It's shocking how much senseless wrath is incurred by drug rhetoric. You think they would be heralded as modern saviors... at any rate.
Drugs are expense to DEVELOP (read: not produce). Millions and millions of dollars are poured into research in the hopes that a successful compound will result. I don't need to tell you that for every 1 drug company that is 'raking' in profits, there are 10 others that have come and vanished. These patents are CRUCIAL if we wish to see more drugs in the future. I don't doubt that people have died because they couldn't afford drugs, but at least I recognize that the people that could afford them survived because of these companies. With these regulations all would suffer.
The free market economy is not only about profits, the losses are just as important.
If they charge too much their exploiting their monopoly. If they charge market price, they are 'colluding'. If they undercharge they are using 'predatory pricing' to grab market share.
Short of distributing free Mandrake CDs with the same gusto as AOL, I don't think MS can make a move that won't be criticized.
If they 'overcharge' their product, their exploiting their monopoly.
If they charge market price, they are 'colluding'.
If they undercharge they are using 'predatory pricing' to grab market share.
Short of distributing free Mandrake CDs with the same gusto as AOL, I don't think MS can make a move that won't be criticized.
If they 'overcharge' their product, their exploiting their monopoly. If they charge market price, they are 'colluding'. If they undercharge they are using 'predatory pricing' to grab market share.
Short of distributing free Mandrake CDs with the same gusto as AOL, I don't think MS can make a move that won't be criticized.
Examples: 1. Senior rates and student rates. They are poorer and can't afford things like park admission. This is a way to get them to pay up. 2. Coupons. Lower income people will now shop at your store. Rich people generally have better things to do with their time than clip coupons.
Microsoft is not special, and you don't need to be a monopoly to 'exploit' this strategy.
Low tariffs make corporations richers? Are you mad? The only reason these groups ever lobby the government is to IMPOSE restrictions. Corporations HATE the free market and the competetion it brings. When tariffs are imposed they make a tiny minority of people richer (the protected industry) and the vast majority of people poorer (the people who use their products).
The economy as a whole may be complication, but comparative advantage and gains from trade have been understood for centuries. Its widespread benefits have been documented hundreds of times. The same cannot be said for any protectionist policy, in the history of civilization. Absolute or not, the truth is in the history. You may argue that correlation is not causation, but correlation combined with piles of logic and theory provide compelling evidence.
Economists always say "there's no free lunch". The only time this rule is ever broken is with trade. Trade allows people to have more then they could ever produce on their own. It is simply always beneficial in the long run, and one of the few 'blanket' statements that are true. Ask any economist.
If you want 'proof': Protectionism was rampant during the Great Depression. 50 years later we finally realize that this only impeded our recovery by jacking up prices of food during a time of great starvation.
The "Infant Industry" argument is a false one, as any economics book will tell you. Capitalism is a fantastic system where people are always driven by 'greed'. They love nothing more to invest in companies that could turn a profit. If investors don't think this 'infant industry' can be a world beater, then why should the grossly inefficient feel any different?
You have some of the most disturbing economic beliefs I have ever heard. I hope you have some reference to back up these ludicrous isdeas. By your logic, why not keep EVERY job in the states? Think how prosperous we'd be then!
The saddest part is you are one of a multitude of Americans who have spent too much time watching Lou Dobbs and not enough time thinking about things logically sensibly.
I reiterate: tariffs are always bad. They are a tax on consumer goods, it's just a more subtle of implementing them.
And the second person to comment is also correct: Government should have no right to take people's money for 'Retirement'. That money, if invested, would reap 3 times the monthly payments as the laughable US system does.
Argh, seems everytime outsourcing rolls around...
Steel tarrifs were a HORRIBLE thing. You are only looking at one side of the issue: Steel worker jobs. Think of all the companies in the US, cars, construction workers, machines, that rely on steel. They all had to pay this insane rates because the steel workers couldn't adapt. The end result? Hidden jobloss in these sectors from companies that can't compete well, not to mention inflated prices on the goods these companies produce.
Make no mistake, tariffs are ALWAYS a bad thing, regardless of which side institutes them
Life is about drawing lines. It always has been.
Take a look at drugs. Why are cigarettes legal but marijuana not? If marijuana is legal, why not crack? Why not heroin? why not meth?
What about speed limits? If they're designed to save lives, then why not decrease them by half, think of the lives we could save then!
Life is about drawing lines at some reasonable limit. If the product is used for illegal activity 80-90% of the time, I'd say that was a reasonable line.
Ya, I had this great Cocaine-making machine...
on
Kazaa Offices Raided
·
· Score: 1
.. and they raided my house and took it away! I mean honestly. Cocaine-making machines can be used for all kinds of legal purposes, such as... coffee tables.... and...umm... abstract decorative metal-art.
Even if I were to give you the concession that middle class people don't own stocks, even 'suits' who day trade are not useless individuals. Being able to determine good businesses from bad businesses, and investing money as such, is a difficult ability and they deserve all the money they get from fine tuning good businesses and bad ones.
It's easy to believe that a handful of wealthy of individuals are the cause of all the ills of America, but it's simply not the case. If we were to distribute the wealth of all the obscenely rich people in the US it would amount to an insignificant amount of money. The true wealth of the US is in the middle class. Even if their wealth was had by 'immoral' means its national effect is neglible.
It is not for you to decide what is a 'smart' business decision. If a corporation outsources its jobs it is to become more competetive. If their employees betray them, that corporation will suffer and die, as has happened am million times in the past.
If you didn't know, foreign companies invest 3 to 4 times as much in American companies as Americans do to foreign companies. So yes, it really is a global marketplace. Trade is a 2 way straight, and a win-win scenario.
'Don't approve of these practices'?! What practices? Being able to produce cheaper goods? I don't see you complaining about 0.50/lb bananas, $40 DVD players, or any other of the myriad of goods that are now affordable because of cheaper labor. And the laborers are happy to be employed, despite this rubbish of 'exploitation'.
Unless trade is truly going to be free, jobs have to be protected in some manner.
This is an oxymoron. Free trade can't be free if there are barriers like protection. Your Germany example is flawed. Germany faces such high unemployment because of restrictive government regulations. Minimum wage costs and workers compensation are so high that employers are deathly afraid to hire anyone, even when times are good. This is just another example of government meddling with the economy. The goal is laudable, but the design is deep flawed. And believe me, it is my KNOWLEDGE of history and the results of government involvement that have formed the opinions I currently hold.
I agree we need to be eased into it. This can be done by slowly removing ALL tariffs and barriers currently in place.
Let me explain the long-term effect of the outsourcing movement:
1. Hundreds of desparately poor Indians now have jobs and can actually live.
2. Companies can now produce software for less. (If they try and horde the profit, another company will undercut them. The beauty of the free market eh?
3. Cheaper software benefits the consumer.
4. Consumers, now with more money in their pocket, can buy other things or save/invest in other businesses.
5. Other businesses expand and can now hire more workers (potentially even the ones that were currently laid off)
But yes, this is the long run. Unfortunately elections are in the short-run, and people will buy into whatever the scheme-of-the-day is.
You don't have to be Mother Theresa to realize the benefits of free trade. Just a good sense of logic and reasoning.
American jobs going to waste? Like I said, get rid of the nationality and it's a whole new ball game, isn't it? What about the INDIAN'S education going to waste if ludicrous protectionist policies are implemented? I am DAMN sure an unemployed Indian will be inifintely worse off than an unemployed American. Tax breaks are not the answer. All they will do is impoverish an already hoplessly impoverished nation. (and don't get cute, I'm referring to India)
If you're wondering, free trade can help Africa too. But their governments are so corrupted no company would ever outsource there.
Food for thought: This same 'crisis' occured during the early 90s when people believed that NAFTA would cause a 'sucking' sound of US jobs being whisked away to Mexico. During that same year unemployment was at a record low.
No this is also silly. We all like to think of corporations as great big evil entities that feed from the trough of the poor and middle class, but this is simply not true.
Corporations are owned by thousands and thousands of individuals; doctors, teachers, PROGRAMMERS, truck drivers, etc. as shareholders. By taxing the corporation you are preventing them from competing in the global marketplace, and indirectly taxing the livlihoods of all those people who's retirement has been invested.
Taxing is not the way to go. In fact it scarcely ever is. This is a global marketplace. We all love getting $4 T shirts from Wal-Mart but when free trade starts biting back, we get upset.
Why is it MY job, and MY education, and MY 'qualified' work when these topics come up? Trade has, and always will be, vastly beneficial for the majority of users. Here are the REAL economic results of outsourcing:
1. Hundreds of desparately poor Indians now have jobs and can actually live.
2. Companies can now produce software for less.
3. Cheaper software benefits the consumer.
4. Consumers, now with more money in their pocket, can buy other things or save/invest in other businesses.
5. Other businesses expand and can now hire more workers (potentially even yourselves)
But it's far easier to talk about how many jobs are 'lost', rather than how many jobs have been created. But programmers would rather fret about being unemployed for a few months. Nevermind the Indians who now have enough money to live a decent life. We are global citizens, shouldn't we be concerned for the needs of the many, regardless of their nationality?
Single income families have become double income families. How this is a bad thing I don't understand.
REAL prices (adjusted for inflation) have steadily decreased. Income (and real GDP) have all been icnreasing. Standards of living are going up.
Trade is, and always has been, a win-win scenario. Econ101 will tell you that.
"qualified"? Who's to say anyone is qualified but the employer himself? You may be a fantastic worker, but if you are ripping off companies by charging them way more than what they can get from Mr. Apu then I say good for Mr. Apu. "Qualified" is subjective.
Spoken like a true economist, which is really the only one who should be speaking about matters like these that have widespread effects internationally.
You make some very good points. I think the primary one is basic consumer knowledge. People simply don't know the existence of OpenOffice (or what Linux even is). You blame this on Microsoft, consumers, businesses, whoever; but I have always firmly believed Linux's biggest failure is advertising.
And for those people with OfficeXP already installed, making a switch to (and I'm using this term lightly) a 'cripppled' suite doesn't make much sense. If they already had OpenOffice to begin with things might be different. But that's something marketers have always known; "The first one in wins".
This has been a very good discussion.
You've said that you use MS Office because you can get it free. Does that mean that if you had to pay for it, you would do so? Or would you look at alternative packages? Or would you simply stop creating documents, spreadsheets & presentations?
I would never pay MS prices for their software. If MS could (would?) enforce their copyrights (such that every XP was legitimate), it would be the best thing to happen to the OpenSource movement. Gates deliberately doesn't prosecute the simple at-home copyright infringer, just the ones that try and make a profit selling his wares.
So if you and I sat down to play chess, for example, and I knew you were the better chess player, it would be perfectly fair of me to insist that you play the game without your queen piece, would it? According to your logic, it would be...
I am trying to wrap my brain around this obscure analogy, but let's see if I got the gist:
OpenOffice and OfficeXP can't be compared because one has financial contributions and the other does not. Correct?
Once again I disagree. I'm not debating the fairness of this comparison, I am simply taking you through the users mind. "Should I get 100% functionality from product A for free, or 90% functionality from product B for free?"
That choice is obvious. Fairness and level playing fields are irrelevent to this mindset and the choice of the consumer. The threat of prosecution may be a threat, except Gates has never prosecuted a user for this infringement, and probably never will. Until this threat becomes real (as it has with the RIAA) people will gleefully consider the product 'free'. Until people ACTUALLY have to pay for their MS software (read: again, home users) this battle will always be won by OfficeXP.
Sorry, 'double-click' on the install icon, followed by clicking next a bunch of times. Easy as pie, and no command lines in site. Does Linux have a double-click install for 99% of its apps?
Windows isn 'free' in a sense.
on
KDE 3.2.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
As far as most Windows are concerned they have XP either by:
1. Having it pre-installed for a reduced rate lumped into the initial purcahse 2. Getting a pirating copoy.
As far as at-home users are concerned, price is not an issue. I have never seen a legit copy of Windows, but MANY burned ones. The validity of this argument isn't compromised just because it's 'legal' or 'illegal'. In the users mind, KDE is competing against free already. My my wallet isn't currently in being in jeopardy of losing $180. The price argument can only be used for businesses, not for at-home desktop users.
Slashdot Mirror
It's shocking how much senseless wrath is incurred by drug rhetoric. You think they would be heralded as modern saviors... at any rate.
Drugs are expense to DEVELOP (read: not produce). Millions and millions of dollars are poured into research in the hopes that a successful compound will result. I don't need to tell you that for every 1 drug company that is 'raking' in profits, there are 10 others that have come and vanished.
These patents are CRUCIAL if we wish to see more drugs in the future. I don't doubt that people have died because they couldn't afford drugs, but at least I recognize that the people that could afford them survived because of these companies. With these regulations all would suffer.
The free market economy is not only about profits, the losses are just as important.
If they charge too much their exploiting their monopoly.
If they charge market price, they are 'colluding'.
If they undercharge they are using 'predatory pricing' to grab market share.
Short of distributing free Mandrake CDs with the same gusto as AOL, I don't think MS can make a move that won't be criticized.
If they 'overcharge' their product, their exploiting their monopoly. If they charge market price, they are 'colluding'. If they undercharge they are using 'predatory pricing' to grab market share. Short of distributing free Mandrake CDs with the same gusto as AOL, I don't think MS can make a move that won't be criticized.
If they 'overcharge' their product, their exploiting their monopoly.
If they charge market price, they are 'colluding'.
If they undercharge they are using 'predatory pricing' to grab market share.
Short of distributing free Mandrake CDs with the same gusto as AOL, I don't think MS can make a move that won't be criticized.
Examples:
1. Senior rates and student rates. They are poorer and can't afford things like park admission. This is a way to get them to pay up.
2. Coupons. Lower income people will now shop at your store. Rich people generally have better things to do with their time than clip coupons.
Microsoft is not special, and you don't need to be a monopoly to 'exploit' this strategy.
Video games cause violence as much as golf video games cause me to shoot a 60 over 18 holes.
Low tariffs make corporations richers? Are you mad? The only reason these groups ever lobby the government is to IMPOSE restrictions. Corporations HATE the free market and the competetion it brings. When tariffs are imposed they make a tiny minority of people richer (the protected industry) and the vast majority of people poorer (the people who use their products).
The economy as a whole may be complication, but comparative advantage and gains from trade have been understood for centuries. Its widespread benefits have been documented hundreds of times. The same cannot be said for any protectionist policy, in the history of civilization. Absolute or not, the truth is in the history. You may argue that correlation is not causation, but correlation combined with piles of logic and theory provide compelling evidence.
Economists always say "there's no free lunch". The only time this rule is ever broken is with trade. Trade allows people to have more then they could ever produce on their own. It is simply always beneficial in the long run, and one of the few 'blanket' statements that are true. Ask any economist.
If you want 'proof': Protectionism was rampant during the Great Depression. 50 years later we finally realize that this only impeded our recovery by jacking up prices of food during a time of great starvation.
The "Infant Industry" argument is a false one, as any economics book will tell you. Capitalism is a fantastic system where people are always driven by 'greed'. They love nothing more to invest in companies that could turn a profit. If investors don't think this 'infant industry' can be a world beater, then why should the grossly inefficient feel any different?
You have some of the most disturbing economic beliefs I have ever heard. I hope you have some reference to back up these ludicrous isdeas. By your logic, why not keep EVERY job in the states? Think how prosperous we'd be then!
The saddest part is you are one of a multitude of Americans who have spent too much time watching Lou Dobbs and not enough time thinking about things logically sensibly.
I reiterate: tariffs are always bad. They are a tax on consumer goods, it's just a more subtle of implementing them.
And the second person to comment is also correct: Government should have no right to take people's money for 'Retirement'. That money, if invested, would reap 3 times the monthly payments as the laughable US system does.
Argh, seems everytime outsourcing rolls around...
Steel tarrifs were a HORRIBLE thing. You are only looking at one side of the issue: Steel worker jobs. Think of all the companies in the US, cars, construction workers, machines, that rely on steel. They all had to pay this insane rates because the steel workers couldn't adapt. The end result? Hidden jobloss in these sectors from companies that can't compete well, not to mention inflated prices on the goods these companies produce.
Make no mistake, tariffs are ALWAYS a bad thing, regardless of which side institutes them
Life is about drawing lines. It always has been.
Take a look at drugs. Why are cigarettes legal but marijuana not? If marijuana is legal, why not crack? Why not heroin? why not meth?
What about speed limits? If they're designed to save lives, then why not decrease them by half, think of the lives we could save then!
Life is about drawing lines at some reasonable limit. If the product is used for illegal activity 80-90% of the time, I'd say that was a reasonable line.
.. and they raided my house and took it away! I mean honestly. Cocaine-making machines can be used for all kinds of legal purposes, such as... coffee tables.... and...umm... abstract decorative metal-art.
Even if I were to give you the concession that middle class people don't own stocks, even 'suits' who day trade are not useless individuals. Being able to determine good businesses from bad businesses, and investing money as such, is a difficult ability and they deserve all the money they get from fine tuning good businesses and bad ones.
It's easy to believe that a handful of wealthy of individuals are the cause of all the ills of America, but it's simply not the case. If we were to distribute the wealth of all the obscenely rich people in the US it would amount to an insignificant amount of money. The true wealth of the US is in the middle class. Even if their wealth was had by 'immoral' means its national effect is neglible.
It is not for you to decide what is a 'smart' business decision. If a corporation outsources its jobs it is to become more competetive. If their employees betray them, that corporation will suffer and die, as has happened am million times in the past.
If you didn't know, foreign companies invest 3 to 4 times as much in American companies as Americans do to foreign companies. So yes, it really is a global marketplace. Trade is a 2 way straight, and a win-win scenario.
'Don't approve of these practices'?! What practices? Being able to produce cheaper goods? I don't see you complaining about 0.50/lb bananas, $40 DVD players, or any other of the myriad of goods that are now affordable because of cheaper labor. And the laborers are happy to be employed, despite this rubbish of 'exploitation'.
Unless trade is truly going to be free, jobs have to be protected in some manner.
This is an oxymoron. Free trade can't be free if there are barriers like protection. Your Germany example is flawed. Germany faces such high unemployment because of restrictive government regulations. Minimum wage costs and workers compensation are so high that employers are deathly afraid to hire anyone, even when times are good. This is just another example of government meddling with the economy. The goal is laudable, but the design is deep flawed. And believe me, it is my KNOWLEDGE of history and the results of government involvement that have formed the opinions I currently hold.
I agree we need to be eased into it. This can be done by slowly removing ALL tariffs and barriers currently in place.
Let me explain the long-term effect of the outsourcing movement:
1. Hundreds of desparately poor Indians now have jobs and can actually live.
2. Companies can now produce software for less. (If they try and horde the profit, another company will undercut them. The beauty of the free market eh?
3. Cheaper software benefits the consumer.
4. Consumers, now with more money in their pocket, can buy other things or save/invest in other businesses.
5. Other businesses expand and can now hire more workers (potentially even the ones that were currently laid off)
But yes, this is the long run. Unfortunately elections are in the short-run, and people will buy into whatever the scheme-of-the-day is.
You don't have to be Mother Theresa to realize the benefits of free trade. Just a good sense of logic and reasoning.
American jobs going to waste? Like I said, get rid of the nationality and it's a whole new ball game, isn't it? What about the INDIAN'S education going to waste if ludicrous protectionist policies are implemented? I am DAMN sure an unemployed Indian will be inifintely worse off than an unemployed American. Tax breaks are not the answer. All they will do is impoverish an already hoplessly impoverished nation. (and don't get cute, I'm referring to India)
If you're wondering, free trade can help Africa too. But their governments are so corrupted no company would ever outsource there.
Food for thought: This same 'crisis' occured during the early 90s when people believed that NAFTA would cause a 'sucking' sound of US jobs being whisked away to Mexico. During that same year unemployment was at a record low.
... and the free market. It's too bad this wasn't modded up.
It's times like this I wish Scorea could be great than 5. You sir are an asset to this community.
No this is also silly. We all like to think of corporations as great big evil entities that feed from the trough of the poor and middle class, but this is simply not true.
Corporations are owned by thousands and thousands of individuals; doctors, teachers, PROGRAMMERS, truck drivers, etc. as shareholders. By taxing the corporation you are preventing them from competing in the global marketplace, and indirectly taxing the livlihoods of all those people who's retirement has been invested.
Taxing is not the way to go. In fact it scarcely ever is. This is a global marketplace. We all love getting $4 T shirts from Wal-Mart but when free trade starts biting back, we get upset.
Why is it MY job, and MY education, and MY 'qualified' work when these topics come up? Trade has, and always will be, vastly beneficial for the majority of users. Here are the REAL economic results of outsourcing:
1. Hundreds of desparately poor Indians now have jobs and can actually live.
2. Companies can now produce software for less.
3. Cheaper software benefits the consumer.
4. Consumers, now with more money in their pocket, can buy other things or save/invest in other businesses.
5. Other businesses expand and can now hire more workers (potentially even yourselves)
But it's far easier to talk about how many jobs are 'lost', rather than how many jobs have been created. But programmers would rather fret about being unemployed for a few months. Nevermind the Indians who now have enough money to live a decent life. We are global citizens, shouldn't we be concerned for the needs of the many, regardless of their nationality?
You are missing a lot.
Single income families have become double income families. How this is a bad thing I don't understand.
REAL prices (adjusted for inflation) have steadily decreased. Income (and real GDP) have all been icnreasing. Standards of living are going up.
Trade is, and always has been, a win-win scenario. Econ101 will tell you that.
"qualified"? Who's to say anyone is qualified but the employer himself? You may be a fantastic worker, but if you are ripping off companies by charging them way more than what they can get from Mr. Apu then I say good for Mr. Apu. "Qualified" is subjective.
Spoken like a true economist, which is really the only one who should be speaking about matters like these that have widespread effects internationally.
You make some very good points. I think the primary one is basic consumer knowledge. People simply don't know the existence of OpenOffice (or what Linux even is). You blame this on Microsoft, consumers, businesses, whoever; but I have always firmly believed Linux's biggest failure is advertising.
And for those people with OfficeXP already installed, making a switch to (and I'm using this term lightly) a 'cripppled' suite doesn't make much sense. If they already had OpenOffice to begin with things might be different. But that's something marketers have always known; "The first one in wins".
This has been a very good discussion.
You've said that you use MS Office because you can get it free. Does that mean that if you had to pay for it, you would do so? Or would you look at alternative packages? Or would you simply stop creating documents, spreadsheets & presentations?
I would never pay MS prices for their software. If MS could (would?) enforce their copyrights (such that every XP was legitimate), it would be the best thing to happen to the OpenSource movement. Gates deliberately doesn't prosecute the simple at-home copyright infringer, just the ones that try and make a profit selling his wares.
So if you and I sat down to play chess, for example, and I knew you were the better chess player, it would be perfectly fair of me to insist that you play the game without your queen piece, would it? According to your logic, it would be...
I am trying to wrap my brain around this obscure analogy, but let's see if I got the gist:
OpenOffice and OfficeXP can't be compared because one has financial contributions and the other does not. Correct?
Once again I disagree. I'm not debating the fairness of this comparison, I am simply taking you through the users mind. "Should I get 100% functionality from product A for free, or 90% functionality from product B for free?"
That choice is obvious. Fairness and level playing fields are irrelevent to this mindset and the choice of the consumer. The threat of prosecution may be a threat, except Gates has never prosecuted a user for this infringement, and probably never will. Until this threat becomes real (as it has with the RIAA) people will gleefully consider the product 'free'. Until people ACTUALLY have to pay for their MS software (read: again, home users) this battle will always be won by OfficeXP.
Sorry, 'double-click' on the install icon, followed by clicking next a bunch of times. Easy as pie, and no command lines in site. Does Linux have a double-click install for 99% of its apps?
As far as most Windows are concerned they have XP either by:
1. Having it pre-installed for a reduced rate lumped into the initial purcahse
2. Getting a pirating copoy.
As far as at-home users are concerned, price is not an issue. I have never seen a legit copy of Windows, but MANY burned ones. The validity of this argument isn't compromised just because it's 'legal' or 'illegal'. In the users mind, KDE is competing against free already. My my wallet isn't currently in being in jeopardy of losing $180. The price argument can only be used for businesses, not for at-home desktop users.