Actually, exactly like NASA. Even SpaceX would already be victim to this pattern like Lockheed/Boeing if Elon Musk was not maniacally focused on his Get Your Ass To Mars project.
Money emerges organically as market participants converge on a commodity that is highly marketable, divisible, portable and durable. No need for a government there. For contract dispute resolution, common law emerges iteratively from case precedents and consensus among arbitrators, no need for a legislature. Central planning didn't work for the Soviets and roofing nails, and it's a testament to our resourcefulness that we still hobble by doing it for law and money and health care.
He would call the government and protesters "Sisyphists," since they apparently believe it is better that the consumer has to work harder to get a ride.
http://www.econlib.org/library...
The intent of the medallion system is irrelevant. What is relevant is the outcome it has produced. That outcome was evidently so bad at serving the consumer, that a firm can risk legal trouble and still make billions.
Americans seem to have a gigantic blind spot when it comes to government corruption. Sure, people tend to nod at generic whining about "corrupt politicians" but they are hopelessly incapable of spotting that corruption when it happens. They will blame non-government actors all day long for making and offering bribes. As for the politicians who habitually take bribes? Crickets.
It's the laws that are bullshit. Look at what kind of service Uber facilitates. How is it that only now anyone is introducing a reputation system to this industry? How is it that only now the barrier of entry to this industry is coming down? What exactly does a stringently controlled supply of government-licensed "taxi" drivers do for the consumer anyway?
Exactly. No one would think to lobby the government if the government were not so powerful and meddlesome. People work to persuade the bureaucracy because doing so has a huge ROI.
Uber is 1000 times better for transportation than the taxi cartel, and no thanks to government's relationship to this industry, lobbying aggressively is an act of self-defense. Instead of denigrating Uber for playing this game, blame the governments which have made this necessary, and blame yourselves for not voting the bastards out when they create cartels.
The story never ends. Innovators try to create something new and help their fellow human beings, then the state tries to stamp it out.
Fortunately, innovators move faster than government. In the long run humanity wins and bureaucracy loses.
You're taking for granted that the FCC's new rules are antynomous with "protecting commercial interests." The ISPs will be fine either way, they already had government-granted monopolies. The rules were added at the behest of companies like Netflix, who felt they needed a regulatory cudgel to strengthen their position in price negotiations. Except what the FCC has also done is drop a lot of uncertainty and fear onto the ISP industry. That alone will stifle expansion.
Far better would have been to end the idiotic local laws and regs that made monopolies of whichever broadband provider was first to a given market. Google Fiber only rolled out in places where city governments could be coaxed into liberalizing, and behold, Comcast is upgrading speed in those areas for free. Competition works. The market has not failed. The FCC "fixed" the wrong problem.
I think your explanation falls very short when you refer to municipal limitations on the number of competitors as a "natural" monopoly. There's nothing natural about it if it's a situation directly caused by limits imposed by government. Prospective ISPs should have been able to negotiate with property owners at all levels to build lines of any sort wherever it made sense. Capping local markets at one or two providers is where the Internet got off track, not when the beneficiaries of this corporate welfare started doing the only thing that made sense given their unassailable, government-granted position. So now we pile the FCC on top of a problem that never needed to exist. Like Harry Browne used to say: government will break your knees, then hand you a pair of crutches and say "See? Without us you couldn't walk!"
People seem to be conflating licenses and training, which is cute considering y'all just got done beating up on tech certifications in another thread.
Should you need government permission to travel in your automated car? Hell no.
Should you know what you are doing when climbing into one? Ideally, yes.
There is another reason to do so: The sincere belief that the alarmists are a threat to human survival. Their unconditional animosity against much-needed energy sources, if acted out in the political sphere to the degree that they wish, would doom billions to poverty and death.
There is no doubt some risk in continuing to use fossil fuels the way we do, but governments are not who I would trust to quantify and hedge against that risk. They are much more likely to overreact or underreact for political reasons, costing the world countless lives.
This is an unpopular opinion I'm sure. The technocratic idealists here who align with the alarmists are positive they know better how the world should run than those SUV-driving rubes out there, but such paternalistic hubris has gotten mankind into huge trouble before.
Whenever scientists publish a controversial new cosmological theory there is no gossiping over who paid them. Because it doesn't matter. If their interpretation of the data is wrong, or if their model is wrong, all someone has to do is correct their work.
Yet when it comes to "climate science" much ink is spilled disparaging the motives and character of anyone who challenges the orthodoxy. If he's wrong, show how he's wrong. I don't give a rat's behind who paid for what. The work either contributes to our understanding or it doesn't.
How exactly is risking capital to produce products people willfully buy "leaching off society"? Which government service exactly are they skipping out on paying for? Why not send them a bill for that instead of stabbing in the dark at arbitrary sums?
When did it become "greedy" to keep your own money, and "justice" to take someone else's?
Do you mean to say my taxes only pay for the desirable things my government does, and at the best possible price at all times? And that without this small group having a unilateral right to help themselves to other people's money -- so long as they honor bureaucratic protocols of course -- civilization would collapse into a Mad Max dytopia?
Slashdot Mirror
Nice straw man you've got there. Don't conflate government with governance.
Actually, exactly like NASA. Even SpaceX would already be victim to this pattern like Lockheed/Boeing if Elon Musk was not maniacally focused on his Get Your Ass To Mars project.
Money emerges organically as market participants converge on a commodity that is highly marketable, divisible, portable and durable. No need for a government there. For contract dispute resolution, common law emerges iteratively from case precedents and consensus among arbitrators, no need for a legislature. Central planning didn't work for the Soviets and roofing nails, and it's a testament to our resourcefulness that we still hobble by doing it for law and money and health care.
I think the biggest difference is that Amazon didn't have to fight a retail mafia/guild on their way to the top.
...If you always tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything. Even in his time, just sticking to the truth was the path of least resistance.
He would call the government and protesters "Sisyphists," since they apparently believe it is better that the consumer has to work harder to get a ride. http://www.econlib.org/library...
The intent of the medallion system is irrelevant. What is relevant is the outcome it has produced. That outcome was evidently so bad at serving the consumer, that a firm can risk legal trouble and still make billions.
I said it's better, not perfect.
Hope you don't plan on lobbying.
Americans seem to have a gigantic blind spot when it comes to government corruption. Sure, people tend to nod at generic whining about "corrupt politicians" but they are hopelessly incapable of spotting that corruption when it happens. They will blame non-government actors all day long for making and offering bribes. As for the politicians who habitually take bribes? Crickets.
It's the laws that are bullshit. Look at what kind of service Uber facilitates. How is it that only now anyone is introducing a reputation system to this industry? How is it that only now the barrier of entry to this industry is coming down? What exactly does a stringently controlled supply of government-licensed "taxi" drivers do for the consumer anyway?
Exactly. No one would think to lobby the government if the government were not so powerful and meddlesome. People work to persuade the bureaucracy because doing so has a huge ROI.
Uber is 1000 times better for transportation than the taxi cartel, and no thanks to government's relationship to this industry, lobbying aggressively is an act of self-defense. Instead of denigrating Uber for playing this game, blame the governments which have made this necessary, and blame yourselves for not voting the bastards out when they create cartels.
The story never ends. Innovators try to create something new and help their fellow human beings, then the state tries to stamp it out. Fortunately, innovators move faster than government. In the long run humanity wins and bureaucracy loses.
You're taking for granted that the FCC's new rules are antynomous with "protecting commercial interests." The ISPs will be fine either way, they already had government-granted monopolies. The rules were added at the behest of companies like Netflix, who felt they needed a regulatory cudgel to strengthen their position in price negotiations. Except what the FCC has also done is drop a lot of uncertainty and fear onto the ISP industry. That alone will stifle expansion. Far better would have been to end the idiotic local laws and regs that made monopolies of whichever broadband provider was first to a given market. Google Fiber only rolled out in places where city governments could be coaxed into liberalizing, and behold, Comcast is upgrading speed in those areas for free. Competition works. The market has not failed. The FCC "fixed" the wrong problem.
Maybe the EULA will be called The Covenant.
I think your explanation falls very short when you refer to municipal limitations on the number of competitors as a "natural" monopoly. There's nothing natural about it if it's a situation directly caused by limits imposed by government. Prospective ISPs should have been able to negotiate with property owners at all levels to build lines of any sort wherever it made sense. Capping local markets at one or two providers is where the Internet got off track, not when the beneficiaries of this corporate welfare started doing the only thing that made sense given their unassailable, government-granted position. So now we pile the FCC on top of a problem that never needed to exist. Like Harry Browne used to say: government will break your knees, then hand you a pair of crutches and say "See? Without us you couldn't walk!"
People seem to be conflating licenses and training, which is cute considering y'all just got done beating up on tech certifications in another thread. Should you need government permission to travel in your automated car? Hell no. Should you know what you are doing when climbing into one? Ideally, yes.
There is another reason to do so: The sincere belief that the alarmists are a threat to human survival. Their unconditional animosity against much-needed energy sources, if acted out in the political sphere to the degree that they wish, would doom billions to poverty and death. There is no doubt some risk in continuing to use fossil fuels the way we do, but governments are not who I would trust to quantify and hedge against that risk. They are much more likely to overreact or underreact for political reasons, costing the world countless lives. This is an unpopular opinion I'm sure. The technocratic idealists here who align with the alarmists are positive they know better how the world should run than those SUV-driving rubes out there, but such paternalistic hubris has gotten mankind into huge trouble before.
And now we see character assassination visited upon the person protesting character assassination. Classy.
Whenever scientists publish a controversial new cosmological theory there is no gossiping over who paid them. Because it doesn't matter. If their interpretation of the data is wrong, or if their model is wrong, all someone has to do is correct their work. Yet when it comes to "climate science" much ink is spilled disparaging the motives and character of anyone who challenges the orthodoxy. If he's wrong, show how he's wrong. I don't give a rat's behind who paid for what. The work either contributes to our understanding or it doesn't.
How exactly is risking capital to produce products people willfully buy "leaching off society"? Which government service exactly are they skipping out on paying for? Why not send them a bill for that instead of stabbing in the dark at arbitrary sums? When did it become "greedy" to keep your own money, and "justice" to take someone else's?
Judging from my 1099, no it is very much not free. May I cancel my service please?
Do you mean to say my taxes only pay for the desirable things my government does, and at the best possible price at all times? And that without this small group having a unilateral right to help themselves to other people's money -- so long as they honor bureaucratic protocols of course -- civilization would collapse into a Mad Max dytopia?
This is just one more episode in the perpetual game of cat and mouse between the makers and the takers.