Usually childhood is when you find out you have asthma, though. If you've got an island of 100 kids on summer vacation or in school, one of them is bound to develop it sooner or later. Sometimes this requires helicopter assistance!
The case described is infrequent, sure. But it and things like it happen often enough it's totally worth the effort to develop a cheaper solution.
There's a lot more medical conditions and personal needs than just asthma. Are you suggesting every island automatically should be a fully stocked pharmacy?
I don't think you'll find anyone disagreeing with the notion that people can't just do whatever they want, that there needs to be some form of law.
But it seems you have something in mind that fewer people would agree with.
Most of the "checks and balances" on business is simple rule of law: You have to fill the terms of a contract, you must respect property rights, transactions must be voluntary, offers must be filled if accepted, you can't have banks manipulating the currency, etc. Some of this we're good about, some of it we're not. (For instance, I argue that our monetary system unfairly biases our economy towards fewer, larger corporations than would otherwise be possible.)
The "robber baron" article doesn't actually list anything they did wrong and by and large, the listed people ran businesses that dropped costs of then-luxury products. Rail transit, clothes, refrigerated food, oil, and steel all saw huge drops in price and cost, and resulted in the biggest increase in standard of living for the typical (median) person ever.
This also ignores that people move between income brackets, and that age is the biggest correlation of wealth. This theoretical "median income" person we're talking about would be perpetually 28 years old.
The 1% of what? If you're implying all output of all the extra automation is never seen by 99% of the population, then 1% is a number you're pulling out of your ass.
Real prices in most sectors have gone down. Though this is hard to pinpoint because of the rampant monetary inflation that has been pursued (and this does negatively impact the working class disproportionately!). Prices that have gone up are usually sectors where there's subsidized credit or third-party-payers... particularly housing, education, and healthcare.
That is to say, take everyone's income, adjusted for inflation, and we still find with the exception of two years, decade-over-decade, a person in the very middle of the pack (so as to exclude very-rich outliers on a long tail, someone making $30k/yr now), has still gotten richer.
Those lost "proceeds" surface in the form of cheaper products and being able to buy more things with the same amount of work, not necessarily higher wages or higher revenue by itself.
"real wages" -- the amount of time you need to spend working in order to feed yourself and provide other basic needs -- has never stopped falling decade over decade.
Every income bracket, every quintile, has gotten richer since 40 years ago, and people also move between quintiles with astonishing frequency (something like 95% of people fall out of the top quintile after a decade).
Canadian Government imposes a price ceiling on a market, then proceeds to run around like a chicken with its head cut off wondering why the markets managed to react the way they did.
Price ceilings and price floors have predictable consequences, and for some reason we keep ignoring them.
It's also a great way to reduce competition, a direct result of left-shifting the supply curve of the supply/demand plot.
If you're using NOTEPAD to edit code then that means you have to hit the space bar or backspace multiple times to indent code one level, and you risk highlighting or indenting only a fraction of an indent. So even in that case, tabs are STILL preferable!
Most developers aren't writing on very small screens anymore, and even if you are, you should know better than to write spaghetti code that goes more than a few levels deep (the "Inception Rule" of don't go more than four levels deep).
The only thing that changes when you substitute "government" in for "corporation" is now the people managing the Internet have guns.
What a great idea THAT has been shown to be/s
- Have you considered that the price is going up because demand is going up? - Have you considered that a higher price encourages new entrants into the market? - Have you looked into how local policies effectively grant monopolies and raise barriers to entry? - Have you considered that Enron was merely outright criminal, the same way the government is on a daily basis? - Have you considered that profit actually represents the transformation of scarce, valuable resources (labor, capital, materials) into something more valuable (Internet service)?
What in the world do you think a stock price means in the context of "rational"? The price of a stock is the last price that the stock was traded for.
That is, if the price goes up or down, that means that someone actually owned shares, and sold it to someone else looking to buy. Why would someone want to buy a stock? A stock is a share of ownership, including the capital owned by the company (machinery, contracts, and IP), plus the expected payouts to the owners (shareholders) over the course of the company. If one of the company's brands becomes more valuable (for licensing opportunities), or if they invest in a new line of factories, or if they don't have anything better to do than pay out massive dividends, it makes sense that the value of the company -- and therefore the trade price of the shares -- would go up, too.
If you think you can do so much better than these individual traders making what you clearly think is such a boneheaded decision, then why not buy or sell some shares yourself?
Companies can't make political donations. Or rather, candidates aren't allowed to accept money from corporations.
Individuals can make such donations, with their own money; the FEC requires you report your employer when making a political contribution. This is sometimes, erroneously, reported as the company making the contribution.
Companies can also run advertisements and even make movies critical of certain candidates, but is hardly equivalent to "buying an election" or any of the other nonsense you'll frequently hear people complaining about.
There's a few different variants of this, and it's been a while since I've reviewed it. One variant deals with how prices integrate future uncertainty in them, and if the future was exactly certain you end up with a division by zero problem. But we're not presuming we can predict the future here.
The more relevant variant is simpler: If you knew the consumer's marginal value of an item they desire, you would never charge anything less than the price representing that value. Since we have perfect information, we don't have the problem of sunk costs, and can avoid selling things at a loss since we wouldn't have produced those to begin with. There's nothing new about price discrimination (it's why children and families pay less at movie theaters), but in this case we enter a scenario called perfect price discrimination, and the result is there is no market demand curve (or, one person becomes the market for supply-and-demand purposes), and therefore there's no market-clearing price.
Hmm, how about most of history? You funnel all the money and power into the hands of a select few, the corporate entities continue to merge for growth and to stifle competition...
Most of history really doesn't have any basis for comparison. Corporations have existed, but we haven't had the means for them to operate globally until about two centuries ago.
So there's only been a small handful of anything we could call a monopoly or a cartel. The lightbulb cartel is the only legitimate example of a domestic cartel I can think of - it lasted fifteen years and collapsed all by itself. Standard Oil is commonly cited as a monopoly that was "broken up", it was done so on the myth that low prices were bad for customers (same myth that caused business owners to be thrown in jail for selling products too cheaply during the Great Depression).
We have endless examples of states doing horrible things to their citizens. Economic policy in the Soviet Union directly caused 5.5 MILLION deaths.
How many deaths have corporations caused by being "too powerful"?
I like the joke, but the term you're looking for is called "marginal profit". If adding the feature, or building and selling one additional unit, will bring in more revenue than it cost to make, then you'll sell the additional unit.
This became settled science over a century and a half ago.
Citation needed? You're comparing two different kinds of power.
To achieve socialism's alleged ends, politicians say they need "power" (i.e. violence), but socialism is impossible in the first place because it lacks a price mechanism to inform people what is productive and what is wasteful.
But in capitalism, no actor threatens violence. The kind of "power" you talk about here is merely owning money, a completely voluntary action.
Even my the financial metric, the government is still way more powerful: Last year, the government accounted for 18% GDP. Walmart, by contrast, was a mere 2.6%.
So once we've cut the size of the government by an order of magnitude, then I'll take this idea seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
Corporations also have multiple owners. Of course your house isn't suddenly on the line just because you owned 0.001% of a failed corporation.
How could you do this with backlit keys? That was one of the big features Apple introduced to keyboards.
Usually childhood is when you find out you have asthma, though. If you've got an island of 100 kids on summer vacation or in school, one of them is bound to develop it sooner or later. Sometimes this requires helicopter assistance!
The case described is infrequent, sure. But it and things like it happen often enough it's totally worth the effort to develop a cheaper solution.
There's a lot more medical conditions and personal needs than just asthma. Are you suggesting every island automatically should be a fully stocked pharmacy?
The full study is at http://www.appliedanimalbehavi...
Symbols were painted on a white wooden board.
It was a horizontal line for "blanket on", blank white for "no change", vertical line for "blank off".
In all cases, the blanket was adjusted by a human handler (if only to put it back where it was).
I don't think you'll find anyone disagreeing with the notion that people can't just do whatever they want, that there needs to be some form of law.
But it seems you have something in mind that fewer people would agree with.
Most of the "checks and balances" on business is simple rule of law: You have to fill the terms of a contract, you must respect property rights, transactions must be voluntary, offers must be filled if accepted, you can't have banks manipulating the currency, etc. Some of this we're good about, some of it we're not. (For instance, I argue that our monetary system unfairly biases our economy towards fewer, larger corporations than would otherwise be possible.)
The "robber baron" article doesn't actually list anything they did wrong and by and large, the listed people ran businesses that dropped costs of then-luxury products. Rail transit, clothes, refrigerated food, oil, and steel all saw huge drops in price and cost, and resulted in the biggest increase in standard of living for the typical (median) person ever.
Same goes for Tetris, how many platforms has that been ported to?
The versions aren't even all that dissimilar, why don't we just aggregate all the versions of Madden together while we're at it?
This also ignores that people move between income brackets, and that age is the biggest correlation of wealth. This theoretical "median income" person we're talking about would be perpetually 28 years old.
The 1% of what? If you're implying all output of all the extra automation is never seen by 99% of the population, then 1% is a number you're pulling out of your ass.
Real prices in most sectors have gone down. Though this is hard to pinpoint because of the rampant monetary inflation that has been pursued (and this does negatively impact the working class disproportionately!). Prices that have gone up are usually sectors where there's subsidized credit or third-party-payers... particularly housing, education, and healthcare.
Here's the very most favorable data point I can find for you, real median personal income. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/se...
That is to say, take everyone's income, adjusted for inflation, and we still find with the exception of two years, decade-over-decade, a person in the very middle of the pack (so as to exclude very-rich outliers on a long tail, someone making $30k/yr now), has still gotten richer.
Those lost "proceeds" surface in the form of cheaper products and being able to buy more things with the same amount of work, not necessarily higher wages or higher revenue by itself.
"real wages" -- the amount of time you need to spend working in order to feed yourself and provide other basic needs -- has never stopped falling decade over decade.
Every income bracket, every quintile, has gotten richer since 40 years ago, and people also move between quintiles with astonishing frequency (something like 95% of people fall out of the top quintile after a decade).
Canadian Government imposes a price ceiling on a market, then proceeds to run around like a chicken with its head cut off wondering why the markets managed to react the way they did.
Price ceilings and price floors have predictable consequences, and for some reason we keep ignoring them.
It's also a great way to reduce competition, a direct result of left-shifting the supply curve of the supply/demand plot.
You also can't accidentally highlight half an indent when using tabs!
I prefer 3-space tabs myself, but this is pretty unheard of in the space-indent world.
If you're using NOTEPAD to edit code then that means you have to hit the space bar or backspace multiple times to indent code one level, and you risk highlighting or indenting only a fraction of an indent. So even in that case, tabs are STILL preferable!
Most developers aren't writing on very small screens anymore, and even if you are, you should know better than to write spaghetti code that goes more than a few levels deep (the "Inception Rule" of don't go more than four levels deep).
The only thing that changes when you substitute "government" in for "corporation" is now the people managing the Internet have guns.
What a great idea THAT has been shown to be /s
- Have you considered that the price is going up because demand is going up?
- Have you considered that a higher price encourages new entrants into the market?
- Have you looked into how local policies effectively grant monopolies and raise barriers to entry?
- Have you considered that Enron was merely outright criminal, the same way the government is on a daily basis?
- Have you considered that profit actually represents the transformation of scarce, valuable resources (labor, capital, materials) into something more valuable (Internet service)?
It took a study to figure out the magnitude of the problem.
The number being 20% or 80% could mean the difference between spending a thousand or a million dollars on the problem.
If it's something that would be illegal for a normal person to do, then the government needs a warrant. Period.
The VAST majority of males in the US get circumcised. What does antisemitism have to do with this?
What in the world do you think a stock price means in the context of "rational"? The price of a stock is the last price that the stock was traded for.
That is, if the price goes up or down, that means that someone actually owned shares, and sold it to someone else looking to buy. Why would someone want to buy a stock? A stock is a share of ownership, including the capital owned by the company (machinery, contracts, and IP), plus the expected payouts to the owners (shareholders) over the course of the company. If one of the company's brands becomes more valuable (for licensing opportunities), or if they invest in a new line of factories, or if they don't have anything better to do than pay out massive dividends, it makes sense that the value of the company -- and therefore the trade price of the shares -- would go up, too.
If you think you can do so much better than these individual traders making what you clearly think is such a boneheaded decision, then why not buy or sell some shares yourself?
Companies can't make political donations. Or rather, candidates aren't allowed to accept money from corporations.
Individuals can make such donations, with their own money; the FEC requires you report your employer when making a political contribution. This is sometimes, erroneously, reported as the company making the contribution.
Companies can also run advertisements and even make movies critical of certain candidates, but is hardly equivalent to "buying an election" or any of the other nonsense you'll frequently hear people complaining about.
It looks like the real story here is they had to change from udev to eudev in order to keep it that way.
There's a few different variants of this, and it's been a while since I've reviewed it. One variant deals with how prices integrate future uncertainty in them, and if the future was exactly certain you end up with a division by zero problem. But we're not presuming we can predict the future here.
The more relevant variant is simpler: If you knew the consumer's marginal value of an item they desire, you would never charge anything less than the price representing that value. Since we have perfect information, we don't have the problem of sunk costs, and can avoid selling things at a loss since we wouldn't have produced those to begin with. There's nothing new about price discrimination (it's why children and families pay less at movie theaters), but in this case we enter a scenario called perfect price discrimination, and the result is there is no market demand curve (or, one person becomes the market for supply-and-demand purposes), and therefore there's no market-clearing price.
Hmm, how about most of history? You funnel all the money and power into the hands of a select few, the corporate entities continue to merge for growth and to stifle competition...
Most of history really doesn't have any basis for comparison. Corporations have existed, but we haven't had the means for them to operate globally until about two centuries ago.
So there's only been a small handful of anything we could call a monopoly or a cartel. The lightbulb cartel is the only legitimate example of a domestic cartel I can think of - it lasted fifteen years and collapsed all by itself. Standard Oil is commonly cited as a monopoly that was "broken up", it was done so on the myth that low prices were bad for customers (same myth that caused business owners to be thrown in jail for selling products too cheaply during the Great Depression).
We have endless examples of states doing horrible things to their citizens. Economic policy in the Soviet Union directly caused 5.5 MILLION deaths.
How many deaths have corporations caused by being "too powerful"?
If they threatened capitalism, then that's not violence. The two are mutually exclusive.
Whoops, I mean, strike that, reverse it.
Also, "Back?"
I like the joke, but the term you're looking for is called "marginal profit". If adding the feature, or building and selling one additional unit, will bring in more revenue than it cost to make, then you'll sell the additional unit.
This became settled science over a century and a half ago.
Citation needed? You're comparing two different kinds of power.
To achieve socialism's alleged ends, politicians say they need "power" (i.e. violence), but socialism is impossible in the first place because it lacks a price mechanism to inform people what is productive and what is wasteful.
But in capitalism, no actor threatens violence. The kind of "power" you talk about here is merely owning money, a completely voluntary action.
Even my the financial metric, the government is still way more powerful: Last year, the government accounted for 18% GDP. Walmart, by contrast, was a mere 2.6%.
So once we've cut the size of the government by an order of magnitude, then I'll take this idea seriously.