Exactly. Billy the Kid became famous for killing less then 10 people. How many people in gangs do we have today that are completely unknown with death counts higher?
Some might do that and if they did bring supplies in Then you are right they are helping. But most aren't buying pallets of plywood for their double-wides.
Not really. The rednecks are buying up the local supply and making a profit by creating a black market. What would really increase supply is allowing the big stores to charge the higher price. They could then roll those profits into moving new supply into the area.
One of the reasons a free market economy makes things better for everyone is because of specialization. This means we all don't have to do everything and we can delegate things so we can concentrate on what we are the best at. It doesn't make sense to make a wealthy person spend hours doing their own landscaping when they can hire people to do it which frees them up to concentrate on creating more wealth. The same logic applies. It makes sense to have surge pricing so the people with the most money can get where they are going and not waste their time which is much more valuable then mine. Why should the driver or company take a hit in profits to drive me around when the rich guy is willing to pay more?
As a Floridian I can tell you what those laws do during storms. While you are working a bunch of unemployed rednecks get their big trucks and buy up all of the supplies at the box stores. Then they drive around selling it at a big markup on the side of the road.
Whoever said a company operated as its own free market? That doesn't make sense at all. A company competes with other entities in the market. What determines prices is what people are willing to agree to. If you have a better way to predict prices you can try to set up a competing service and see how well you do.
I do agree with you that companies engage in regulatory capture but that has nothing to do with a free market.
My company paid me to go to college and grad school. The agreement was I had to work for them for 3 years after graduation or I had to pay them for the tuition. It is a great deal.
If you think about it Google could save a bunch of money giving their own standardized test to HS students the give them a few years of their own training in exchange for staying on for a certain number of years. The students will have no debt and you can pay them much less as a result.
Exactly right. Same thing happened when the Spanish brought lots of gold from the Americas. It was particularly interesting because gold was also money at the time so they had a pretty bad inflation as the new money made its way into the economy.
Both sides of the aisle miss the real point of the 2nd amendment. The point is that the way to have a free and safe country is to not have a Standing Army that can be easily defeated but to have armed citizens that receive enough training that any country would be stupid to invade. Kind of like Afghanistan. That is why In the congressional powers it says Congress shall provide and maintain a Navy. But it says raise and support an Army but no apportionment shall be more than two years.
It's a standing Army that is dangerous. Both because it can be used on the citizens and it can be used to cause trouble overseas.
Instead of a fixed amount it could be implemented as a simple redistribution. For example a 10% tax on all personal income and gross business receipts (Businesses are people right?) with no deductions. Then divide by the number of citizens and pay out. This can be automated enough to do the updates quarterly. It also insures the system will stable indefinitely since it can't have surpluses or deficits.This will naturally work out (as well as any Centrally planned scheme could) because if people start getting lazy and stop working the amount gathered in taxes will reduce as well as the payment and they would need to work some more to make ends meet which raises the income.
No. What I would expect to happen is their customer base will vanish long before the authorities get around to fining them or forcing them to remove their product. Kind of like the whole BPA or trans-fat issues. Companies felt the pressure and responded to consumer demand. I'm sure eventually long after the fact there might be some regulations against those products.
I find this comment hysterical because it wasn't the FDA that found this out but a private watchdog company. That's how the free market works. You don't have to trust companies to self regulate. The best sources of wrong doing will always come from competitors, disgruntled employees, or consumer advocates.
"I mean, "How does your design handle failure condition X" is not brutal. But there are definately other ways to phrase the issue that are."
That can be brutal if it is during a large design review and you didn't consider that mode. But it's still necessary. If you have a culture of not doing that you are going to hurt someone.
It looks like people have an issue with my use of brutal. By brutal I mean valuing being honest and direct and not avoiding these to save someone's feelings. I don't mean you have to be a jerk about it. But if someone is wrong or you think they are wrong you then you need to be persistent about it until you are satisfied.
I work in aerospace as well. And I value peer reviews with people that actually look for flaws rather than a rubber stamp.
Instead, Amazonians are instructed to “disagree and commit” (No. 13) — to rip into colleagues’ ideas, with feedback that can be blunt to the point of painful, before lining up behind a decision.
This is how things work in the REAL engineering world. (By REAL I mean industries when things fail people die and companies go bankrupt like shipping, aerospace, structural engineering, power generation, etc.)
We need to be brutal when reviewing designs and analysis becuase Mother Nature doesn't care how good you think your calculations are. Sure some people get their feelings hurt but if can't take it then you should get out of the business. I am thankful when someone finds a flaw in something I did because that could kill people.
Once again you are confusing your terms. We are talking about economics systems not political ones. Capitalism simply means private ownership of producer goods (and all property).
What you are describing (terrorize, theft, and murder) has nothing to do with Capitalism. It has to do with the political system. Terrorism, theft, and murder is how all governments stay in charge. That isn't much of a surprise. The difference is just in degree on how much violence is used and how evenly it is used.
We need to define our terms carefully, socialism is very specifically defined as the public ownership off the means of production. So no private ownership over production. Communism is no private ownership of anything. Capitalism is the private ownership of all property with no difference between consumer and producer goods.
You are righ that then we add in all sorts of government. The Nordic countries are very Capitalist. But they also have a relatively large Welfare programs. These are paid for by taxes. This doesn't mean they are socialist. The areas where they start becoming socialist is where they intervene in the market like setting price caps etc. This is also where they experience the shortages typical of public ownership.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. Billy the Kid became famous for killing less then 10 people. How many people in gangs do we have today that are completely unknown with death counts higher?
Some might do that and if they did bring supplies in Then you are right they are helping. But most aren't buying pallets of plywood for their double-wides.
Not really. The rednecks are buying up the local supply and making a profit by creating a black market. What would really increase supply is allowing the big stores to charge the higher price. They could then roll those profits into moving new supply into the area.
One of the reasons a free market economy makes things better for everyone is because of specialization. This means we all don't have to do everything and we can delegate things so we can concentrate on what we are the best at. It doesn't make sense to make a wealthy person spend hours doing their own landscaping when they can hire people to do it which frees them up to concentrate on creating more wealth. The same logic applies. It makes sense to have surge pricing so the people with the most money can get where they are going and not waste their time which is much more valuable then mine. Why should the driver or company take a hit in profits to drive me around when the rich guy is willing to pay more?
As a Floridian I can tell you what those laws do during storms. While you are working a bunch of unemployed rednecks get their big trucks and buy up all of the supplies at the box stores. Then they drive around selling it at a big markup on the side of the road.
Whoever said a company operated as its own free market? That doesn't make sense at all. A company competes with other entities in the market. What determines prices is what people are willing to agree to. If you have a better way to predict prices you can try to set up a competing service and see how well you do.
I do agree with you that companies engage in regulatory capture but that has nothing to do with a free market.
My company paid me to go to college and grad school. The agreement was I had to work for them for 3 years after graduation or I had to pay them for the tuition. It is a great deal.
If you think about it Google could save a bunch of money giving their own standardized test to HS students the give them a few years of their own training in exchange for staying on for a certain number of years. The students will have no debt and you can pay them much less as a result.
Exactly right. Same thing happened when the Spanish brought lots of gold from the Americas. It was particularly interesting because gold was also money at the time so they had a pretty bad inflation as the new money made its way into the economy.
Both sides of the aisle miss the real point of the 2nd amendment. The point is that the way to have a free and safe country is to not have a Standing Army that can be easily defeated but to have armed citizens that receive enough training that any country would be stupid to invade. Kind of like Afghanistan. That is why In the congressional powers it says Congress shall provide and maintain a Navy. But it says raise and support an Army but no apportionment shall be more than two years.
It's a standing Army that is dangerous. Both because it can be used on the citizens and it can be used to cause trouble overseas.
You can't take pictures of the food simply because you are in the owners property and must follow their rules.
Instead of a fixed amount it could be implemented as a simple redistribution. For example a 10% tax on all personal income and gross business receipts (Businesses are people right?) with no deductions. Then divide by the number of citizens and pay out. This can be automated enough to do the updates quarterly. It also insures the system will stable indefinitely since it can't have surpluses or deficits.This will naturally work out (as well as any Centrally planned scheme could) because if people start getting lazy and stop working the amount gathered in taxes will reduce as well as the payment and they would need to work some more to make ends meet which raises the income.
So was this site free? No CC info?
The policies of the last couple of decades have insured a depression is on it's way in the next couple of years anyway.
You mean inhaling smoldering plant matter into your lungs is not healthy? Who would have thought?
No. What I would expect to happen is their customer base will vanish long before the authorities get around to fining them or forcing them to remove their product. Kind of like the whole BPA or trans-fat issues. Companies felt the pressure and responded to consumer demand. I'm sure eventually long after the fact there might be some regulations against those products.
The Berlin Wall was built by East Germany to keep people from leaving not to keep invaders out.
The real problem not being discussed is you can either have open borders or a welfare state. You can't have both for long.
I find this comment hysterical because it wasn't the FDA that found this out but a private watchdog company. That's how the free market works. You don't have to trust companies to self regulate. The best sources of wrong doing will always come from competitors, disgruntled employees, or consumer advocates.
"I mean, "How does your design handle failure condition X" is not brutal. But there are definately other ways to phrase the issue that are."
That can be brutal if it is during a large design review and you didn't consider that mode. But it's still necessary. If you have a culture of not doing that you are going to hurt someone.
It looks like people have an issue with my use of brutal. By brutal I mean valuing being honest and direct and not avoiding these to save someone's feelings. I don't mean you have to be a jerk about it. But if someone is wrong or you think they are wrong you then you need to be persistent about it until you are satisfied.
I work in aerospace as well. And I value peer reviews with people that actually look for flaws rather than a rubber stamp.
Sorry but there is no way except a free market with voluntary transaction.
Brutal - direct and lacking any attempt to disguise unpleasantness.
Instead, Amazonians are instructed to “disagree and commit” (No. 13) — to rip into colleagues’ ideas, with feedback that can be blunt to the point of painful, before lining up behind a decision.
This is how things work in the REAL engineering world. (By REAL I mean industries when things fail people die and companies go bankrupt like shipping, aerospace, structural engineering, power generation, etc.)
We need to be brutal when reviewing designs and analysis becuase Mother Nature doesn't care how good you think your calculations are. Sure some people get their feelings hurt but if can't take it then you should get out of the business. I am thankful when someone finds a flaw in something I did because that could kill people.
Once again you are confusing your terms. We are talking about economics systems not political ones. Capitalism simply means private ownership of producer goods (and all property).
What you are describing (terrorize, theft, and murder) has nothing to do with Capitalism. It has to do with the political system. Terrorism, theft, and murder is how all governments stay in charge. That isn't much of a surprise. The difference is just in degree on how much violence is used and how evenly it is used.
We need to define our terms carefully, socialism is very specifically defined as the public ownership off the means of production. So no private ownership over production. Communism is no private ownership of anything. Capitalism is the private ownership of all property with no difference between consumer and producer goods.
You are righ that then we add in all sorts of government. The Nordic countries are very Capitalist. But they also have a relatively large Welfare programs. These are paid for by taxes. This doesn't mean they are socialist. The areas where they start becoming socialist is where they intervene in the market like setting price caps etc. This is also where they experience the shortages typical of public ownership.