Yes it does. If the money exists it can be removed through taxation. It doesn't matter where that money is distributed throughout the economy
Say it with me: Money spent equals product produced. Taxation removes money to be spent by either A) making product more expensive; or B) reducing the wage of the consumer. (A) requires higher wages for consumers to buy the same products; (B) requires higher wages for consumers to buy the same products. In either case, for consumers to buy the same things, they must have... wait for it... THE MONEY YOU TAXED AWAY. If they don't, you get a reduction in what can be bought, resulting in reductions in production, creating unemployment, reducing the amount of stuff-per-person, and leading to increased poverty.
Taxation adds strain. It's not a way to create deflation; it's a way to create revenue, in which case at least the money is spent back into the economy, preventing *some* of the damage, ideally for goals which the private sector can't accomplish and which produce a bigger return than their cost (e.g. building roads).
You have provided no reason why taxes are raised. So the rest of your "example" is just a non-sequitur.
I have provided cause and effect. If I stab you in the throat, you bleed to death; you just said, "Oh that's stupid; why would you stab me in the throat?" WHY has no bearing on WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.
This entire thread is about the legal merits of such a law.
I'm looking at this "he says he's trying to solve a real problem" thing and seeing no real problem. Some people are talking about things in a way you don't want them to... that's not a real problem; it's you being a whiny git. A *real* problem is children being abducted, buttraped, and murdered in the woods; at the end of the day, there aren't any new bodies, any new injuries, or even new any information from the actions of people taking pictures and posting them on Twitter, meaning *nothing* *has* *changed* by these actions (or lack thereof) and any "problem" is non-real.
Except, of course, life isn't generally about the extremes. Far more will be located in the middle. Your using the cheapest construction costs quoted results in you almost certainly making an under-estimate as to the costs. Using the maximum costs would also be inaccurate, as that would be an apartment for visiting Saudi Sheiks and such.
I used the extreme example which disadvantaged me most in the context of your assertion of how expensive refrigerators and toilets would be.
I used a baseline of $1/sqft--a fairly high medium for low-income areas, where $0.60/sqft apartments frequently rent--in my basic estimates of cost, and padded it to $1.33 as a risk buffer.
I'm using highly-conservative estimates in *all* my estimates.
I'll just point out that when people browse your sight and see your estimates that it weakens your argument because it makes it seem like you don't know what you're talking about.
Well, that's because I know what I'm doing and they don't. When I pull real-world data, analyze it, move away from the extremes to the frequent-and-likely baselines that make up the most likely scenario, and then test my risks in the worst-case-scenarios, my numbers are more likely to reflect adequate estimates. If people look at that and say, "What? That doesn't look real!", that's because they don't know how to estimate--or, like you, they don't know how to think in general.
be cheaper. What I'm disputing is your assumption that they can be linearly scaled, especially using the bottom end of construction estimates for cost per square foot.
If you want to assert, "There are costs which do not scale with the apartment; these will make up a significant portion of the price," then you have two ways to test this assertion.
If you want to hide those prices, pick the *most* *expensive* construction estimates. Show those costs are a $2,000 load and the cost of construction is $200,000, and so those costs are tiny.
If you want to test if this is an actual risk, pick the *least* *expensive* construction estimates. Show those costs are a $2,000 load and the construction cost is $50,000, and then figure out how the fixed costs amortize.
I did the latter, and you bitch. You continue to bitch. You are telling me, "Hey, you should have hidden your numbers by using inflated construction costs to pretend they were lower! You should have lied about those costs and used faulty reasoning, but you used conservative estimates which put you at greatest risk of failure!" You're looking at me doing something IN THE BEST WAY and trying to use a tone of scorn to pretend it was the wrong way.
When I looked it up it was $1.50 each for wash/dry. $.75 more. You might want to update your figures for inflation.
Well, it's not here. It's not in a *lot* of low-income neighborhoods. Poor people go where they can afford.
It may be something as simple as factoring in some inflation since you did the figuring.
Some inflation, maybe; perhaps as much as 7%. I frequently work directly from 2013 numbers because I designed the Dividend in such a way that it always self-adjusts for inflation. In this case, however, I used estimated prices; some of them were wrong--turns out builder-grade bathtubs are like $125 instead of $300-ish, and you should have caught the slightly-high estimate on the cost of energy billing devices--but they all erred toward being estimated too high instead of too low.
They also all still worked in my favor, despite being higher than real-world numbers.
So a stove is a concept now? A toilet is a concept? Static costs are concept.
Yes, and have I repeatedly illustrated that static costs aren't significant; you continue to go, "Oh, but they will be, SOMEHOW," even though analyzing the costs themselves proves otherwise, because the *concept* of stat
Point 2: The Government can easily tax away the extra 250 units. No inflation.
900
Uh no, it doesn't work that way. That 250 units was already spent. You buy a $1,250 tractor: $300 to pay steelworker wages, $250 to pay oilworker wages, $150 to pay administrative (executive, management) wages, $200 to pay machinist wages (power tool manufacture/maintenance), $100 to pay builder's wages (people actually manufacturing your product), $250 to pay taxes.
You see, the consumer now has to bring $1,250 to buy that tractor, instead of $250. He has to bring the additional units of money to buy things. You now have inflation.
What about income taxes on the consumer? Consumers include businesses as consumers *and* individuals as consumers.
Well, first effect: instead of the consumer having $1,250 to spend, the consumer now has $1,000 to spend. That means $250 of product he was buying can't be bought by the consumer; this theoretically scales production down, eliminating jobs.
Second effect: Government spends that $250. This theoretically buys things, demanding production, restoring those eliminated jobs.
So far, the government hasn't eliminated (or created) inflation by taxation and spending; it's just made consumers more poor (the government takes from the consumer).
There's a third effect: by means of the first effect, the consumer's salary is lowered. Say the consumer makes $45,000 and pays 11% in taxes; that consumer takes home $40k. So we raise taxes on thy consumer, and now he pays 33%; in this case, his take-home salary is $30k--as I said, less to spend. So now the consumer cries about lower income, and some consumers cannot afford the cost of living, and starve.
To handle this creation of poverty, wages increase. Now rather than pay the consumer $45k, we pay the consumer $60k for the same work. Of course, with the same amount of money, we must pay fewer consumers. You now take home $40k, but everything costs 25% more (you're still poor), and there are fewer jobs due to a shortage of money. *Now* we have inflation *and* unemployment.
Now, if the government *creates* money to spend, that's different.
Firstly, with the government constantly doing this--because it's constantly spending--you get the same equilibrium created: year after year, the same demands exist, and jobs are not created. Government stops printing money and buying services, jobs vanish; government *starts* printing money and buying services, jobs appear. Status quo, we just coast.
Because the same amount of production occurs year-after-year while the government *creates* more money to pay for it, there's simply *more* money coming into the system. People don't receive money taken from elsewhere; they receive *new* money. They then go to spend that new money, except there's the same amount of production. Without a corresponding increase in production, this leads to the devaluing of money, increasing the amount of money being spent per good--inflation. When prices are raised on the government, they just print more and spend more--more money spent, no increase in production, inflation.
I am describing how the money system works. Money spent = productive output. That includes variations caused by overproduction: make 100 widgets and sell 90, you still have to pay the workers who made those 100 widgets for their time making 100 widgets; maybe next time around you'll produce to meet your market demand better. We handle this in practice by way of reserve (we make too much, then slow down production and keep a certain amount of overstock, thus avoiding the expense of overproduction). It includes wages. It includes risks. It includes damage, loss, failures, R&D, the works.
You cannot say, "Be there twice as many dollars spent on the same number of goods, lo, there is no inflation!" because spending $2,000 on what used to be $1,000 of goods *is* *inflation*.
Ah, here's where I have a problem: I'm asking you: Is it still legitimate to use a best case/lowest cost range for building apartments that aren't really built today? Here's the deal: Real life isn't a game. Price per square foot is basically an estimating tool.
The opposite assumption--the worst-case per-square-foot--is an assertion that those static costs are even *less* important. That is: I'm saying a *cheap* construction cost has all those static costs as roughly 5% of its build cost; if we go claiming the apartment has $200/sqft build costs, then those static costs are 2.4% of its build cost. That gives me an advantage by dismissing the case in which build is cheap, thus claiming that those costs are even less significant.
merely telling you that I think you're under-estimating the cost of your 'cheap' apartments.
My response is I'm not.
You've since ignored my suggestion - sharing an apartment, as a means to reduce costs per person such that it would be affordable.
Living with another person is not an acceptable solution. I moved *out* of my parents's house; if I had roommates, there would be corpses.
More importantly: it's wholly unnecessary. The argument is ludicrous. It's like arguing that poor people could eat a nutritious sludge made from raw sewage if we apply proper treatment to human feces to remove the poisons and render the proteins and lipids in the present bacteria down to a nutrient-rich soup.... we *could*, but why?
We can build 100sqft capsule apartments cheaper than this and drive the cost of living down further. Humans can get room mates as an elective. There is no *requirement* to base our economic success on the assumption that people do not universally have the option to live alone. No. Financial. Reason.
To me, this is using one assumption to make another assumption. You're unilaterally decreasing the price over what's already a 'best case' scenario for the builder/owner of the apartment.
Lengthened the supposed pay-off length of the apartment build, then applied that to the other costs, which made the cost of appliances negligible. It's one of a few dozen pointless ways to do the amortization.
Not sure how you're figuring it, but most of my values have you neglecting cost of capital and insurance.
"Cost of captial" - meaningless word. I included the cost of the fixtures themselves; the cost of installation is included in the cost of initial construction.
Insurance is built into existing rent: you're trying to include a cost which is already covered. If I were a landlord with *many* units (100+), I would skip insuring appliances; this is a finance topic I don't care to get into, because it's a long explanation. The short of it is you insure one expensive thing; you self-insure one thousand things, expensive or not. Whether the landlord buys insurance or becomes his own risk pool will depend on how many units he has--and these are small units, so the same square footage means more of them.
A zone control panel for $300, for 6 zones? Yeah right. Zone valves run $80 each, and that's without install and with my ass shopping around.
I said the baffels cost $80 each, and the control panel costs $300. Remember: cost of construction includes installing all that HVAC, and installing a zone control baffel during an initial HVAC build costs... $0. It's a piece of ductwork. This piece happens to have a fancy valve in it.
The control panel is an electronic control run to both your thermostat and your ductwork baffles. There will be a 3 foot length of wire going to this giant fork that comes from 1 big pipe and goes to 6 big pipes; it goes into a 6 inch rectangular plate that opens and shuts those valves.
Yes I know what I'm taling about. You've apparently just said, "lol what? $80 eac
These debates aren't over the scientific concept of whether you can absolutely determine if a thing is safe or not; rather, they're over simple claims like X causes Y. Frequently, they use analysis of anecdote (which is data; it's just not statistically-sound data--mostly, it's cherry-picked) or of non-qualified data.
Most vaccines contain methylmercury compounds. Methylmercury compounds are absolutely toxic. They will kill you. They will damage your system. Pharma co puts methylmercury compounds into vaccines for one purpose: to overwhelm any microbes with a virulent poison and terminate all cellular functions.
Then you inject 1mL of a vaccine into your body and dilute it by 10,000 times.
The concentration of methylmercury in vaccines is not 10,000 times the LD0. Once you inject a vaccine into a human, there's no way they're going to experience any systemic poisoning. A few of the body cells in the local area may experience adverse effects--some of your blood cells, maybe a muscle cell or two, might die--but the stuff is going to spread out and become a minor irritation, and then immediately become harmless. Your kidneys will remove it from your blood system and you'll piss it out harmlessly.
Wargarble about toxic mercury in vaccines and the effects of toxic mercury in vaccines does, in fact, carry a foregone conclusion. So do many other arguments.
Uh, actually, it *is* optimized for the customer. That's the point I was making.
It's optimized such that the data rate delivered corrects for applications which would congest the network, 1) Requiring higher charges to the customer (more network capacity build-out, charge the customer more; 2) Causing overages (YouTube buffered 6 minutes of videos, showed 2 minutes, displayed an ad, then again buffered the 4 minutes of video it showed--downloading it twice--until I ran out of bandwidth); and 3) Causing stuttering and skipping during peak usage times.
It's optimized in such a way that data streamed for a particular use on a particular device is limited to 25% more bandwidth usage than strictly necessary for that use at maximum quality on that device.
they're trying to degrade the performance so that folks won't watch high quality video over mobile data.
That requires a 1.2Mbit pipe, and they've degraded performance to 1.5Mbit.
Dude, my point is that that those appliances are a static cost - shrinking the apartment doesn't reduce those expenses. Plus, you still have to hook utilities up to them. Running the power line to the stove, for example, costs darn near the value of the stove. You have to run water and drains to the bathrooms. You can mirror units to reduce the amount of pipe, but you're still looking at more pipe.
Plumbing and electric are part of building costs. Duplication costs are negligible. Been there and done that.
My point is you're saying, "Here, instead of spending $1,000,000 and $300 of it is this static cost, you're spending $250,000 of it and $300 is static cost."
Those static costs are not major expenses. Those static costs are pocket change.
You're looking at your yearly budget and obsessing over whether you spent $3.19 on that jar of Jif peanut butter or missed the sale at Sir Save-a-Lot for $3.09.
Expensive apartment, 680sqft for $700/month. That apartment was *cheap* to build: $85/sqft (best case scenario). $57,800; it's going to take the landlord 6 years 10 months to pay off those costs. The kitchen and bathroom bring $1,000 of appliances, so $58,800, 7 years. Those appliances cost $11.90/month.
Cheap apartment, 224sqft for $224/month (remember my budget is $300). $85/sqft, $19,040. That right off is 7 years 1 month pay-off; but add in the kitchen and bathroom, $1,000, 7 years 5 months. Those appliances cost $11.18/month.
What changed?
Price per square foot is $1.03 in the first, $1.00 in the second.
Now of course that assumes you replace the stove, bath tub, toilet, and refrigerator every 7 years. Does that actually happen? Let's see.
Normal lifetimes. Refrigerator: 15 years; stove: 14 years; bathtub: 20 years; toilet: 20 years; Bathroom sink: 20 years.
That $1,000 I computed should equate to about $5/month. Clothes washers and dryers are usually in the building's laundry room, and are not static expenses per apartment; boilers and heaters are part of controlled zone systems (not per-apartment; the zone control panel would cost like $300 per 6 units, the HVAC zone baffel would cost about $100 per unit, the control panel would meter usage time per apartment, and you'd install as much furnace capacity as per your heated space). A commercial TED on the building would cost $1,200 for a three-phase, 2,000 amp system; for 8 units, you'd need a $600 800 amp system with $150 8-breaker monitoring set.
In other words: there's some additional $10/month per unit expected, except those costs are included in every unit of a certain square footage cost. For a 1,000sqft apartment, it's 1 cent per square foot; for a 224sqft apartment, it's 4.5 cents per square foot.
You're telling me that maybe the apartment will cost $235 instead of the budgeted $300?
Have you noticed that I have particular equipment for multi-circuit monitoring, construction costs of apartments, and appliance lifetimes for rental properties on hand? I'm not speculating that some "static costs" might make each unit thousands of dollars more expensive; I'm projecting the cost of risk based on real-world factors.
All that stuff you said? I covered that when I came up with these numbers.
I know where money comes from. It's issued by a central bank; in modern American society (and many others), money is created largely by debt.
Money *is* barter. 1,000 units of goods exchange by the movement of 1,000 units of currency--regardless of how much goods or currency those total out to. This movement pays for labor invested in producing those goods; more efficient labor means more goods produced per unit labor, thus a richer society.
Among the many things this (and, really, the long and actually *complete* explanation, instead of the brief and terribly insufficient one above) means is Government cannot spend non-money. Let's take the three scenarios.
Scenario one: Government demands, but does not pay. In this case, the tax comes as a sort of reverse subsidy: each business supporting the government invests more labor (and wages) into the production of its products. That is to say: if a business making asphalt SURRENDERS 1/3 of its asphalt to the government, then it must charge 50% more for each asphalt. Rather than making 3 tonnes for $3,000,000, it makes 2 tonnes for $1,500,000 each--$500,000 more per tonne--and an additional 1 tonne which it surrenders to the Government.
Scenario two: Government creates money. In this case, the government creates inflation: you go from 1,000 unit goods and 1,000 units money to 1,000 unit goods and 1,250 units money. Money becomes worth less. This is roughly equivalent to a flat tax on all income *and* assets, in an acute sense; each time the Government spends, wages get a little smaller, and prices get a little higher, and so prices and wages must both rise to reach equilibrium.
Scenario three: Government taxes and spends. In this case, the government reduces spending and creates unemployment. The cost of labor increases (as in scenario one), but there is no inflation created. That's because each unit of money spent is money taken from the existing income. Further, the government can adjust the taxes to more effectively gain the marginal revenue fraction (flat income tax rate) by taxing the high income earners slightly more and the working class slightly less--this is more effective when the income gap is broader. In this scenario, the government must intentionally create money as productivity increases, else there will be deflation, which damages the economy.
Yes, I understand where money comes from, how governments fund themselves, and what taxation is. I understand economics *well* better than you.
the most obvious way to realise it is the truth is to consider: how do I pay taxes if I do not first have money ?
The government collects a percentage of all production, which is paid for by all income. That is: If 8 million *things* are made and 8 million *dollars* are spent, then each $1 represents one thing. Economies are more complex--various goods require differing amounts of labor, labor charges varied prices (cost of labor), and so things cost more or less dollars--and they still boil down to all income equaling all production.
Obviously, the government can only use those things which the society can produce. It can only build roads if the society can produce roads.
If the society has the production output to produce roads, then the money being spent on that production represents enough production to produce roads.
The government needs to access that portion of that production representing the production of a road. That production is 1.37% of all production, and so the government needs to collect 1.37% of all income to pay for roads.
YOU don't have money? You don't have to pay taxes; the government only needs to *collect* 1.37% of everyone's taxes. You have 1/10 as much as that bloke? Well you pay 1/10 as much as he does, only 1.37% of what you have. The government walks away with enough money to pay the wages of the labor involved in making roads--in mining the oil, mining the stone, refinement, transport, building machinery,
Study systems. SQ3R is *the* study system; SQW3R, PQRST, and other study systems all use synonyms for SQ3R concepts (Survey/Preview, Question, Read, (Self/)Recite, Review/Test). We tell kids to "study" but not how to study. We tell them to take notes, but we don't teach them about organization and its role in memory; we don't give them Affinity Diagrams or other tools to categorize large amounts of related but different information. The most students get are Venn diagrams to compare information.
The science of expertise. Deliberate practice. Skills and knowledge are refined by identifying your technical weakness in detail and targeting it. We give kids blanket homework--a sheet of mathematics problems; we don't teach kids to identify their weakness in mathematics (e.g. certain types of multiplication problems) and focus their study time on that. We *clog* their study time with useless shit; they quickly and correctly answer the things they know and get marks down on the things they don't, but it's good enough and they need not improve. We actively discourage improvement in this way.
Mnemonics. Human memory is so intimately familiar to human life you can explain deep, complex, technical concepts of associative and visual memory to first graders and they'll get it. Short-term memory, long-term memory, visualization of concrete concepts (like apples, chairs), lower coherence of abstract concepts (like hunger, happiness), spatial reasoning, associative storage. Even a first-grade child can look inside their own mind and go, "Oh, I see that!" You can readily teach them to apply rhythm and rhyme, fixation of visual images, and mnemonic systems like linking, storytelling, and mind palaces.
Mental mathematics. Another specific skill like mnemonics, with less-broad application. Arithmetic should not be a point of distress for students; we should teach them up through Geometry in absolute competence, and a strong arithmetic foundation is key to success in this endeavor. Instead we teach them to count on their fingers and carry single-digit overflow. How many people see 7 + 9 and immediately think 8, because 7-1? 6 + 7 and immediately think 3, because 6 - 3? 18, 13, didn't even do the math; I have all the number pairs on 5 and 10 (both ways) memorized, and have seen all the combinations enough times to immediately recognize them. I accumulate a carry appropriately. 12 years of school only taught me to use one method of iterative addition, not the fast method of immediate registration in single-cycle addition.
With these skills, students learn to learn. They encounter information they cannot take in and they convert it into something they can process. They encounter difficulty in their studies and they identify and correct their specific weaknesses. They gain an advantage against certain types of studies by domain-specific theoretical skills--mental mathematics and algebraic simplification for math; linguistic grammar for foreign languages (one of the possible explanations for Esperanto's perceived propaedeutic properties); music theory for music; visual art theories for visual art.
A student who understands study methods and the practice of deliberate practice has an immediate advantage in *everything*. This is a person who can rapidly learn to program *correctly*, not just fumble around for a result or perform by rote to satisfy a teacher. This is a person who can learn nuclear physics. This is a person who's 12 years old and already figured out how to model space shuttle re-entries on his computer because he likes space ships and is a giant nerd and spent 6 months studying that sort of thing and learned Python.
They call us geniuses; they don't realize it's only technique. It's a trade secret, not a genetic supermind.
"Seems to run faster" means people wrote benchmarks and the benchmarks said A is faster than B. Benchmarks aren't holy and shouldn't be used to make definitive statements about broad applications.
OP came in talking about how Java *absolutely* *is* faster than C# and you shouldn't use C# if you want performance. This doesn't appear inherently true, as e.g. an HTTP server written entirely in C# can process requests at 10x the rate as the same logic written in Java and run on JVM; claiming the opposite doesn't appear inherently true, as simple Web applications run on Web server software (e.g. Tomcat) runs 2-3x faster as equivalent Java servlets than C# servlets. That could be Java being faster in that application, or the application server being better-written than its C# counterpart; either way, it seems Java is faster in that application.
Those are fairly high-quality test (being complex, real-world workloads), but that doesn't make them fully-representative. It's only *more* comprehensive than timing a loop of memory allocations or matrix multiplications or whatnot. You need more than benchmarks to make a definitive statement; you need a theoretical analysis of architecture.
You didn't describe how taxation and money work anymore than someone talking about the quantum levetron that creates a gravitic field around a 747 describes how an airplane works.
C# has signed and unsigned int types and runs on CIL.
Android's developer tools only ingest Java VM code and turn it into Dalvik. Funny they don't ingest CIL code, while all the C#, F#, and other.NET compilers produce CIL code. How was targeting Java equivalent to targeting 14 other languages with the same amount of work?
It would make sense if you understood the discussion about war consuming the products everyone was working so hard to produce, depriving society of its wealth by ensuring consumers could not access the product of their labor, effectively reducing the productive output per labor-hour by means of destroying that output.
Everything is scarce and everything available represents enormous amounts of human labor; then everything is not scarce and represents minimal amounts of human labor.
We're talking about a society that went from 38,000,000 people working full-time to make 40,000,000 tonnes of steel (the rest going to the war) to 38,000,000 people working full-time to make 1,750,000,000 tonnes of steel. I know you like to think about all the money people were making selling that steel to the Government, even though the steel wasn't coming to them; but what could they buy with that money, considering their labor was outputting so little to the consumer market?
If you have a million dollars but the only available living space is a cardboard box, well... you quickly learn you can't eat money. Middle class shrinks as scarcity drives prices up.
You did claim that just creating more money was the solution. Do you understand that the value of a unit currency continuously approaches the total income in weighted time period divided by the total production for that time period? More money doesn't mean more wealth; it means less buying power per money unit.
We did fund wars by printing money (literally) 4 times. Instead of raising taxes to pay soldiers, they paid soldiers in new money; it caused massive inflation and economic recessions. This was back before money was largely introduced via credit.
The purpose of taxation is revenue.
Taxation is a system of compulsory contributions levied by government on persons, corporations, and properties, primarily as a source of revenue for government’s expenses and other public purposes.
You did see the part where Google wrote a program that converts Java bytecode to Dalvik bytecode, right? Whenever you update Cyanogen and it starts "Optimizing applications", it's reconverting all the Java to Dalvik.
For a more direct answer?
Calling the Java server 2000 times takes 2687 milliseconds. Calling the C# server 2000 times takes 214 milliseconds. The C# one is still much faster.
Retrieving 2000 instances takes 479 milliseconds. That’s roughly half the time as the C# controller—very fast indeed.
The same code implemented in Java and C# seems to run faster in C#; whereas code running on a Java application server versus a C# application server seems to run faster in Java. Apparently Java Web application servers like Tomcat are more mature than.NET Web application servers; but we're talking about bare runtime environments and just-in-time compilation, which lends itself more to C#, apparently.
The torch has been passed back and forth over the years, with platform-specific results--frequently.NET is faster than Java, while Java beats Mono. Again: Google found Java too slow, so wrote Dalvik to interpret Java; they could have done the same with C#/CLR/Mono. They had no way to know Microsoft would drop Core CLR as MIT--Mono folded some of that in for performance--but they did have the resources to write their own Java JVM because Java is too slow.
Perl is great. Unless you're a paranoid scizophrenic with tin foil wrapped around your balls so the Government doesn't brainwash your babies, it's about 80% likely you haven't ferreted out all the nasty security holes in your perl. That's why, after exploiting Bugzilla, people went on to bypass dbi::quote() by passing a list instead of a string.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be a wildly incorrect usage of quotes. Instead, you would use the appositive particle, "e.g.".
Do not use quotes for emphasis, you uneducated barbarian!
Yes it does. If the money exists it can be removed through taxation. It doesn't matter where that money is distributed throughout the economy
Say it with me: Money spent equals product produced. Taxation removes money to be spent by either A) making product more expensive; or B) reducing the wage of the consumer. (A) requires higher wages for consumers to buy the same products; (B) requires higher wages for consumers to buy the same products. In either case, for consumers to buy the same things, they must have... wait for it... THE MONEY YOU TAXED AWAY. If they don't, you get a reduction in what can be bought, resulting in reductions in production, creating unemployment, reducing the amount of stuff-per-person, and leading to increased poverty.
Taxation adds strain. It's not a way to create deflation; it's a way to create revenue, in which case at least the money is spent back into the economy, preventing *some* of the damage, ideally for goals which the private sector can't accomplish and which produce a bigger return than their cost (e.g. building roads).
You have provided no reason why taxes are raised. So the rest of your "example" is just a non-sequitur.
I have provided cause and effect. If I stab you in the throat, you bleed to death; you just said, "Oh that's stupid; why would you stab me in the throat?" WHY has no bearing on WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.
You are arguing fallacies.
1 != 2 is not a fallacy.
You're either a moron, dishonest, or both.
Dignity and an empty sack are worth the sack.
This entire thread is about the legal merits of such a law.
I'm looking at this "he says he's trying to solve a real problem" thing and seeing no real problem. Some people are talking about things in a way you don't want them to... that's not a real problem; it's you being a whiny git. A *real* problem is children being abducted, buttraped, and murdered in the woods; at the end of the day, there aren't any new bodies, any new injuries, or even new any information from the actions of people taking pictures and posting them on Twitter, meaning *nothing* *has* *changed* by these actions (or lack thereof) and any "problem" is non-real.
Except, of course, life isn't generally about the extremes. Far more will be located in the middle. Your using the cheapest construction costs quoted results in you almost certainly making an under-estimate as to the costs. Using the maximum costs would also be inaccurate, as that would be an apartment for visiting Saudi Sheiks and such.
I used the extreme example which disadvantaged me most in the context of your assertion of how expensive refrigerators and toilets would be.
I used a baseline of $1/sqft--a fairly high medium for low-income areas, where $0.60/sqft apartments frequently rent--in my basic estimates of cost, and padded it to $1.33 as a risk buffer.
I'm using highly-conservative estimates in *all* my estimates.
I'll just point out that when people browse your sight and see your estimates that it weakens your argument because it makes it seem like you don't know what you're talking about.
Well, that's because I know what I'm doing and they don't. When I pull real-world data, analyze it, move away from the extremes to the frequent-and-likely baselines that make up the most likely scenario, and then test my risks in the worst-case-scenarios, my numbers are more likely to reflect adequate estimates. If people look at that and say, "What? That doesn't look real!", that's because they don't know how to estimate--or, like you, they don't know how to think in general.
be cheaper. What I'm disputing is your assumption that they can be linearly scaled, especially using the bottom end of construction estimates for cost per square foot.
If you want to assert, "There are costs which do not scale with the apartment; these will make up a significant portion of the price," then you have two ways to test this assertion.
If you want to hide those prices, pick the *most* *expensive* construction estimates. Show those costs are a $2,000 load and the cost of construction is $200,000, and so those costs are tiny.
If you want to test if this is an actual risk, pick the *least* *expensive* construction estimates. Show those costs are a $2,000 load and the construction cost is $50,000, and then figure out how the fixed costs amortize.
I did the latter, and you bitch. You continue to bitch. You are telling me, "Hey, you should have hidden your numbers by using inflated construction costs to pretend they were lower! You should have lied about those costs and used faulty reasoning, but you used conservative estimates which put you at greatest risk of failure!" You're looking at me doing something IN THE BEST WAY and trying to use a tone of scorn to pretend it was the wrong way.
When I looked it up it was $1.50 each for wash/dry. $.75 more. You might want to update your figures for inflation.
Well, it's not here. It's not in a *lot* of low-income neighborhoods. Poor people go where they can afford.
It may be something as simple as factoring in some inflation since you did the figuring.
Some inflation, maybe; perhaps as much as 7%. I frequently work directly from 2013 numbers because I designed the Dividend in such a way that it always self-adjusts for inflation. In this case, however, I used estimated prices; some of them were wrong--turns out builder-grade bathtubs are like $125 instead of $300-ish, and you should have caught the slightly-high estimate on the cost of energy billing devices--but they all erred toward being estimated too high instead of too low.
They also all still worked in my favor, despite being higher than real-world numbers.
So a stove is a concept now? A toilet is a concept? Static costs are concept.
Yes, and have I repeatedly illustrated that static costs aren't significant; you continue to go, "Oh, but they will be, SOMEHOW," even though analyzing the costs themselves proves otherwise, because the *concept* of stat
Point 2: The Government can easily tax away the extra 250 units. No inflation.
900 Uh no, it doesn't work that way. That 250 units was already spent. You buy a $1,250 tractor: $300 to pay steelworker wages, $250 to pay oilworker wages, $150 to pay administrative (executive, management) wages, $200 to pay machinist wages (power tool manufacture/maintenance), $100 to pay builder's wages (people actually manufacturing your product), $250 to pay taxes.
You see, the consumer now has to bring $1,250 to buy that tractor, instead of $250. He has to bring the additional units of money to buy things. You now have inflation.
What about income taxes on the consumer? Consumers include businesses as consumers *and* individuals as consumers.
Well, first effect: instead of the consumer having $1,250 to spend, the consumer now has $1,000 to spend. That means $250 of product he was buying can't be bought by the consumer; this theoretically scales production down, eliminating jobs.
Second effect: Government spends that $250. This theoretically buys things, demanding production, restoring those eliminated jobs.
So far, the government hasn't eliminated (or created) inflation by taxation and spending; it's just made consumers more poor (the government takes from the consumer).
There's a third effect: by means of the first effect, the consumer's salary is lowered. Say the consumer makes $45,000 and pays 11% in taxes; that consumer takes home $40k. So we raise taxes on thy consumer, and now he pays 33%; in this case, his take-home salary is $30k--as I said, less to spend. So now the consumer cries about lower income, and some consumers cannot afford the cost of living, and starve.
To handle this creation of poverty, wages increase. Now rather than pay the consumer $45k, we pay the consumer $60k for the same work. Of course, with the same amount of money, we must pay fewer consumers. You now take home $40k, but everything costs 25% more (you're still poor), and there are fewer jobs due to a shortage of money. *Now* we have inflation *and* unemployment.
Now, if the government *creates* money to spend, that's different.
Firstly, with the government constantly doing this--because it's constantly spending--you get the same equilibrium created: year after year, the same demands exist, and jobs are not created. Government stops printing money and buying services, jobs vanish; government *starts* printing money and buying services, jobs appear. Status quo, we just coast.
Because the same amount of production occurs year-after-year while the government *creates* more money to pay for it, there's simply *more* money coming into the system. People don't receive money taken from elsewhere; they receive *new* money. They then go to spend that new money, except there's the same amount of production. Without a corresponding increase in production, this leads to the devaluing of money, increasing the amount of money being spent per good--inflation. When prices are raised on the government, they just print more and spend more--more money spent, no increase in production, inflation.
I am describing how the money system works. Money spent = productive output. That includes variations caused by overproduction: make 100 widgets and sell 90, you still have to pay the workers who made those 100 widgets for their time making 100 widgets; maybe next time around you'll produce to meet your market demand better. We handle this in practice by way of reserve (we make too much, then slow down production and keep a certain amount of overstock, thus avoiding the expense of overproduction). It includes wages. It includes risks. It includes damage, loss, failures, R&D, the works.
You cannot say, "Be there twice as many dollars spent on the same number of goods, lo, there is no inflation!" because spending $2,000 on what used to be $1,000 of goods *is* *inflation*.
I have demonstrated: 1) that government taxati
Ah, here's where I have a problem: I'm asking you: Is it still legitimate to use a best case/lowest cost range for building apartments that aren't really built today? Here's the deal: Real life isn't a game. Price per square foot is basically an estimating tool.
The opposite assumption--the worst-case per-square-foot--is an assertion that those static costs are even *less* important. That is: I'm saying a *cheap* construction cost has all those static costs as roughly 5% of its build cost; if we go claiming the apartment has $200/sqft build costs, then those static costs are 2.4% of its build cost. That gives me an advantage by dismissing the case in which build is cheap, thus claiming that those costs are even less significant.
merely telling you that I think you're under-estimating the cost of your 'cheap' apartments.
My response is I'm not.
You've since ignored my suggestion - sharing an apartment, as a means to reduce costs per person such that it would be affordable.
Living with another person is not an acceptable solution. I moved *out* of my parents's house; if I had roommates, there would be corpses.
More importantly: it's wholly unnecessary. The argument is ludicrous. It's like arguing that poor people could eat a nutritious sludge made from raw sewage if we apply proper treatment to human feces to remove the poisons and render the proteins and lipids in the present bacteria down to a nutrient-rich soup. ... we *could*, but why?
We can build 100sqft capsule apartments cheaper than this and drive the cost of living down further. Humans can get room mates as an elective. There is no *requirement* to base our economic success on the assumption that people do not universally have the option to live alone. No. Financial. Reason.
To me, this is using one assumption to make another assumption. You're unilaterally decreasing the price over what's already a 'best case' scenario for the builder/owner of the apartment.
Lengthened the supposed pay-off length of the apartment build, then applied that to the other costs, which made the cost of appliances negligible. It's one of a few dozen pointless ways to do the amortization.
Not sure how you're figuring it, but most of my values have you neglecting cost of capital and insurance.
"Cost of captial" - meaningless word. I included the cost of the fixtures themselves; the cost of installation is included in the cost of initial construction.
Insurance is built into existing rent: you're trying to include a cost which is already covered. If I were a landlord with *many* units (100+), I would skip insuring appliances; this is a finance topic I don't care to get into, because it's a long explanation. The short of it is you insure one expensive thing; you self-insure one thousand things, expensive or not. Whether the landlord buys insurance or becomes his own risk pool will depend on how many units he has--and these are small units, so the same square footage means more of them.
A zone control panel for $300, for 6 zones? Yeah right. Zone valves run $80 each, and that's without install and with my ass shopping around.
I said the baffels cost $80 each, and the control panel costs $300. Remember: cost of construction includes installing all that HVAC, and installing a zone control baffel during an initial HVAC build costs... $0. It's a piece of ductwork. This piece happens to have a fancy valve in it.
The control panel is an electronic control run to both your thermostat and your ductwork baffles. There will be a 3 foot length of wire going to this giant fork that comes from 1 big pipe and goes to 6 big pipes; it goes into a 6 inch rectangular plate that opens and shuts those valves.
Yes I know what I'm taling about. You've apparently just said, "lol what? $80 eac
It's weird enough they think dead people are people.
Uncertain. Methyl mercury doesn't bioaccumulate as far as I know; it's in tuna, and gets pissed out when eaten.
Actually, it was, in context.
These debates aren't over the scientific concept of whether you can absolutely determine if a thing is safe or not; rather, they're over simple claims like X causes Y. Frequently, they use analysis of anecdote (which is data; it's just not statistically-sound data--mostly, it's cherry-picked) or of non-qualified data.
Most vaccines contain methylmercury compounds. Methylmercury compounds are absolutely toxic. They will kill you. They will damage your system. Pharma co puts methylmercury compounds into vaccines for one purpose: to overwhelm any microbes with a virulent poison and terminate all cellular functions.
Then you inject 1mL of a vaccine into your body and dilute it by 10,000 times.
The concentration of methylmercury in vaccines is not 10,000 times the LD0. Once you inject a vaccine into a human, there's no way they're going to experience any systemic poisoning. A few of the body cells in the local area may experience adverse effects--some of your blood cells, maybe a muscle cell or two, might die--but the stuff is going to spread out and become a minor irritation, and then immediately become harmless. Your kidneys will remove it from your blood system and you'll piss it out harmlessly.
Wargarble about toxic mercury in vaccines and the effects of toxic mercury in vaccines does, in fact, carry a foregone conclusion. So do many other arguments.
Uh, actually, it *is* optimized for the customer. That's the point I was making.
It's optimized such that the data rate delivered corrects for applications which would congest the network, 1) Requiring higher charges to the customer (more network capacity build-out, charge the customer more; 2) Causing overages (YouTube buffered 6 minutes of videos, showed 2 minutes, displayed an ad, then again buffered the 4 minutes of video it showed--downloading it twice--until I ran out of bandwidth); and 3) Causing stuttering and skipping during peak usage times.
It's optimized in such a way that data streamed for a particular use on a particular device is limited to 25% more bandwidth usage than strictly necessary for that use at maximum quality on that device.
they're trying to degrade the performance so that folks won't watch high quality video over mobile data.
That requires a 1.2Mbit pipe, and they've degraded performance to 1.5Mbit.
I flipped my operations. Instead of 9-2 or 7+1, I did 9-1. It happens; top-level accountants were only expected to ever have a 1 in 3,000 error rate.
Dude, my point is that that those appliances are a static cost - shrinking the apartment doesn't reduce those expenses. Plus, you still have to hook utilities up to them. Running the power line to the stove, for example, costs darn near the value of the stove. You have to run water and drains to the bathrooms. You can mirror units to reduce the amount of pipe, but you're still looking at more pipe.
Plumbing and electric are part of building costs. Duplication costs are negligible. Been there and done that.
My point is you're saying, "Here, instead of spending $1,000,000 and $300 of it is this static cost, you're spending $250,000 of it and $300 is static cost."
Those static costs are not major expenses. Those static costs are pocket change.
You're looking at your yearly budget and obsessing over whether you spent $3.19 on that jar of Jif peanut butter or missed the sale at Sir Save-a-Lot for $3.09.
Expensive apartment, 680sqft for $700/month. That apartment was *cheap* to build: $85/sqft (best case scenario). $57,800; it's going to take the landlord 6 years 10 months to pay off those costs. The kitchen and bathroom bring $1,000 of appliances, so $58,800, 7 years. Those appliances cost $11.90/month.
Cheap apartment, 224sqft for $224/month (remember my budget is $300). $85/sqft, $19,040. That right off is 7 years 1 month pay-off; but add in the kitchen and bathroom, $1,000, 7 years 5 months. Those appliances cost $11.18/month.
What changed?
Price per square foot is $1.03 in the first, $1.00 in the second.
Now of course that assumes you replace the stove, bath tub, toilet, and refrigerator every 7 years. Does that actually happen? Let's see.
Normal lifetimes. Refrigerator: 15 years; stove: 14 years; bathtub: 20 years; toilet: 20 years; Bathroom sink: 20 years.
That $1,000 I computed should equate to about $5/month. Clothes washers and dryers are usually in the building's laundry room, and are not static expenses per apartment; boilers and heaters are part of controlled zone systems (not per-apartment; the zone control panel would cost like $300 per 6 units, the HVAC zone baffel would cost about $100 per unit, the control panel would meter usage time per apartment, and you'd install as much furnace capacity as per your heated space). A commercial TED on the building would cost $1,200 for a three-phase, 2,000 amp system; for 8 units, you'd need a $600 800 amp system with $150 8-breaker monitoring set.
In other words: there's some additional $10/month per unit expected, except those costs are included in every unit of a certain square footage cost. For a 1,000sqft apartment, it's 1 cent per square foot; for a 224sqft apartment, it's 4.5 cents per square foot.
You're telling me that maybe the apartment will cost $235 instead of the budgeted $300?
Have you noticed that I have particular equipment for multi-circuit monitoring, construction costs of apartments, and appliance lifetimes for rental properties on hand? I'm not speculating that some "static costs" might make each unit thousands of dollars more expensive; I'm projecting the cost of risk based on real-world factors.
All that stuff you said? I covered that when I came up with these numbers.
I know where money comes from. It's issued by a central bank; in modern American society (and many others), money is created largely by debt.
Money *is* barter. 1,000 units of goods exchange by the movement of 1,000 units of currency--regardless of how much goods or currency those total out to. This movement pays for labor invested in producing those goods; more efficient labor means more goods produced per unit labor, thus a richer society.
Among the many things this (and, really, the long and actually *complete* explanation, instead of the brief and terribly insufficient one above) means is Government cannot spend non-money. Let's take the three scenarios.
Scenario one: Government demands, but does not pay. In this case, the tax comes as a sort of reverse subsidy: each business supporting the government invests more labor (and wages) into the production of its products. That is to say: if a business making asphalt SURRENDERS 1/3 of its asphalt to the government, then it must charge 50% more for each asphalt. Rather than making 3 tonnes for $3,000,000, it makes 2 tonnes for $1,500,000 each--$500,000 more per tonne--and an additional 1 tonne which it surrenders to the Government.
Scenario two: Government creates money. In this case, the government creates inflation: you go from 1,000 unit goods and 1,000 units money to 1,000 unit goods and 1,250 units money. Money becomes worth less. This is roughly equivalent to a flat tax on all income *and* assets, in an acute sense; each time the Government spends, wages get a little smaller, and prices get a little higher, and so prices and wages must both rise to reach equilibrium.
Scenario three: Government taxes and spends. In this case, the government reduces spending and creates unemployment. The cost of labor increases (as in scenario one), but there is no inflation created. That's because each unit of money spent is money taken from the existing income. Further, the government can adjust the taxes to more effectively gain the marginal revenue fraction (flat income tax rate) by taxing the high income earners slightly more and the working class slightly less--this is more effective when the income gap is broader. In this scenario, the government must intentionally create money as productivity increases, else there will be deflation, which damages the economy.
Yes, I understand where money comes from, how governments fund themselves, and what taxation is. I understand economics *well* better than you.
the most obvious way to realise it is the truth is to consider: how do I pay taxes if I do not first have money ?
The government collects a percentage of all production, which is paid for by all income. That is: If 8 million *things* are made and 8 million *dollars* are spent, then each $1 represents one thing. Economies are more complex--various goods require differing amounts of labor, labor charges varied prices (cost of labor), and so things cost more or less dollars--and they still boil down to all income equaling all production.
Obviously, the government can only use those things which the society can produce. It can only build roads if the society can produce roads.
If the society has the production output to produce roads, then the money being spent on that production represents enough production to produce roads.
The government needs to access that portion of that production representing the production of a road. That production is 1.37% of all production, and so the government needs to collect 1.37% of all income to pay for roads.
YOU don't have money? You don't have to pay taxes; the government only needs to *collect* 1.37% of everyone's taxes. You have 1/10 as much as that bloke? Well you pay 1/10 as much as he does, only 1.37% of what you have. The government walks away with enough money to pay the wages of the labor involved in making roads--in mining the oil, mining the stone, refinement, transport, building machinery,
These are not mutually exclusive.
Your statement is also one argued from ignorance.
Study systems. SQ3R is *the* study system; SQW3R, PQRST, and other study systems all use synonyms for SQ3R concepts (Survey/Preview, Question, Read, (Self/)Recite, Review/Test). We tell kids to "study" but not how to study. We tell them to take notes, but we don't teach them about organization and its role in memory; we don't give them Affinity Diagrams or other tools to categorize large amounts of related but different information. The most students get are Venn diagrams to compare information.
The science of expertise. Deliberate practice. Skills and knowledge are refined by identifying your technical weakness in detail and targeting it. We give kids blanket homework--a sheet of mathematics problems; we don't teach kids to identify their weakness in mathematics (e.g. certain types of multiplication problems) and focus their study time on that. We *clog* their study time with useless shit; they quickly and correctly answer the things they know and get marks down on the things they don't, but it's good enough and they need not improve. We actively discourage improvement in this way.
Mnemonics. Human memory is so intimately familiar to human life you can explain deep, complex, technical concepts of associative and visual memory to first graders and they'll get it. Short-term memory, long-term memory, visualization of concrete concepts (like apples, chairs), lower coherence of abstract concepts (like hunger, happiness), spatial reasoning, associative storage. Even a first-grade child can look inside their own mind and go, "Oh, I see that!" You can readily teach them to apply rhythm and rhyme, fixation of visual images, and mnemonic systems like linking, storytelling, and mind palaces.
Mental mathematics. Another specific skill like mnemonics, with less-broad application. Arithmetic should not be a point of distress for students; we should teach them up through Geometry in absolute competence, and a strong arithmetic foundation is key to success in this endeavor. Instead we teach them to count on their fingers and carry single-digit overflow. How many people see 7 + 9 and immediately think 8, because 7-1? 6 + 7 and immediately think 3, because 6 - 3? 18, 13, didn't even do the math; I have all the number pairs on 5 and 10 (both ways) memorized, and have seen all the combinations enough times to immediately recognize them. I accumulate a carry appropriately. 12 years of school only taught me to use one method of iterative addition, not the fast method of immediate registration in single-cycle addition.
With these skills, students learn to learn. They encounter information they cannot take in and they convert it into something they can process. They encounter difficulty in their studies and they identify and correct their specific weaknesses. They gain an advantage against certain types of studies by domain-specific theoretical skills--mental mathematics and algebraic simplification for math; linguistic grammar for foreign languages (one of the possible explanations for Esperanto's perceived propaedeutic properties); music theory for music; visual art theories for visual art.
A student who understands study methods and the practice of deliberate practice has an immediate advantage in *everything*. This is a person who can rapidly learn to program *correctly*, not just fumble around for a result or perform by rote to satisfy a teacher. This is a person who can learn nuclear physics. This is a person who's 12 years old and already figured out how to model space shuttle re-entries on his computer because he likes space ships and is a giant nerd and spent 6 months studying that sort of thing and learned Python.
They call us geniuses; they don't realize it's only technique. It's a trade secret, not a genetic supermind.
"Seems to run faster" means people wrote benchmarks and the benchmarks said A is faster than B. Benchmarks aren't holy and shouldn't be used to make definitive statements about broad applications.
OP came in talking about how Java *absolutely* *is* faster than C# and you shouldn't use C# if you want performance. This doesn't appear inherently true, as e.g. an HTTP server written entirely in C# can process requests at 10x the rate as the same logic written in Java and run on JVM; claiming the opposite doesn't appear inherently true, as simple Web applications run on Web server software (e.g. Tomcat) runs 2-3x faster as equivalent Java servlets than C# servlets. That could be Java being faster in that application, or the application server being better-written than its C# counterpart; either way, it seems Java is faster in that application.
Those are fairly high-quality test (being complex, real-world workloads), but that doesn't make them fully-representative. It's only *more* comprehensive than timing a loop of memory allocations or matrix multiplications or whatnot. You need more than benchmarks to make a definitive statement; you need a theoretical analysis of architecture.
You didn't describe how taxation and money work anymore than someone talking about the quantum levetron that creates a gravitic field around a 747 describes how an airplane works.
C# has signed and unsigned int types and runs on CIL.
Android's developer tools only ingest Java VM code and turn it into Dalvik. Funny they don't ingest CIL code, while all the C#, F#, and other .NET compilers produce CIL code. How was targeting Java equivalent to targeting 14 other languages with the same amount of work?
It would make sense if you understood the discussion about war consuming the products everyone was working so hard to produce, depriving society of its wealth by ensuring consumers could not access the product of their labor, effectively reducing the productive output per labor-hour by means of destroying that output.
Everything is scarce and everything available represents enormous amounts of human labor; then everything is not scarce and represents minimal amounts of human labor.
We're talking about a society that went from 38,000,000 people working full-time to make 40,000,000 tonnes of steel (the rest going to the war) to 38,000,000 people working full-time to make 1,750,000,000 tonnes of steel. I know you like to think about all the money people were making selling that steel to the Government, even though the steel wasn't coming to them; but what could they buy with that money, considering their labor was outputting so little to the consumer market?
If you have a million dollars but the only available living space is a cardboard box, well... you quickly learn you can't eat money. Middle class shrinks as scarcity drives prices up.
You did claim that just creating more money was the solution. Do you understand that the value of a unit currency continuously approaches the total income in weighted time period divided by the total production for that time period? More money doesn't mean more wealth; it means less buying power per money unit.
We did fund wars by printing money (literally) 4 times. Instead of raising taxes to pay soldiers, they paid soldiers in new money; it caused massive inflation and economic recessions. This was back before money was largely introduced via credit.
The purpose of taxation is revenue.
Taxation is a system of compulsory contributions levied by government on persons, corporations, and properties, primarily as a source of revenue for government’s expenses and other public purposes.
Why would you pick Java?
You did see the part where Google wrote a program that converts Java bytecode to Dalvik bytecode, right? Whenever you update Cyanogen and it starts "Optimizing applications", it's reconverting all the Java to Dalvik.
For a more direct answer?
Calling the Java server 2000 times takes 2687 milliseconds. Calling the C# server 2000 times takes 214 milliseconds. The C# one is still much faster.
Retrieving 2000 instances takes 479 milliseconds. That’s roughly half the time as the C# controller—very fast indeed.
The same code implemented in Java and C# seems to run faster in C#; whereas code running on a Java application server versus a C# application server seems to run faster in Java. Apparently Java Web application servers like Tomcat are more mature than .NET Web application servers; but we're talking about bare runtime environments and just-in-time compilation, which lends itself more to C#, apparently.
The torch has been passed back and forth over the years, with platform-specific results--frequently .NET is faster than Java, while Java beats Mono. Again: Google found Java too slow, so wrote Dalvik to interpret Java; they could have done the same with C#/CLR/Mono. They had no way to know Microsoft would drop Core CLR as MIT--Mono folded some of that in for performance--but they did have the resources to write their own Java JVM because Java is too slow.
In short: your question is ridiculous.
Perl is great. Unless you're a paranoid scizophrenic with tin foil wrapped around your balls so the Government doesn't brainwash your babies, it's about 80% likely you haven't ferreted out all the nasty security holes in your perl. That's why, after exploiting Bugzilla, people went on to bypass dbi::quote() by passing a list instead of a string.
The guy who wrote Ruby should be executed for treason against humanity. That shit's worse than COBOL.