Capitalism works best (as in, markets work most efficiently in solving the basic economic problem) when market failures (monopolies, asymmetrical information, negative externalities, etc.) are corrected. This requires government.
Uh, no.
Tell it to the people at "Consumer Reports". They've been reducing some kinds of information asymmetry for decades. Didn't require government.
Where do those governments come from? Most places, voting. And there's considerable information asymmetry involved when people make decisions in the voting booth. Fortunately, (?) given the government-created shortage of choices there, a lack of accurate information about them doesn't make much difference. Especially when there is only one name on the ballot, as is typical in stage legislature elections, and even happens occasionally in congressional races.
Government creates more monopolies than it prevents.
Negative externalities exist in government enterprises, as we learned after Soviet Union fell and started looking around. And U.S. military bases -- foreign and domestic -- have a tendency to resemble Superfund sites.
The more I learn about history and faraway places and the history of faraway places, the more I realize that "This requires government" isn't nearly as applicable as I've been told it is.
Plus the ones that people didn't bother to make, because they either didn't know how to make the request, or they figured they'd end up in the 1%, or they figured it would take too long to be selected to be one of the 99%, or they figured the 1% was actually a larger number. Or whatever.
Apparently, the problem is that those Russians were advertising, and effectively. The American people are such dolts, so easily duped, that whoever sprays the voters with the most well-crafted hooey will control the election outcome.
It's not expressed in quite those words, of course. It's considered unwise to tell the people you're duping that you think they're idiots. But that's how I understand the complaint.
The voter turnout figures suggest otherwise. About half don't bother voting. No matter how much hooey they are sprayed with, no matter how well-distributed the hooey, no matter how carefully crafted, they just won't fall for it. My guess is, most of them see the products hawked by Team Elephant and Team Donkey to be too awful to support. So they don't
At the risk of elevating the tone of this discussion, I'll ask a question: Where in the Constitution of the United States of America is the national government authorized to do this?
You sometimes see people objecting to the presence of pawnshops, payday lenders, etc. in a municipality and try to ban or restrict them. They think it's a sign of decline, and that if they can keep the number down, that will help stop or even reverse the decline.
While their motives may possibly be admirable, their understanding of the cause of the situation and the consequences of their action are flawed.
Their customers still want those services, and for the same reasons as before the law. They will have to work harder to get those services, is all. And the existing businesses face less competition -- actual and potential -- with the usual consequences. The law makes life worse for people in the community.
At least Google is not using threats of force to hamper people getting services they might want, just making them harder to find. And there are competitors, such as duckduckgo.com. And yahoo.com and bing.com. (Those two are still around, aren't they?)
There doesn't seem to be any serious consequences for people in government retaining incrimination e-mails, either. Well, you might lose an election, but probably not. The loss was caused by the Russkies, or women voters being intimidated by their husbands and fathers, or whatever.
Lesson learned: when abandoning a volunteer effort out of concern that it is becoming an environment where witch hunts can thrive, best not to say so to the hunters.
"I'm leaving for reasons I'd rather not share. Those who disagree with my reasons would get likely all butt-hurt and nasty if I did, and I don't need the aggravation. If in the future it turns out my reason for leaving is no longer reason enough, I'll be back."
Nope. Wouldn't work. If they didn't know, they'd try to guess. The guesses might even be worse than the reality.
So if employees of the IRS were to deliberately not process applications in a timely fashion for those who oppose the president, at the orders of the president's appointee, that would wrong?
A purely absolutely 100% hypothetical situation which of course hasn't happened lately. Certainly not since the administration of Richard Nixon has the IRS been politicized.
"We" is perhaps the most potentially dangerous word in such discussions. Though "they" is not far behind it, and may be worse.
Notice how the antecedents are different in the two uses? And how one of the uses doesn't even include the person using it? (I'm assuming he or she doesn't run any businesses or military organizations in China.)
Those are really the first 100 movie directors, ever? Not many of them have photos in black and white. Obviously not.
That's not what you meant. It seems to be a list of directors that some guy put together half a decade ago, which was selected how? At random? At random, once you realized it would support your point, and if it didn't you would have not posted it?
Then why didn't Hillary Clinton's donors buy her the government?
They tried, but for a large fraction of the electorate, the media's dislike of a candidate is taken as an endorsement of the candidate. For some people, no amount of advertising or campaign coverage can overcome that kind of "endorsement".
Plus, a lot of the voters who disliked Donald Trump found her to be even less appealing.
Let's let that soak in for a while. More despicable than Donald Trump.
By the votes, a bad year for the statutory duopoly parties. But a good year for the alternatives: candidates of second-class parties, abstaining on that race, staying the hell away from the polls.
Slashdot Mirror
Change all the police cars to say STOLEN? Or "TERRORIST" or something, and have a bunch of yahoos swat the police?
OK. I'm starting to see an upside to this.
Capitalism works best (as in, markets work most efficiently in solving the basic economic problem) when market failures (monopolies, asymmetrical information, negative externalities, etc.) are corrected. This requires government.
Uh, no.
Tell it to the people at "Consumer Reports". They've been reducing some kinds of information asymmetry for decades. Didn't require government.
Where do those governments come from? Most places, voting. And there's considerable information asymmetry involved when people make decisions in the voting booth. Fortunately, (?) given the government-created shortage of choices there, a lack of accurate information about them doesn't make much difference. Especially when there is only one name on the ballot, as is typical in stage legislature elections, and even happens occasionally in congressional races.
Government creates more monopolies than it prevents.
Negative externalities exist in government enterprises, as we learned after Soviet Union fell and started looking around. And U.S. military bases -- foreign and domestic -- have a tendency to resemble Superfund sites.
The more I learn about history and faraway places and the history of faraway places, the more I realize that "This requires government" isn't nearly as applicable as I've been told it is.
This is a good thing. There's carbon in that paper, carbon that won't rot or burn if buried in a landfill, away from oxygen.
Carbon sequestration, old school.
... so there's only 1% more to go.
Plus the ones that people didn't bother to make, because they either didn't know how to make the request, or they figured they'd end up in the 1%, or they figured it would take too long to be selected to be one of the 99%, or they figured the 1% was actually a larger number. Or whatever.
We should use CRISPR to splice his gene for the anit-body into another donor.
"We"? Who is part of that "we" with you?
Oh, my God! People coming to America to work!
When will the horror end? This dreadful, unprecedented horror!
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=railroad+irish.immigrant
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=railroad+chinese.immigrant
Apparently, the problem is that those Russians were advertising, and effectively. The American people are such dolts, so easily duped, that whoever sprays the voters with the most well-crafted hooey will control the election outcome.
It's not expressed in quite those words, of course. It's considered unwise to tell the people you're duping that you think they're idiots. But that's how I understand the complaint.
The voter turnout figures suggest otherwise. About half don't bother voting. No matter how much hooey they are sprayed with, no matter how well-distributed the hooey, no matter how carefully crafted, they just won't fall for it. My guess is, most of them see the products hawked by Team Elephant and Team Donkey to be too awful to support. So they don't
At the risk of elevating the tone of this discussion, I'll ask a question: Where in the Constitution of the United States of America is the national government authorized to do this?
You sometimes see people objecting to the presence of pawnshops, payday lenders, etc. in a municipality and try to ban or restrict them. They think it's a sign of decline, and that if they can keep the number down, that will help stop or even reverse the decline.
While their motives may possibly be admirable, their understanding of the cause of the situation and the consequences of their action are flawed.
Their customers still want those services, and for the same reasons as before the law. They will have to work harder to get those services, is all. And the existing businesses face less competition -- actual and potential -- with the usual consequences. The law makes life worse for people in the community.
At least Google is not using threats of force to hamper people getting services they might want, just making them harder to find. And there are competitors, such as duckduckgo.com. And yahoo.com and bing.com. (Those two are still around, aren't they?)
Does he have the authority to do that?
Silly me. When has a lack of law or constitutionality kept this president or any recent president from doing what he wants?
Guess you missed the post about people who buy thrills with roller-coasters rather than lottery tickets. Or maybe you just didn't understand it.
Either way, I'm not going to explain it.
Two word: Selective enforcement
... or for destroying them.
There doesn't seem to be any serious consequences for people in government retaining incrimination e-mails, either. Well, you might lose an election, but probably not. The loss was caused by the Russkies, or women voters being intimidated by their husbands and fathers, or whatever.
Not in concrete reality, but perhaps in the abstract.
Lesson learned: when abandoning a volunteer effort out of concern that it is becoming an environment where witch hunts can thrive, best not to say so to the hunters.
"I'm leaving for reasons I'd rather not share. Those who disagree with my reasons would get likely all butt-hurt and nasty if I did, and I don't need the aggravation. If in the future it turns out my reason for leaving is no longer reason enough, I'll be back."
Nope. Wouldn't work. If they didn't know, they'd try to guess. The guesses might even be worse than the reality.
In a desperation move, I may read what he wrote before expressing a strong opinion. Or reading the strong opinions of others.
Oops! To late for that last bit.
Or so I've heard. Before today, even!
Oh, go hug yourself.
This comes as a surprise to some people, and no surprise to others.
In the short run, the quantity of a thing for sale is rather fixed and the price is rather variable.
In the longer run, the quantity of a thing for sale is rather variable and the price is rather fixed.
So if employees of the IRS were to deliberately not process applications in a timely fashion for those who oppose the president, at the orders of the president's appointee, that would wrong?
A purely absolutely 100% hypothetical situation which of course hasn't happened lately. Certainly not since the administration of Richard Nixon has the IRS been politicized.
"We" is perhaps the most potentially dangerous word in such discussions. Though "they" is not far behind it, and may be worse.
Notice how the antecedents are different in the two uses? And how one of the uses doesn't even include the person using it? (I'm assuming he or she doesn't run any businesses or military organizations in China.)
I hear it's not been doing so well lately. For a rather large value of "lately".
Those are really the first 100 movie directors, ever? Not many of them have photos in black and white. Obviously not.
That's not what you meant. It seems to be a list of directors that some guy put together half a decade ago, which was selected how? At random? At random, once you realized it would support your point, and if it didn't you would have not posted it?
Then why didn't Hillary Clinton's donors buy her the government?
They tried, but for a large fraction of the electorate, the media's dislike of a candidate is taken as an endorsement of the candidate. For some people, no amount of advertising or campaign coverage can overcome that kind of "endorsement".
Plus, a lot of the voters who disliked Donald Trump found her to be even less appealing.
Let's let that soak in for a while. More despicable than Donald Trump.
By the votes, a bad year for the statutory duopoly parties. But a good year for the alternatives: candidates of second-class parties, abstaining on that race, staying the hell away from the polls.