Ah yes, my grand plan was to spend all this time and try to make you buy a $10 book from a direct link to amazon.com and somehow make $1 off the transaction.
Even when you try to insult someone, you betray your lack of economic knowledge.
If I buy a TV I don't want to have to make sure that the fact that it'll work is in my contract with the retailer.
I can buy a TV that'll work for 50 years with average picture quality. I can also buy a TV that'll work only for 6 months with excellent picture quality. I might also want to buy a TV which only works for 1 day with really bad picture quality. Which standard would you recommend be enshrined into law?
The information necessary to arrive at a contract - the price I'm willing to pay, the reputation of the merchant, aesthetics & other intangible items - are only available to me and the merchant at the time of sale. Trying to capture this information and codifying it into law only leads to inefficiency and higher cost.
For example, the state of Illinois here has codified a standard for health insurance policies. I really do not want insurance protecting me for Aids/diabetes/etc, but I still have to pay because the state followed your idea & took away the ability for me to negotiate directly with the vendor.
It's good that people back in India are doing well, but as you said: "They get huge benefits because of the labor shortage...". Workers will tend to have better conditions when they're in short supply. What will happen when that's no longer the case?
You did not understand my point. Why were jobs scarce in India for 50 years and suddenly, in a span of 5 years, workers are in short supply? What caused this shift that resulted in better working conditions for workers?
India had several laws "protecting" the worker in that 50 year span and yet jobs were scarce and strikes and disputes were the norm. Something was done in the last 10-15 years that gradually changed that.
The Indian government, starting in 1992, dropped a lot of regulations which among other things, made is easier to hire and fire workers. That is what caused the betterment of workers.
We need laws to ensure that people keep their contracts.
There are already laws to ensure people keep their contracts. Why do you need special laws that only apply to employer-employee relations?
The answer is the "implied contract" part. Most governments do not want the employers and employees to negotiate contract directly (thinking that this puts employees at a disadvantage) & hence put in various laws that favor the employee. *This* is why you need special laws that go above and beyond the normal contract law.
In my hometown in India, there were/are very strict labor laws and until about 2000 & labor disputes were very common. Nowadays however, the workers do not want to join unions, they don't even care if their job is on the record/permanent/registered/etc.
They get huge benefits because of the labor shortage - benefits that no govt edict or union would be able to obtain. There are virtually no labor disputes that I've heard of in recent years. The norm 5 years ago was a strike every year. Now, workers just leave and take another job if they don't like the working conditions, salary, etc.
And all this is voluntary - nobody is forcing the employer to provide such benefits (except his desire to make more profits).
(I live in Chicago at the moment - I am originally from India).
in the end, a huge proportion of the money you spend on your iPod, car, or even tooth brush is basically money that is leaving the country permanently.
A huge proportion of the money I spend on groceries goes to Kroger, money I spend on computers goes to Intel & others, money I spend on healthcare goes to doctors - that money leaves my family permanently.
Maybe I should grow my own crops, make my own microprocessors and perform my own surgery.
It is sad to see that many people don't have the slightest understanding of economic principles that were discovered over 200 years ago.
I do think that it's reasonable to expect my employer to live up to the terms of their contract with me and not to use outsourcing as a way of weasling out of it.
If your employer has a contract with you, then why do you need special laws? The normal contract law would suffice.
Those who disagree are at liberty to live in a country with a different approach
Would you be comfortable with Iran using the same logic when they crack down on homosexuals? (And this has nothing to do with democracy - there are plenty of such issues in India as well.)
Remember that laws are made for the benefit of people who for the most part are employees rather than employers.
Again, would you be comfortable with laws favoring whites since they are the majority?
But it also prevents the employer using outsourcing as a cheap way of cutting staff. Both of these seem like good things to me.
Why do you think that anyone has a right to "their" job?
A job is just a commercial agreement between two parties. Would you advocate a similar law to 'protect' a hardware store so that a customer cannot just move to a newer store to buy cheaper widgets?
I never understood why people think that a job is a special kind of contract that needs special laws.
As sick as what she did, I don't see how faking an identity in order to harass someone until the point that they kill themselves would not be covered under like, involuntary manslaughter at the very least.
We have a woman in the office who gets offended if she sees two people talking quietly - because she just assumes that they're talking about her.
So, if she gets depressed about this and kills herself, you'd want everyone in the office to be charged with involuntary manslaughter?
You have to base laws on the act and not on the effect the act has on someone.
People who say Obama is pro-warrantless-wiretapping don't know WTF they're talking about; he's supporting a bill which will make it illegal in the future, but the only way to get that bill passed for the future..
It is illegal now. Why not leave it that way?
Are you so naive to think that electoral calculations did not play a part in Obama's stance?
Care to tell me what beneficial effect should have come out of this suit?
What made you think that I thought this suit was a good idea? Really, my response was just to this one statement of yours:
What the US needs right now is politicians who can spend money wisely and know where it's put best to help the economy recover.
And my point was that there is no one person (or a group of people) who can determine which projects are good and what is bad. It takes the collective intelligence of people brought together by the price system and profit signals to determine where to invest and how much.
Here is Friedman explaining this better than I ever could.
What the US needs right now is politicians who can spend money wisely and know where it's put best to help the economy recover.
And how would a politician know "where it's put best to help the economy recover"?
Even if he/she was a good honest person with no special interests pushing him/her in one direction, how would that person have all the necessary information to make a wise decision?
Look at the mess they made with ethanol.
Most days I part with my money because I'm trapped between two evils, and I try to pick the lesser.
Unfortunately, in this universe, reality is not optional.
Exchanging goods freely with one another gets you the best option out of all the ones available to you. It does not magically mean $10 Ferraris and beautiful women throwing themselves at you.
I have to point out the flaws in that one. Part of the reason we don't make nearly as much stuff anymore is because of the lack of tariffs, which have been taken away in the last few decades. A return to higher tariffs would be just fine in my book, because it would mean that more of our stuff would be produced *here*, in the US. Which would mean more jobs.
I completely agree. In fact, I want individual states to have tariffs. Can you imagine all the 50 states having their own chip fabs? Imagine the number of jobs created!
Why stop there? Let each city slap tariffs on products from other cities. This will mean more jobs. It could be just like the 1600s with each village making *everything* that they need locally. This way, money will not leave the village and, since money means wealth according to your theory, this will mean everyone will be much richer.
Actually, here is a great way to increase the number of jobs.
Business cares not what the people are concerned with, it only cares about what will part them with their money.
Correct. And people only part with their money when they can obtain things that they value more than the money they part with.
What's the problem again?
When a speculator buys a contract from my uncle to buy his oil, I promise you my uncle is NOT betting that the price of oil will go down; he is entering a contract to sell his future production.
Your uncle would not be selling the contract (say at $100) if he was sure that the price of oil would be at $101. In that sense, yes, he is betting that the price of oil might go down.
Producers sell futures contract to hedge - in other words, they are speculating.
Maybe I'm naive, but I believe that profit-maximizing entities will always flock to any new technology that has the potential to make them more money per unit of investment.
The fact that GE sells equipment for windmills tells me that in some places, wind energy is economical (mostly because of cross subsidies).
The fact that companies have not flocked to geo-thermal and tidal energy tells me that they are not economical.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah yes, my grand plan was to spend all this time and try to make you buy a $10 book from a direct link to amazon.com and somehow make $1 off the transaction.
Even when you try to insult someone, you betray your lack of economic knowledge.
However, if you are up for it, please enlighten us.
Sure.
You can pass that to Obama once you are done with it.
If money leaving the country makes the country poorer, then money leaving my family should make my family poorer.
We are gutting good jobs from our economy at a time when we truly can't afford it.
You don't seem to understand the difference between jobs, income and wealth. You should apply for a job with either Lou Dobbs or Obama.
If I buy a TV I don't want to have to make sure that the fact that it'll work is in my contract with the retailer.
I can buy a TV that'll work for 50 years with average picture quality. I can also buy a TV that'll work only for 6 months with excellent picture quality. I might also want to buy a TV which only works for 1 day with really bad picture quality. Which standard would you recommend be enshrined into law?
The information necessary to arrive at a contract - the price I'm willing to pay, the reputation of the merchant, aesthetics & other intangible items - are only available to me and the merchant at the time of sale. Trying to capture this information and codifying it into law only leads to inefficiency and higher cost.
For example, the state of Illinois here has codified a standard for health insurance policies. I really do not want insurance protecting me for Aids/diabetes/etc, but I still have to pay because the state followed your idea & took away the ability for me to negotiate directly with the vendor.
It's good that people back in India are doing well, but as you said: "They get huge benefits because of the labor shortage...". Workers will tend to have better conditions when they're in short supply. What will happen when that's no longer the case?
You did not understand my point. Why were jobs scarce in India for 50 years and suddenly, in a span of 5 years, workers are in short supply? What caused this shift that resulted in better working conditions for workers?
India had several laws "protecting" the worker in that 50 year span and yet jobs were scarce and strikes and disputes were the norm. Something was done in the last 10-15 years that gradually changed that.
The Indian government, starting in 1992, dropped a lot of regulations which among other things, made is easier to hire and fire workers. That is what caused the betterment of workers.
We need laws to ensure that people keep their contracts.
There are already laws to ensure people keep their contracts. Why do you need special laws that only apply to employer-employee relations?
The answer is the "implied contract" part. Most governments do not want the employers and employees to negotiate contract directly (thinking that this puts employees at a disadvantage) & hence put in various laws that favor the employee. *This* is why you need special laws that go above and beyond the normal contract law.
In my hometown in India, there were/are very strict labor laws and until about 2000 & labor disputes were very common. Nowadays however, the workers do not want to join unions, they don't even care if their job is on the record/permanent/registered/etc.
They get huge benefits because of the labor shortage - benefits that no govt edict or union would be able to obtain. There are virtually no labor disputes that I've heard of in recent years. The norm 5 years ago was a strike every year. Now, workers just leave and take another job if they don't like the working conditions, salary, etc.
And all this is voluntary - nobody is forcing the employer to provide such benefits (except his desire to make more profits).
(I live in Chicago at the moment - I am originally from India).
in the end, a huge proportion of the money you spend on your iPod, car, or even tooth brush is basically money that is leaving the country permanently.
A huge proportion of the money I spend on groceries goes to Kroger, money I spend on computers goes to Intel & others, money I spend on healthcare goes to doctors - that money leaves my family permanently.
Maybe I should grow my own crops, make my own microprocessors and perform my own surgery.
It is sad to see that many people don't have the slightest understanding of economic principles that were discovered over 200 years ago.
I do think that it's reasonable to expect my employer to live up to the terms of their contract with me and not to use outsourcing as a way of weasling out of it.
If your employer has a contract with you, then why do you need special laws? The normal contract law would suffice.
Those who disagree are at liberty to live in a country with a different approach
Would you be comfortable with Iran using the same logic when they crack down on homosexuals? (And this has nothing to do with democracy - there are plenty of such issues in India as well.)
Remember that laws are made for the benefit of people who for the most part are employees rather than employers.
Again, would you be comfortable with laws favoring whites since they are the majority?
(I assume we've got the Atlantic between us)
No, we have the Arabian sea between us.
But it also prevents the employer using outsourcing as a cheap way of cutting staff. Both of these seem like good things to me.
Why do you think that anyone has a right to "their" job?
A job is just a commercial agreement between two parties. Would you advocate a similar law to 'protect' a hardware store so that a customer cannot just move to a newer store to buy cheaper widgets?
I never understood why people think that a job is a special kind of contract that needs special laws.
What is harassment and what is normal behavior? Something that is normal to you might be harassment to me.
So someone could say/do something to you and it might not be harassment. They might do/say the exact same thing to me and then it becomes harassment.
There's something that we should all hope is never be left to the vagaries of mysterious "market forces".
How many economics books have you read? This is why the creationists find evolution so 'mysterious'.
As sick as what she did, I don't see how faking an identity in order to harass someone until the point that they kill themselves would not be covered under like, involuntary manslaughter at the very least.
We have a woman in the office who gets offended if she sees two people talking quietly - because she just assumes that they're talking about her.
So, if she gets depressed about this and kills herself, you'd want everyone in the office to be charged with involuntary manslaughter?
You have to base laws on the act and not on the effect the act has on someone.
Tax dodge--giving money to a charity reduces his personal income taxes.
Brilliant. So, if I give away all my income, I can also reduce my taxes?
I'm afraid your blind hatred is negating whatever little intelligence you were born with.
People sell their vote all the time - they sell it for lower taxes, free health care, cheaper oil, etc.
This guy just wants to cut out the middlemen.
People who say Obama is pro-warrantless-wiretapping don't know WTF they're talking about; he's supporting a bill which will make it illegal in the future, but the only way to get that bill passed for the future..
It is illegal now. Why not leave it that way?
Are you so naive to think that electoral calculations did not play a part in Obama's stance?
Care to tell me what beneficial effect should have come out of this suit?
What made you think that I thought this suit was a good idea? Really, my response was just to this one statement of yours:
What the US needs right now is politicians who can spend money wisely and know where it's put best to help the economy recover.
And my point was that there is no one person (or a group of people) who can determine which projects are good and what is bad. It takes the collective intelligence of people brought together by the price system and profit signals to determine where to invest and how much.
Here is Friedman explaining this better than I ever could.
What the US needs right now is politicians who can spend money wisely and know where it's put best to help the economy recover.
And how would a politician know "where it's put best to help the economy recover"?
Even if he/she was a good honest person with no special interests pushing him/her in one direction, how would that person have all the necessary information to make a wise decision?
Look at the mess they made with ethanol.
Most days I part with my money because I'm trapped between two evils, and I try to pick the lesser.
Unfortunately, in this universe, reality is not optional.
Exchanging goods freely with one another gets you the best option out of all the ones available to you. It does not magically mean $10 Ferraris and beautiful women throwing themselves at you.
I have to point out the flaws in that one. Part of the reason we don't make nearly as much stuff anymore is because of the lack of tariffs, which have been taken away in the last few decades. A return to higher tariffs would be just fine in my book, because it would mean that more of our stuff would be produced *here*, in the US. Which would mean more jobs.
I completely agree. In fact, I want individual states to have tariffs. Can you imagine all the 50 states having their own chip fabs? Imagine the number of jobs created!
Why stop there? Let each city slap tariffs on products from other cities. This will mean more jobs. It could be just like the 1600s with each village making *everything* that they need locally. This way, money will not leave the village and, since money means wealth according to your theory, this will mean everyone will be much richer.
Actually, here is a great way to increase the number of jobs.
You can thank Uncle Sam and the protectionists for that one. Read more.
Business cares not what the people are concerned with, it only cares about what will part them with their money.
Correct. And people only part with their money when they can obtain things that they value more than the money they part with.
What's the problem again?
When a speculator buys a contract from my uncle to buy his oil, I promise you my uncle is NOT betting that the price of oil will go down; he is entering a contract to sell his future production.
Your uncle would not be selling the contract (say at $100) if he was sure that the price of oil would be at $101. In that sense, yes, he is betting that the price of oil might go down.
Producers sell futures contract to hedge - in other words, they are speculating.
Actually, those are all economical ways if the US government would stop subsidizing the oil companies, giving them tax breaks
The oil companies pay more taxes than, say software companies. I don't know how any reasonable mind would call that a tax break.
A thief did not steal money from me today - I suppose you will call that a break.
You are correct. They should be charged for externalities and that would reflect the true price.
I happen to think they are being charged for their externalities, but your principle is correct.
Maybe I'm naive, but I believe that profit-maximizing entities will always flock to any new technology that has the potential to make them more money per unit of investment.
The fact that GE sells equipment for windmills tells me that in some places, wind energy is economical (mostly because of cross subsidies).
The fact that companies have not flocked to geo-thermal and tidal energy tells me that they are not economical.