The theorem doesn't require money. You could be trading apples for money, apples for butter for oranges, apples directly for oranges, doesn't matter. If three's comparative advantage, people trade. Period.
If people aren't trading, that doesn't mean the theorem is wrong; it means one of the conditions isn't being satisfied.
What part of beneficial for both of us don't you understand? Both parties will be able to eat more total food. The less productive group will still be eating less, but more than if they didn't trade at all.
There is no situation in which it's bad to permit people to trade. Again, mathematical theorem.
So let me get this straight, in 1776 the Founding Fathers got together to protest the mass poverty and bad British tea, and started NASA so we could lob said tea into space. It eventually made us so rich we became the best developed country on the Earth and now we're exploring how to cultivate tea and coffee on Mars.
Uh huh. If it were that easy to create developed nations, we'd be going into third world countries handing out space programs, not rice (and all the less lovely stuff our foreign aid props up)
Science is a process, the process of coming up with a hypothesis and experimentally testing it in controlled conditions.
Saying we should take less money from people doesn't make you an "enemy of science." If anything, it makes you a champion of the dismal science (you know, economics).
How in the world does comparative advantage not exist in a place like Brazil? To say there's no comparative advantage is so statistically improbable you may as well get hit by an asteroid. A million times.
You know what comparative advantage is, right? If it takes me $5 to produce an apple and $4 to produce an orange, and it takes you $2 to produce an apple and $1 to produce an orange; that's comparative advantage: Even though you produce both fruits by far and away cheaper than I do, you produce oranges at an opportunity cost 2x cheaper, and so Economics says we will trade, and it will be beneficial for both of us to do so.
You're not supposed to produce everything as cheap as your neighbors, it's actually bad thing to do that. Even if your neighbor produces literally everything below the cost of domestic production, so long as the two entities have different opportunity costs for different goods, it's still more beneficial to outsource stuff and trade. Economists call this comparative advantage and it's a mathematical theorem.
Can anyone name ONE Net Neutrality issue ever that this would have prevented?
The big one everyone seems to point to was the Cogent/Netflix/Verizon issue, which was not "last mile", and so wouldn't have been solved by this bill (assuming the bill can actually do everything it says it can). That issue wasn't even a Net Neutrality issue, it was a peering dispute over a pipe that just happened to be a heavy carrier of Netflix traffic.
This seems entirely populist, why would they wait until now, after Republicans took control of congress, to bring it up? This is just like the Republican's repeated ACA/Obamacare bills, yes, it's dealing with something bad, but the bill isn't going anywhere, and it wouldn't even be a bill if they were in power. It's grandstanding.
Also, the bill seems to grant the FCC powers over commerce. Um, yikes. Who here wants the FCC examining your purchases and checking your router table configuration over it?
To preface, this is not a partisan-based slam. This is a slam on our entire system. The fact that we accept something won't pass despite it being universally wanted by "the people" (not pronounced "corporations") shows our biggest hurdle that we as a country need to overcome. Not race/gender equality or financial disparity, but the ability of this country to be propelled forward by a system that is representative to the needs of the many, not the powerful.
I don't even know where to start on how dangerous this is. This is populism straight up, tyranny of the majority, screw any minority/individual's rights.
When any group of people can hold a vote and force someone out of their house - or take away their property or life - that's plain wrong.
You can't say "We provide Internet access!" and then deny access to a range of TCP/UDP port numbers. You might be able to say "Web connectivity!" (and I have no problem with this), but not Internet.
Much of the problem is this is encoded into law in US banking regulations, including money laundering laws, the USA PATRIOT act, and the Check 21 Act that defined the now-antique process of electronic checks, and happens to make US checking horribly insecure without any legal fix (a very good example of why not to encode technical standards into law).
Banks wouldn't get any particular advantage over repeal of much of this regulation (except maybe the PATRIOT parts, which directly makes banking less accessible to customers), so they're probably not fighting for it. And to the contrary, it raises barriers to entry into the market and encourages vendor-lock in (I can transfer money within a company instantly; between banks takes 2-3 days).
It derives from cinema, where 2k projectors output 2048x1080: 16:9 productions still use a 1920x1080 subframe, but most movies are either in 2.40:1 or 1.80:1 which is wider than 1920x1080, hence the extra width supported by digital cinema projectors.
Somewhere along the line, someone figured 2160p was too strange a number to use for consumer 16:9 televisions, so they went with "4k" by which to mean "16:9 in a 4k frame."
You just need to track down a peer who's a member of the network, and you need to be able to get packets to them. Any peer will do; doesn't matter who or how much you trust them.
How is any part of that 'centralized'?
The very worst that can happen is you never get to download your file, or your payment never makes it to the vendor, if you have a bottleneck through your ISP, and your ISP decides to cut your service... but that's not a fault of the protocol, that's a fault of physics. If you have any connection at all to the network, Bitcoin and Bittorrent will work.
Just google "But who will build the roads?" and you'll find all the explanation you need. And anecdotes like this this:
"Who will build the roads?" is a question that belongs at the top of every libertarian drinking game. If we didn't have state coercion, the argument runs, there would be no roads. There'd be a Sears tower over there, and your house over here, and everyone involved would just be standing there scratching their heads.
(fwiw, we had private roads all throughout American history, and in fact the first government-funded transportation in North America was water canals.)
Please note the distinction between ethics and morals. The former is always objective. No matter who you are, no matter what race you are, it's always wrong to kill, steal, defraud, or otherwise initiate violence. The laws written down are just a codification on how to establish justice. They might vary, but they're all pretty good substitutes for each other. Some locales might have slightly different understandings: In the US, you're expected to pay for you food after you eat it; and not knock on people's doors at unreasonable hours of the night, so there might be a law saying "no unsolicited knocking on doors after 22:00". These are fine.
Morals, by contrast, are something we learn after reading a bedtime story. Probably good advice, but not necessarily true, depending on the person's exact situation. Don't go into excessive debt is my favorite.
The issue is never about government per se, but it's about rule of law. The Framers intended the Federal government to be as close to anarchy as possible while keeping rule of law, and indeed that is the only ethical thing is can do. If the government is indeed a government of the people, it can't do anything that one person couldn't do by themselves.
For this reason it's impossible to add "unlawful" to the definition of "theft" because then by definition, the government can't steal. This directly contradicts the notion that the government is accountable to the people. Theft is theft. If I own it, and it's taken from me against my will, it's theft, period.
If it's absolutely necessary to have some theft in order to keep rule of law for everything else, fine. But don't pretend that the trillions of dollars spent on warfare, welfare, and bailouts is protecting the rule of law in the slightest bit.
The stock market reaching record highs in the face of a bigger money supply is called inflation. That's a Bad Thing(TM).
It doesn't increase our productive capacity, but instead it's a form of theft from people who have savings (people who fund large capital projects), to the benefit of people who receive the money: typically banks, the government, the politically well-connected (in that order).
Also, your anecdote is nice, but in reality there's very little evidence to suggest higher taxes means more prosperity. Prosperity is very strongly correlated with rule of law, however, which requires a minimum of taxes, if any.
If you think the government is the most efficient spender of your money, I have sad news for you. I scarcely have time to discuss the wars, failed projects, spying, or hell, the fact New York prosecutors couldn't even get a an indictment for police officers who killed a guy they said wasn't paying taxes. Killed a guy for not paying taxes, as a result of a direct order to NYPD to crack down on tax evasion. If he were smoking a joint it would have merely been a summons! But I digress.
No, the fact of the matter is without cost and revenue, there is no profit or loss, and we can't know if we're efficiently allocating resources or just wasting them. All other industry except government would collapse if they squandered resources as much as the government does. Yet they do it. Over and over again.
All other industry has to buy inputs - raw materials, labor, capital - and combine it and sell the result for a higher price than they bought it for, hence producing value. The government just shoves a gun in your face.
Anyways, if you're happy with giving away your money like that, then cut the damn check yourself. You most certainly don't speak for all of us, though.
Slashdot Mirror
The theorem doesn't require money. You could be trading apples for money, apples for butter for oranges, apples directly for oranges, doesn't matter. If three's comparative advantage, people trade. Period.
If people aren't trading, that doesn't mean the theorem is wrong; it means one of the conditions isn't being satisfied.
What part of beneficial for both of us don't you understand? Both parties will be able to eat more total food. The less productive group will still be eating less, but more than if they didn't trade at all.
There is no situation in which it's bad to permit people to trade. Again, mathematical theorem.
So let me get this straight, in 1776 the Founding Fathers got together to protest the mass poverty and bad British tea, and started NASA so we could lob said tea into space. It eventually made us so rich we became the best developed country on the Earth and now we're exploring how to cultivate tea and coffee on Mars.
Uh huh. If it were that easy to create developed nations, we'd be going into third world countries handing out space programs, not rice (and all the less lovely stuff our foreign aid props up)
Science is a process, the process of coming up with a hypothesis and experimentally testing it in controlled conditions.
Saying we should take less money from people doesn't make you an "enemy of science." If anything, it makes you a champion of the dismal science (you know, economics).
Um, what do think you're doing when you download a torrent?
What do you think you're doing when you request a webpage?
How in the world does comparative advantage not exist in a place like Brazil? To say there's no comparative advantage is so statistically improbable you may as well get hit by an asteroid. A million times.
You know what comparative advantage is, right? If it takes me $5 to produce an apple and $4 to produce an orange, and it takes you $2 to produce an apple and $1 to produce an orange; that's comparative advantage: Even though you produce both fruits by far and away cheaper than I do, you produce oranges at an opportunity cost 2x cheaper, and so Economics says we will trade, and it will be beneficial for both of us to do so.
You're not supposed to produce everything as cheap as your neighbors, it's actually bad thing to do that. Even if your neighbor produces literally everything below the cost of domestic production, so long as the two entities have different opportunity costs for different goods, it's still more beneficial to outsource stuff and trade. Economists call this comparative advantage and it's a mathematical theorem.
FCC loves coming up with (and misimplementing) excuses to exercise authority, news at 11.
If someone says they're going to deliver a package and they're not, that's fraud.
If you pay for a certain level of service and your ISP doesn't deliver, that's also fraud.
No public policy, no Net Neutrality necessary.
Can anyone name ONE Net Neutrality issue ever that this would have prevented?
The big one everyone seems to point to was the Cogent/Netflix/Verizon issue, which was not "last mile", and so wouldn't have been solved by this bill (assuming the bill can actually do everything it says it can). That issue wasn't even a Net Neutrality issue, it was a peering dispute over a pipe that just happened to be a heavy carrier of Netflix traffic.
This seems entirely populist, why would they wait until now, after Republicans took control of congress, to bring it up? This is just like the Republican's repeated ACA/Obamacare bills, yes, it's dealing with something bad, but the bill isn't going anywhere, and it wouldn't even be a bill if they were in power. It's grandstanding.
Also, the bill seems to grant the FCC powers over commerce. Um, yikes. Who here wants the FCC examining your purchases and checking your router table configuration over it?
To preface, this is not a partisan-based slam. This is a slam on our entire system. The fact that we accept something won't pass despite it being universally wanted by "the people" (not pronounced "corporations") shows our biggest hurdle that we as a country need to overcome. Not race/gender equality or financial disparity, but the ability of this country to be propelled forward by a system that is representative to the needs of the many, not the powerful.
I don't even know where to start on how dangerous this is. This is populism straight up, tyranny of the majority, screw any minority/individual's rights.
When any group of people can hold a vote and force someone out of their house - or take away their property or life - that's plain wrong.
No, Net neutrality is a routing policy about how to prioritize packets that people can choose to implement.
Using the government to mandate it upon everyone, under threat of legal action, whether it's a good solution or not, is an entirely different issue.
Mod parent up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
After 2001-09-11 when the entire aircraft fleet was grounded, we saw a rise in sunlight (and temperatures).
This might be the first time I've ever heard anyone suggest that no lines at a government facility are a bad thing.
The Internet is a proper noun.
They have a network of some sort; it is effectively not the Internet.
You can't say "We provide Internet access!" and then deny access to a range of TCP/UDP port numbers. You might be able to say "Web connectivity!" (and I have no problem with this), but not Internet.
... because it wouldn't have happened if the FCC would just get their act together and enforce Net Neutrality, dammit! /s
Much of the problem is this is encoded into law in US banking regulations, including money laundering laws, the USA PATRIOT act, and the Check 21 Act that defined the now-antique process of electronic checks, and happens to make US checking horribly insecure without any legal fix (a very good example of why not to encode technical standards into law).
Banks wouldn't get any particular advantage over repeal of much of this regulation (except maybe the PATRIOT parts, which directly makes banking less accessible to customers), so they're probably not fighting for it. And to the contrary, it raises barriers to entry into the market and encourages vendor-lock in (I can transfer money within a company instantly; between banks takes 2-3 days).
It derives from cinema, where 2k projectors output 2048x1080: 16:9 productions still use a 1920x1080 subframe, but most movies are either in 2.40:1 or 1.80:1 which is wider than 1920x1080, hence the extra width supported by digital cinema projectors.
Somewhere along the line, someone figured 2160p was too strange a number to use for consumer 16:9 televisions, so they went with "4k" by which to mean "16:9 in a 4k frame."
You just need to track down a peer who's a member of the network, and you need to be able to get packets to them. Any peer will do; doesn't matter who or how much you trust them.
How is any part of that 'centralized'?
The very worst that can happen is you never get to download your file, or your payment never makes it to the vendor, if you have a bottleneck through your ISP, and your ISP decides to cut your service... but that's not a fault of the protocol, that's a fault of physics. If you have any connection at all to the network, Bitcoin and Bittorrent will work.
Just google "But who will build the roads?" and you'll find all the explanation you need. And anecdotes like this this:
(fwiw, we had private roads all throughout American history, and in fact the first government-funded transportation in North America was water canals.)
Please note the distinction between ethics and morals. The former is always objective. No matter who you are, no matter what race you are, it's always wrong to kill, steal, defraud, or otherwise initiate violence. The laws written down are just a codification on how to establish justice. They might vary, but they're all pretty good substitutes for each other. Some locales might have slightly different understandings: In the US, you're expected to pay for you food after you eat it; and not knock on people's doors at unreasonable hours of the night, so there might be a law saying "no unsolicited knocking on doors after 22:00". These are fine.
Morals, by contrast, are something we learn after reading a bedtime story. Probably good advice, but not necessarily true, depending on the person's exact situation. Don't go into excessive debt is my favorite.
The issue is never about government per se, but it's about rule of law. The Framers intended the Federal government to be as close to anarchy as possible while keeping rule of law, and indeed that is the only ethical thing is can do. If the government is indeed a government of the people, it can't do anything that one person couldn't do by themselves.
For this reason it's impossible to add "unlawful" to the definition of "theft" because then by definition, the government can't steal. This directly contradicts the notion that the government is accountable to the people. Theft is theft. If I own it, and it's taken from me against my will, it's theft, period.
If it's absolutely necessary to have some theft in order to keep rule of law for everything else, fine. But don't pretend that the trillions of dollars spent on warfare, welfare, and bailouts is protecting the rule of law in the slightest bit.
The stock market reaching record highs in the face of a bigger money supply is called inflation. That's a Bad Thing(TM).
It doesn't increase our productive capacity, but instead it's a form of theft from people who have savings (people who fund large capital projects), to the benefit of people who receive the money: typically banks, the government, the politically well-connected (in that order).
How about nobody steals from anyone?
Also, your anecdote is nice, but in reality there's very little evidence to suggest higher taxes means more prosperity. Prosperity is very strongly correlated with rule of law, however, which requires a minimum of taxes, if any.
If you think the government is the most efficient spender of your money, I have sad news for you. I scarcely have time to discuss the wars, failed projects, spying, or hell, the fact New York prosecutors couldn't even get a an indictment for police officers who killed a guy they said wasn't paying taxes. Killed a guy for not paying taxes, as a result of a direct order to NYPD to crack down on tax evasion. If he were smoking a joint it would have merely been a summons! But I digress.
No, the fact of the matter is without cost and revenue, there is no profit or loss, and we can't know if we're efficiently allocating resources or just wasting them. All other industry except government would collapse if they squandered resources as much as the government does. Yet they do it. Over and over again.
All other industry has to buy inputs - raw materials, labor, capital - and combine it and sell the result for a higher price than they bought it for, hence producing value. The government just shoves a gun in your face.
Anyways, if you're happy with giving away your money like that, then cut the damn check yourself. You most certainly don't speak for all of us, though.
That has to be the longest ad hominem I've ever read.