That would be nice, but it's incorrect. All they need to focus on is providing the product that their customers demand, or would demand if they knew better and found out later how awesome it is.
For Microsoft, a quality product would be key, since operating systems are not commodity yet. For a number of other fields, such as some foods, price is the more important factor.
Branding == Reputation. In that manner, it is absolutely essential that a brand be strong. You can do it through heavy advertising, or just by having a quality product.
Example: When you think "car" you should think "Honda." When you think "Honda" you should remember how your last one ran for 13 years before you couldn't stand it anymore and sold it, how it handled well, etc. (Not to promote the Honda brand, but I know someone this actually happened to, and he bought a new Honda.)
It's Miles-Per-Gasoline-equivalent. It's just rated in MPGe to keep teams using alternate fuels from claiming to have absurd MPG, and also giving a measure that is common and understandable to most people.
The Tesla Roadster uses about 7,100 laptop batteries, IIRC. Maybe it was 4,000? Either way, it was an order of magnitude more than 100.
Your argument about limiting other uses of resources only applies in two situations:
1. Short term, before markets can adjust for increasing demand.
2. Resources mined out of the ground or otherwise limited by physical nature. There's only so much gold, land, etc.
It does not apply in this case.
Don't forget education and birth control. In order for it to work, education and infrastructure upgrades have to go hand in hand. Properly fixing Africa so it wont be needy anymore is not going to be cheap in the short run.
This is correct. Although I do worry about the fiscal solvency of the federal government due to not taxing enough (or cutting spending enough, but historically "starve the beast" hasn't worked,) the President, either D or R does not have large control over the economy unless something very drastic happens and is not buffered by congress.
The problem isn't the loss of data as in no longer accessible; it's the loss of data as in permanent identity theft. If the laptop fell into the hands of the wrong person it could bankrupt her for life. It was in their care, it's their responsibility.
Except that given the situation here, the substantial costs of entering the CPU market mean that if Intel does end up bankrupting AMD, (which is quite close in performance outside the high range) there will be no serious competitors and thus significantly less incentive for them to continue a CPU arms race. Also, consumers will end up paying significantly more than they would otherwise.
...so respect for the law is a higher value than justice? That is neither socially optimal nor logical. Please explain your repeated antagonism towards the protesters that is appearing throughout this topic.
However, it is socially optimal to eliminate the Church of Scientology. While mobs are usually too dangerous a force to cause anything productive, if the Church of Scientology were to disappear tomorrow it would relieve a great strain of frivolous lawsuits from the court system, it would relieve a great strain of mental stress from many humans, and it would crunch what would continue to be a large sink of otherwise productive resources.
From a philosophical standpoint, moral rights (as much as rights exist,) are not always the same as legal rights. What is your justification for legal rights, if not to ensure moral rights?
I suppose we've drifted off point. If we had to choose again, I would pick a more European-style system, where property and corporations are considered means to public goods (which is what they are when used correctly), rather than ends in themselves, and controlled as such. I don't want to banish corporations. As I said earlier, rights derive from utility, and corporations are often useful.
I still think the rich benefit much more from infrastructure than everyone else. If we return to that system without infrastructure example, the rich have the most to lose, and will be much closer in material wealth to everyone else. So, they benefit materially more per wealth and should be taxed accordingly. Not to mention they're less happy per wealth above a certain amount, (90k) so increasing marginal tax rates to fufil the bottom of Mazlow's hierarchy for others is more optimal, until it begins to significantly impede economic performance.
Your experiences shape your values. You see "self-made" people and you assume that all others are biologically capable or likely to reach this outcome. My personal experience is that that is not true. Had I been born to a different family I probably would have ended up in poor health as a high school dropout. But I got lucky, I have parents that cared enough to keep me on track and I have parents that realized my allergies and attention deficit and could afford treatment. (I'm hoping you're not one of those "ADD is just an excuse for laziness." types, because if you are you have no idea what you're talking about.)
That aside, flat taxes are regressive, and a consumption tax would be an economic disaster and be much more difficult to enforce than the current scheme, for what appreciable benefit? The rich don't directly own a lot of the stuff they use, either.
Also consider: the longer you have on unemployment, the easier it will be to get a job in the field you specialize in, thus maintaining economic efficiency. But is the payoff greater than the expense? It sounds like an excellent idea for a study.
It wasn't a big enormous load of bull-crap, but as theatrical and fun as it would be to claim your post is "a big enormous load of bull-crap," your arguments have some merit and I don't feel acting like a pundit today.
Certainly I like private goods. I like having shoes and toothbrushes and other whatnot, and for a large number of goods government involvement ought to be limited only to safety and increasing competition by giving information to the consumers. (The bureaucratic infrastructure required to maintain a similar diversity if everything were manufactured by the government would be unacceptably inefficient and wouldn't help the average citizen. Feet are too diverse.) However, as I said (and is fact,) the CEO is less happy for each additional dollar he receives than someone of a lower wealth would be. The utility is not maximized until his pay has been reduced to the minimum amount required to give enough him incentive to do his job well. The pay discrepancy can never be eliminated, since the jobs of n other people depend on him, but it is probably not optimal if the value you're solving for isn't market autonomy.
Oh I disagree entirely. A corporation cannot exist without a constant stream of revenue with which to pay its bills. Once the flow becomes low enough, the entire construct will collapse as the individuals who constitute it depart for greener pastures. It may be inconvenient, the individual may have to grow his own food or create his own products, but he depends less on the corporation than it depends on him. Doing so might even be dangerous in a modern society, but a large-sized corporation requires significantly more infrastructure for its survival than any person, unless perhaps its products are purchased every day by the same group of individuals. Eliminating the public infrastructure would remove the critical mass required to maintain it. If the company makes a product which each person only purchases once a week and must maintain sales of 250 units daily, it needs to reach at least 1,750 regular buyers to survive.
Yes, but it would be easier for you to do without or find a closer distributor than it would be for the CEO to move or radically decentralize his operations just to avoid that network. Without the public infrastructure, he has to either build his own distribution network or lease/rent parts of one from others. You might have to hike without one, but that's a lower marginal cost. As for the private plane, he benefits from properly controlled airspace, another public-type good, because his time is worth more in dollars than yours. He has a lot more to lose by taking a long time to reach somewhere than you do. As for paying more, that's exactly what I'm saying. He should pay more and he does, so what's the problem with that? I'm also pretty sure that our highest marginal tax rate is under 90%. Aside from that, he receives less utility from each additional dollar he receives than you do.
Property is useful, of course. I didn't deny that. Property rights from a moral standpoint can frequently be justified as rule utilitarianism, just like trial-by-jury. There are plenty of exceptions where property rights are not the best available solution of course, but property rights aren't "rights," they are merely convenient.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be nice, but it's incorrect. All they need to focus on is providing the product that their customers demand, or would demand if they knew better and found out later how awesome it is.
For Microsoft, a quality product would be key, since operating systems are not commodity yet. For a number of other fields, such as some foods, price is the more important factor.
Branding == Reputation. In that manner, it is absolutely essential that a brand be strong. You can do it through heavy advertising, or just by having a quality product.
Example: When you think "car" you should think "Honda." When you think "Honda" you should remember how your last one ran for 13 years before you couldn't stand it anymore and sold it, how it handled well, etc. (Not to promote the Honda brand, but I know someone this actually happened to, and he bought a new Honda.)
It's Miles-Per-Gasoline-equivalent. It's just rated in MPGe to keep teams using alternate fuels from claiming to have absurd MPG, and also giving a measure that is common and understandable to most people.
The Tesla Roadster uses about 7,100 laptop batteries, IIRC. Maybe it was 4,000? Either way, it was an order of magnitude more than 100.
Your argument about limiting other uses of resources only applies in two situations:
1. Short term, before markets can adjust for increasing demand.
2. Resources mined out of the ground or otherwise limited by physical nature. There's only so much gold, land, etc.
It does not apply in this case.
If it can exert more force/weight or more force/power, then it will be when it becomes practical. Ghost in the Shell much?
How are you so biased that you read "employed" as "unemployed"!?
Typical Orwellian garbage.
LEGAL BILLS.
Don't forget education and birth control. In order for it to work, education and infrastructure upgrades have to go hand in hand. Properly fixing Africa so it wont be needy anymore is not going to be cheap in the short run.
This is correct. Although I do worry about the fiscal solvency of the federal government due to not taxing enough (or cutting spending enough, but historically "starve the beast" hasn't worked,) the President, either D or R does not have large control over the economy unless something very drastic happens and is not buffered by congress.
But how? How do religious people command such irrepressible faith in the absolute truth of their deity?
The problem isn't the loss of data as in no longer accessible; it's the loss of data as in permanent identity theft. If the laptop fell into the hands of the wrong person it could bankrupt her for life. It was in their care, it's their responsibility.
It's cute that you think the only reaction to a market failure is communism instead of regulation.
Except that given the situation here, the substantial costs of entering the CPU market mean that if Intel does end up bankrupting AMD, (which is quite close in performance outside the high range) there will be no serious competitors and thus significantly less incentive for them to continue a CPU arms race. Also, consumers will end up paying significantly more than they would otherwise.
If you feel that all other religions are as I described the Church of Scientology to be, that's not my business.
However, it is socially optimal to eliminate the Church of Scientology. While mobs are usually too dangerous a force to cause anything productive, if the Church of Scientology were to disappear tomorrow it would relieve a great strain of frivolous lawsuits from the court system, it would relieve a great strain of mental stress from many humans, and it would crunch what would continue to be a large sink of otherwise productive resources.
From a philosophical standpoint, moral rights (as much as rights exist,) are not always the same as legal rights. What is your justification for legal rights, if not to ensure moral rights?
I still think the rich benefit much more from infrastructure than everyone else. If we return to that system without infrastructure example, the rich have the most to lose, and will be much closer in material wealth to everyone else. So, they benefit materially more per wealth and should be taxed accordingly. Not to mention they're less happy per wealth above a certain amount, (90k) so increasing marginal tax rates to fufil the bottom of Mazlow's hierarchy for others is more optimal, until it begins to significantly impede economic performance.
Oh, sorry. I must admit I have the same fear.
That aside, flat taxes are regressive, and a consumption tax would be an economic disaster and be much more difficult to enforce than the current scheme, for what appreciable benefit? The rich don't directly own a lot of the stuff they use, either.
Also consider: the longer you have on unemployment, the easier it will be to get a job in the field you specialize in, thus maintaining economic efficiency. But is the payoff greater than the expense? It sounds like an excellent idea for a study.
Certainly I like private goods. I like having shoes and toothbrushes and other whatnot, and for a large number of goods government involvement ought to be limited only to safety and increasing competition by giving information to the consumers. (The bureaucratic infrastructure required to maintain a similar diversity if everything were manufactured by the government would be unacceptably inefficient and wouldn't help the average citizen. Feet are too diverse.) However, as I said (and is fact,) the CEO is less happy for each additional dollar he receives than someone of a lower wealth would be. The utility is not maximized until his pay has been reduced to the minimum amount required to give enough him incentive to do his job well. The pay discrepancy can never be eliminated, since the jobs of n other people depend on him, but it is probably not optimal if the value you're solving for isn't market autonomy.
Oh I disagree entirely. A corporation cannot exist without a constant stream of revenue with which to pay its bills. Once the flow becomes low enough, the entire construct will collapse as the individuals who constitute it depart for greener pastures. It may be inconvenient, the individual may have to grow his own food or create his own products, but he depends less on the corporation than it depends on him. Doing so might even be dangerous in a modern society, but a large-sized corporation requires significantly more infrastructure for its survival than any person, unless perhaps its products are purchased every day by the same group of individuals. Eliminating the public infrastructure would remove the critical mass required to maintain it. If the company makes a product which each person only purchases once a week and must maintain sales of 250 units daily, it needs to reach at least 1,750 regular buyers to survive.
Your approach is related to the GP's only by the end goal. Although likely to be politically difficult, yours would at least work and pay for itself.
Yes, but it would be easier for you to do without or find a closer distributor than it would be for the CEO to move or radically decentralize his operations just to avoid that network. Without the public infrastructure, he has to either build his own distribution network or lease/rent parts of one from others. You might have to hike without one, but that's a lower marginal cost. As for the private plane, he benefits from properly controlled airspace, another public-type good, because his time is worth more in dollars than yours. He has a lot more to lose by taking a long time to reach somewhere than you do. As for paying more, that's exactly what I'm saying. He should pay more and he does, so what's the problem with that? I'm also pretty sure that our highest marginal tax rate is under 90%. Aside from that, he receives less utility from each additional dollar he receives than you do.
Since when is ownership physically required for action?
Property is useful, of course. I didn't deny that. Property rights from a moral standpoint can frequently be justified as rule utilitarianism, just like trial-by-jury. There are plenty of exceptions where property rights are not the best available solution of course, but property rights aren't "rights," they are merely convenient.
I recall hearing of such an automatic GPS unit in a car commercial recently.