Moore movies are political commentary. This movie presents scientific facts in a understandable matter. The science happens to have political implications, as does most science.
Assuming no nuclear weapons are used(Reasonable assumption, the US has possessed first strike capability, IE the ability to incapacitate all nuclear silo's and submarines before they have a opportunity to strike back, over Russia and China since around 95 [see Foreign Policy April ed.]. France and British nuclear weapons are few and easily destroyable, since the US built their Silo's and they have no nuclear subs. Israel, India, and Pakistan lack ICBM's to hit us, so will probably end up attacking their neighbors instead. Most of America's nuclear arsenal is mothballed, and so they probably will not use them either.)
Naval: The US has seven super carrier groups; the rest of the world has none. The world's navy could be eliminated in a matter of days, leaving the worlds coast open to naval and air bombardment. The world has more ships, but most of these are refurbished WW2 era battleships, today's naval warfare centers on aircraft carriers. Not only does the US have more Aircraft carriers then the rest of the world combined, they are also newer and more powerful.
Air: The rest of the world lacks the ability to project their air force beyond their borders, The US can just bombard with missiles the large and complex infrastructure needed to maintain a air force(see how Israel disabled Egypt's large and powerful air force by destroying runways in 67). Afterward, the US can use their navy as a staging area for asserting Arial dominance.
Ground: With air and naval superiority, the US can just bomb opposing armies to destroy their logistics. Then the US can just watch them desert and starve.
Productive Capacity: The US has a GDP of 12 trillion dollars; the world has one of 57. The world actually has around 5 times more productive capacity. However, if you consider military spending, the US military budget makes up 49% of total world spending. Take into account Iraq, Afghanistan, and black projects, and The US tips the scale.
Disclaimer: I do not like that my hard-earned cash has been spent to achieve military dominance over the rest of the world. Not to give neo-con's idea's, The US could incapacitate the rest of the world, not conquer it.
The government cannot control the illegal drug industry, which is worth around 7 billion dollars per year. How could they control the multi-trillion dollar labor industry?
Actually, since the VAST majority (upper 90's) of American people are richer then the top 33% of Nigerians. Since a market exists for people so poor, there will be a market for those who make more then them. But this is moot, as vouchers pay for everyone, so that everybody has coverage.
Education is a service, one that parents want there children to have. Just like there are no shortages of McDonalds in poor areas, there will be no shortage in schools.
I encourage you to look at how schools work in the rest of the world. In France, the voucher system of private schools is tightly integrated with a well disciplined bureaucracy that monitors private schools to ensure good behavior. Nearly all French students are in private schools.
In the 3rd world, Nigeria in particular, around a third of children is in a private school, since public schools are nearly nonexistent.
If private schools pop up to cater to the poor of Nigeria, and profit off it, then I have little doubt that America's poor will be well served. Combined with vouchers, and our current ban on child labor, I see no reason universal coverage can't be achieved with private schools.
Show me one thing in my post that suggested force.
All I said is that living outside of cities can be more expensive, and if someone wants to live outside a city, they should pay those extra costs.
Sometimes it works in the other direction; real estate in cities can be expensive, so sometimes it makes sense to move to rural areas.
Does that suggest that I want to force people to live in rural areas? No, choosing where to live is a complicated decision based on quality of life and living expenses. Living expenses are a genuine factor, and it would be idiotic to suppress it.
Re:You got part of it right
on
More A's, More Pay
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I disagree. consider Lipitor is the classical example of a preventive drug, it is taken over a indefinite amount of time until the person dies, all for a tremendous amount of money.
Besides, you are confusing the pharmacutecal industry with the health service industry. they are not related, and do not work in tandem. Doctors tend to have indipendant practices, and would love to practice preventive care, as it maximises billable time. Doctors do not sell drugs, nor do they profit off selling drugs.
The free market allows for regulation, it is actualy part of the definition, the part about contract enforcement(people's purchase usualy involves the expectation that the purchase wont kill them, some agency needs to enforce that). To my knowlege, wheat is not subsidized, though corn and cotten is, If it is, then just pick any agricultural product not subsidized. As for Cargill, a quick check says that there share is 20%, so they still lack signifigant pricing power.
If rural areas are more expensive, that sends a resounding message: MOVE TO A CITY, in a society where economy of scale is pervasive, it makes sense for us to clump together. If someone loves living in a rural area for the sake of it, then costs will be incurred, and it is only moral for that person to pay those costs. However, this point is moot, as a school does not really face economies of scale. Cost of running a school efficiently per student go up with the number of students, as the number of administrators required increases very quickly with respect to the number of students. As schools can be economically viable even with small numbers of students (there are some with only 20 students), most rural areas will have a large enough market for multiple schools.
As for your bussing issue, schools are not the only market that requires busses, construction companies often bus in employees, as do universities for travel between two campuses. Usually Two or Three companies arise, and schools subcontract to them. Bussing companies are as close to a perfect market as I can imagine, startup costs are small and there is no product differentiation.
" The free market system just does not work for education. I know libertarians and conservatives love to think like this, but it's just not true. Because even if all of these hurdles could be overcome, there's one more important issue: Wealthy areas subsidize education for poorer areas. This is a good thing. I know that the people in the 'wealthy' areas don't think so, but that's only because you're being short-sighted."
I just came out of the system, and this isn't really true. The vast majority of administrative time at the district level is spent on rich areas, as parents are more influential and vote. Without administrative oversight, poor schools tend to become morasses of corruption and sleaze, and students suffer because of it.
The government should pay for education, as educating a child benefits more then the child, it benefits the employers who may one day employ the child, and it benefits the market in general if he discovers something. In economics speak, education is a positive externality, and so it makes sense for its cost to be subsidized.
However, private schools will run more efficiently then public schools. For example, when I was in school, the school was paid $5,000 a year for my education. The elite private school in my area, Pinecrest, Costs $9,000 a year. There are cheaper private schools in the area that are still much better than most public schools, and their tuition is around $4,000. If parents whose students are in poor schools had a choice where to spend there allotment, it's easy to imagine where they would go.
Yes, most people are inqualified to comparison shop between health care products. On the other hand, most people are incapable of comparing between cars, computers, or anything that requires specialty.
Some form of independant body then has to either create and archive statistics that make comparison easier(car statistics like horsepower, computer statistics like GHZ), and explain to people how to use these statistics to fit their needs(Someone who wants to save money on gas just gets the cheapest car with the best MPG, A gamer wants a machine with a good video card, etc.).
Healthcare can be simularly catigorized and reveiwed by such agencies. These agencies can be in the form of Consumer Reports, or some type of goverment agency. As long as health care companies are required to tell the truth by the FTC, there will not be a problem.
The Grain market is pretty close to a perfect market. There are no "perfect" markets, but most markets are very close approximations. The only things that make a market imperfect in the real world is forced buying(usually rare, happens a bit in the northeast with the mafia), transportation costs(pretty minimal at this point, getting smaller over time), lack of ability to compare prices/misleading advertising(Internet is helping out with the first one, the FTC usually takes care of the second), transaction costs(In most markets, sales tax and banking expenses are the only large transaction cost), and regulation(minimum wage, tariffs, price controls). Luckily, a slightly imperfect market behaves much like a perfect one, so your point is moot.
Elasticity of demand is mainly relevant in monopolies and oligopolies. In a competitive market, prices fall to near marginal cost of production, regardless of price elasticity. A good example of this is the price of water, people are willing to pay quite a bit for water, but if there are multiple vendors, the price of water hits the floor pretty quickly. There are many Doctors in a particular area, and multiple hospitals.
What you mention might be a problem in rural areas, though monopolies are very unstable (other hospitals would flood into the rural area to get a slice of the huge profits, making the price collapse). Even so, it might make sense for local government might convene some sort of regulation.
It was the Christians who forced the Jews to convert, not the Muslims. Jews held high political positions of power in Muslim Spain. It was not until the "crusade" that conquered Spain by 1492, that Jews were ever persecuted. At that point, a huge exodus of Jews left Christian Spain for Muslim North Africa.
You are a racist, or at least guilty of grave stupidity.
Not all terrorists are Muslims, as a quick run through Sri Lankan history could tell you. Unabomber, Eric Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh, were they Muslim?
The vast majority of Muslims do not want to live in a global Muslim caliphate, not even all Muslims terrorists want to live in a global Muslim caliphate. Do you really support searching Muslims and in this case, jailing them for months and ruining their life prospects, for no reason at all, on the basis of such marginal safety? If you do, then you must support rounding up and jailing all black people, since 1/3 of American black people eventually enter some phase of the justice system, this will generate far better returns then the 3% obtained by monitoring Muslims.
Your company was being idiotic, and their hatred toward the social classes cost about $100,000 a week. a competitor would see a huge opertunity to cut costs and make the changes. prompting more people to quit your companys factory and go to the competitor.
Well, then good. The big bang theory states that SPACE is expanding. that there are two stationary points A and B whose distance is increasing with time, even if A and B have zero velocity.
Space can expand "faster" than the speed of light. besides, relitivity says that nothing with mass can move at the speed of light, nothing about faster or slower. Imagine a moving sidewalk, the speedlimit only applies to your speed with respect to the sidewalk, not the side walk itself.
I think costs are fairly proportional with downloads, as the major cost is streaming. The costs you mentioned are very insignifigant, as each song is only around 3 megabytes. I'm not sure about the exact cost, but I have a feeling that its in the micro-cents.
Fast food tastes very good for a low price, thats why its so popular. Most fast food customers are local consumers who fit it into their daily routine(for better or worse).
Slashdot Mirror
Most science video's shown in schools have some celeb host who is irrelivent to the feild.
Moore movies are political commentary. This movie presents scientific facts in a understandable matter. The science happens to have political implications, as does most science.
I'm refering to computer simulations, check febuary issue of foreign policy
Assuming no nuclear weapons are used(Reasonable assumption, the US has possessed first strike capability, IE the ability to incapacitate all nuclear silo's and submarines before they have a opportunity to strike back, over Russia and China since around 95 [see Foreign Policy April ed.]. France and British nuclear weapons are few and easily destroyable, since the US built their Silo's and they have no nuclear subs. Israel, India, and Pakistan lack ICBM's to hit us, so will probably end up attacking their neighbors instead. Most of America's nuclear arsenal is mothballed, and so they probably will not use them either.)
Naval: The US has seven super carrier groups; the rest of the world has none. The world's navy could be eliminated in a matter of days, leaving the worlds coast open to naval and air bombardment. The world has more ships, but most of these are refurbished WW2 era battleships, today's naval warfare centers on aircraft carriers. Not only does the US have more Aircraft carriers then the rest of the world combined, they are also newer and more powerful.
Air: The rest of the world lacks the ability to project their air force beyond their borders, The US can just bombard with missiles the large and complex infrastructure needed to maintain a air force(see how Israel disabled Egypt's large and powerful air force by destroying runways in 67). Afterward, the US can use their navy as a staging area for asserting Arial dominance.
Ground: With air and naval superiority, the US can just bomb opposing armies to destroy their logistics. Then the US can just watch them desert and starve.
Productive Capacity: The US has a GDP of 12 trillion dollars; the world has one of 57. The world actually has around 5 times more productive capacity. However, if you consider military spending, the US military budget makes up 49% of total world spending. Take into account Iraq, Afghanistan, and black projects, and The US tips the scale.
Disclaimer: I do not like that my hard-earned cash has been spent to achieve military dominance over the rest of the world. Not to give neo-con's idea's, The US could incapacitate the rest of the world, not conquer it.
The government cannot control the illegal drug industry, which is worth around 7 billion dollars per year. How could they control the multi-trillion dollar labor industry?
Never heard of that, link?
Sure, we could agree on that, as long as they are competent.
Actually, since the VAST majority (upper 90's) of American people are richer then the top 33% of Nigerians. Since a market exists for people so poor, there will be a market for those who make more then them. But this is moot, as vouchers pay for everyone, so that everybody has coverage.
I encourage you to look at how schools work in the rest of the world. In France, the voucher system of private schools is tightly integrated with a well disciplined bureaucracy that monitors private schools to ensure good behavior. Nearly all French students are in private schools.
In the 3rd world, Nigeria in particular, around a third of children is in a private school, since public schools are nearly nonexistent.
If private schools pop up to cater to the poor of Nigeria, and profit off it, then I have little doubt that America's poor will be well served. Combined with vouchers, and our current ban on child labor, I see no reason universal coverage can't be achieved with private schools.
All I said is that living outside of cities can be more expensive, and if someone wants to live outside a city, they should pay those extra costs.
Sometimes it works in the other direction; real estate in cities can be expensive, so sometimes it makes sense to move to rural areas.
Does that suggest that I want to force people to live in rural areas? No, choosing where to live is a complicated decision based on quality of life and living expenses. Living expenses are a genuine factor, and it would be idiotic to suppress it.
Besides, you are confusing the pharmacutecal industry with the health service industry. they are not related, and do not work in tandem. Doctors tend to have indipendant practices, and would love to practice preventive care, as it maximises billable time. Doctors do not sell drugs, nor do they profit off selling drugs.
The free market allows for regulation, it is actualy part of the definition, the part about contract enforcement(people's purchase usualy involves the expectation that the purchase wont kill them, some agency needs to enforce that). To my knowlege, wheat is not subsidized, though corn and cotten is, If it is, then just pick any agricultural product not subsidized. As for Cargill, a quick check says that there share is 20%, so they still lack signifigant pricing power.
As for your bussing issue, schools are not the only market that requires busses, construction companies often bus in employees, as do universities for travel between two campuses. Usually Two or Three companies arise, and schools subcontract to them. Bussing companies are as close to a perfect market as I can imagine, startup costs are small and there is no product differentiation.
" The free market system just does not work for education. I know libertarians and conservatives love to think like this, but it's just not true. Because even if all of these hurdles could be overcome, there's one more important issue: Wealthy areas subsidize education for poorer areas. This is a good thing. I know that the people in the 'wealthy' areas don't think so, but that's only because you're being short-sighted." I just came out of the system, and this isn't really true. The vast majority of administrative time at the district level is spent on rich areas, as parents are more influential and vote. Without administrative oversight, poor schools tend to become morasses of corruption and sleaze, and students suffer because of it.
The government should pay for education, as educating a child benefits more then the child, it benefits the employers who may one day employ the child, and it benefits the market in general if he discovers something. In economics speak, education is a positive externality, and so it makes sense for its cost to be subsidized.
However, private schools will run more efficiently then public schools. For example, when I was in school, the school was paid $5,000 a year for my education. The elite private school in my area, Pinecrest, Costs $9,000 a year. There are cheaper private schools in the area that are still much better than most public schools, and their tuition is around $4,000. If parents whose students are in poor schools had a choice where to spend there allotment, it's easy to imagine where they would go.
Then more good schools pop up, until the niche for good schools are filled.
Exactly, a free market NEEDS regulation, it is in the fucking definition. Without regulation, there is no mechanism for contract enforement.
Some form of independant body then has to either create and archive statistics that make comparison easier(car statistics like horsepower, computer statistics like GHZ), and explain to people how to use these statistics to fit their needs(Someone who wants to save money on gas just gets the cheapest car with the best MPG, A gamer wants a machine with a good video card, etc.).
Healthcare can be simularly catigorized and reveiwed by such agencies. These agencies can be in the form of Consumer Reports, or some type of goverment agency. As long as health care companies are required to tell the truth by the FTC, there will not be a problem.
The Grain market is pretty close to a perfect market. There are no "perfect" markets, but most markets are very close approximations. The only things that make a market imperfect in the real world is forced buying(usually rare, happens a bit in the northeast with the mafia), transportation costs(pretty minimal at this point, getting smaller over time), lack of ability to compare prices/misleading advertising(Internet is helping out with the first one, the FTC usually takes care of the second), transaction costs(In most markets, sales tax and banking expenses are the only large transaction cost), and regulation(minimum wage, tariffs, price controls). Luckily, a slightly imperfect market behaves much like a perfect one, so your point is moot.
What you mention might be a problem in rural areas, though monopolies are very unstable (other hospitals would flood into the rural area to get a slice of the huge profits, making the price collapse). Even so, it might make sense for local government might convene some sort of regulation.
It was the Christians who forced the Jews to convert, not the Muslims. Jews held high political positions of power in Muslim Spain. It was not until the "crusade" that conquered Spain by 1492, that Jews were ever persecuted. At that point, a huge exodus of Jews left Christian Spain for Muslim North Africa.
You are a racist, or at least guilty of grave stupidity.
Not all terrorists are Muslims, as a quick run through Sri Lankan history could tell you. Unabomber, Eric Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh, were they Muslim?
The vast majority of Muslims do not want to live in a global Muslim caliphate, not even all Muslims terrorists want to live in a global Muslim caliphate. Do you really support searching Muslims and in this case, jailing them for months and ruining their life prospects, for no reason at all, on the basis of such marginal safety? If you do, then you must support rounding up and jailing all black people, since 1/3 of American black people eventually enter some phase of the justice system, this will generate far better returns then the 3% obtained by monitoring Muslims.
Your company was being idiotic, and their hatred toward the social classes cost about $100,000 a week. a competitor would see a huge opertunity to cut costs and make the changes. prompting more people to quit your companys factory and go to the competitor.
Well, then good. The big bang theory states that SPACE is expanding. that there are two stationary points A and B whose distance is increasing with time, even if A and B have zero velocity.
Space can expand "faster" than the speed of light. besides, relitivity says that nothing with mass can move at the speed of light, nothing about faster or slower. Imagine a moving sidewalk, the speedlimit only applies to your speed with respect to the sidewalk, not the side walk itself.
I think costs are fairly proportional with downloads, as the major cost is streaming. The costs you mentioned are very insignifigant, as each song is only around 3 megabytes. I'm not sure about the exact cost, but I have a feeling that its in the micro-cents.
Fast food tastes very good for a low price, thats why its so popular. Most fast food customers are local consumers who fit it into their daily routine(for better or worse).