McDonalds and Wendy's would have to charge more. Their people would get paid more.
You are making a common mistake.
Everyone understands that "If company A raises prices, people would go to company B".
But for some reason everyone assumes that if the *entire industry* raises prices, people would just pay up.
That is not true - if *industry A* raises prices, people will look for alternatives.
So, if McDonalds and Wendy's would have to charge more, people would look for alternatives - packing lunch from home, etc. Then their people would... lose their jobs.
These people could then afford to pay more for rent and maybe apartment building owners could make some improvements.
Nope, they cannot find any other job with their skills and will be out on the streets or on social security.
See? Everybody wins.
Only in a world where marginal productivity does not matter. Unfortunately (for you), in this world, people's rewards are tied to what they can produce. No amount of govt. meddling can change that fact.
Chavez is not a communist. He is a socialist. There is a huge difference.
The difference is a difference in degree - not a difference in quality.
Both systems need to use force to take from productive people and give to people who are not productive. They also need to restrict what people can produce so that they do not compete with the inefficient state provided service.
We also have democratically elected communist regimes in India in 2 states - both of those states (Kerala and WB) are economic basket cases which depend on other productive states for aid.
Just like Russia, NK, Cuba & Zimbabwe, Venezuela will end in tragedy.
Unfortunately, it hurts the bottom line to pay skilled labor,
No, paying more to an employee will increase the cost of the computer; which means the consumer will not purchase it. *That* is why you don't see good customer support.
I have yet to see someone say "I bought an XYZ computer because of their excellent customer support" - when price is all a consumer cares about, companies naturally cut customer service costs.
After all, they control the drugs, whores and gambling, and they deserve to profit from their investment.
Exactly. If the govt makes those things legal, the prices for drugs, whores and gambling would come down significantly. Just goes to show that in a free market, the prices of goods will come down.
I agree with you on the usefulness of NASA and space exploration - frankly if you guys can spend a gazillion in Iraq, no one can call money spent on NASA a waste. But...
For example a large amount of expenses is spent on salaries for scientists, engineers, technicians (and yes it is also spent on salaries for annoying beaurocrats as well). All of those people in turn then spend the money to purchase homes, cars, groceries, college educations for their kids, vacations, etc.
I've heard the same justification for other govt projects & 'deficit spending'. This is an incomplete picture.
You are only listing the benefits that you obtain from this spending. To get a truer picture, you have to compare these benefits with the benefits you would have obtained had this money been put to other use - maybe somebody would've invested the money in cancer research, built a huge factory in a depressed area, etc, etc.
If I spend $1 billion to develop a drug and you just copy it (spending $50,000 say), definitely I make less than I would have had you not copied it.
So, if I were the original drug maker, I would take every step to prevent you from copying it - I want to make the max amount of profit I can. Otherwise, I would not spend $1bil to make the drug in the first place & there would be no drug to copy.
What I object to is the drug companies getting the govt to do this enforcement - this is essentially the drug companies passing off some of their operating costs to the taxpayer.
Why is 'real' property protected? By saying that you cannot a piece of land because I 'own' it, am I not infringing on your freedom?
The justification is that if I let you share my land, I lose the use of the land. Both of us cannot use the same piece of land at the same time.
Now, if I plant crop A on my land and you decide to copy me, I have no right to stop you. Your planting of A does not take away anything from me, except potential profits that I could've made if I had a monopoly. And that is exactly what intellectual property is.
If you are worried that someone might steal the drug that you invested a billion dollars in, or the new song you came up with, thereby causing loss of profits, then distribute your product only to those people who will sign a contract where they agree not to copy your invention. The potential purchaser can then decide if signing the contract is worth the benefits he gets from the product.
The practicalities of such arrangements are *your* problem as an inventor/artist/distributor - it should not be the responsibility of society to solve these issues to make your life easier.
The current mess is because some people overestimated the ability of the state to make decisions that it cannot make :
- what is novel and what is obvious,
- whether 'invention A' is worthy of more protection than B, etc.
attracting people with 0% offers then denying even those with good credit, making them pay 20% or more finance fees
How did they make people pay? I thought that people signed up voluntarily, but this sounds like Dell forced them to do something against their will. I just hope our saviour, the AG, gets them for this.
Here is a passage from one of his essays (which I think are very insightful):
A while ago an eminent VC firm offered a series A round to a startup we'd seed funded. Then they heard a rival VC firm was also interested. They were so afraid that they'd be rejected in favor of this other firm that they gave the startup what's known as an "exploding termsheet." They had, I think, 24 hours to say yes or no, or the deal was off. Exploding termsheets are a somewhat dubious device, but not uncommon. What surprised me was their reaction when I called to talk about it. I asked if they'd still be interested in the startup if the rival VC didn't end up making an offer, and they said no. What rational basis could they have had for saying that? If they thought the startup was worth investing in, what difference should it make what some other VC thought? Surely it was their duty to their limited partners simply to invest in the best opportunities they found; they should be delighted if the other VC said no, because it would mean they'd overlooked a good opportunity. But of course there was no rational basis for their decision. They just couldn't stand the idea of taking this rival firm's rejects.
Tell that to the people of Bolivia after their water supply was privatized.
I like how you start a story in the middle to make your point. How was the govt able to sell it to a private company?
The govt control of the market for water was what allowed them to unscrupulously sell it to a company that paid enough 'campaign contributions'. And govt control is what allows them to prevent other people from entering the market (they made it illegal for people to dig wells and use their roofs to harvest water). A private company can never prevent you from digging a well or using other means (including what is common in India - getting water delivered by trucks) - only govt can do that.
So, the next time you want to bash free markets and free enterprise, take the time to learn the difference between free enterprise and mercantilism.
What the US does is "give" them money that can only be used to buy AMERICAN-MADE arms, thus entering a mutually-beneficial pact where one side gains arms and the other brings jobs home, and the one side loses tons of money while the other side gets arms for no cost. Do you also pay your employer to give you a job? That is how ridiculous this sounds.
It's called business, albeit with a somewhat unique business model.
The more the US sells, the more money it loses - sounds like a stupid business model to me.
but I'm sure you know as well as I do that the Jews bought the land they live on, over a period of many years before declaring their independence.
Ohhhh... by your logic, if I, an alien living in the US, buy enough land here, I can 'declare my independence'? I don't want to know where you pulled that piece of logic from.
There were also a lot of Jewish refugees who fled Arab countries, and unlike the Arabs, the Jews settled them instead of keeping them in squalid camps as a sympathy ploy.
And, where did these Jews find the land to settle these fleeing refugees? And, as for sympathy ploys, the jews wouldn't have stooped to play the holocaust sympathy card in the UN, would they?
Ooh, you're really good at those questions, Mr. Goebbels.
Boy, now you are scraping the bottom of the barrel, aren't you, you little pos? I was wondering when the "anti-semite Nazi" references would start. It appears that, like every other Zionist apologist, you start with the insults when you run out of canned responses.
Sorry to disappoint you - I'm a Hindu Tamilian from India. Have nothing to with Jews/Muslims. Nice try though you, sticking to the Zionist playbook.
The trouble is, you're ignoring the fact that when IDF troops commit crimes, they actually get tried and punished by Israeli courts.
Oh really? Care to tell me who was punished for the current (and continued) occupation of Palestinian lands? How many settlers were tried for occupying land that does not belong to them? When was the last time anyone was punished for clearing land for settlements?
In your fantasy world, criminals can run their own justice systems, have their own definitions of justice and punish their own members?
Nope. My point is that the palestinians' misery is due primarily to two things: their vicious, insane leaders starting with Arafat and continuing with Hamas,
And here I was thinking that the Israelis taking their land and forcing them out in 1948 might have something to do with the Palestinian plight. Nope. It was all Arafat's fault!
And the plight of the Jews in the holocaust was not because of the Nazis, it was because of the Jewish collaborators!!
and the other Arabs prodding them to continuously wage a war they can't win.
Israel is on a tiny portion of the former British mandate of Palestine. Most of that land is now called Jordan.
Yep - that is correct. I completely agree.
So the Isralies were justified in taking Palestinian land by force because.......? My point was how Israel took the land that belonged to the Palestinians. You are saying that Jordan did that too - that does not change what Israel did.
There already is a "palestinian" state, but its king expelled the arab refugees
Wait a minute, didn't you just say that "Israel is on a tiny portion of the former British mandate of Palestine"? So how come this "palestinian" state (with its king) does not comprise the land that Israel currently occupies? Seems like convenient history to me.
And again, what does this have to do with Israeli actions? "Well, Jordan did it" is not an excuse.
that it created when it joined with all of Israel's Arab neighbors in an uprovoked attack right when Israel declared their statehood.
Wow - hold on there. "Unprovoked"? So killing thousands, taking their land and forcing them to leave - this in your book is unprovoked? You make it sound so solemn and peaceful "when Israel declared their statehood"; the fact that they had to kill and force ppl off their property is just a side note to this solemn and peaceful event, I suppose?
Arabs have killed far more of each other than have ever been killed by the IDF.
So? What is your point? I suppose you also make statements like : "Americans have killed more of each other than have ever been killed by Al Quaida - so America should stop blaming OBL."
How does the fact that Arabs killing each other absolve Israel's undeniable, verifiable crimes against the Palestinians?
Your whole point seems to be that Arabs kill each other all the time - so Israel killing some more is no big deal. Just because most of the Arab states have been/ are ruled by murderous, anti-Jewish thugs (most of them with US support, I might add) does not mean Israel is blameless.
First of all, I completely agree with you that the US govt can choose who it wants to give shitloads of money to - Egypt, the Taliban, Pakistan, etc.
But regarding regarding your point that "palestinians want a government dedicated to the destruction of israel" - here is a free history lesson:
The Israeli ppl have a govt that has already destroyed the country of Palestine. The land that is currently called Israel was taken from the Palestinians by force (i.e., what would be called barbaric terrorism nowadays). What do you want the Palestinians to do? Ask nicely for their homeland (which they did btw)? Is that what Americans would do if someone invades and occupies their land? What's good for the goose...
So, the next time you want to make a statement about the actions of the Palestinian terrorists, take some time to read the history of the region and the actions of all parties involved.
Officials at the Agriculture Department said Social Security numbers were included in the public database because doing so was the common practice years ago when the database was first created, before...
anyone was stupid enough to identify people using a number which is not supposed to a secret.
Yeah, it will also be good if the US and UK stop invading countries, supporting dictators, etc
I don't disagree with you about China, but pretending that the West has some sort of moral high ground is ridiculous considering their acts in the last 300-400 years.
The reality of America today is that the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class finds the "middle" slowly drifting to the bottom.
That is simply not true. Did the poor in the 1950s have access to the kind of healthcare that someone on Medicare has to now? Did they drive better cards? Did they have access to the kind of technology ppl have access to today?
Yes, the rich get richer much much faster than the poor do - but it is false to say that the poor get poorer. That is only true in socialist paradises like Zimbabwe and soon Venezuela.
Read this for some more commentary. There is also a piece by the leader of the communist party of the USA for more 'balanced' coverage.
Slashdot Mirror
The guy was having so much fun playing the victim and blaming the EVIL SLIMY CORPORATIONS and you had to spoil all that with your logic.
McDonalds and Wendy's would have to charge more. Their people would get paid more.
You are making a common mistake.
Everyone understands that "If company A raises prices, people would go to company B".
But for some reason everyone assumes that if the *entire industry* raises prices, people would just pay up.
That is not true - if *industry A* raises prices, people will look for alternatives.
So, if McDonalds and Wendy's would have to charge more, people would look for alternatives - packing lunch from home, etc. Then their people would... lose their jobs.
These people could then afford to pay more for rent and maybe apartment building owners could make some improvements.
Nope, they cannot find any other job with their skills and will be out on the streets or on social security.
See? Everybody wins.
Only in a world where marginal productivity does not matter. Unfortunately (for you), in this world, people's rewards are tied to what they can produce. No amount of govt. meddling can change that fact.
Chavez is not a communist. He is a socialist. There is a huge difference.
The difference is a difference in degree - not a difference in quality.
Both systems need to use force to take from productive people and give to people who are not productive. They also need to restrict what people can produce so that they do not compete with the inefficient state provided service.
We also have democratically elected communist regimes in India in 2 states - both of those states (Kerala and WB) are economic basket cases which depend on other productive states for aid.
Just like Russia, NK, Cuba & Zimbabwe, Venezuela will end in tragedy.
Unfortunately, it hurts the bottom line to pay skilled labor,
No, paying more to an employee will increase the cost of the computer; which means the consumer will not purchase it. *That* is why you don't see good customer support.
I have yet to see someone say "I bought an XYZ computer because of their excellent customer support" - when price is all a consumer cares about, companies naturally cut customer service costs.
What is that supposed to infer
He implies. You infer.
After all, they control the drugs, whores and gambling, and they deserve to profit from their investment.
Exactly. If the govt makes those things legal, the prices for drugs, whores and gambling would come down significantly. Just goes to show that in a free market, the prices of goods will come down.
This might give you an idea of what 'libertarian socialism' is:
i d=70
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1132&
I agree with you on the usefulness of NASA and space exploration - frankly if you guys can spend a gazillion in Iraq, no one can call money spent on NASA a waste. But...
For example a large amount of expenses is spent on salaries for scientists, engineers, technicians (and yes it is also spent on salaries for annoying beaurocrats as well). All of those people in turn then spend the money to purchase homes, cars, groceries, college educations for their kids, vacations, etc.
I've heard the same justification for other govt projects & 'deficit spending'. This is an incomplete picture.
You are only listing the benefits that you obtain from this spending. To get a truer picture, you have to compare these benefits with the benefits you would have obtained had this money been put to other use - maybe somebody would've invested the money in cancer research, built a huge factory in a depressed area, etc, etc.
If I spend $1 billion to develop a drug and you just copy it (spending $50,000 say), definitely I make less than I would have had you not copied it.
So, if I were the original drug maker, I would take every step to prevent you from copying it - I want to make the max amount of profit I can. Otherwise, I would not spend $1bil to make the drug in the first place & there would be no drug to copy.
What I object to is the drug companies getting the govt to do this enforcement - this is essentially the drug companies passing off some of their operating costs to the taxpayer.
Why is 'real' property protected? By saying that you cannot a piece of land because I 'own' it, am I not infringing on your freedom?
The justification is that if I let you share my land, I lose the use of the land. Both of us cannot use the same piece of land at the same time.
Now, if I plant crop A on my land and you decide to copy me, I have no right to stop you. Your planting of A does not take away anything from me, except potential profits that I could've made if I had a monopoly. And that is exactly what intellectual property is.
If you are worried that someone might steal the drug that you invested a billion dollars in, or the new song you came up with, thereby causing loss of profits, then distribute your product only to those people who will sign a contract where they agree not to copy your invention. The potential purchaser can then decide if signing the contract is worth the benefits he gets from the product.
The practicalities of such arrangements are *your* problem as an inventor/artist/distributor - it should not be the responsibility of society to solve these issues to make your life easier.
The current mess is because some people overestimated the ability of the state to make decisions that it cannot make :
- what is novel and what is obvious,
- whether 'invention A' is worthy of more protection than B, etc.
attracting people with 0% offers then denying even those with good credit, making them pay 20% or more finance fees
How did they make people pay?
I thought that people signed up voluntarily, but this sounds like Dell forced them to do something against their will. I just hope our saviour, the AG, gets them for this.
Tell that to the people of Bolivia after their water supply was privatized.
I like how you start a story in the middle to make your point. How was the govt able to sell it to a private company?
The govt control of the market for water was what allowed them to unscrupulously sell it to a company that paid enough 'campaign contributions'. And govt control is what allows them to prevent other people from entering the market (they made it illegal for people to dig wells and use their roofs to harvest water). A private company can never prevent you from digging a well or using other means (including what is common in India - getting water delivered by trucks) - only govt can do that.
So, the next time you want to bash free markets and free enterprise, take the time to learn the difference between free enterprise and mercantilism.
What the US does is "give" them money that can only be used to buy AMERICAN-MADE arms, thus entering a mutually-beneficial pact where one side gains arms and the other brings jobs home, and the one side loses tons of money while the other side gets arms for no cost.
Do you also pay your employer to give you a job? That is how ridiculous this sounds.
It's called business, albeit with a somewhat unique business model.
The more the US sells, the more money it loses - sounds like a stupid business model to me.
Nah, that is not it. It is after the bitter truth is pointed out. Go away you little c_nt - there are some more Palestinian babies alive you can kill.
but I'm sure you know as well as I do that the Jews bought the land they live on, over a period of many years before declaring their independence.
Ohhhh... by your logic, if I, an alien living in the US, buy enough land here, I can 'declare my independence'? I don't want to know where you pulled that piece of logic from.
There were also a lot of Jewish refugees who fled Arab countries, and unlike the Arabs, the Jews settled them instead of keeping them in squalid camps as a sympathy ploy.
And, where did these Jews find the land to settle these fleeing refugees? And, as for sympathy ploys, the jews wouldn't have stooped to play the holocaust sympathy card in the UN, would they?
Ooh, you're really good at those questions, Mr. Goebbels.
Boy, now you are scraping the bottom of the barrel, aren't you, you little pos? I was wondering when the "anti-semite Nazi" references would start. It appears that, like every other Zionist apologist, you start with the insults when you run out of canned responses.
Sorry to disappoint you - I'm a Hindu Tamilian from India. Have nothing to with Jews/Muslims. Nice try though you, sticking to the Zionist playbook.
The trouble is, you're ignoring the fact that when IDF troops commit crimes, they actually get tried and punished by Israeli courts.
Oh really? Care to tell me who was punished for the current (and continued) occupation of Palestinian lands? How many settlers were tried for occupying land that does not belong to them? When was the last time anyone was punished for clearing land for settlements?
In your fantasy world, criminals can run their own justice systems, have their own definitions of justice and punish their own members?
Nope. My point is that the palestinians' misery is due primarily to two things: their vicious, insane leaders starting with Arafat and continuing with Hamas,
And here I was thinking that the Israelis taking their land and forcing them out in 1948 might have something to do with the Palestinian plight. Nope. It was all Arafat's fault!
And the plight of the Jews in the holocaust was not because of the Nazis, it was because of the Jewish collaborators!!
and the other Arabs prodding them to continuously wage a war they can't win.
The French would just love you.
Israel is on a tiny portion of the former British mandate of Palestine. Most of that land is now called Jordan.
Yep - that is correct. I completely agree.
So the Isralies were justified in taking Palestinian land by force because.......? My point was how Israel took the land that belonged to the Palestinians. You are saying that Jordan did that too - that does not change what Israel did.
There already is a "palestinian" state, but its king expelled the arab refugees
Wait a minute, didn't you just say that "Israel is on a tiny portion of the former British mandate of Palestine"? So how come this "palestinian" state (with its king) does not comprise the land that Israel currently occupies? Seems like convenient history to me.
And again, what does this have to do with Israeli actions? "Well, Jordan did it" is not an excuse.
that it created when it joined with all of Israel's Arab neighbors in an uprovoked attack right when Israel declared their statehood.
Wow - hold on there. "Unprovoked"? So killing thousands, taking their land and forcing them to leave - this in your book is unprovoked? You make it sound so solemn and peaceful "when Israel declared their statehood"; the fact that they had to kill and force ppl off their property is just a side note to this solemn and peaceful event, I suppose?
Arabs have killed far more of each other than have ever been killed by the IDF.
So? What is your point? I suppose you also make statements like : "Americans have killed more of each other than have ever been killed by Al Quaida - so America should stop blaming OBL."
How does the fact that Arabs killing each other absolve Israel's undeniable, verifiable crimes against the Palestinians?
Your whole point seems to be that Arabs kill each other all the time - so Israel killing some more is no big deal. Just because most of the Arab states have been/ are ruled by murderous, anti-Jewish thugs (most of them with US support, I might add) does not mean Israel is blameless.
First of all, I completely agree with you that the US govt can choose who it wants to give shitloads of money to - Egypt, the Taliban, Pakistan, etc.
But regarding regarding your point that "palestinians want a government dedicated to the destruction of israel" - here is a free history lesson:
The Israeli ppl have a govt that has already destroyed the country of Palestine. The land that is currently called Israel was taken from the Palestinians by force (i.e., what would be called barbaric terrorism nowadays). What do you want the Palestinians to do? Ask nicely for their homeland (which they did btw)? Is that what Americans would do if someone invades and occupies their land? What's good for the goose...
So, the next time you want to make a statement about the actions of the Palestinian terrorists, take some time to read the history of the region and the actions of all parties involved.
anyone was stupid enough to identify people using a number which is not supposed to a secret.
Google Giant forces itself into the market with a product that is very similar to existing ones and offers no innovation. That is not evil enough?
So, offering a 'me too' product is now evil?
Yeah, it will also be good if the US and UK stop invading countries, supporting dictators, etc
I don't disagree with you about China, but pretending that the West has some sort of moral high ground is ridiculous considering their acts in the last 300-400 years.
So you think this wouldn't have happened if Vonage hadn't pursued patents?
It was clear to me what the parent meant - that he does not feel sorry for Vonage because they themselves believed in patents.
Don't know which post you read and how you came to that conclusion.
The reality of America today is that the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class finds the "middle" slowly drifting to the bottom.
That is simply not true. Did the poor in the 1950s have access to the kind of healthcare that someone on Medicare has to now? Did they drive better cards? Did they have access to the kind of technology ppl have access to today?
Yes, the rich get richer much much faster than the poor do - but it is false to say that the poor get poorer. That is only true in socialist paradises like Zimbabwe and soon Venezuela.
Read this for some more commentary. There is also a piece by the leader of the communist party of the USA for more 'balanced' coverage.
I got confused by copyright and trademark.
But it looks like the little ® needs to be in there:
Linux Mark
I don't remember seeing that in TFA.
The word 'Microsoft' has the ® symbol following it while 'Linux' does not. Isn't the word 'Linux' copyrighted too?