by "threw up their hands" you mean "publicly funded and built a massive underground public transit system" and "pushed the adoption of automobiles by adopting increasingly auto-centric laws",
This is like saying the local mafia helps businesses by offering them protection.
What do you consider to be "private data"? I was on a call with a customer last week who wanted a simple refer-a-friend type app. - they consider first-name and last-name to be private info and want to know about encryption, firewall policies, etc.
As a client, they certainly have the right to ask us to do all kinds of encryption (as long as they pay for it). But it is absurd what people consider to "private data" now.
All this will do is make other data like SSNs - treat some publicly known data as an authentication and authorization token and cause all kinds of problems for people.
The kind of people breaking immigration laws are people who work in hourly jobs/etc. The engineers who're here are not going to stick around with no job - they can go back home and earn more money with their 'US experience'. And even if they stay here, they cannot collect any dole.
I'm generally against protectionism, but in a recession,
If protectionism is good in a recession, then it must be good all the time! I have no problem with people who oppose free trade. I'll tell them they're wrong, but atleast they are consistent.
The people who are selective in their views on trade are the ones I watch out for - "trade in A, which I consume, is good, but trade in B, which I produce, is bad".
Bullshit. The money that governments are currently spending on bail-outs and stimulus programs is not coming from any private parties. It is coming from the future.
They're mostly selling treasuries - inflation will come later in the process.
with trillions more dollars on paper than there is real wealth to back, so the govt. is going to do something to convert the paper wealth to real wealth.
Of course, if the govt. can actually do that, they should do this all the time - we'll all be trillionaires!!
If I enjoy doing it, then I will do it every chance I can get.
In that case, you should do it somewhere you will get paid and then you can donate the money to the charity.
That is much more efficient than donating your skills to a charity. The assumption of course, is that a business can make better use of your skills than a charity - or, in other words, if you are a high priced SAP consultant, you are better off earning $300 for an hours work and donating that money to get some PHP dev to work for the charity.
It is just the principle of 'comparative advantage'.
By the very nature of multi-billion dollar corporations, they have undue influence.
So, you'd also argue that billionaires should stay out of these things? What about highly intelligent people - they would have undue influence as well.
What about gifted orators?
No, it doesn't. If you want to know where the expenses for medicine come from, check the catalogues of pharma and medical supply companies and the premiums for malpractice insurance, all of which are inflated so far beyond reason as to be incomprehensible.
Is that why doctors and lawyers, when they graduate make more than most other graduates? Due to insurance companies?
Additionally, raising the bar beyond basic competence restricts the market, allowing labor to dictate their own terms (think medical and law licenses).
And makes things many times more expensive than they would be in a normal market (think medical and law expenses).
I'm really quite grateful to all the consumers out there willing to spend vast quantities of money on things that don't make their lives noticeably better.
Yeah, wish we were all smart like you.
I mean, I listened to an on the radio, contacted the company and saved my company about 60K in HR expenses - if I were as smart as you, maybe I would've skipped the ad.
was more to do with lack of physical infrastructure than anything else. They had the means to produce a lot of food, but a lot of it rotted out in the fields. They didn't have the roads and rail to get it from point A (field) to point B (processing plants) to point C (supermarket shelf).
That was the consequence of central planning - something that a lot of people here seem to support.
Someone who makes $120k is not spending 100% of their paycheck- not even close. They're putting a fair amount into long and short term savings. which ends up.....back in the economy helping people build new factories, invest in companies, etc.
Since you seem to have strong opinions about economics and tax policy, would you mind telling us what economic training, if any, you have?
If the author thinks that Saas hurts the economy by making developers obsolete, then he should asks himself whether computers, power tools, etc also hurt the economy by making certain jobs obsolete.
- explicitly derives its conclusions from three assumptions: that individuals make rational decisions, that they have access to information, and that they are free to buy/sell.
Or maybe, the assumptions are:
- that individuals make decisions which are more rational than if someone else makes it for them
- that they have access to better information
Other countries have evil socialist healthcare systems that mean that doctors have no incentive whatsoever to prescribe the most expensive treatment.... or to even treat you well.
First off, I think they should tax the hell out of anyone who wants to spend $100 or more per item.....Tax those who can afford the 100+ pair of jeans...
Yeah. How dare people work hard and buy nice things for themselves and their family!
We should also tax people who are good looking, who get good grades, who are good at sports and who have musical talent.
Slashdot Mirror
by "threw up their hands" you mean "publicly funded and built a massive underground public transit system" and "pushed the adoption of automobiles by adopting increasingly auto-centric laws",
This is like saying the local mafia helps businesses by offering them protection.
Are phone directories (firstname, lastname, phonenumber) legal in Sweden?
What do you consider to be "private data"? I was on a call with a customer last week who wanted a simple refer-a-friend type app. - they consider first-name and last-name to be private info and want to know about encryption, firewall policies, etc.
As a client, they certainly have the right to ask us to do all kinds of encryption (as long as they pay for it). But it is absurd what people consider to "private data" now.
All this will do is make other data like SSNs - treat some publicly known data as an authentication and authorization token and cause all kinds of problems for people.
It seems like it is not just in soviet russia where govt controls commerce
The kind of people breaking immigration laws are people who work in hourly jobs/etc. The engineers who're here are not going to stick around with no job - they can go back home and earn more money with their 'US experience'. And even if they stay here, they cannot collect any dole.
I'm generally against protectionism, but in a recession,
If protectionism is good in a recession, then it must be good all the time! I have no problem with people who oppose free trade. I'll tell them they're wrong, but atleast they are consistent.
The people who are selective in their views on trade are the ones I watch out for - "trade in A, which I consume, is good, but trade in B, which I produce, is bad".
Bullshit. The money that governments are currently spending on bail-outs and stimulus programs is not coming from any private parties. It is coming from the future.
They're mostly selling treasuries - inflation will come later in the process.
with trillions more dollars on paper than there is real wealth to back, so the govt. is going to do something to convert the paper wealth to real wealth.
Of course, if the govt. can actually do that, they should do this all the time - we'll all be trillionaires!!
what's left are foreigners living off the dole.
I'm on H1b. If I lose my job, I have to either find another job or be out of the country in a week.
As the inevitable cuts came, who do you think hung on to their job?
The cute receptionist?
If I enjoy doing it, then I will do it every chance I can get.
In that case, you should do it somewhere you will get paid and then you can donate the money to the charity.
That is much more efficient than donating your skills to a charity. The assumption of course, is that a business can make better use of your skills than a charity - or, in other words, if you are a high priced SAP consultant, you are better off earning $300 for an hours work and donating that money to get some PHP dev to work for the charity.
It is just the principle of 'comparative advantage'.
By the very nature of multi-billion dollar corporations, they have undue influence.
So, you'd also argue that billionaires should stay out of these things? What about highly intelligent people - they would have undue influence as well.
What about gifted orators?
No, it doesn't. If you want to know where the expenses for medicine come from, check the catalogues of pharma and medical supply companies and the premiums for malpractice insurance, all of which are inflated so far beyond reason as to be incomprehensible.
Is that why doctors and lawyers, when they graduate make more than most other graduates? Due to insurance companies?
Additionally, raising the bar beyond basic competence restricts the market, allowing labor to dictate their own terms (think medical and law licenses).
And makes things many times more expensive than they would be in a normal market (think medical and law expenses).
I'm really quite grateful to all the consumers out there willing to spend vast quantities of money on things that don't make their lives noticeably better.
Yeah, wish we were all smart like you.
I mean, I listened to an on the radio, contacted the company and saved my company about 60K in HR expenses - if I were as smart as you, maybe I would've skipped the ad.
was more to do with lack of physical infrastructure than anything else. They had the means to produce a lot of food, but a lot of it rotted out in the fields. They didn't have the roads and rail to get it from point A (field) to point B (processing plants) to point C (supermarket shelf).
That was the consequence of central planning - something that a lot of people here seem to support.
Someone who makes $120k is not spending 100% of their paycheck- not even close. They're putting a fair amount into long and short term savings. which ends up.....back in the economy helping people build new factories, invest in companies, etc.
Since you seem to have strong opinions about economics and tax policy, would you mind telling us what economic training, if any, you have?
You are fighting a strawman reg the 'economically rational human' - economics has as much to do with money as astronomy has to do with telescopes
If the author thinks that Saas hurts the economy by making developers obsolete, then he should asks himself whether computers, power tools, etc also hurt the economy by making certain jobs obsolete.
- explicitly derives its conclusions from three assumptions: that individuals make rational decisions, that they have access to information, and that they are free to buy/sell.
Or maybe, the assumptions are:
- that individuals make decisions which are more rational than if someone else makes it for them
- that they have access to better information
How much do I pay?
How much do you have? The govt. needs money to save the world - laws and logic do not apply in that situation.
Fact is that it was a combination of poor free market regulation and then the Dust Bowl disaster that threw things into disarray.
Don't forget the tooth fairy and her husband Santa Claus.
we have our own industry that lives on it's own.
Really? You make your own micro-processors? How about rubber? Aircrafts?
Other countries have evil socialist healthcare systems that mean that doctors have no incentive whatsoever to prescribe the most expensive treatment.... or to even treat you well.
Why is it that there is such a passionate movement for wanting more pollution, more shitty water, more shitty air, more shitty soil?
Maybe you can explain why there is such a passionate movement for wanting more poverty and misery?
but when it comes to issues of rights and ethics, not all viewpoints are equally valid.
You are correct. But, which ones are valid and which ones not? There are multiple viewpoints about *that* and they are all valid.
First off, I think they should tax the hell out of anyone who wants to spend $100 or more per item .....Tax those who can afford the 100+ pair of jeans...
Yeah. How dare people work hard and buy nice things for themselves and their family!
We should also tax people who are good looking, who get good grades, who are good at sports and who have musical talent.