Capitalism also works best when people have perfect information. Is brand B really more durable than brand A or is just priced higher to trick me into thinking that? Consumer reports can help but not every purchase decision lends itself well to stopping and doing research. How many people are going to go home and look up reviews rather than just risk $20 on a new toaster while they are already there in the store?
Ads, while they should serve to offer people "more perfect" information and thus be an asset for capitalism, often attempt to deceive with gimmicks or misleading presentations and then, ultimately, do serve to undermine capitalism as they are making people's information less perfect.
I would also think long and hard about criminal liability for the death or injury to utility workers who get killed
How about a thought or two on the ethics of adding serious risks to someone else's job without them even knowing so that you can save $1,500?
I'd say, if it's a hobby, then create some isolated systems in the house, power an A/C or computer off self-generated power. That's a hobby. Tying into the grid is a home upgrade that ought to require a professional's license.
So, we typically just avoided the whole mess and sat around smoking weed.
Well, if you were smoking pot instead of drinking alcohol then you probably actually were less likely to overdose on your drug or get hurt in an accident. So I suppose the law ultimately did serve the purpose of making you safer;-)
Well, let's see, we have the car culture it's contributed to, which kills things like public transit,
But public transit only works in city environments. In a suburban environment you need personal vehicles. Public transit in major us cities is thriving.
the ensuing loss of community from sprawl
I disagree that this is actually happening. Suburbias have their own communities mostly based around parents and their children's activities.
nigh complete cultural bankruptcy as chain stores, restaurants and outlets take over since transplants into exurban and suburban areas have no real ties to the previously existing communities
If people didn't like chain restaurants and stores they wouldn't exist. I hate "mom and pop" stores, they never have my size in stock, if I don't feel like chit chatting with them they want nothing to do with me, and they charge almost twice what I could pay for things over the internet. If you can find the benefits in such places then by all means frequent them. But just because other people don't enjoy those same benefits you do doesn't mean we somehow aren't seeing something.
Then we have the loss of farmland to unneeded vanity development
If we need more farmland then the cost of land will rise to the point where those developments get bull-dozed and farms go up in their place. If someone wants to build a monstrous house then why stop them?
And of course the fact that one of the big reasons for the rise of suburbia was cowardice and racism re: "The great white flight".
So because people leaving high crime areas fifty years ago had racism as one of their motivations all of suburbia is now stigmatized? Give me a break.
Most of the problems I agree with you on could be solved by a carbon tax. If people want to have a huge home, great, just make sure they pay for the additional air pollution that heating and cooling that place causes. And let them pay taxes on their gas that account for those carbon emissions. Then we use the carbon tax for carbon reduction efforts, problem solved. Most the issues you cite though seem to be ones that hinge on personal preference, not inherent strengths or weaknesses of variances in population densities.
But ultimately more money is coming INTO the poor country. In particular I'm thinking of the majority of African nations. Those farmers are going to spend their windfalls as well as be taxed on them which will ultimately support the urban poor.
Suburbia is probably the biggest mistake of the 20th century.
I don't understand the problem. So don't live there if you don't like it. Sure, they may cause more air pollution but that problem is going to be solved shortly by things like this.
Or are you just upset that in order to find undeveloped space to enjoy a weekend getaway you have to go five hours outside the city rather than two?
The price of rice, palm oil, wheat, and corn has risen by 60% to 100% over the last year.
Which means the farmers who grow those crops have realized almost a DOUBLING of their incomes. This doesn't refute my point, it reinforces it.
Short-term problems like food rioting will more than be off-set by the stability that enhanced GDP's will bring to small, impoverished nations whose only exports are agricultural products. Markets can adjust for rising fuel and fertilizer prices by utilizing alternatives such as GM crops that can grow in poorer soils, cyclic farming and using electrical power or biofuels or animals for work.
I prefer cities too. But some people don't. And if we can allow those people to live their fuel-intensive lifestyles in a way that doesn't rely on foreign imports or a net carbon addition to the atmosphere then let's do it.
Eventually the price of raw materials MAY make home production of ethanol approach the same price as E85 or whatever other commercially available fuel happens to be offered, including petrol gasoline. But the hassle of buying the raw materials and maintaining the machine, plus the initial investment costs of buying such machines will mean it will always be cheaper to make it yourself. It depends on what your time is worth to you. Though, you get the added security, in this case, of being to produce your own fuel and quickly change which raw materials you happen to be using while the rest of your neighbors are at the mercy of quickly changing markets.
Oh yeah, and... increased food prices are actually a good thing for all but the richest people in the world. The poorest people in the world make their money from selling food. Higher prices means better lives for and faster development for people in the poorest parts of the world.
Even then you might argue that increased food prices are even GOOD for the rich people in the world since the development of the third world is ultimately good for everyone. More people with money means more customers which means more business which means faster improvement in technologies, etc etc etc.
Your alternative, sir, that doesn't involve fossil fuels and allows for personal vehicles that can go over 300 miles at reasonable speeds carrying reasonable cargo without refueling?
So the big downside you're pointing out here is that we have to transport things for it to work. So what? We can convert the transport devices to run off ethanol or other biofuels, or electricity in the case of trains.
How about throwing a GPS receiver under the keyboard, then using a script to upload the coordinates somewhere automatically on a time interval whenever it's connected to the internet?
Again though, you're screwed if they wipe the drive first...
This isn't high school, it's college . The people there are paying good money to be there (well, at least their parents are...)
Actually, it's not just college, it's graduate school. Which also means they likely are paying for it themselves. I'm with the slashdot mob. Let people face the consequences of their actions.
I went to school for two and a half years. Found I was more interested in reading on my own so I lived a secluded, almost monastic lifestyle for a year while I went to school at the public library essentially. Then I returned to formal school after a year of that for a semester. Found I still wasn't quite ready to go headlong back into it. Now, another year down the road, I'm two semesters away from my BA and looking forward to grad school.
Going back and forth in and out of school has been a cinch for me.
Through a bit of frugal cleverness and my parents financial position I have never had to be too concerned with the financing of my education so that may add some difficulties for others that I didn't have to face.
Just another two cents to add to the pile.
While it's true that it's unfair to people who are not causing trouble they are already the minority.
So screw 'em?
"In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger" - James Madison
$70 billion for a coast to coast mag lev? No way. The big dig in Boston, which was basically building a few tunnels cost $14.6b and you're telling me you can get a coast to coast mag lev for only 5 times as much? Keep dreaming.
Slashdot Mirror
It's information like this that makes me happy nature decided to give me no inclinations towards the opposite sex.
Wow, good work. Maybe soon you'll be able to rid yourself of theater, novels, poetry, radio, periodicals, video games, board games, essays and albums.
Then you'll be able to focus on what's REALLY important...
Capitalism also works best when people have perfect information. Is brand B really more durable than brand A or is just priced higher to trick me into thinking that? Consumer reports can help but not every purchase decision lends itself well to stopping and doing research. How many people are going to go home and look up reviews rather than just risk $20 on a new toaster while they are already there in the store?
Ads, while they should serve to offer people "more perfect" information and thus be an asset for capitalism, often attempt to deceive with gimmicks or misleading presentations and then, ultimately, do serve to undermine capitalism as they are making people's information less perfect.
Sounds like some pretty sweet revenge for a vindictive kid who hates his parents.
Yeah but could it turn around, bow at the end, and then walk off stage?
Didn't think so.
I would also think long and hard about criminal liability for the death or injury to utility workers who get killed
How about a thought or two on the ethics of adding serious risks to someone else's job without them even knowing so that you can save $1,500?
I'd say, if it's a hobby, then create some isolated systems in the house, power an A/C or computer off self-generated power. That's a hobby. Tying into the grid is a home upgrade that ought to require a professional's license.
So, we typically just avoided the whole mess and sat around smoking weed.
;-)
Well, if you were smoking pot instead of drinking alcohol then you probably actually were less likely to overdose on your drug or get hurt in an accident. So I suppose the law ultimately did serve the purpose of making you safer
Well, let's see, we have the car culture it's contributed to, which kills things like public transit,
But public transit only works in city environments. In a suburban environment you need personal vehicles. Public transit in major us cities is thriving.
the ensuing loss of community from sprawl
I disagree that this is actually happening. Suburbias have their own communities mostly based around parents and their children's activities.
nigh complete cultural bankruptcy as chain stores, restaurants and outlets take over since transplants into exurban and suburban areas have no real ties to the previously existing communities
If people didn't like chain restaurants and stores they wouldn't exist. I hate "mom and pop" stores, they never have my size in stock, if I don't feel like chit chatting with them they want nothing to do with me, and they charge almost twice what I could pay for things over the internet. If you can find the benefits in such places then by all means frequent them. But just because other people don't enjoy those same benefits you do doesn't mean we somehow aren't seeing something.
Then we have the loss of farmland to unneeded vanity development
If we need more farmland then the cost of land will rise to the point where those developments get bull-dozed and farms go up in their place. If someone wants to build a monstrous house then why stop them?
And of course the fact that one of the big reasons for the rise of suburbia was cowardice and racism re: "The great white flight".
So because people leaving high crime areas fifty years ago had racism as one of their motivations all of suburbia is now stigmatized? Give me a break.
Most of the problems I agree with you on could be solved by a carbon tax. If people want to have a huge home, great, just make sure they pay for the additional air pollution that heating and cooling that place causes. And let them pay taxes on their gas that account for those carbon emissions. Then we use the carbon tax for carbon reduction efforts, problem solved. Most the issues you cite though seem to be ones that hinge on personal preference, not inherent strengths or weaknesses of variances in population densities.
But ultimately more money is coming INTO the poor country. In particular I'm thinking of the majority of African nations. Those farmers are going to spend their windfalls as well as be taxed on them which will ultimately support the urban poor.
Suburbia is probably the biggest mistake of the 20th century.
I don't understand the problem. So don't live there if you don't like it. Sure, they may cause more air pollution but that problem is going to be solved shortly by things like this.
Or are you just upset that in order to find undeveloped space to enjoy a weekend getaway you have to go five hours outside the city rather than two?
Are you serious?
Yes.
The price of rice, palm oil, wheat, and corn has risen by 60% to 100% over the last year.
Which means the farmers who grow those crops have realized almost a DOUBLING of their incomes. This doesn't refute my point, it reinforces it.
Short-term problems like food rioting will more than be off-set by the stability that enhanced GDP's will bring to small, impoverished nations whose only exports are agricultural products. Markets can adjust for rising fuel and fertilizer prices by utilizing alternatives such as GM crops that can grow in poorer soils, cyclic farming and using electrical power or biofuels or animals for work.
I prefer cities too. But some people don't. And if we can allow those people to live their fuel-intensive lifestyles in a way that doesn't rely on foreign imports or a net carbon addition to the atmosphere then let's do it.
Or you could just go buy a new Ford Taurus or any other flex fuel vehicle and let the car self-adjust to account for changes in fuel quality.
Wrong.
Eventually the price of raw materials MAY make home production of ethanol approach the same price as E85 or whatever other commercially available fuel happens to be offered, including petrol gasoline. But the hassle of buying the raw materials and maintaining the machine, plus the initial investment costs of buying such machines will mean it will always be cheaper to make it yourself. It depends on what your time is worth to you. Though, you get the added security, in this case, of being to produce your own fuel and quickly change which raw materials you happen to be using while the rest of your neighbors are at the mercy of quickly changing markets.
Oh yeah, and... increased food prices are actually a good thing for all but the richest people in the world. The poorest people in the world make their money from selling food. Higher prices means better lives for and faster development for people in the poorest parts of the world.
Even then you might argue that increased food prices are even GOOD for the rich people in the world since the development of the third world is ultimately good for everyone. More people with money means more customers which means more business which means faster improvement in technologies, etc etc etc.
Your alternative, sir, that doesn't involve fossil fuels and allows for personal vehicles that can go over 300 miles at reasonable speeds carrying reasonable cargo without refueling?
So the big downside you're pointing out here is that we have to transport things for it to work. So what? We can convert the transport devices to run off ethanol or other biofuels, or electricity in the case of trains.
How about throwing a GPS receiver under the keyboard, then using a script to upload the coordinates somewhere automatically on a time interval whenever it's connected to the internet?
Again though, you're screwed if they wipe the drive first...
This isn't high school, it's college . The people there are paying good money to be there (well, at least their parents are...)
Actually, it's not just college, it's graduate school. Which also means they likely are paying for it themselves. I'm with the slashdot mob. Let people face the consequences of their actions.
I went to school for two and a half years. Found I was more interested in reading on my own so I lived a secluded, almost monastic lifestyle for a year while I went to school at the public library essentially. Then I returned to formal school after a year of that for a semester. Found I still wasn't quite ready to go headlong back into it. Now, another year down the road, I'm two semesters away from my BA and looking forward to grad school. Going back and forth in and out of school has been a cinch for me. Through a bit of frugal cleverness and my parents financial position I have never had to be too concerned with the financing of my education so that may add some difficulties for others that I didn't have to face. Just another two cents to add to the pile.
Checking out the edit history and/or talk page solves that problem.
Why don't we have...the best internet access, period?
Because you and your neighbors will not always be the best at absolutely everything despite your charmed American position.
It is indeed going to be a long fall from that high horse on which you ride.
While it's true that it's unfair to people who are not causing trouble they are already the minority.
So screw 'em?
"In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger" - James Madison
$70 billion for a coast to coast mag lev? No way. The big dig in Boston, which was basically building a few tunnels cost $14.6b and you're telling me you can get a coast to coast mag lev for only 5 times as much? Keep dreaming.
Sounds like an interesting read. Can't find it on Amazon though...
You can't buy a used motorcycle of any size in the US for $2,500.
A quick look at current ebay listings refutes this. Small, reliable bikes can be had for $1,200. Less if you're willing to shop around.
Heck, I'd let mine go for $2,000 and it runs like a dream.