"
Imposing import tariffs in order to penalize countries that oppress their laborers, that deny them basic human rights, that deny them democratic participation and representation in their government, in my opinion are exactly the sort of cases when countries should impose tariffs."
i agree, countries that oppress their people and violate humans rights need to be dealt with. thats what SANCTIONS are for. If anything, tariffs will make life worse for poor laborers in those countries because now the company has to cut costs to take up that extra $25, and 2 guesses who will wear it? thats right, those poor laborers with no protections.
anyone trying to sell you a tax on imports suggesting it will help anyone but the bastards doing the taxing, is not to be trusted.
Taxing people to try prop up a poorly performing industry is never good economics. Though it might be excellent politics? this is usually why such deals are made - to buy votes.
as usual, people like you are incapable of reading anymore of the comment then support your own agenda.
1. i never contradict myself at all. i made the point that there are somethings where taxation is requried, because todate it's the best method we have of dispersing the funds to pay for them, and i gave the example of police and military, because i'm hoping your clever enough to imagine what would happen if we stopped defending the country and allowed private armies to take on the roll and bid for our money "to keep us safe".
2.Show me where i advocate extreme anti protectionism or "funneling" wealth out of the EU? there's no significant camera production done in the EU anyway, and if there isn't one by now there probably never will be a viable industry without the tax, so why not let it die a natural death. the fact the protectionism is BAD economics is pretty basic to understand.
3. since you seem to not understand why government is horribly inefficent, i will clarify it for you. Take a government department with a budget of 1 million for the year. If said department does not spend that budget, the following year when budgets are reviewed they will have it cut to their previous years spending (if they can't make a VERY good case for why they need more). Hence all deparments always try to spend 110% of their budget to allow them to make the case for an increase for next year. This culture is present to an extent in private companys as well, HOWEVER, a company can't just demand money from me in the form of TAX, they have to earn it somehow. They also have a focus on the bottom line which limits all over spending (or the company goes down). governments have no such restrictions. there is nothing to prevent them bankrupting a country (has happened a lot in the past) in typical tax and spend style (no i'm not suggesting the EU is going to bankrupt itself over cameras, dolts).
"Sure, they are required to pay for things we couldn't be trusted to pay for ourselfs like police and the military"
learn to read fuckwit. as i stated, taxes ARE REQUIRED for some things, but protecting businessmen from their failing companys is not one of them.
"(because I'm assuming that you're an American)"
You try call me out on posting unsupported views, but make one HELL of an assumption on your own, which is incorrect as a matter of fact.
You reckon you could hunt me down and kill me, but your too spineless to post has yourself? fucking pussy.
The less tax the better, because at it's core government is horribly inefficent, so the less money going to them the better. Sure, they are required to pay for things we couldn't be trusted to pay for ourselfs like police and the military, but taxation to protect local manufacturers who can't compete is crappy economics.
The problem with IM for anything other than idle messages to your brain dead friends, is it's no good with more then one person.
could you imagine a mailing list run over IM? This is why "grown ups" aka people with enough life experience to have an opinion that matters use email.
since when has a low rate of success been a measure for what treatments you give a patient? plenty of people embark on treatments with a success rate of less then 10%. it's the side effects and any resulting damage caused by a failure that you have to weight up against the risk of doing nothing.
in all likelyhood, people trying this aren't likely to get any blinder if it fails, so who gives?
so make it an option for pay for it with a excess on top to help subsidise it to treat people who are in a bad through through no fault of their own. that way, the wealthy have the chance to help others while getting what they want (new liver or what ever). there are plenty of people out there who have more money then sense, who would gladly fork over $100,000 for a new liver to abuse.
"My only guess is that the AC who posted this does not believe in evolution, or believes evolution is never beneficial"
wtf? evolution occurs by selective breeding, not by viruses modifying our DNA. do you think monkeys caught the virus to become human one day and started walking upright?
I infact whole heartedly invite you and any other pricks proclaiming that treating HIV is a waste of time to take a trip to africa and fuck a few hookers and see if colloidal silver treatments go well.
"There is more money to be made controlling the disease with a daily regiment of drugs."
i really hate that bullshit fucking myth. i don't know who started it, but their a stupid douche bag.
are you seriously suggesting drug companys are going to run out of sick people, or illnesses to treat? To prove my point, i will use the example of small pox. small pox is a lethal infection that has been wiped out in the world population through vaccinations. by your logic, drug companys would not have manufactured the vaccine to protect their profit margins.
in other words, if we wipe out HIV, there's still 1000's of incurable illnesses for them to work on not to mention new ones that will popup.
Ok so your argument is that the internet might afford them access to more market opertunities? ok i can agree on that. the internet might perhaps allow them to by pass corrupt local officals also, by selling direct to overseas consumers.
since when has the internet resulted in better prices for the seller? name me one industry that has taken off as a direct result of selling their goods on the internet? I just don't see any reason for your logic to work at all. your basicly saying, internets = good, and nothing more.
The last thing africa needs, is another distraction. food, clean water and stable government are the only things they should be focusing on right now. faster internet, is wayyyy down on the fucking list ok.
the internet affords them nothing tangible, which is what they need.
Slashdot Mirror
why is it that some people consider all descenting views to be "whining" ? could it be fear that the other party has very valid points?
i've been trying to explain to these retards, but i guess it's a wasted effort.
i'm so sick of this stupid "omg multinationals are the evilz" attitude.
attempting to copy an existing product, can never be considered innovative
i agree, countries that oppress their people and violate humans rights need to be dealt with. thats what SANCTIONS are for. If anything, tariffs will make life worse for poor laborers in those countries because now the company has to cut costs to take up that extra $25, and 2 guesses who will wear it? thats right, those poor laborers with no protections.
anyone trying to sell you a tax on imports suggesting it will help anyone but the bastards doing the taxing, is not to be trusted.
Taxing people to try prop up a poorly performing industry is never good economics. Though it might be excellent politics? this is usually why such deals are made - to buy votes.
1. i never contradict myself at all. i made the point that there are somethings where taxation is requried, because todate it's the best method we have of dispersing the funds to pay for them, and i gave the example of police and military, because i'm hoping your clever enough to imagine what would happen if we stopped defending the country and allowed private armies to take on the roll and bid for our money "to keep us safe".
2.Show me where i advocate extreme anti protectionism or "funneling" wealth out of the EU? there's no significant camera production done in the EU anyway, and if there isn't one by now there probably never will be a viable industry without the tax, so why not let it die a natural death. the fact the protectionism is BAD economics is pretty basic to understand.
3. since you seem to not understand why government is horribly inefficent, i will clarify it for you. Take a government department with a budget of 1 million for the year. If said department does not spend that budget, the following year when budgets are reviewed they will have it cut to their previous years spending (if they can't make a VERY good case for why they need more). Hence all deparments always try to spend 110% of their budget to allow them to make the case for an increase for next year. This culture is present to an extent in private companys as well, HOWEVER, a company can't just demand money from me in the form of TAX, they have to earn it somehow. They also have a focus on the bottom line which limits all over spending (or the company goes down). governments have no such restrictions. there is nothing to prevent them bankrupting a country (has happened a lot in the past) in typical tax and spend style (no i'm not suggesting the EU is going to bankrupt itself over cameras, dolts).
i'm taking it too seriously, but your picking my grammar and punctuation? right.
learn to read fuckwit. as i stated, taxes ARE REQUIRED for some things, but protecting businessmen from their failing companys is not one of them.
"(because I'm assuming that you're an American)"
You try call me out on posting unsupported views, but make one HELL of an assumption on your own, which is incorrect as a matter of fact. You reckon you could hunt me down and kill me, but your too spineless to post has yourself? fucking pussy.
so what, $25 is $25. Why should anyone pay this to keep someone else in business?
The less tax the better, because at it's core government is horribly inefficent, so the less money going to them the better. Sure, they are required to pay for things we couldn't be trusted to pay for ourselfs like police and the military, but taxation to protect local manufacturers who can't compete is crappy economics.
You'll never see that kind of language in contract negotiations, because it is no where near clear enough or precise.
could you imagine a mailing list run over IM? This is why "grown ups" aka people with enough life experience to have an opinion that matters use email.
in all likelyhood, people trying this aren't likely to get any blinder if it fails, so who gives?
unfortunately the kind of stupidity your reffering to is learnt, not genetic.
so make it an option for pay for it with a excess on top to help subsidise it to treat people who are in a bad through through no fault of their own. that way, the wealthy have the chance to help others while getting what they want (new liver or what ever). there are plenty of people out there who have more money then sense, who would gladly fork over $100,000 for a new liver to abuse.
wtf? evolution occurs by selective breeding, not by viruses modifying our DNA. do you think monkeys caught the virus to become human one day and started walking upright?
he is probably like president mogabi - he wipes teh aids off his pecker!
"Claims made about the effectiveness of colloidal silver products for numerous diseases are unsupported scientifically."
http://nccam.nih.gov/health/alerts/silver/index.ht m
The fact that HIV results in full blown AIDS has been known for 20+ years. it's a testable fact.
I infact whole heartedly invite you and any other pricks proclaiming that treating HIV is a waste of time to take a trip to africa and fuck a few hookers and see if colloidal silver treatments go well.
i really hate that bullshit fucking myth. i don't know who started it, but their a stupid douche bag.
are you seriously suggesting drug companys are going to run out of sick people, or illnesses to treat? To prove my point, i will use the example of small pox. small pox is a lethal infection that has been wiped out in the world population through vaccinations. by your logic, drug companys would not have manufactured the vaccine to protect their profit margins.
in other words, if we wipe out HIV, there's still 1000's of incurable illnesses for them to work on not to mention new ones that will popup.
Ok so your argument is that the internet might afford them access to more market opertunities? ok i can agree on that. the internet might perhaps allow them to by pass corrupt local officals also, by selling direct to overseas consumers.
since when has the internet resulted in better prices for the seller? name me one industry that has taken off as a direct result of selling their goods on the internet? I just don't see any reason for your logic to work at all. your basicly saying, internets = good, and nothing more.
the internet affords them nothing tangible, which is what they need.
RRRIGGHTTT..... they can't even grow enough food to feed themselfs so now you want them to export it?
if you could, i could change my contract with the phone company that i pay them nothing and get a free big mac with my line rental.
the changes must be "fair" remmeber that the spirit of contract law is fairness no matter what rubbish you might have heard.
bravo *slow clap*