just as it did in Europe.
Sure..if we are talking about laws regarding your operations in India. Any attempt to impose extra-territorial legal restrictions is always very questionable. Generally, there has to be a compelling humanitarian reason for legislating extra-territorial behavior (like outlawing human trafficking or sex tourism to countries with under-age prostitution) or an attempt to stop international criminal behavior (like drug-trafficking or maybe... maybe tax dodging). Improper application of IP laws (like patent laws)? If that were ok, then, as a poster above mentioned, US would go after bank accounts of any company producing generic versions of US drugs before they became off-patent in the US. Unless, of course, they want to claim that this is 10% of Google's operations in India, but I doubt Google does $50 billion worth of business in India.
With all the talk of "gridlock", it's there so that law is not used to enforce ideas that are not clearly shared by the majority of the population. When something clearly needs to be made into law, there is no gridlock. This thing took 2 days to go from "oh, shit I can't believe it's legal" to "there is a law to stop this now."
Russia is the story today, but just to make sure you don't get away with your lies, your links prove my point -- Saddam did at some point stop the inspectors. It wouldn't matter if he even invited them in after that (and he didn't). The moment he stopped them even once he restarted the war (and he did). The war was, therefore, completely and entirely legitimate and authorized by the UN Security Council in 1993. The blame for restarting it is on Saddam. But once again, the story today is that Russian army is still in Crimea in violation of the treaties that Russia signed and in violation of Ukraine's sovereignty.
except in the US where the state press studiously pretended otherwise.
US does not have state-owned press. It has members of the press loyal to different parties and to different ideas, but no state-owned press. So that comment made no sense.
I be you are one of those that say 'Saddam should have let the inspectors in' huh? He DID let them in.
For a while. But that wasn't the deal. The deal was he would let them in until the inspectors were satisfied -- not until Saddam was satisfied. The moment he stopped letting them in (and he did stop), Saddam broke the armistice and legally re-started the war. He also attempted to shoot at US planes legally patrolling airspace. Saddam agreed to have US planes patrol air space. The moment he locked radars on US planes, Saddam broke the armistice and legally re-started the war. The only accurate conclusion: Saddam started the war. Therefore, any comparison between Iraq and Ukraine is 100% inaccurate and inappropriate. The facts are not similar in any way whatsoever.
Really? Ukraine has a few nutty MPs? Should we even bother mentioning Zherenovsky? No, the actions of Russia AS A STATE are exactly the same as the actions of Hitler's Germany in retaking of the German Sudaten Land from Chechoslovakia under the pretext that the native German population was being endangered there. This is nothing but an excuse from a regime that has no better excuse.
However it fits what the US did a few years ago in Iraq to a T.
I wasn't going to comment, but this is just absurd. No, it doesn't.
Like not even in any way whatsoever. Iraq broke the terms of the armistice which ended hostilities authorized by the UN Security Council in 1993. By breaking the terms of the armistice, Iraq restarted the already-authorized war.
Russia signed a treaty with Ukraine which requires Russia to seek Ukrainian cooperation for any actions in Crimea (in regards to the Russian naval base there). While the majority of the residents of Crimea are ethnically Russian, they all have Ukrainian citizenship with full rights that come with it. At no point was the Ukrainian revolution targeting Russians as an ethnic group (despite the suggestions to the contrary on the Russian STATE-OWNED television). The revolution was very clearly and very unequivocally a revolt against he possibility of Ukraine becoming a Russian puppet state. This is why Russia invaded -- Russian wanted its puppet state. And, no, Russia did not restrict itself because of internal moderation. Russia only restricted itself (so far) because of external pressure from its trade partners.
Let's not even go so far as to attribute these actions to Russia. These are actions of Putin's regime. They are no more reflective of Russia than the actions of Jong-Un Kim are reflective of the people of North Korea.
Fake controversy to generate publicity. This is soooo 1995.
As long as you throw logic out the window and keep making emotional appeals, it's pointless to have a discussion.
omg what a pile of nonsense. If it were that way, then you are also utter idiots because you pay the price and then export it for free.
In a way we are. As much as all first adapters are. They always pay higher price. We consider intellectual property taken from us without compensation to be theft just for that reason. It's why we fight countries trying to make generic versions of drugs which we still have under patent -- because we spend our resources to develop those drugs. I wouldn't call it "exporting" though when it's taken from in violation of international agreements that exist. But whatever, we are not gonna stop advancing just because someone might steel our advances. We will stop advancing because the advancement will be destroyed internally by Obamacare and other socialist overtures.
Socializing any industry makes it less agile and thwarts its development.
That's another piece of nonsense.
It's not. It's absolutely accurate. And the fact that you don't like it doesn't make it any less accurate. Your example of privatization is a typical mistake made by everyone in the media. To put it into syllogism, I am saying "if A then B" and you are saying that it is not true because "if not A, then not B". Any student of logic (and I am not implying or even suggesting that you have a grasp on logic) would tell you that such a conclusion simply cannot be made. If you starve a body, it develops ailments. Those ailments will not go away if you all of a sudden feed it. Your argument essentially amounts to saying that feeding a starving body doesn't cure it, so starving it is doesn't cause it harm. Which is a ridiculous argument to make. And yet people make this argument against private enterprise all the time.
Everyone, and I mean everyone who proposes that one magic pill will solve every problem everywhere is full of shit.
No feeding someone with digestive problems will not restore their digestive system. Once you destroyed the private enterprise system, simply privating it will not solve the problems. It will take time and since you likely want to continue regulating it, you won't let fix itself in way that people fix things. Anyway, I am tired of this argument. All you doing is convincing me that people like you cannot be argued with and must be opposed in silence and in secrecy. You don't follow simple logic and you want to substitute emotions for reason. I refuse to accept such an animal state of existence.
Norway is a very large oil importer
I meant exporter, of course.
The overhead, however, is considerable. People have jobs and houses. They have spouses with jobs. They have kids in school.
What's your point exactly? While this is true, how is it related to the discussion at hand? Adequate governing attracts people and inadequate governing pushes them away. Yeah, and people have lives... What have you proven there?
It also had the by far most expensive medical system in the world. Routine treatments that my insurance pays 50 bucks for over here are ten times as expensive in the US.
That's because we (in the US) actually foot the bill for developing the treatments. It's the price for being the most advanced -- we pay to develop the advances. Routine check ups are also around that much in the US. In fact, treatments which can take advantage of developing technology (X-rays, lasic surgeries, etc.) keep falling in price. Most of the expenses come from the innovative new treatments like cancer treatments (the reason why US has the highest cancer survival rate in the world) and now gene therapy for rare genetic conditions. I know this for a fact because my insurance recently went up in price by 30% after they were required to cover cancer treatments by law.
The destruction to the advancements in medical treatments will come from increased regulatory and increased taxation of research facilities.
No, I'll just wait a few years and then remember this argument and one of us will be laughing.
Why wait? Such an undertaking has been tried again and again. Socializing any industry makes it less agile and thwarts its development. This has been tested so many times that there is simply nothing to argue about.
Scandinavia, for example, is very high in every quality of living index even though you americans call them socialists.
Not because of their social structure though. Norway is a very large oil importer -- it's how it subsidizes its largely inefficient economy. And Finland got lucky with Nokia for a while (which started and grew during the only 5 years in Finland's history when they didn't have a Socialist in power).
I mean if any, however local, authority in the US did the same thing to a Spanish-centered store, we'd see demonstrations. Even mentioning English-only laws is considered racism now. So Canada is openly violating human rights, right? Where are the protests around the world?
A community never has any services that it could not cut or reduce further - until there's nothing at all left.
Sure there is. People are not tied to a location. They leave. There are points of diminishing return. There are trade offs and it is the balance of these trade offs that determines efficient allocation of resources.
original community is miffed and can't attract any replacements because everyone is cheaper
It doesn't work out that way. Quality attracts higher premiums. Communities with better services (education, medical, recreational, etc.) attract more able populations. There is a reason why tech companies bunch up -- their entire value is in their workforce and it is much easier to keep the work force vibrant when located in its natural habitat.
We already know. It's 3rd world cheap labour countries.
Not really. Until Obamacare came in to decimate our advanced medical system, US was the leader in medical research (look for that to wind down now... even though you probably have a whole argument laid out why it wont... even though it will). 3rd world countries can only produce 3rd world products. In order to justify 1st world advantages, we need to be producing more advanced products than can be produced in the 3rd world. Otherwise, you are not arguing for the 1st world lifestyle based on merit, but rather on a birth right. And birth right arguments never hold water.
Your world-view needs massive updating. Europe is a big place with 50 different countries. Some of them are corrupt and have pseudo-democracies, others are leading the Corruption Perceptions Index [wikipedia.org], far ahead of the USA (which barely makes it into the top 20, at #19).
Hope you realize that you are making my argument for the diversity of local governments empowered to pick their own paths.
Doesn't the fact that it survives mtgox's collapse without regulation and without any bail outs show that it is more stable than the dollar?
Every day I drive over that "graft"
I do hope you are not trying to imply that any stimulus was spent on public works. There is simply no evidence of that. That money just disappeared.
Do you really fail to see when you are being mocked? Or just trolling? My money is on you trolling. No one can be that stupid.
I am accurate and honest. I stand by the usage of the word in that sentence. Oh, and if you as much as suggest that Obama is not a criminal blatantly robbing the country and violating laws faster than he can pass them, then the jackass is you.
Btw, "race to the bottom"... is that the same thing as shopping around? Would expect them NOT to shop around? There is no race to the bottom among shoe stores or food stores... there is just the market place. And responsible actors in the market place shop around. There is a price point at which the services that companies need cannot be provided. The market place will discover that price point. Isn't "race to the bottom", then, just a complaint that they refuse to overpay? If you think we'd better off if companies were walked all over like they are in Russia and Europe, we will end up with government as corrupt as they are in Russia and Europe (hint: they have elections too... they don't help). Something like 1/3 of the British Parliament has had criminal charges against them. This is the kind of people you want here? Because it's the kind of environment you get when local government stop having to compete with one another. Competition is a check on lack of merit in everything.
Really? You still believe that bullshit propaganda.
I think you missed the point there. The guy I was arguing with was basically saying that he hated corporations because they would rather leave town than do what he wants them to do. And his justification was that they stay in town because they can milk the town. I was simply saying that his conclusion doesn't follow from his premises. If he wants them to be where he is, he has to be willing to accept that they come on their terms. And if he thinks they are not worth having, then it makes no sense for him to try to look for the reasons to keep them.
Oh, I see, so they have all these benefits that they derive from dealing with crony governments, but they chose to move to the places where they get to interact with the government as little as possible. They must really hate all those profitable interactions if they are moving away from them. Tell you what, if they are so eager to run away from money, why don't both get our way. Let's let them go. You'll enjoy the benefit of not having to pay for all those crony capitalists. And I'll enjoy the benefit of seeing the market place destroy all those entities running away from this so-called free money.
Good trolling. Quality stuff.
Posture all you want. It's trading above it's 2 day weighed average. The reality has judged you wrong. Your arguments aren't quite enough to convince it otherwise. Still think you are anything but a religious nut? Why?
I would love to see how you can bail out bitcoin owners. You can't. There is no printing bitcoins. You are done. You have lost. Buhbye now. You can no longer pretend to be useful. It's why you are foaming at the mouth trying to characterize the first honest system by a failure that doesn't shake the system at all despite its magnitude. The stability of the bitcoin despite the failure of mt gox is the story here. I guess I should take derision from you as a compliment. When villains hate you, you are doing something right. But somehow I think you've given too much room to make your nonsense heard at this point. You must be discredited before you do any more damage by you "ideas".... ah, fuck it. Nothing you can do. The system is actually incorruptible. That's why you are in such fear of it to begin with. You have no way in. I don't need to dissuade you. It's over.
Just like talking to creationists? I can do science without considering creationists view point. Can you, kindly, not involve us in your conversation? Don't talk to us. Don't "educate" us. We can do without you. Bitcoin creators didn't ask for anyone's permission. Bitcoin will survive without anyone's permission. It is you who demands compliance without having anything to offer that we asked for. Who is the creation in this argument? You -- the nihilist.