My parents lived in abject poverty too. Your parents probably did commit a lot of petty crime, they just wouldn't mention it because they don't believe they did anything wrong. My family was involved in bootlegging of alcohol (In their country it was illegal), they never mention it, they were just trying to feed their kids.
I agree with most of what you are saying. however, Florida should not be considered a success for right to carry laws. I live here and can say that only a miniscule fraction of people take advantage of it(most people have a fundimental aversion to weapons), because of that, it has no real effect on muggings.
I did not say there is an ethical obligation to give the rich money; I said there is an ethical obligation not to squander the rich people's money, because they might spend it elsewhere.
Give me an example of a heavily unionized capitalist country. The US (12%) actually has a higher rate of unionization than any country in the OECD than any country except Britain (34%), which includes France (4%). countries that are highly unionized usually are so because of government mandate, which is usually a symptom of communism.
Give me a single reason why an American should have the job instead of the Indian/Chinese/Russian? The American would enjoy higher standards of living as a janitor in the US then as a programmer in one of those countries.
In addition, anyone could have seen this coming for almost 20 years, why did they train for a job they knew was going to be obsolete. Programmers are smart people; they could have been nearly anything. If someone decided to become one anyway, good luck for them. Nevertheless, I am not going to sacrifice the living standards and well-being of a poor Indian family because of their lack of foresight
The few that are there are paid very well; however, the Japanese car industry is far more mechanized then the American one, because of a Japanese labor shortage. They do not get company health care, because Japan has universal health care.
Because the Japanese government is far more corporate then the American, it was very easy for Japanese companies to shed workers. They never hired many workers anyway, because labor costs have always been prohibited.
German cars target the high-end market, where employee relations are more important than cost cutting. In most German car companies, the employees are treated very well and are members of company created unions.
Yes, shareholders give a company with their money precisely for making for money, this extra profits being funneled to the shareholder. If a corporation fails to make the most money possible, then they will pull the money out, upon which there will be no company, and no jobs.
besides, it is actually immoral for a corporation to worry about anything else, because it is fully possible and even likely that the interest the shareholder receives will be spend on charity, as rich shareholders often turn there wealth into endowments.
If you do not agree with this point of view, than argue against the creation of joint stock companies, and try to promulgate other types of capital raising. Until then, disgusting greed is a necessary evil that allows greater good down the line.
There were roads before public roads. They are called turnpikes, where you pay a microfee in order to drive(where I live, the goverment puts tolls on the road anyway, usualy ones that are more expensive then a private market price). When new housing communitys are built, the delevoping company usualy pays for and lays the internal roads themselves. In fact, a World Bank report on Somolia(has no goverment), found that there are more roads in Somolia then anywhere else in the region.
When roads cost money, there is a supply and demand metric introduced into driving. Right now, the cost of someone driving is borne by the public, instead of the person driving. Because of this, there is no individual incentive to not use the roads. as a consequence, any new capacity added to the system is quickly used up, either by more driving, or by new immigration into the area. If the cost of driving was instead paid for by the person driving, people would drive less, lessoning rid of traffic.
The original argument for public roads was not that it was vital for transportation, as by that time there were already signifigant roadways,it was that making payments would be inconvinient with 19th century technology.
Today with radio-tags and GPS, it is perfectly reasonable and convientent for the cost to be borne on the person driving, this is actualy being introduced in europe for implementation by 2011. it makes much more sense for a private company to control these rates then the goverment, as it will keep costs down.
It can be argued that public free roads are the major cause of traffic, along with being vastly wasteful. I have a feeling that if you gave google 257 billion to build highways, they would be incrediby better. besides, as there are hundreds of competing routes to any particular spot, toll costs would probaly be reduced to pennys per trip, without traffic.....
Re:Is communism bad in theory or only in practice?
on
Google's China Problem
·
· Score: 1
The higher the stock price, the more the ammount of stock the company retained is worth, giving them more capital.
Re:Is communism bad in theory or only in practice?
on
Google's China Problem
·
· Score: 1
Banking creates real wealth by giving money to people to make business ventures. Stock trading does the same; it produces much value, and is how private sector research and production is usually funded. The need for lawyers is not a structural flaw, just a particular quirk in the current mixed economies that are the norm.
Meritocracy deciding compensation? Sounds a bit like capitalism, and kind of goes against the Marxian "to each according to his need"
Re:Is communism bad in theory or only in practice?
on
Google's China Problem
·
· Score: 1
Yes, that makes sense. In order to take a job that you hate, you would have had to reach a certain threshold to compensate for your time. Maybe for say, a billion, you would have made the switch. However, you valued your happiness more then the profit you would have made if you had kept the same job.
I agree with you, sorry if I gave any other signals. I ate a french toast sandwich at BK earlier this morning. I said that it is wrong to deprive people of their food choices.
Re:Is communism bad in theory or only in practice?
on
Google's China Problem
·
· Score: 1
Ok, you are right that it is a grand ideal, but there are two main problems with communism.
The first one is that when any central authority gets the power to take and dole out money indiscriminately, they will be given large power over individuals, and even if originally a democracy, they would quickly pit interest groups against each other to gain complete totalitarian power.
That is a structural flaw of communism, one that is independent of implementation (except maybe anarco-communism).
the other flaw is that people take jobs with certain salaries in order to compensate for a certain amount of work, if you take a job for a 100k, and 80k is rerouted to a painter, then you will work only as if you had 20k. In addition, it stops people from taking jobs that would best benefit the economy. For example, in a capitalist economy, a lawyer who is also an excellent typist will become a lawyer because he can make more money (this is because the economy has a greater need and demand for lawyers). In a communist system, he will become a typist, as they make the same amount of money.
This is another structural flaw, the price of a product and the wage of a worker holds a message that tells people what the economy needs, and without it, the economy will eventually enter a period of stagnation and decay.
I thought that giving cheap food to the poor was a good thing... There is a reason many people do not buy healthy food. If you want people to eat better, fix the macroeconomic problems that force them to make trade-offs in their health, instead of depriving them of choices.
Nope, they do release "control release" drugs that last longer or a slightly modified but "modern" molecule, and then patent that. The old drug is promptly snatched by a generic firm and sells it for a fraction of the price. the only foul play is that drug reps stop promoting it, so brainwashed doctors usually prescribe the newer(usually equally effective, if slightly more inconvenient) drug for a much higher price to scared inept patients(whose insurance usually happily picks up most of the bill).
That describes essentially all anti-depressants after Prozac, most ADD meds after Ritalin, cholesterol lowering drugs after Lipitor(just went generic), all of those acid reflux meds, etc.
How is a small company to survive? Many industries do not have economies of scale, if so, corporations have a very small advantage over you, and in most cases you actually hold the upper hand, as you can be more responsive to consumer demands.
Also, globalization decreases the costs of goods, so you can have larger margins, and if a corporation can out produce you, you can always resell there products with better customer service and marketing(retail).
You referred to offshore labor that only involves the manufacturing sector, which even without globalization contains significant economies of scale (R&D, marketing, so on). Even so, you can easily obtain a manufacturing contract from china, and I know of many small businesses that do.
And another thing, if you truly cannot compete, finds something else to do. Raising prices and penalizing efficient industry is a massive transfer of wealth from the poor (IE customers) to the rich and middle class (you).
Your confusing energy with oil and you are right that fossil fuel use at the moment externalizes cost to society; however, that does not classify it as a public good.
The solution though is just to institute a carbon tax that taxes CO2 production, regardless of source. That would create some revenue for research and discourage carbon use.
The problem you mentioned with the California deregulation is that there was deregulation, but also a price ceiling. By economic definition, if the market price rises above the price ceiling, then there will be shortages.
Energy is not a public resource; it is a fuckin commodity that has a cost, like all others. Saying that people are "stealing" or "giving" his energy is like saying that people who like a lot of sugar in their coffee are "stealing" sugar from everyone else. Price is the very mechanism of rationing.
While I admit that, most utilities are highly regulated monopolies that cannot create equilibrium price that could be solved by spinning off power production into a private company while regulating transmission.
let me look at the universe around me. trillions of megawatts of solar, wind power abound, nuclear fission, pebble bed nuclear reactors, to say nothing of an eventual fusion breakthrough.
cheap energy is not a historical blip, energy production will week rising exponencialy because of technology, coupled with greater efficiancy in transmission and the decentralization of power, will yeild humanity in a age of more energy per capita than ever before.
if you believe that people should live on less for some romantic attachent, than just fuckin say so. dont insert bullshit science and faulty economics to write it off as energy policy
If you remembered anything from economics, then you would realize that 200 billion dollars of consumer spending isn't lost, it's redirected to other things that multiply better, such as food, cars, loan payments. Total GDP goes up, not down. It is rather comparable to a drop in oil prices.
Slashdot Mirror
My parents lived in abject poverty too. Your parents probably did commit a lot of petty crime, they just wouldn't mention it because they don't believe they did anything wrong. My family was involved in bootlegging of alcohol (In their country it was illegal), they never mention it, they were just trying to feed their kids.
I agree with most of what you are saying. however, Florida should not be considered a success for right to carry laws. I live here and can say that only a miniscule fraction of people take advantage of it(most people have a fundimental aversion to weapons), because of that, it has no real effect on muggings.
I did not say there is an ethical obligation to give the rich money; I said there is an ethical obligation not to squander the rich people's money, because they might spend it elsewhere.
Give me an example of a heavily unionized capitalist country. The US (12%) actually has a higher rate of unionization than any country in the OECD than any country except Britain (34%), which includes France (4%). countries that are highly unionized usually are so because of government mandate, which is usually a symptom of communism.
In addition, anyone could have seen this coming for almost 20 years, why did they train for a job they knew was going to be obsolete. Programmers are smart people; they could have been nearly anything. If someone decided to become one anyway, good luck for them. Nevertheless, I am not going to sacrifice the living standards and well-being of a poor Indian family because of their lack of foresight
Because the Japanese government is far more corporate then the American, it was very easy for Japanese companies to shed workers. They never hired many workers anyway, because labor costs have always been prohibited.
German cars target the high-end market, where employee relations are more important than cost cutting. In most German car companies, the employees are treated very well and are members of company created unions.
besides, it is actually immoral for a corporation to worry about anything else, because it is fully possible and even likely that the interest the shareholder receives will be spend on charity, as rich shareholders often turn there wealth into endowments.
If you do not agree with this point of view, than argue against the creation of joint stock companies, and try to promulgate other types of capital raising. Until then, disgusting greed is a necessary evil that allows greater good down the line.
My cousin is the morroccan ambassidor, he met George Bush(as ambassidors do), who met Putin.
There were roads before public roads. They are called turnpikes, where you pay a microfee in order to drive(where I live, the goverment puts tolls on the road anyway, usualy ones that are more expensive then a private market price). When new housing communitys are built, the delevoping company usualy pays for and lays the internal roads themselves. In fact, a World Bank report on Somolia(has no goverment), found that there are more roads in Somolia then anywhere else in the region.
When roads cost money, there is a supply and demand metric introduced into driving. Right now, the cost of someone driving is borne by the public, instead of the person driving. Because of this, there is no individual incentive to not use the roads. as a consequence, any new capacity added to the system is quickly used up, either by more driving, or by new immigration into the area. If the cost of driving was instead paid for by the person driving, people would drive less, lessoning rid of traffic.
The original argument for public roads was not that it was vital for transportation, as by that time there were already signifigant roadways,it was that making payments would be inconvinient with 19th century technology.
Today with radio-tags and GPS, it is perfectly reasonable and convientent for the cost to be borne on the person driving, this is actualy being introduced in europe for implementation by 2011. it makes much more sense for a private company to control these rates then the goverment, as it will keep costs down.
It can be argued that public free roads are the major cause of traffic, along with being vastly wasteful. I have a feeling that if you gave google 257 billion to build highways, they would be incrediby better. besides, as there are hundreds of competing routes to any particular spot, toll costs would probaly be reduced to pennys per trip, without traffic.....
The higher the stock price, the more the ammount of stock the company retained is worth, giving them more capital.
Meritocracy deciding compensation? Sounds a bit like capitalism, and kind of goes against the Marxian "to each according to his need"
Yes, that makes sense. In order to take a job that you hate, you would have had to reach a certain threshold to compensate for your time. Maybe for say, a billion, you would have made the switch. However, you valued your happiness more then the profit you would have made if you had kept the same job.
I agree with you, sorry if I gave any other signals. I ate a french toast sandwich at BK earlier this morning. I said that it is wrong to deprive people of their food choices.
The first one is that when any central authority gets the power to take and dole out money indiscriminately, they will be given large power over individuals, and even if originally a democracy, they would quickly pit interest groups against each other to gain complete totalitarian power.
That is a structural flaw of communism, one that is independent of implementation (except maybe anarco-communism).
the other flaw is that people take jobs with certain salaries in order to compensate for a certain amount of work, if you take a job for a 100k, and 80k is rerouted to a painter, then you will work only as if you had 20k. In addition, it stops people from taking jobs that would best benefit the economy. For example, in a capitalist economy, a lawyer who is also an excellent typist will become a lawyer because he can make more money (this is because the economy has a greater need and demand for lawyers). In a communist system, he will become a typist, as they make the same amount of money.
This is another structural flaw, the price of a product and the wage of a worker holds a message that tells people what the economy needs, and without it, the economy will eventually enter a period of stagnation and decay.
I thought that giving cheap food to the poor was a good thing...
There is a reason many people do not buy healthy food. If you want people to eat better, fix the macroeconomic problems that force them to make trade-offs in their health, instead of depriving them of choices.
Nope, they do release "control release" drugs that last longer or a slightly modified but "modern" molecule, and then patent that. The old drug is promptly snatched by a generic firm and sells it for a fraction of the price. the only foul play is that drug reps stop promoting it, so brainwashed doctors usually prescribe the newer(usually equally effective, if slightly more inconvenient) drug for a much higher price to scared inept patients(whose insurance usually happily picks up most of the bill).
That describes essentially all anti-depressants after Prozac, most ADD meds after Ritalin, cholesterol lowering drugs after Lipitor(just went generic), all of those acid reflux meds, etc.
How is a small company to survive? Many industries do not have economies of scale, if so, corporations have a very small advantage over you, and in most cases you actually hold the upper hand, as you can be more responsive to consumer demands.
Also, globalization decreases the costs of goods, so you can have larger margins, and if a corporation can out produce you, you can always resell there products with better customer service and marketing(retail).
You referred to offshore labor that only involves the manufacturing sector, which even without globalization contains significant economies of scale (R&D, marketing, so on). Even so, you can easily obtain a manufacturing contract from china, and I know of many small businesses that do.
And another thing, if you truly cannot compete, finds something else to do. Raising prices and penalizing efficient industry is a massive transfer of wealth from the poor (IE customers) to the rich and middle class (you).
The solution though is just to institute a carbon tax that taxes CO2 production, regardless of source. That would create some revenue for research and discourage carbon use.
The problem you mentioned with the California deregulation is that there was deregulation, but also a price ceiling. By economic definition, if the market price rises above the price ceiling, then there will be shortages.
While I admit that, most utilities are highly regulated monopolies that cannot create equilibrium price that could be solved by spinning off power production into a private company while regulating transmission.
let me look at the universe around me. trillions of megawatts of solar, wind power abound, nuclear fission, pebble bed nuclear reactors, to say nothing of an eventual fusion breakthrough. cheap energy is not a historical blip, energy production will week rising exponencialy because of technology, coupled with greater efficiancy in transmission and the decentralization of power, will yeild humanity in a age of more energy per capita than ever before. if you believe that people should live on less for some romantic attachent, than just fuckin say so. dont insert bullshit science and faulty economics to write it off as energy policy
If you remembered anything from economics, then you would realize that 200 billion dollars of consumer spending isn't lost, it's redirected to other things that multiply better, such as food, cars, loan payments. Total GDP goes up, not down. It is rather comparable to a drop in oil prices.