But Google Wikipedia for "The Netherlands" and simply look at the statistics of a nanny state. People in the US would probably fall of their chair when they hear that we pay about 30% taxes for everything, but then again you can't simply get "FIRED!" and be unemployed for four years, nor do you see crippled people walking down the streets that can't afford a new hip, while there are enough hospitals around to fix you up.
I fail to see how that's a "nanny state". That looks like a state that actually treats people fairly.
If I'd live in the US I would vote for Ron Paul (because he's the only sane, yet sorta popular guy)
Ron Paul is not sane in the least. He is just as much of a religious nut as the rest. And he would be more than happy to see the individual states crush people's freedom.
The result was the greatest period of economic progress in any nation's history.
Along with some of the most brutal treatment of labor at the hands of their employers. And some of the worst treatment of the poor to be seen in a long time. To go on about the "joys of capitalism" and to ignore that it put all the power into the Robber Baron's hands is completely disingenuous.
You'd be completely wrong. This is evident in both the public and private sectors. There's a reason they say, "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM."
Basically, the perception is that, since these guys charge a lot, they must be good at what they do. Since they're good at what they do, there's no reason to go with a competing service.
So fucking what? You're saying that because something is a "luxury", the person selling it shouldn't be held to any kind of standard? That they should be able to do whatever the fuck they want?
Why? If you know ahead of time that things that will alter the balance of the game are for sale and you choose to play the game anyway, why is that sale "immoral"? It may be immoral to make such sales secretly, but if the rules are clear that you can buy what you want, how can that be immoral?
Very easily, once you realize that just because you can buy something, doesn't make it right. It is completely fucking immoral, as the entire game basically breaks down into who's willing to spend the most.
At the same time, this kind of behavior needs to be nipped in the bud, otherwise it will spread. Cell phone providers used to not charge for text messages. Now they all do. They also used to not have restrictions on data plan usage. Now they all do, in some form or another. Saying "You don't have to play the game!" doesn't work once the vast majority of games are engaging in that behavior.
Corporations have to look after the interests of their owners, but that doesn't mean the owner's interests are always "maximize profit".
The cases you mentioned are extremely rare. The biggest shareholders in general are banks, hedge funds, and pension funds. They want maximum profit, period. And they hold several dozen orders of magnitude more shares than anyone after what you mentioned.
Pedantic point: I don't think using a tennis racket in place of a baseball bat would actually lead to any kind of advantage. In fact, I'd probably lean the other way, that using one would make things harder.
The rest of your post is quite spot on. Even if the game is free, it's not going to be any fun if your opponent can just dump a bunch of cash into the machine at the end in order to win. Imagine if Arcade games had this: You're playing Street Fighter against someone, and right as you're about to beat them, they spend some extra tokens for a full health bar and full special meter. Maybe some gloves which do double damage. How would that be fair, or more importantly, fun, in the least?
Making money, just by itself, is not. However, the ways in which you make money definitely can be. If you are grossly overcharging in the face of no competition, then that is immoral. If you are charging outrageous amounts of interest (usury), then that is immoral.
Microtransactions by themselves are not good or bad. It's how they are used. If you offer some small bits of content, that don't completely alter the way the game is played or balanced, then that's fine. Even things like offering new maps is fine. However, if you use microtransactions for things that completely alter the balance of the game, and essentially allow someone to pay to win, then that is immoral.
I didn't think we were talking about basic subsistence items, I thought we were talking about 100% discretionary items like HDTVs and iPads.
We're talking about everything. Both basic items and luxury items. It makes no difference.
I think what you meant was 'consumers don't have any money, but still think they are entitled to have whatever luxury they want, and they are willing to give up on their supposed principles to get it, as long as they can blame someone else'.
Not in the least. Remember, China still manufactures A LOT of non-luxury items, too.
Care to point out the law that requires anyone to buy an iPad? If you don't approve of how a product is made, DON'T BUY THE PRODUCT! Gee, that wasn't so tough, was it?
Ahh, so now I have to miss out on just about every consumer electronics product ever made. Sounds fun!
This is the crux of the problem - people like you are completely unwilling to place the blame where it belongs, on us.
Nope. We were never given the choice of a US made product.
Because he has science backing him up. There have been many, many, many studies which have shown that vaccination is safe. People like you, on the other hand, have nothing but pseudo-science quackery and vapid former Playboy centerfold bimbos.
When I did the math for my son he had much higher chance of dying from the vaccine than measles
No he did not you stupid fuck. The only reason he didn't get the measles is because there are other parents who aren't stupid fucks like you, actually love their children, and got them immunized.
Slashdot Mirror
But Google Wikipedia for "The Netherlands" and simply look at the statistics of a nanny state. People in the US would probably fall of their chair when they hear that we pay about 30% taxes for everything, but then again you can't simply get "FIRED!" and be unemployed for four years, nor do you see crippled people walking down the streets that can't afford a new hip, while there are enough hospitals around to fix you up.
I fail to see how that's a "nanny state". That looks like a state that actually treats people fairly.
If I'd live in the US I would vote for Ron Paul (because he's the only sane, yet sorta popular guy)
Ron Paul is not sane in the least. He is just as much of a religious nut as the rest. And he would be more than happy to see the individual states crush people's freedom.
Then the government defends the citizens from threats foreign and domestic. After that it should mostly get the hell out of the way.
So big business would not be seen as a domestic threat? How about those that refuse to treat labor with respect, and pay them a living wage?
But the market corrects over time
Not always, and not in a manner that would actually be beneficial to the people.
What we really should do is use the least worse variant of governing (capitalism) and iron out the quirks.
Deciding which is the 'least worse' variant is extremely subjective.
There's a huge difference between saying you're taking inspiration from his theories, and actually implementing them.
The result was the greatest period of economic progress in any nation's history.
Along with some of the most brutal treatment of labor at the hands of their employers. And some of the worst treatment of the poor to be seen in a long time. To go on about the "joys of capitalism" and to ignore that it put all the power into the Robber Baron's hands is completely disingenuous.
No, he wasn't being disingenuous at all. He was illustrating a tool the rich use to avoid paying their share of taxes.
You'd be completely wrong. This is evident in both the public and private sectors. There's a reason they say, "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM."
Basically, the perception is that, since these guys charge a lot, they must be good at what they do. Since they're good at what they do, there's no reason to go with a competing service.
So fucking what? You're saying that because something is a "luxury", the person selling it shouldn't be held to any kind of standard? That they should be able to do whatever the fuck they want?
Why? If you know ahead of time that things that will alter the balance of the game are for sale and you choose to play the game anyway, why is that sale "immoral"? It may be immoral to make such sales secretly, but if the rules are clear that you can buy what you want, how can that be immoral?
Very easily, once you realize that just because you can buy something, doesn't make it right. It is completely fucking immoral, as the entire game basically breaks down into who's willing to spend the most.
At the same time, this kind of behavior needs to be nipped in the bud, otherwise it will spread. Cell phone providers used to not charge for text messages. Now they all do. They also used to not have restrictions on data plan usage. Now they all do, in some form or another. Saying "You don't have to play the game!" doesn't work once the vast majority of games are engaging in that behavior.
The fact that those laws aren't enforced means that they are free to abuse customers all they want, in the name of maximizing profit.
Corporations have to look after the interests of their owners, but that doesn't mean the owner's interests are always "maximize profit".
The cases you mentioned are extremely rare. The biggest shareholders in general are banks, hedge funds, and pension funds. They want maximum profit, period. And they hold several dozen orders of magnitude more shares than anyone after what you mentioned.
Pedantic point: I don't think using a tennis racket in place of a baseball bat would actually lead to any kind of advantage. In fact, I'd probably lean the other way, that using one would make things harder.
The rest of your post is quite spot on. Even if the game is free, it's not going to be any fun if your opponent can just dump a bunch of cash into the machine at the end in order to win. Imagine if Arcade games had this: You're playing Street Fighter against someone, and right as you're about to beat them, they spend some extra tokens for a full health bar and full special meter. Maybe some gloves which do double damage. How would that be fair, or more importantly, fun, in the least?
So essentially, making money is immoral?
Making money, just by itself, is not. However, the ways in which you make money definitely can be. If you are grossly overcharging in the face of no competition, then that is immoral. If you are charging outrageous amounts of interest (usury), then that is immoral.
Microtransactions by themselves are not good or bad. It's how they are used. If you offer some small bits of content, that don't completely alter the way the game is played or balanced, then that's fine. Even things like offering new maps is fine. However, if you use microtransactions for things that completely alter the balance of the game, and essentially allow someone to pay to win, then that is immoral.
Well, except that it's wholly voluntary.
So's drug dealing.
Botulism isn't capable of abstract thought.
I didn't think we were talking about basic subsistence items, I thought we were talking about 100% discretionary items like HDTVs and iPads.
We're talking about everything. Both basic items and luxury items. It makes no difference.
I think what you meant was 'consumers don't have any money, but still think they are entitled to have whatever luxury they want, and they are willing to give up on their supposed principles to get it, as long as they can blame someone else'.
Not in the least. Remember, China still manufactures A LOT of non-luxury items, too.
Care to point out the law that requires anyone to buy an iPad? If you don't approve of how a product is made, DON'T BUY THE PRODUCT! Gee, that wasn't so tough, was it?
Ahh, so now I have to miss out on just about every consumer electronics product ever made. Sounds fun!
This is the crux of the problem - people like you are completely unwilling to place the blame where it belongs, on us.
Nope. We were never given the choice of a US made product.
There are exemptions for health and religious reasons.
While I can see for health reasons, as there are people who do have weakened immune systems, I cannot fathom any exception for religious reasons.
How does he know this?
Because he has science backing him up. There have been many, many, many studies which have shown that vaccination is safe. People like you, on the other hand, have nothing but pseudo-science quackery and vapid former Playboy centerfold bimbos.
If they don't get vaccinated, they should be required to spend their days in a plastic bubble, so as not to infect anyone else.
What choice do I have left but not to vaccinate?
To not be retarded and vaccinate.
When I did the math for my son he had much higher chance of dying from the vaccine than measles
No he did not you stupid fuck. The only reason he didn't get the measles is because there are other parents who aren't stupid fucks like you, actually love their children, and got them immunized.
and it states that the total fatality rate including pedestrians and such was still reduced.
The exact same thing is true of vaccines.