Citizens accept a certain degree of inequality because we know it's necessary for capitalism to work properly. However, populations won't accept HUGE inequality very long.
I don't see any evidence this is true. In the US we have enough of a safety net that people don't go hungry, and they get medical care. Between that and television I doubt there will ever be a political consensus to give unions more statutory leverage.
As for reality not conforming to your prejudices... There's a _reason_ most academics are left-leaning. Right-wingers are simply not smart enough. Duh.
Said without a hint of irony, I expect. Slashdot is pretty amusing today.
Most people who put up those kinds of TV numbers don't actually watch it for five hours. The TV is just always on while they're home and doing other things.
Yes, there is. And there has been since Adam Smith's days. It is the expectable profit the average investor would consider good enough.
But that has nothing to do with "fair". That's simply the profit level under which the investor will find something else to invest in. More profit doesn't make the investment less fair, just more profitable. Likewise less profit doesn't make it less fair. This is just assigning an unwarranted value judgement to a level of profit.
"The price of a good or service is what people are willing to pay."
Which, while being true, has little to nothing to do about profit expectations per se.
It has nothing to do with fairness, either. It's simply the clearing price.
"How much it costs a company to provide what the consumer is paying for isn't even relevant."
It is, with regards to competition.
Assuming competitors can provide the same products for the same cost. In this case they cannot. Apple isn't in the electronics business - it's in the luxury consumer brands business, like Gucci or Jimmy Choo. As long as people are willing to pay a premium for Apple products, because they're Apple products, Apple is going to make more money than its competitors. And that's fair.
They are not U.S. profits. The U.S. has no right to tax them uuntil and unless Apple does something stupid, and converts them into U.S. profits.
The argument is Apple is actually transferring US profits offshore through underhanded accounting. If that's true, the US does have a right to tax them, though whether that's sound policy is a different question.
There's no such thing as a "fair" profit. The price of a good or service is what people are willing to pay. How much it costs a company to provide what the consumer is paying for isn't even relevant.
People with resources don't have any problem getting away from dangerous people. They can co-opt national armies, or even hire their own. They can settle in any country in the world. The idea "plutocrats" will actually be better off going to Mars is daft.
...accused Musk and other space-minded billionaires of plotting to abandon the planet to the ravages of global warming while they go to Mars to live the good life.
And proving, once again, J-school is mostly populated by the "math is hard" crowd.
I do agree it's a non-problem at this stage. If bunches of other plutocrats head for Mars, then it's time to complain.
Why? Mars sucks. There's no air, the gravity is too low, there's no water, and it's far too cold. No matter how bad global warming gets on earth it will always be a nicer place than Mars. How many sponge baths would you have to take before you were ready to come back?
If the plutocrats have any brains they'll send the rest of us to Mars and then hang out in Bali.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Some people are locked into seeing everything as a function of class, leaving out about 95% of human existence.
While you're right the F-22 outclasses the competition, it only carries so much ordinance and fuel. The wargamed a Chinese attack on Taiwan and found the numbers of deployed F-22s couldn't protect ground targets even if every single missile found its mark. Once you've exhausted your ordinance you're just an onlooker.
That would all be the case if we'd bought enough F-22s. But we didn't. A hundred and eighty some odd aircraft will simply be overwhelmed by a determined adversary.
Slashdot Mirror
But then the government could have canceled their trademark, the same way they did that of the Redskins.
That right there is the problem. That's the road that ends with forty years in jail for insulting the king's dog.
Well, okay, but there is a large difference in degree here. I'm a lot less likely to dismiss a finding from physics or biology, say.
Well, I guess it's a new day now, and there's no rule against winning twice in a row.
I don't see any evidence this is true. In the US we have enough of a safety net that people don't go hungry, and they get medical care. Between that and television I doubt there will ever be a political consensus to give unions more statutory leverage.
Said without a hint of irony, I expect. Slashdot is pretty amusing today.
Yeah, pretty much. Social science in the US is terribly polluted by political bias. It's hard to know if it's all crap or just most of it.
That is, perhaps, the dumbest thing I've read today. I should think up some kind of prize to award.
Most people who put up those kinds of TV numbers don't actually watch it for five hours. The TV is just always on while they're home and doing other things.
But that has nothing to do with "fair". That's simply the profit level under which the investor will find something else to invest in. More profit doesn't make the investment less fair, just more profitable. Likewise less profit doesn't make it less fair. This is just assigning an unwarranted value judgement to a level of profit.
It has nothing to do with fairness, either. It's simply the clearing price.
Assuming competitors can provide the same products for the same cost. In this case they cannot. Apple isn't in the electronics business - it's in the luxury consumer brands business, like Gucci or Jimmy Choo. As long as people are willing to pay a premium for Apple products, because they're Apple products, Apple is going to make more money than its competitors. And that's fair.
The argument is Apple is actually transferring US profits offshore through underhanded accounting. If that's true, the US does have a right to tax them, though whether that's sound policy is a different question.
It's not "Tim" that doesn't like the law. It's you. He's following the law; the complaints are coming from people who don't like it.
There's no such thing as a "fair" profit. The price of a good or service is what people are willing to pay. How much it costs a company to provide what the consumer is paying for isn't even relevant.
Maybe we can pay with baby parts.
What apocalypse?
People with resources don't have any problem getting away from dangerous people. They can co-opt national armies, or even hire their own. They can settle in any country in the world. The idea "plutocrats" will actually be better off going to Mars is daft.
Is this an attempt to disqualify?
And proving, once again, J-school is mostly populated by the "math is hard" crowd.
Why? Mars sucks. There's no air, the gravity is too low, there's no water, and it's far too cold. No matter how bad global warming gets on earth it will always be a nicer place than Mars. How many sponge baths would you have to take before you were ready to come back?
If the plutocrats have any brains they'll send the rest of us to Mars and then hang out in Bali.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Some people are locked into seeing everything as a function of class, leaving out about 95% of human existence.
And... Newsweek is still around?
While you're right the F-22 outclasses the competition, it only carries so much ordinance and fuel. The wargamed a Chinese attack on Taiwan and found the numbers of deployed F-22s couldn't protect ground targets even if every single missile found its mark. Once you've exhausted your ordinance you're just an onlooker.
That would all be the case if we'd bought enough F-22s. But we didn't. A hundred and eighty some odd aircraft will simply be overwhelmed by a determined adversary.
If they could offshore these jobs they would already have done it.
Now that is funny.
Sure, sure. I imagine how it is when you finally get back to some semblance of normal. The embarrassment. The feelings of helplessness.
Good luck with your problems.