I'm seeing a lot of comments here along the lines of "Dear god, we're going to be living out of cardboard boxes! This bill will devastate the economy! How could all these moron politicians not understand us armchair economists?"
I'd like to invite you folks to RTFA from the Huffington Post. (Emphasis mine)
Q: How quickly will we notice these changes?
A: Some will occur more quickly than others. For instance, measures to boost energy efficiency in buildings and appliances are the low-hanging fruit that does not require major infrastructure changes or new technologies. Other changes are decades off and probably will come when the cap gets more stringent and permits get more expensive. For instance, the country can build more wind and more solar panels, but currently it lacks the transmission lines to move the energy they generate to population centers. As for cars: While more efficient models are a near-term reality, it will take a while to change out the fleet. Some people will continue driving 10-year-old gas guzzlers.
I just downloaded and installed Firefox portable but couldn't access any outside sites. I even copied my IE6 user agent string and pasted it into general.useragent.extra.firefox, still no luck. Our IT department must REALLY want me to use IE6!
There's a big difference between clicking on an icon and having to do this. You and I might be able to handle this, but if she's using Ubuntu there's a good chance this is above her computer skill level.
The regressive aspect of environmental taxes can be reduced by spending the tax revenue on efforts to help the poor. Forcing everyone to buy a new car can be just as expensive as a tax, but doesn't provide a benefit like tax revenue does.
Are you under the impression that heavy government regulation or unrestricted pollution will not cause poverty? It's unfortunate that some people will suffer in any event, but I have no choice but to advocate the least bad option.
If we want to keep bread and labor cheap, then we should slowly lower taxes on those while we slowly raise the tax on gas. Bread and labor prices will stay the same, we'll keep raising money from taxes, and we'll also have less pollution. Everybody wins!
The problem with rationing is that some people will be rationed more ability to pollute than they need, while others will not have enough. It's inefficient.
The shipping industry will adjust to gas price increases. Diesel fuel already contains a small percentage of biodiesel, and that percentage will increase over time as oil prices rise. We need a free market that ONLY taxes external costs and scarce natural resources, not more regulation.
If your primary concern is that this tax would be regressive, then one alternative might be for local government to reimburse low income workers for whom public transit is unavailable. These reimbursements would provide a financial incentive for local government to improve public transit and bike lanes.
Mother Nature won't send anyone a bill at the end of the month, but environmental damage does negatively impact everyone - and that impact can be quantified in terms of climate change related damages. The planet can only safely absorb a finite amount of CO2 per year, so the Kyoto protocol was created (and signed by the USA) to "cap and trade" emission shares within that safe limit. If we don't raise taxes (or start a domestic cap and trade system), then the effects of our environmental damage will continue to hit everyone else. I agree that we shouldn't distort the market without good reason, but honoring an international agreement to internalize global costs is one of those good reasons.
There is no moral right to acquire property without the permission of the people who created it or who now own it.
(emphasis mine) If you want to convince infoanarchists to support copyright, then you need to convince them that information can be property in the first place.
Intel has been well aware that they've been operating in a socialist environment for years, and continued to do so even after this law came into effect. The Europeans have the right to regulate their market however they see fit; their house, their rules. If Intel doesn't like it, they can do business with someone else, but by choosing to do business in a foreign country you are agreeing to do so by their laws.
the money should be going to AMD who suffered from Intel's actions, not the coffers of the EU beaurocracy...
The entire market suffers from anticompetitive action, not just the second-biggest competitor or the one to complain first. If AMD wants reimbursement, they (and anyone else who wants some) will have to take Intel to court in a civil case, not a criminal one.
Software doesn't become free just because it offends people to claim otherwise. People who rely on software-as-a-service at cybercafes don't have full control over their data and are vulnerable to the whims of their software providers.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to invite you folks to RTFA from the Huffington Post. (Emphasis mine)
The ironic thing is that your correct but minority comment has been outvoted (mod points) by the its incorrect parent.
That is why many websites detect and warn the user that yes, it is their browser that is broken.
I just downloaded and installed Firefox portable but couldn't access any outside sites. I even copied my IE6 user agent string and pasted it into general.useragent.extra.firefox, still no luck. Our IT department must REALLY want me to use IE6!
There's a big difference between clicking on an icon and having to do this. You and I might be able to handle this, but if she's using Ubuntu there's a good chance this is above her computer skill level.
It's called "neotony".
The regressive aspect of environmental taxes can be reduced by spending the tax revenue on efforts to help the poor. Forcing everyone to buy a new car can be just as expensive as a tax, but doesn't provide a benefit like tax revenue does.
Are you under the impression that heavy government regulation or unrestricted pollution will not cause poverty? It's unfortunate that some people will suffer in any event, but I have no choice but to advocate the least bad option.
You've made it clear you don't like pirates or their motives, but you haven't addressed their argument: that information is not property.
If we want to keep bread and labor cheap, then we should slowly lower taxes on those while we slowly raise the tax on gas. Bread and labor prices will stay the same, we'll keep raising money from taxes, and we'll also have less pollution. Everybody wins!
The problem with rationing is that some people will be rationed more ability to pollute than they need, while others will not have enough. It's inefficient.
That's exactly why gas taxes (or any tax for that matter) need to rise slowly, so the market has time to adapt.
The shipping industry will adjust to gas price increases. Diesel fuel already contains a small percentage of biodiesel, and that percentage will increase over time as oil prices rise. We need a free market that ONLY taxes external costs and scarce natural resources, not more regulation.
I'm less concerned for the people impacted by high fuel taxes (drivers) than I am concerned for the people impacted by low fuel taxes (everyone).
If your primary concern is that this tax would be regressive, then one alternative might be for local government to reimburse low income workers for whom public transit is unavailable. These reimbursements would provide a financial incentive for local government to improve public transit and bike lanes.
Mother Nature won't send anyone a bill at the end of the month, but environmental damage does negatively impact everyone - and that impact can be quantified in terms of climate change related damages. The planet can only safely absorb a finite amount of CO2 per year, so the Kyoto protocol was created (and signed by the USA) to "cap and trade" emission shares within that safe limit. If we don't raise taxes (or start a domestic cap and trade system), then the effects of our environmental damage will continue to hit everyone else. I agree that we shouldn't distort the market without good reason, but honoring an international agreement to internalize global costs is one of those good reasons.
Beware of economic arguments that rely on "common sense" instead of evidence.
(emphasis mine) If you want to convince infoanarchists to support copyright, then you need to convince them that information can be property in the first place.
You think the RIAA will apply this policy of theirs evenly and fairly? Anyone with power will be an exception to the rule.
Odds are that hacker probably has some computer skills that could prove useful. Proposing that we kill someone for being a total jerk is barbaric.
It's a known fact that Bruce Parens is a ham. He's obviously just trying to deflect the blame elsewhere.
Intel has been well aware that they've been operating in a socialist environment for years, and continued to do so even after this law came into effect. The Europeans have the right to regulate their market however they see fit; their house, their rules. If Intel doesn't like it, they can do business with someone else, but by choosing to do business in a foreign country you are agreeing to do so by their laws.
the money should be going to AMD who suffered from Intel's actions, not the coffers of the EU beaurocracy...
The entire market suffers from anticompetitive action, not just the second-biggest competitor or the one to complain first. If AMD wants reimbursement, they (and anyone else who wants some) will have to take Intel to court in a civil case, not a criminal one.
it would seem to me that breaking up giants like Intel into many smaller companies could be more effective
The EU doesn't have the authority to break up a US-based company. Fines are one of their few options.
Software doesn't become free just because it offends people to claim otherwise. People who rely on software-as-a-service at cybercafes don't have full control over their data and are vulnerable to the whims of their software providers.