That page lost me where it says "This meant that for every $100 he held in deposits, it was possible to make 42% profit, most people believing he was only making 2%." I do not see how he can say 42% profit on $100. In the example $45 or 5% of $900 was made, then the $900 morphs into $100.
In many cases all that is needed is soap and water.
So the real question would be, is any resistance encouraged by this nano-particle approach an expensive trait or not?
The thing is is once these approaches of using antibiotics gets started they won't end, at least not without something dramatic happening. Instead when a biotic becomes resistant industry will work to make a more powerful antibiotic. Strains of Mosquito born malaria are getting resistant so companies are trying to develop stronger drugs, that's one of the things the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is working on.
that's a pretty impressive resume you've got there, kudos.
Well, it's not just me. My brigade there, the 197th Infantry Brigade (we used to call it the $1.97 brigade) had two things it did. We spent 1/3 of our tyme in training, we were being trained. One third of the tyme we spent training others. And the rest of the tyme we were in training if we were not training others.
Now obviously someone who's never had any training shouldn't be put into actual combat.
I was pushing the analogy a bit far, but that was pretty much my point. The wannabe admin has far too little time to get to the level he needs to be. Apparently I'm one of the few who feels his cry for help is just denial.
Even when the US went to war, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, the US didn't send people into combat without any training. Actually the people in the military then had tougher training than I went through. I don't recall what it was before but when I went in we had to run 2 miles in 17:59, 17 minutes and 59 seconds. We had to do 40 push ups and 40 sit ups in 2 minutes. The Army required more than that, faster tymes in the run and more push ups and sit ups, when my sister went into the Army 3 year before I did, she ragged on me for that.
Dunno about you, but I sure as hell don't want to put my fate in the hands of the financial decisions of those with an IQ of 80 or 90.
But you are now doing that by having the government take your money for the social security tax. If you started saving and investing $2000 at the age of 18 and invested $2000 a year until the age of 25 at 10% a year by the tyme you're 65 you'll have more than $800,000 invested. Do you think Social Security will pay you that much? Not only will Social Security not pay you that much but you'll pay more than $14,000 ($2000 X 7) in SS taxes. For those who aren't intelligent enough to invest their money, they can higher certified financial planners. Of course because of the cost of a CFP they wouldn't do as good as they would if they could invest his or her self, but who says we can only invest for 7 years? A little bit of money should be invested yearly while working. Instead of investing $2000 a year for 7 years invest $2000 a year for 40 years. Try it yourself, use the compound interest formula to calculate the future value. Of course that only calculates the future value for a given amount invested all at once, it doesn't calculate the future value if you invest yearly. Here's the formula for periodic investing. Then even if you're not intelligent you should be paying a mortgage not rent for most of your working life. Buy a house at 35 then with a 30 year mortgage it'll be paid off when you're 65. Get a 20 year mortgage at 30 and it paid off at 50.
What percentage of Americans actually graduate from an accredited University with a higher degree that also includes a mathematical element?
As the above formulas show the average investor only need simple algebra, and maybe a calculator. Of course you can go deeper.
Even if they never got taxed again in their life, how much of the road system could they sensibly maintain on their own?
Roads should be paid for by users, and the way to do that is taxes on vehicles, tires, and fuel ie user fees. The more you drive on the roads the more you pay.
How long would it take to pay off even the cost of the school equipment their kids use?
Schools, along with the fire department, police, and other things can be paid for with property tax. That's what property taxes are for.
That's because the cities have deliberately created a monopoly. This is what afidel suggests is moral. This isn't a "natural monopoly"
Because the right of way, easement, needed can only handle so many cables or fibers it is a natural monopoly. Even if a city wanted to it couldn't allow a thousand and one entities to use the right of way to lay lines down for net access, phone service, and power.
There may not have been any providers at the time the city decided to monopolize fiber, but by monopolizing it they proactively prevent any competitition from ever happening.
They only prevent competition if they do not allows others to lay fiber. As long as someone can lay fibers there can be competition. And neither article said the city was not going to let anyone else lay fiber. Neither can they prevent a business from issuing bonds, just as the city plans to do, to pay for it. Of course a business would have to pay higher interest on the bonds because the income would be taxable whereas the city could issue tax free municipal bonds.
I suspect the reason there was no fiber provider was that there was no significant market demand for it at the price it would have taken to provide it.
I suspect nobody would lay fiber because the profit margin wouldn't be big enough for them not because they couldn't make any profit. Instead of 1, 5, or 10% profit they'd want 25 or 50% Or instead of wanting to pay it off in 10 years they'd want to pay it off in 5 years. If so that's their choice but they shouldn't try to prevent others from doing it either.
Personally instead of the city doing it, especially with tax money, I'd rather the city encourage another company, perhaps a startup, a co-op, or a nonprofit to do it. I definitely disagree with it being paid for by taxpayer money.
Tetrasodium-including soaps have already given a free boot camp for bacterias at home when folks have been buying the stuff thinking it somehow makes places healthier. There's a difference between clean and sterile environments, and clean is really all that you need.
Unfortunately as the products in the market that has, and is labeled as having, antibiotic properties shows most people don't think clean is enough. When I clean I use baking soda, a citrus cleaner, and vinegar. I try to stay away from antibiotic products.
What a crazy thing to say. It's true, for sure, but has always been the case in the arms race against bacteria. It's what natural selection does...
It's not crazy at all, nor is it FUD. What is crazy is ignoring antibacterial resistance. As TFA says, almost 100,000 become infected with antibiotic-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in hospitals alone. And that's not a competitor saying that.
Now consider this: you're sent of to the battle field with someone who was added to your group after you all got your training, has no prior knowledge and then starts to ask all the questions.
Learn by doing. Though I was never in a real battle I served in the US Army in the infantry. While stationed at Fort Benning, GA I helped train OCS, Officer Candidate School, cadets and Army Rangers. We also trained with the Special Forces. Now while combat training did help me I already knew how to shoot, having grown up shooting for target practice as well as hunting.
Now obviously someone who's never had any training shouldn't be put into actual combat.
It isn't that hard to grasp, most money is created through loans (fractional reserve lending), when the loan is paid off, that (loan based) money is gone from circulation.
No, money is created by creating an item or providing a service people are willing to pay for. Say I own some acreage in a forest. I harvest some trees, not clear cut mind you but selectively cutting down a few. After kiln drying the wood it is cut then used to make furniture. People who are then willing and able buy that furniture. The buyers got what they wanted and now I have money I can spend myself say on food. Maybe one of my buyers is a farmer, then when I buy my food that farmer. He created money by farming and I created money by making furniture.
Perhaps farming was a bad example as farmers in the US get massive subsidies, early this year congress passed by a veto proof margin a farm bill giving agricultural operations almost $300 billion in tax payer money.
Thing is while loans can allow businesses to make bigger profits, money creation does not require loans. All it requires is selling something for more than it costs to provide it.
Just consider inflation. Let's say your CPA sister is making $100,000/year in 2008 (just wanted a round figure). If she still earns $100,000/year in 2018, she will have gone significantly backwards in real terms.
Yea, inflation does eat into money. However my sister's business doesn't have to get bigger, just the income does. Ah, maybe that's where our differences are. Whereas you may say increasing income is growth, what I consider growth would be increasing customers, facilities, and employees.
even if you don't give a corporation a corporate charter (Something I am pretty much against ANYWAY)
Corporations do have their place, though not like they are now. The first two corporations were the Honourable East India Company, granted it's corporate charter in 1600, and the Dutch East India Company, granted a charter in 1602. Both companies were shippers, they shipped goods between England, for Honourable, and the Netherlands for the Dutch company and India. Shipping was a risky business. The crew could mutiny, the ship could sink because of a hurricane, or it could be attacked by pirates. When cargo was lost for any of these reasons, or others, the ship owner was liable to the owner of that cargo and had to pay them back. The ship owner was also liable for the lives of the crew. These liabilities made shipping a bad business so the British and Dutch crowns granted corporations limited liability, all investors could lose is the amount they invested in the corporation. The increased trade benefited many people not just a few. However it could also harm people, so corporate charters were only granted if the corporation improved the common good or public good. If a corporation no longer served the common good it could have it's charter revoked. Today revocation doesn't happen but if it did then corporations would have to change.
Big Brother sucks, but sometimes you need him. And I say this as someone who refuses to vote democrat or republican, so I take govt with a grain of salt:)
Agreed but I distrust businesses less than I distrust government. In the 20th century alone governments killed, exterminated, more than 70,000,000 people. European governments did a pretty good job in the Americas, the NAZIs exterminated 600,000 Jews and I don't know how many others, Stalin massacred 20,000,000 and it's said Mao massacred 50,000,000. Then there was Pol Pot during the '70s in Cambodia, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, what happened in Rwanda with genocide there in the early '90s, and the genocide started in the later '90s in Darfur.
No business, except possibly the tobacco industry, has killed as many people as government has. And chewing, dipping, or smoking tobacco is voluntary.
The borrowing of money at interest requires economic growth just to break even
It doesn't require growth all it requires is more revenue than expenses. I'll use a bakery as an example, because friends have told me I should start one. I love baking and used to spend a weekend once or twice a semester baking when I was in college. I'd take what I baked to campus and share with people in my classes. Now if I did open a bakery all I'd have to do to make a profit would be to sell enough so I'd end up with more after my sells than I spent on baking.
My sister who's a CPA, Certified Public Accountant, runs her own accounting business. Well her and some of her friends. Her business makes money and the only reason for her business to grow is because they want more money, they don't need to grow to stay in business. Her husband, my brother-in-law, is a CFP or Certified Financial Planner and he used to work as a day trader. He traded using only the money he had, he didn't borrow money to trade. Hopefully I will be starting my own business, not a bakery though but as a photographer. As such all I need to do is generate enough income to pay my bills and have money left over.
Where I live, we have two competing cable companies throughout most of the city. They each have their own physical plant, which is good for me, because when I had trouble with one that they weren't interested in fixing, I switched to the other.
Unlike you many people live in places that don't have a choice as to whom provides access, cable tv or broadband. Many of those with a choice have the choice between dsl and cable but that's it. And a lot can't get either cable or dsl.
I hate the telcos as much as the next guy (more than most probably, since I work for a private ISP and have to deal with telco crap all the time), but I don't think getting government trying to compete with companies is a solution at all.
No company is offering fiber so there's no competition. According to ne of the TFAs the city did ask the company there to install fiber but they said get lost.
Governments should not be competing with private businesses.
Before the city decided to install the fiber they asked the company to do it and the company said get lost. Since the company refused to install fiber there is no competition.
Municipalities are the only ones who can defeat monopoly service providers
Actually it's municipalities, government, that creates monopolies. The use a right of way or easement, which is needed for someone to lay down fiber, cable, or powerlines, requires government approval. If I wanted to and had plenty of money to do it I couldn't simply lay a lot of fiber and offer net access, phone service, or tv to anyone who wants to buy from me. in the city.
In my opinion, town-owned utilities are a good idea only if a town is fairly small. Where the population is large, the utilities become isolated from marketplace feedback. Corruption and lack of incentives to improve the service lead to stagnation.
Corruption can happen with a natural monopoly whether the utility is publicly or privately owned. With a private company there's not much choice but if it's owned by local government then voters can vote in new people though.
a) You don't give the name of the town for others to look up info.
Not in the post you replied to but in another one he does say what town, Wadsworth, Ohio.
I'm for publicly owned utilities in some cases and for privately-owned utilities in other cases.
In general I don't support publicly owned utilities however I do support either publicly owned infrastructure or separation of ownership of that infrastructure and the services it delivers. For instance power lines, one company or other entity owns them but then allows generators to supply the electricity. With phones any company could use the phone lines to offer phone service to willing buyers. Or as in this case, with the city laying fiber, the city owns that but then allows others to hook up to it to offer net access.
I use about 300g on an average day, but up to 1500g/day in summer when I have more stuff to irrigate.
Question, do you use sprinklers for irrigation? If you do check into using soaker hoses or a drip system. Also you may want to check into installing a cistern or rainwater catchment system. It's also a good idea to water in the morning before it gets hotter, the cooler it is when you water the less water will evaporate.
The government directly competes in the mail market with USPS.
The USA Constitution specifically gives the government power to establish the US Postal Service, "Section 8 - Powers of Congress"
"To establish Post Offices and Post Roads"
I'm fully in favor of this and believe it's in the best interest of the community. It'll benefit home users, but it's even more critical to attract big business and help grow the town.
While I agree the town should be able to do it, as long as not all of the residents are required to pay for it, I disagree the city needs to grow. That's the same mindset corporations have, they "have to grow" or they'll die. Where exactly does this belief come from?
The last time we had "unregulated capitalism", snake oil salesmen made people wary of medication, meat was as hazardous as nuclear waste, and we had a stock market crash that put 30% of the populace into hoovervilles.
No, Teddy Roosevelt regulated businesses before the Panic of 1907.
without a government a big "corporation" would simply hire mercenaries to enforce their will.
Guess what? Corporations already tried that, and that's how come many unions were created. When businesses sent in strike breakers this encouraged those workers to band together to create a union to represent them. However without a government there wouldn't be corporations, it's government that grants corporations their corporate charter.
The Trust Buster was Teddy Roosevelt and even he had dickkish moments by classifying Sir Thomas Paine as an Atheist--clearly the dumbest comment I ever read from him.
There's a debate on whether Thomas Paine was an atheist. Some like Teddy Roosevelt said he was while others say he wasn't. I guess in a sense it depends on what the speaker means, Thomas Jefferson for instance was a Diest and while he believed Jesus was a great teacher he didn't believe he was the "Son of God", savior. He actually took the Christian Bible and cut out all the stuff about miracles and such to create the Jeffersonian Bible.
he investment should benefit the taxpayer (investing in infrastructure, decent education - things that build up the society over the long-term) but should probably not go into the taxpayer's pockets.
"Excess" money shouldn't be taken from tax payers to begin with, and if there's enough money to invest then it's excess and maybe too much money was taken.
Taxpayers aren't necessarily good at taking a long-term view.
That's their own fault, that or the education they got was bad. Heck when I was in 9th grade, in a public school, the teacher I had for my civics class taught us about saving and investing. He had us play this game, we pretended we had $25,000 to invest and we could invest however we wanted. We played it over a few weeks and watched what happened to the money. I like others would write down what we wanted to buy and sale, say it's Monday and I had stocks in company A I wanted to sell then use to money to buy sticks in company B I'd writer that down. Then on Tuesday I'd check the financial section of the newspaper to see how much stocks in A and B sold for. X = number of stocks in A tymes the price of A then divide X by Y's selling price to see how many stocks I could buy in Y.
While investing takes more than that, it doesn't require a degree in finance.
Slashdot Mirror
I Want The Earth Plus 5%
That page lost me where it says "This meant that for every $100 he held in deposits, it was possible to make 42% profit, most people believing he was only making 2%." I do not see how he can say 42% profit on $100. In the example $45 or 5% of $900 was made, then the $900 morphs into $100.
Falcon
In many cases all that is needed is soap and water.
So the real question would be, is any resistance encouraged by this nano-particle approach an expensive trait or not?
The thing is is once these approaches of using antibiotics gets started they won't end, at least not without something dramatic happening. Instead when a biotic becomes resistant industry will work to make a more powerful antibiotic. Strains of Mosquito born malaria are getting resistant so companies are trying to develop stronger drugs, that's one of the things the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is working on.
Falcon
that's a pretty impressive resume you've got there, kudos.
Well, it's not just me. My brigade there, the 197th Infantry Brigade (we used to call it the $1.97 brigade) had two things it did. We spent 1/3 of our tyme in training, we were being trained. One third of the tyme we spent training others. And the rest of the tyme we were in training if we were not training others.
Now obviously someone who's never had any training shouldn't be put into actual combat.
I was pushing the analogy a bit far, but that was pretty much my point. The wannabe admin has far too little time to get to the level he needs to be. Apparently I'm one of the few who feels his cry for help is just denial.
Even when the US went to war, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, the US didn't send people into combat without any training. Actually the people in the military then had tougher training than I went through. I don't recall what it was before but when I went in we had to run 2 miles in 17:59, 17 minutes and 59 seconds. We had to do 40 push ups and 40 sit ups in 2 minutes. The Army required more than that, faster tymes in the run and more push ups and sit ups, when my sister went into the Army 3 year before I did, she ragged on me for that.
Falcon
Dunno about you, but I sure as hell don't want to put my fate in the hands of the financial decisions of those with an IQ of 80 or 90.
But you are now doing that by having the government take your money for the social security tax. If you started saving and investing $2000 at the age of 18 and invested $2000 a year until the age of 25 at 10% a year by the tyme you're 65 you'll have more than $800,000 invested. Do you think Social Security will pay you that much? Not only will Social Security not pay you that much but you'll pay more than $14,000 ($2000 X 7) in SS taxes. For those who aren't intelligent enough to invest their money, they can higher certified financial planners. Of course because of the cost of a CFP they wouldn't do as good as they would if they could invest his or her self, but who says we can only invest for 7 years? A little bit of money should be invested yearly while working. Instead of investing $2000 a year for 7 years invest $2000 a year for 40 years. Try it yourself, use the compound interest formula to calculate the future value. Of course that only calculates the future value for a given amount invested all at once, it doesn't calculate the future value if you invest yearly. Here's the formula for periodic investing. Then even if you're not intelligent you should be paying a mortgage not rent for most of your working life. Buy a house at 35 then with a 30 year mortgage it'll be paid off when you're 65. Get a 20 year mortgage at 30 and it paid off at 50.
What percentage of Americans actually graduate from an accredited University with a higher degree that also includes a mathematical element?
As the above formulas show the average investor only need simple algebra, and maybe a calculator. Of course you can go deeper.
Even if they never got taxed again in their life, how much of the road system could they sensibly maintain on their own?
Roads should be paid for by users, and the way to do that is taxes on vehicles, tires, and fuel ie user fees. The more you drive on the roads the more you pay.
How long would it take to pay off even the cost of the school equipment their kids use?
Schools, along with the fire department, police, and other things can be paid for with property tax. That's what property taxes are for.
Falcon
That's because the cities have deliberately created a monopoly. This is what afidel suggests is moral. This isn't a "natural monopoly"
Because the right of way, easement, needed can only handle so many cables or fibers it is a natural monopoly. Even if a city wanted to it couldn't allow a thousand and one entities to use the right of way to lay lines down for net access, phone service, and power.
There may not have been any providers at the time the city decided to monopolize fiber, but by monopolizing it they proactively prevent any competitition from ever happening.
They only prevent competition if they do not allows others to lay fiber. As long as someone can lay fibers there can be competition. And neither article said the city was not going to let anyone else lay fiber. Neither can they prevent a business from issuing bonds, just as the city plans to do, to pay for it. Of course a business would have to pay higher interest on the bonds because the income would be taxable whereas the city could issue tax free municipal bonds.
I suspect the reason there was no fiber provider was that there was no significant market demand for it at the price it would have taken to provide it.
I suspect nobody would lay fiber because the profit margin wouldn't be big enough for them not because they couldn't make any profit. Instead of 1, 5, or 10% profit they'd want 25 or 50% Or instead of wanting to pay it off in 10 years they'd want to pay it off in 5 years. If so that's their choice but they shouldn't try to prevent others from doing it either.
Personally instead of the city doing it, especially with tax money, I'd rather the city encourage another company, perhaps a startup, a co-op, or a nonprofit to do it. I definitely disagree with it being paid for by taxpayer money.
Falcon
Tetrasodium-including soaps have already given a free boot camp for bacterias at home when folks have been buying the stuff thinking it somehow makes places healthier. There's a difference between clean and sterile environments, and clean is really all that you need.
Unfortunately as the products in the market that has, and is labeled as having, antibiotic properties shows most people don't think clean is enough. When I clean I use baking soda, a citrus cleaner, and vinegar. I try to stay away from antibiotic products.
Falcon
What a crazy thing to say. It's true, for sure, but has always been the case in the arms race against bacteria. It's what natural selection does...
It's not crazy at all, nor is it FUD. What is crazy is ignoring antibacterial resistance. As TFA says, almost 100,000 become infected with antibiotic-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in hospitals alone. And that's not a competitor saying that.
Falcon
Now consider this: you're sent of to the battle field with someone who was added to your group after you all got your training, has no prior knowledge and then starts to ask all the questions.
Learn by doing. Though I was never in a real battle I served in the US Army in the infantry. While stationed at Fort Benning, GA I helped train OCS, Officer Candidate School, cadets and Army Rangers. We also trained with the Special Forces. Now while combat training did help me I already knew how to shoot, having grown up shooting for target practice as well as hunting.
Now obviously someone who's never had any training shouldn't be put into actual combat.
Falcon
It isn't that hard to grasp, most money is created through loans (fractional reserve lending), when the loan is paid off, that (loan based) money is gone from circulation.
No, money is created by creating an item or providing a service people are willing to pay for. Say I own some acreage in a forest. I harvest some trees, not clear cut mind you but selectively cutting down a few. After kiln drying the wood it is cut then used to make furniture. People who are then willing and able buy that furniture. The buyers got what they wanted and now I have money I can spend myself say on food. Maybe one of my buyers is a farmer, then when I buy my food that farmer. He created money by farming and I created money by making furniture.
Perhaps farming was a bad example as farmers in the US get massive subsidies, early this year congress passed by a veto proof margin a farm bill giving agricultural operations almost $300 billion in tax payer money.
Thing is while loans can allow businesses to make bigger profits, money creation does not require loans. All it requires is selling something for more than it costs to provide it.
Just consider inflation. Let's say your CPA sister is making $100,000/year in 2008 (just wanted a round figure). If she still earns $100,000/year in 2018, she will have gone significantly backwards in real terms.
Yea, inflation does eat into money. However my sister's business doesn't have to get bigger, just the income does. Ah, maybe that's where our differences are. Whereas you may say increasing income is growth, what I consider growth would be increasing customers, facilities, and employees.
Falcon
even if you don't give a corporation a corporate charter (Something I am pretty much against ANYWAY)
Corporations do have their place, though not like they are now. The first two corporations were the Honourable East India Company, granted it's corporate charter in 1600, and the Dutch East India Company, granted a charter in 1602. Both companies were shippers, they shipped goods between England, for Honourable, and the Netherlands for the Dutch company and India. Shipping was a risky business. The crew could mutiny, the ship could sink because of a hurricane, or it could be attacked by pirates. When cargo was lost for any of these reasons, or others, the ship owner was liable to the owner of that cargo and had to pay them back. The ship owner was also liable for the lives of the crew. These liabilities made shipping a bad business so the British and Dutch crowns granted corporations limited liability, all investors could lose is the amount they invested in the corporation. The increased trade benefited many people not just a few. However it could also harm people, so corporate charters were only granted if the corporation improved the common good or public good. If a corporation no longer served the common good it could have it's charter revoked. Today revocation doesn't happen but if it did then corporations would have to change.
Big Brother sucks, but sometimes you need him. And I say this as someone who refuses to vote democrat or republican, so I take govt with a grain of salt :)
Agreed but I distrust businesses less than I distrust government. In the 20th century alone governments killed, exterminated, more than 70,000,000 people. European governments did a pretty good job in the Americas, the NAZIs exterminated 600,000 Jews and I don't know how many others, Stalin massacred 20,000,000 and it's said Mao massacred 50,000,000. Then there was Pol Pot during the '70s in Cambodia, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, what happened in Rwanda with genocide there in the early '90s, and the genocide started in the later '90s in Darfur.
No business, except possibly the tobacco industry, has killed as many people as government has. And chewing, dipping, or smoking tobacco is voluntary.
Falcon
The borrowing of money at interest requires economic growth just to break even
It doesn't require growth all it requires is more revenue than expenses. I'll use a bakery as an example, because friends have told me I should start one. I love baking and used to spend a weekend once or twice a semester baking when I was in college. I'd take what I baked to campus and share with people in my classes. Now if I did open a bakery all I'd have to do to make a profit would be to sell enough so I'd end up with more after my sells than I spent on baking.
My sister who's a CPA, Certified Public Accountant, runs her own accounting business. Well her and some of her friends. Her business makes money and the only reason for her business to grow is because they want more money, they don't need to grow to stay in business. Her husband, my brother-in-law, is a CFP or Certified Financial Planner and he used to work as a day trader. He traded using only the money he had, he didn't borrow money to trade. Hopefully I will be starting my own business, not a bakery though but as a photographer. As such all I need to do is generate enough income to pay my bills and have money left over.
Falcon
Where I live, we have two competing cable companies throughout most of the city. They each have their own physical plant, which is good for me, because when I had trouble with one that they weren't interested in fixing, I switched to the other.
Unlike you many people live in places that don't have a choice as to whom provides access, cable tv or broadband. Many of those with a choice have the choice between dsl and cable but that's it. And a lot can't get either cable or dsl.
I hate the telcos as much as the next guy (more than most probably, since I work for a private ISP and have to deal with telco crap all the time), but I don't think getting government trying to compete with companies is a solution at all.
No company is offering fiber so there's no competition. According to ne of the TFAs the city did ask the company there to install fiber but they said get lost.
Falcon
Governments should not be competing with private businesses.
Before the city decided to install the fiber they asked the company to do it and the company said get lost. Since the company refused to install fiber there is no competition.
Falcon
There's more than one company that makes fiber optic cables.
Falcon
Municipalities are the only ones who can defeat monopoly service providers
Actually it's municipalities, government, that creates monopolies. The use a right of way or easement, which is needed for someone to lay down fiber, cable, or powerlines, requires government approval. If I wanted to and had plenty of money to do it I couldn't simply lay a lot of fiber and offer net access, phone service, or tv to anyone who wants to buy from me. in the city.
Falcon
In my opinion, town-owned utilities are a good idea only if a town is fairly small. Where the population is large, the utilities become isolated from marketplace feedback. Corruption and lack of incentives to improve the service lead to stagnation.
Corruption can happen with a natural monopoly whether the utility is publicly or privately owned. With a private company there's not much choice but if it's owned by local government then voters can vote in new people though.
Falcon
a) You don't give the name of the town for others to look up info.
Not in the post you replied to but in another one he does say what town, Wadsworth, Ohio.
I'm for publicly owned utilities in some cases and for privately-owned utilities in other cases.
In general I don't support publicly owned utilities however I do support either publicly owned infrastructure or separation of ownership of that infrastructure and the services it delivers. For instance power lines, one company or other entity owns them but then allows generators to supply the electricity. With phones any company could use the phone lines to offer phone service to willing buyers. Or as in this case, with the city laying fiber, the city owns that but then allows others to hook up to it to offer net access.
Falcon
I use about 300g on an average day, but up to 1500g/day in summer when I have more stuff to irrigate.
Question, do you use sprinklers for irrigation? If you do check into using soaker hoses or a drip system. Also you may want to check into installing a cistern or rainwater catchment system. It's also a good idea to water in the morning before it gets hotter, the cooler it is when you water the less water will evaporate.
Falcon
The government directly competes in the mail market with USPS.
The USA Constitution specifically gives the government power to establish the US Postal Service, "Section 8 - Powers of Congress"
"To establish Post Offices and Post Roads"
Falcon
I'm fully in favor of this and believe it's in the best interest of the community. It'll benefit home users, but it's even more critical to attract big business and help grow the town.
While I agree the town should be able to do it, as long as not all of the residents are required to pay for it, I disagree the city needs to grow. That's the same mindset corporations have, they "have to grow" or they'll die. Where exactly does this belief come from?
Falcon
Unregulated capitalism LEADS to corporatism.
No he's not, it's government that gives corporations their power. Without that power corporations couldn't exist as they do today.
If you don't regulate companies so that they can't take advantage of people and things
I would love to see corporations have their Corporate Charter revoked.
Falcon
The last time we had "unregulated capitalism", snake oil salesmen made people wary of medication, meat was as hazardous as nuclear waste, and we had a stock market crash that put 30% of the populace into hoovervilles.
No, Teddy Roosevelt regulated businesses before the Panic of 1907.
Falcon
without a government a big "corporation" would simply hire mercenaries to enforce their will.
Guess what? Corporations already tried that, and that's how come many unions were created. When businesses sent in strike breakers this encouraged those workers to band together to create a union to represent them. However without a government there wouldn't be corporations, it's government that grants corporations their corporate charter.
Falcon
The Trust Buster was Teddy Roosevelt and even he had dickkish moments by classifying Sir Thomas Paine as an Atheist--clearly the dumbest comment I ever read from him.
There's a debate on whether Thomas Paine was an atheist. Some like Teddy Roosevelt said he was while others say he wasn't. I guess in a sense it depends on what the speaker means, Thomas Jefferson for instance was a Diest and while he believed Jesus was a great teacher he didn't believe he was the "Son of God", savior. He actually took the Christian Bible and cut out all the stuff about miracles and such to create the Jeffersonian Bible.
Falcon
he investment should benefit the taxpayer (investing in infrastructure, decent education - things that build up the society over the long-term) but should probably not go into the taxpayer's pockets.
"Excess" money shouldn't be taken from tax payers to begin with, and if there's enough money to invest then it's excess and maybe too much money was taken.
Taxpayers aren't necessarily good at taking a long-term view.
That's their own fault, that or the education they got was bad. Heck when I was in 9th grade, in a public school, the teacher I had for my civics class taught us about saving and investing. He had us play this game, we pretended we had $25,000 to invest and we could invest however we wanted. We played it over a few weeks and watched what happened to the money. I like others would write down what we wanted to buy and sale, say it's Monday and I had stocks in company A I wanted to sell then use to money to buy sticks in company B I'd writer that down. Then on Tuesday I'd check the financial section of the newspaper to see how much stocks in A and B sold for. X = number of stocks in A tymes the price of A then divide X by Y's selling price to see how many stocks I could buy in Y.
While investing takes more than that, it doesn't require a degree in finance.
Falcon