Seriously, this is retarded. I find it hard to believe people didn't understand this from the get go.
I love when Slashdot continually says stuff like this, and then a study comes out later which proves it.
Even from my own experiences, I was sick of high school by year 9 (2 years into high school) because when I wanted to do more, I couldn't, when I would ask more questions, there was never time.
Hell, I remember the only kids in our high school that were given laptops and allowed to use them for work, were the kids who were struggling.
After Primary School I didn't learn anything that I had to forget/relearn in Uni.
High School in Australia now a days is more like day care, it's just the place you send your kids so you don't have to look after them while you're at work. (This was in a regular public suburban school)
Nothing useful happens there, I wish I had of dropped out and gained entry to Uni other ways.
Sure, you drive a light car, but it could be lighter.
The cheaper the car the cheaper the materials, the cheaper the construction processes, the heavier the cars.
If you're going to maintain the same structural rigidity with lighter materials there is usually a more complex process or design required, which means more expense.
There are lots of little decisions forced by consumers tastes and government regulation, which force lots of small weight increases, which result in heavier cars, with less aerodynamic profiles.
The problem is consumer tastes can change easily and are often for being economical, however government regulation isn't. For instance I couldn't buy a new car in the EU without ensuring that there is a large gap between the hood and the engine, which increases the profile, and resistance, which makes it less economical. This is so pedestrians are safer.
There are lots of rules like this that are getting bigger and more complex, which reduce the ability for small producers to make cars, large producers to make what people want and so forth.
Airbags and gas cylinders - 20kg (For most of them it should be inexcess of this, but this is more of an average)
Required rigid chassis - 400kg (Your car has to pass so many more crash standards from various angles now that the chassis must be a lot more rigid)
High enough - 100kg (Your car must be high enough to protect you, which makes cars taller than they need to be)
The reason why they are "compelled to make every iteration a bit bigger", is often due to safety standards. Else cars like the Commodore (Pontiac G8/Vauxhal VXR) wouldn't be so boxy and bulky now a days, compared to a few years ago when it was a lot more streamlined.
Then the rest of the weight gain is imposed by everyone wanting a cheap car.
I've noticed Google fills my "talking to an empty void" needs quite nicely. Every time I have sent a help desk email, or tried to get help, I usually get nowhere.
(The exceptions have been problems setting up Postini and trouble with the Calendar losing whole calendars)
Yeah, I like to see new changes. I want new bells and whistles and features. I want to be able to select the ones I like and disable the ones I like, therefore voting for what would be good.
I have Google Apps for your domain, which I liked so much I wanted to pay for it. However, now that I have it seems I am "protected" from the bleeding edge settings.
I want to test these features, and see the bleeding edge technology.
I have selected the "Turn on new features" and "Automatically add new Google services", however it seems as though Google Apps is treated a bit like a secondary service.
Is the ad revenue generated more than me paying for the service? Are the services too different that they must use completely different infrastructure and so changes in one takes time to bring across to the other? Or, are the Google Apps aimed at people who really don't want new features and services?
There are a few pros and cons to releasing Duke Nukem Forever.
When it is released, we will be able to play Duke Nukem Forever, which by this time, better be awesome!
However, after it is released we then lose a lot of Duke Nukem Forever jokes. We will have to put thought into what will take its place in Wired News's Vaporware Awards.
The post-Duke Nukem Forever released world, will be vastly different to what we know today... and that makes me scared.
Man I'm bored of this subject, you obviously haven't read into this topic.
I'm going to summarize and just point out the ludicrous statements you're making, and not taking into account what actual free markets mean.
"You're clearly a fervent believer in laissez-faire free market capitalism, in the divine power of self-regulating markets that somehow miraculously both return profits for shareholders, economic growth, and somehow at the same time serve the interests of the community." You don't understand the invisible hand, do you?
"This is a lie, don't buy into it, it has been proven time and time again that completely free market systems while useful in some situations do not serve the public interest when it comes to essential services." This is rhetoric and completely made up.
"a) Universal health care works, it is cheaper (for users as well as the government) than a US style wholly private system. Private health care is bad social policy, and it's bad economic policy. The US spends more money as a percentage of GDP on its healthcare system than any other OECD country" Private is efficient, markets are efficient, more so than with regulation. This isn't contested by ANY type of economics. So do not argue that it's more expensive in a private system, because that is stupid. Additionally, more money as a percentage of GDP? That's the worse economic comparison I've ever heard. Are all other countries economies like Americas?
"b) I may not know what I'm talking about, but I have been through the uni system during the Howard years, I graduated in 2003. I saw what successive funding cuts did to my university, and I watched it transition from a research and learning centre into a corporation funded by commercial grants with cost cutting at every corner. I saw the standard of learning corrode even in the time I was there. I watched as more and more places were given over to full fee paying, and thus denied to those relying on the HECS/HELP system." I think you don't realize that you're arguing for my side. Quality erodes in public institutions, especially as they grow. Full fee paying students are given quality education, you know why? Because they actually pay for it! We get denied because the government fucks us. I've already started paying it off, it's nothing special, in fact it's way below what the education got me.
"c) I would be suprised if your friends losing their jobs had nothing to do with workchoices being rolled back, because it hasn't in fact been rolled back yet. The government has just stipulated that no new AWAs can be implemented, and that workers currently on AWAs should transition to an equivalent agreement under the new framework, with a fairly generous timeframe for this to take place." When Rudd came in, they reinstated certain protections which could hold a business accountable.
"d) Nonsense. The majority of universities in Australia are public universities, not private universities. That is, they are (or should be) funded by public money. They are not there to make money, they are there to provide quality education to Australia's youth, at a cost that makes them available to anyone regardless of their economic status." They aren't wholly public. No public institutions provide YOU with what YOU want because YOU aren't paying for it. They provide the GOVERNMENT with what the GOVERNMENT wants because the GOVERNMENT is paying for it.
"e) Again, nonsense. This is where free market economics fails, and fails badly." This is where your rhetoric went up 10 levels.
"The power of competition doesnt work in this scenario because of patents. Drug companies own patents on novel treatments effectively handing a monopoly to that company who can then charge whatever the hell they want for it." Once again you're arguing my point. Since when did a free market have patents in it?
"Additionally, it's actually not in pharmaceutical companies best interests to research new
a) I know a lot of people who work in the health care industry all of which say it is far better than it was years ago. The only things they point to as being bad are due to MORE regulation and state intervention than LESS.
b) You don't know what you're talking about. I am doing Uni at the moment and don't pay a cent. Nothing has changed. They did reduce the ability to game the system. I would have preferred they tore it down and left it for me to pay for, however what you're saying is complete fiction. The standard of University graduates has been lowered due to regulation.
c) They did remove the "protections and awards" and it was the best thing ever. I have 3 friends who lots their jobs when Rudd put those protections back in. Just because someone is willing to work for less than you, doesn't mean he is necessarily worse. In fact regulation like this is mostly responsible for stopping younger people, older people and immigrants from working, since they are the only people who are affected. Although, everyone is affected by higher prices.
d) Australian universities have been struggling due to their inability to charge Australian residence full price. This meant that UniSA (The university I go to) is more profitable in Asia than it is here (You did know that due to forcing Universities to charge less (because we still use HECS/HELP) that Australian Universities see Australians as a liability and not a strength?). We were able to deal with these inefficiencies off of the backs of the Asian market for ages, however now a days Asian Universities are competing better than us (And they aren't subsidized).
e) If you want cheap drugs, completely deregulate the system. Done! All problems introduced which increase the price of drugs are due to the government providing a monopoly to drug companies so they have "an incentive to create". This has never changed, it is just when EVERYONE was paying for it (subsidies) on average we were paying more than when WE pay for it.
His economic credentials were good, however they could have been better.
Read Alexander Downers column in The Advertiser, the Government understands all of the issues, it is just they can't sell them to us, because too few people actually go off and learn the economics of the situation.
With regulation I can explain "We say this will cost less, and so it does" which is easy to explain, however I find it harder to explain "We can't force these prices because the market will readjust and there will be a shortage of the good".
It is easier to sell communism, than it is to sell capitalism.
From 1917 to about 1980, fear of communism helped keep capitalism in line.
Are you saying through that companies were afraid of communism and so they didn't make decisions that benefited themselves? Bullshit. Are you saying that they were somehow more benevolent back then than now? Bullshit.
During that period, capitalism had ideological competition, and there was a very real fear on the part of business owners that their companies might be nationalized.
Really, I've read a lot into this subject and studied it a lot, however I've never heard this "fact", what are your references?
Russia did better in its communist period than before or since.
Tell that to the people who lived there with no money, enormous lines to get even the most basic of foods and no social mobility.
I'm amazed that you've been modded so high, when you obviously know absolutely NOTHING about the period and what happened.
More so, you keep going on about capitalism as having no competition because European communism fell. What, Chinese communism doesn't work for you? The only brand of Communism which has actually lasted, isn't good enough for you?
How about this, capitalism (one governments version of it) has competition from capitalism (another governments version of it). In fact, that is where it has the most competition from, since communist states can't compete.
How about this, capitalism's greatest competition actually comes from its own actions. When it undertakes a law or action which is less efficient than another law or action, then the previous time would be compared to the current time.
Get down off of your soap box and study before you speak!
The people who don't *know* they are getting screwed, obviously it doesn't impact their lives that much, else they would know.
The definition of strategy in business is to generate a competitive advantage through differentiation/cost/focus, or a mix of the 3.
If we had a free market (Which we don't), competition would force each of the players to provide the greatest value to their customers possible.
When you assume that all telecom corporations would act they way you are describing what you're really saying is "There is some other reason why these businesses are forced to operate this way".
By addressing the problem at the ISP level you aren't addressing the ISPs problems, which is most likely cost at every growing bandwidth requirements.
Since you are proposing to limit their ability to offer plans which suit their customers, they will inherently be incurring more costs.
When you increase the marginal cost curve for a company, you are shifting the equilibrium of supply in demand which will generally result in a higher price and less quantity.
Additionally, "good for the consumer" is relative. My grand mother doesn't care about shaping or prioritization, she just wants her email.
On Slashdot it is our lifeblood, and so we often make the assumption that other people would like the quality we would like at the price point we offer, however this ignores the needs of other.
Are you willing to say "Lets increase the price and decrease the amount of people using the service, so that we can possibly (it's not definite) have a higher quality service"
Because that is what you are saying with regulation such as this.
Corporations make value judgements on what provides them with profit while providing their customers with service. This means if people want neutrality, they need only change providers.
However, there are restrictions in certain regions on which providers you can go to because these providers have been given a monopoly.
This is the problem with the American market, a lot of these companies have been given monopoly, and so you have no choice.
Additionally, since their profit model is setup around providing this neutrality, they will not be as profitable as before, and so they will have an argument to levy taxes or give them a greater monopoly.
Further more, their businesses are doing this so they can provide the unlimited plans you enjoy. If their hands are tied, it is likely you will get plans that are limited in other ways.
So lets go over this... Instead of deregulating and having a choice, you choose more regulation which will most likely have little effect anyway, narrow your choices and increase your average costs?
Does that about sum it up?
Business is not stupid, no matter what it will be profitable, the only variable left is whether you want the ability to choose?
If you're an anarcho-capitalist you DO NOT believe in Government. Therefore you believe the market provides solutions to intellectual property and physical property.
You can not design a system that works better than anarchy.
If you believe in anarcho-capitalism you do not believe in inherent rights, but rights that make economic sense. In most cases intellectual property does not make economic sense (total surplus is always less under any monopoly).
You don't really sound like an anarcho-capitalist... I should know, since I am one.
Also, if you want to ask this sort of question then there is a whole fucking forum devoted to it with really smart, responsive and helpful people here... http://austrianforum.com/
Being an anarcho-capitalist... YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS!
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, this is retarded. I find it hard to believe people didn't understand this from the get go.
I love when Slashdot continually says stuff like this, and then a study comes out later which proves it.
Even from my own experiences, I was sick of high school by year 9 (2 years into high school) because when I wanted to do more, I couldn't, when I would ask more questions, there was never time.
Hell, I remember the only kids in our high school that were given laptops and allowed to use them for work, were the kids who were struggling.
After Primary School I didn't learn anything that I had to forget/relearn in Uni.
High School in Australia now a days is more like day care, it's just the place you send your kids so you don't have to look after them while you're at work. (This was in a regular public suburban school)
Nothing useful happens there, I wish I had of dropped out and gained entry to Uni other ways.
(Maybe someone else has had a better experience)
Sure, you drive a light car, but it could be lighter.
The cheaper the car the cheaper the materials, the cheaper the construction processes, the heavier the cars.
If you're going to maintain the same structural rigidity with lighter materials there is usually a more complex process or design required, which means more expense.
There are lots of little decisions forced by consumers tastes and government regulation, which force lots of small weight increases, which result in heavier cars, with less aerodynamic profiles.
The problem is consumer tastes can change easily and are often for being economical, however government regulation isn't. For instance I couldn't buy a new car in the EU without ensuring that there is a large gap between the hood and the engine, which increases the profile, and resistance, which makes it less economical. This is so pedestrians are safer.
There are lots of rules like this that are getting bigger and more complex, which reduce the ability for small producers to make cars, large producers to make what people want and so forth.
Airbags and gas cylinders - 20kg
(For most of them it should be inexcess of this, but this is more of an average)
Required rigid chassis - 400kg
(Your car has to pass so many more crash standards from various angles now that the chassis must be a lot more rigid)
High enough - 100kg
(Your car must be high enough to protect you, which makes cars taller than they need to be)
The reason why they are "compelled to make every iteration a bit bigger", is often due to safety standards. Else cars like the Commodore (Pontiac G8/Vauxhal VXR) wouldn't be so boxy and bulky now a days, compared to a few years ago when it was a lot more streamlined.
Then the rest of the weight gain is imposed by everyone wanting a cheap car.
Good point, and so mock it we shall!
I love that all of these posts are supposed to have been done to prove that it has some sort of credence, however they have all been modded funny.
Kind of takes the kick out of it.
I've noticed Google fills my "talking to an empty void" needs quite nicely. Every time I have sent a help desk email, or tried to get help, I usually get nowhere.
(The exceptions have been problems setting up Postini and trouble with the Calendar losing whole calendars)
Yeah, I like to see new changes. I want new bells and whistles and features. I want to be able to select the ones I like and disable the ones I like, therefore voting for what would be good.
Are you saying Gmail isn't stable? Because I pay am I completely restricted from new things?
I imagine the outcry from regular Gmail users would be on par.
Yeah that is done. I also have had that option turned on since it has been around, which is quite some time.
I double checked it just before, just in case though.
I also refreshed and cleared my cache and tryed to force it on using ?labs=1 (for the answers guide), but that didn't work.
Perhaps they are still rolling it out, and by tomorrow I'll get it or something.
I have Google Apps for your domain, which I liked so much I wanted to pay for it. However, now that I have it seems I am "protected" from the bleeding edge settings.
I want to test these features, and see the bleeding edge technology.
I have selected the "Turn on new features" and "Automatically add new Google services", however it seems as though Google Apps is treated a bit like a secondary service.
Is the ad revenue generated more than me paying for the service? Are the services too different that they must use completely different infrastructure and so changes in one takes time to bring across to the other? Or, are the Google Apps aimed at people who really don't want new features and services?
There are a few pros and cons to releasing Duke Nukem Forever.
When it is released, we will be able to play Duke Nukem Forever, which by this time, better be awesome!
However, after it is released we then lose a lot of Duke Nukem Forever jokes. We will have to put thought into what will take its place in Wired News's Vaporware Awards.
The post-Duke Nukem Forever released world, will be vastly different to what we know today... and that makes me scared.
Man I'm bored of this subject, you obviously haven't read into this topic.
I'm going to summarize and just point out the ludicrous statements you're making, and not taking into account what actual free markets mean.
"You're clearly a fervent believer in laissez-faire free market capitalism, in the divine power of self-regulating markets that somehow miraculously both return profits for shareholders, economic growth, and somehow at the same time serve the interests of the community."
You don't understand the invisible hand, do you?
"This is a lie, don't buy into it, it has been proven time and time again that completely free market systems while useful in some situations do not serve the public interest when it comes to essential services."
This is rhetoric and completely made up.
"a) Universal health care works, it is cheaper (for users as well as the government) than a US style wholly private system. Private health care is bad social policy, and it's bad economic policy. The US spends more money as a percentage of GDP on its healthcare system than any other OECD country"
Private is efficient, markets are efficient, more so than with regulation. This isn't contested by ANY type of economics. So do not argue that it's more expensive in a private system, because that is stupid. Additionally, more money as a percentage of GDP? That's the worse economic comparison I've ever heard. Are all other countries economies like Americas?
"b) I may not know what I'm talking about, but I have been through the uni system during the Howard years, I graduated in 2003. I saw what successive funding cuts did to my university, and I watched it transition from a research and learning centre into a corporation funded by commercial grants with cost cutting at every corner. I saw the standard of learning corrode even in the time I was there. I watched as more and more places were given over to full fee paying, and thus denied to those relying on the HECS/HELP system."
I think you don't realize that you're arguing for my side. Quality erodes in public institutions, especially as they grow. Full fee paying students are given quality education, you know why? Because they actually pay for it! We get denied because the government fucks us. I've already started paying it off, it's nothing special, in fact it's way below what the education got me.
"c) I would be suprised if your friends losing their jobs had nothing to do with workchoices being rolled back, because it hasn't in fact been rolled back yet. The government has just stipulated that no new AWAs can be implemented, and that workers currently on AWAs should transition to an equivalent agreement under the new framework, with a fairly generous timeframe for this to take place."
When Rudd came in, they reinstated certain protections which could hold a business accountable.
"d) Nonsense. The majority of universities in Australia are public universities, not private universities. That is, they are (or should be) funded by public money. They are not there to make money, they are there to provide quality education to Australia's youth, at a cost that makes them available to anyone regardless of their economic status."
They aren't wholly public. No public institutions provide YOU with what YOU want because YOU aren't paying for it. They provide the GOVERNMENT with what the GOVERNMENT wants because the GOVERNMENT is paying for it.
"e) Again, nonsense. This is where free market economics fails, and fails badly."
This is where your rhetoric went up 10 levels.
"The power of competition doesnt work in this scenario because of patents. Drug companies own patents on novel treatments effectively handing a monopoly to that company who can then charge whatever the hell they want for it."
Once again you're arguing my point. Since when did a free market have patents in it?
"Additionally, it's actually not in pharmaceutical companies best interests to research new
Okay...
a) I know a lot of people who work in the health care industry all of which say it is far better than it was years ago. The only things they point to as being bad are due to MORE regulation and state intervention than LESS.
b) You don't know what you're talking about. I am doing Uni at the moment and don't pay a cent. Nothing has changed. They did reduce the ability to game the system. I would have preferred they tore it down and left it for me to pay for, however what you're saying is complete fiction. The standard of University graduates has been lowered due to regulation.
c) They did remove the "protections and awards" and it was the best thing ever. I have 3 friends who lots their jobs when Rudd put those protections back in. Just because someone is willing to work for less than you, doesn't mean he is necessarily worse. In fact regulation like this is mostly responsible for stopping younger people, older people and immigrants from working, since they are the only people who are affected. Although, everyone is affected by higher prices.
d) Australian universities have been struggling due to their inability to charge Australian residence full price. This meant that UniSA (The university I go to) is more profitable in Asia than it is here (You did know that due to forcing Universities to charge less (because we still use HECS/HELP) that Australian Universities see Australians as a liability and not a strength?). We were able to deal with these inefficiencies off of the backs of the Asian market for ages, however now a days Asian Universities are competing better than us (And they aren't subsidized).
e) If you want cheap drugs, completely deregulate the system. Done! All problems introduced which increase the price of drugs are due to the government providing a monopoly to drug companies so they have "an incentive to create". This has never changed, it is just when EVERYONE was paying for it (subsidies) on average we were paying more than when WE pay for it.
His economic credentials were good, however they could have been better.
Read Alexander Downers column in The Advertiser, the Government understands all of the issues, it is just they can't sell them to us, because too few people actually go off and learn the economics of the situation.
With regulation I can explain "We say this will cost less, and so it does" which is easy to explain, however I find it harder to explain "We can't force these prices because the market will readjust and there will be a shortage of the good".
It is easier to sell communism, than it is to sell capitalism.
Slightly incompetent? That's a gross understatement.
I'm not a fan of Howard, but they did a hell of a lot better than this joker has done so far.
With Howard for me to explain what he did that was so bad is difficult.
With Rudd, all I have to say is FuelWatch.
LOL OMG SHIT! Well that puts my plans right out!
Thanks for the warning.
Although, in Australia we tend to use a / to mean OR.
LOL You're into specifics hey? In this case I was referencing North America, more specifically NY/California.
You lived in Carlton? I'm so, so, sorry.
You mean like drop bears? We know all about drop bears in Australia.
That's why when Yanks that aren't used to drop bears come to the forests out here, we make sure they wear a helmet.
That and it is funny.
Lemme guess... It starts with K and ends in Rudd?
KRudd?
I know I am sick of living in Adelaide (The hills). It is too small and too little industry is here.
I'm looking to move to America. I imagine it will be like the movie Coming to America.
I'm amazed that you've been modded so high, when you obviously know absolutely NOTHING about the period and what happened.
More so, you keep going on about capitalism as having no competition because European communism fell. What, Chinese communism doesn't work for you? The only brand of Communism which has actually lasted, isn't good enough for you?
How about this, capitalism (one governments version of it) has competition from capitalism (another governments version of it). In fact, that is where it has the most competition from, since communist states can't compete.
How about this, capitalism's greatest competition actually comes from its own actions. When it undertakes a law or action which is less efficient than another law or action, then the previous time would be compared to the current time.
Get down off of your soap box and study before you speak!
Yes.
I know it is a lot more complex a notion that a system is more efficient when not regulated, but it has been proven.
What is debatable is whether or not the whole system should be less efficient for the benefit of a few.
The people who don't *know* they are getting screwed, obviously it doesn't impact their lives that much, else they would know.
The definition of strategy in business is to generate a competitive advantage through differentiation/cost/focus, or a mix of the 3.
If we had a free market (Which we don't), competition would force each of the players to provide the greatest value to their customers possible.
When you assume that all telecom corporations would act they way you are describing what you're really saying is "There is some other reason why these businesses are forced to operate this way".
By addressing the problem at the ISP level you aren't addressing the ISPs problems, which is most likely cost at every growing bandwidth requirements.
Since you are proposing to limit their ability to offer plans which suit their customers, they will inherently be incurring more costs.
When you increase the marginal cost curve for a company, you are shifting the equilibrium of supply in demand which will generally result in a higher price and less quantity.
Additionally, "good for the consumer" is relative. My grand mother doesn't care about shaping or prioritization, she just wants her email.
On Slashdot it is our lifeblood, and so we often make the assumption that other people would like the quality we would like at the price point we offer, however this ignores the needs of other.
Are you willing to say "Lets increase the price and decrease the amount of people using the service, so that we can possibly (it's not definite) have a higher quality service"
Because that is what you are saying with regulation such as this.
Corporations make value judgements on what provides them with profit while providing their customers with service. This means if people want neutrality, they need only change providers.
However, there are restrictions in certain regions on which providers you can go to because these providers have been given a monopoly.
This is the problem with the American market, a lot of these companies have been given monopoly, and so you have no choice.
Additionally, since their profit model is setup around providing this neutrality, they will not be as profitable as before, and so they will have an argument to levy taxes or give them a greater monopoly.
Further more, their businesses are doing this so they can provide the unlimited plans you enjoy. If their hands are tied, it is likely you will get plans that are limited in other ways.
So lets go over this...
Instead of deregulating and having a choice, you choose more regulation which will most likely have little effect anyway, narrow your choices and increase your average costs?
Does that about sum it up?
Business is not stupid, no matter what it will be profitable, the only variable left is whether you want the ability to choose?
If we put Government in charge of the Internet we will never stop them from imposing their will on us through it.
The internet can not be any more neutral than when it is left to markets.
The problem with it at the moment, is it is already too regulated in most countries. (Eg, the US)
If you're an anarcho-capitalist you DO NOT believe in Government. Therefore you believe the market provides solutions to intellectual property and physical property.
You can not design a system that works better than anarchy.
If you believe in anarcho-capitalism you do not believe in inherent rights, but rights that make economic sense. In most cases intellectual property does not make economic sense (total surplus is always less under any monopoly).
You don't really sound like an anarcho-capitalist... I should know, since I am one.
Also, if you want to ask this sort of question then there is a whole fucking forum devoted to it with really smart, responsive and helpful people here...
http://austrianforum.com/
Being an anarcho-capitalist... YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS!