*Implying that regulations prevented the disaster.
We have to keep doing what we are doing, or EVERYONE WILL DIE!!!!@!@!11
Truth is, if regulations had not been so severe, they would have been able to move that spent fuel to a safer location, or, God forbid, reuse it in a breeder reactor to generate energy while disposing of the long term radioactive waste. Instead, extremely heavy regulations made the situation WORSE because they forced the plant to store spent fuel in an insanely dangerous manner--they simply couldn't afford the cost of complying with disposal regulations.
I homebrew. Scale up is not difficult. Equipment needed is not expensive. Regulatory compliance just happens to take absolutely forever, especially for someone fresh out of college, with only a small nestegg. Hell, I had a building built, ready to go. Had all the equipment I needed to make my initial small batches. I hadn't ordered fermentors yet, thank God.
But seriously, fuck you. Regulation is real, and places an uneven burden on new businesses. Try opening a business and see just how real it is.
If you want a comparison, restrictive regulations are like a flat tax. They hurt the poor the most. Only thing is that rather than being a flat percentage, it's a flat DOLLAR AMOUNT, or at least, the time required to get it all done.
Uh-huh, tell that to the guy who spent 9 months trying to deal with the bureaucracy to try to open up a winery with NO employees, and wound up having to abandon his ambition because he burned up his tiny nestegg that he managed to save through college.
That is to say, fuck you. Regulation is there and real. If it weren't, there would be a ton of companies competing with each other.
Or by giving them unlimited access to money printed by the Federal Reserve while spreading the risk evenly among the entire banking sector via the FDIC, encouraging maximum risk?
Now you are making shit up. No-one used the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. I specifically defined the time period of the closest to free market implementation we ever had, and it happened to coincide with the greatest period of economic expansion ANYONE ever had.
You are clearly thinking of Keynesiansism, or Communism, or Fascism, or some other stupid authoritarian ideology, all of which fail, and all of which blame their failure on "impure" implementation. Free market ideology is not so weak. Economic growth is directly proportional to the freedom of individuals to make their own economic choices. A central bank is the antithesis of a free market (as it fixes interest rates, basically lying to the general public about how much money there is available for borrowing, artificially fixing people's time preference for money, leading to bubbles and busts that always follow bubbles), and as such, I noted that the implementation of such was the end of the free market era, just as the closure of the politburo was the end of socialist era in Russia. This is not hard to understand, and it certainly isn't the No True Scotsman fallacy.
You think the government waved a magic wand and all that crap went away? NO! You forget about the transition from serfdom that was happening at the same time. You forget prior to that era there was often NO food, and that criminality among the nobility was endemic.
Christ, what exactly do you think it is that makes a child go to work? By the same argument, if drugs were legalized tomorrow, you would claim that everyone would run out and start doing heroin. That's just stupid.
As for food, there are plenty of PRIVATE certification organizations that could easily replace the FDA, and do a much better job at it (even giving numerical ratings rather than having a pass/fail system--I for one, don't want ANY mouse droppings in my chocolate sprinkles).
That's the problem with big government supporters--they don't think. They want someone else to do it for them.
You say nonreversable (making it a bad idea), but everyone else says that it doesn't last long and has to keep being redone (making it a bad idea). Literally no plan that doesn't involve genocide of brown people is acceptable to you people (or did you think that the poor of the world eat cool air rather than mass harvested grain enabled by cheap fossil fuel use?).
There is no argument that you people will accept. Literally none.
I would be the first to congratulate you on giving up all that the Industrial Revolution has offered, and going to live in the forest with happy little squirrels and such and leave the rest of us alone.
When it gets cold outside, you don't launch a project to adjust the axis of the Earth. You put on a fucking sweater. "Masking". Christ.
It must keep increasing? What, from 20 balloons to 40? This is an easy, cheap solution, but you people STILL want to starve half the world to death, and impoverish the rest to satisfy the Climate Gods.
Uh-huh, so it's fine for them to give with one hand, while they take with the other, but when they want to let you keep what is yours and stop giving you that which is other's, you claim they have no right because they are "rich" and "don't understand".
Incorrect. Corporations were created by government. A shrinking government would recent all corporate charters, opening up shareholders to lawsuits and criminal prosecution.
Exactly. Corporations are required by law to maximize the profits of the shareholders by any means necessary. They are thus sociopathic entities.
The world would be much better off if corporations were simply organized as joint stock ventures, with individual owners liable for the actions of their company both financially and criminally (with lower and higher burdens of proof respectively).
Except you, by definition, can not have a corporation without a government. It is the government that invented the idea of the corporate veil, and it is the government that holds shareholders harmless for the misdeeds the corporation commits in their name.
Get rid of governments, and you get rid of corporations. If corporations stick around, then they do so only by use of aggressive force, making them a form of government, likely a dictatorship, as your correctly point out.
No, the government introduced the t-virus to try to fix their buddies' mistakes, and now we have zombie banks running around eating each other. Neither regulation nor deregulation is going to help us.
"Give me control over a nation's money, and I care not who makes its laws." We've got to strike at the root of the problem, and the root is the Federal Reserve.
Slashdot Mirror
English and American English spellings are different.
*Implying that regulations prevented the disaster.
We have to keep doing what we are doing, or EVERYONE WILL DIE!!!!@!@!11
Truth is, if regulations had not been so severe, they would have been able to move that spent fuel to a safer location, or, God forbid, reuse it in a breeder reactor to generate energy while disposing of the long term radioactive waste. Instead, extremely heavy regulations made the situation WORSE because they forced the plant to store spent fuel in an insanely dangerous manner--they simply couldn't afford the cost of complying with disposal regulations.
I homebrew. Scale up is not difficult. Equipment needed is not expensive. Regulatory compliance just happens to take absolutely forever, especially for someone fresh out of college, with only a small nestegg. Hell, I had a building built, ready to go. Had all the equipment I needed to make my initial small batches. I hadn't ordered fermentors yet, thank God.
But seriously, fuck you. Regulation is real, and places an uneven burden on new businesses. Try opening a business and see just how real it is.
If you want a comparison, restrictive regulations are like a flat tax. They hurt the poor the most. Only thing is that rather than being a flat percentage, it's a flat DOLLAR AMOUNT, or at least, the time required to get it all done.
I see, so you are ok with entire industries being wiped off the map?
Sounds about right for the giant cockroach you are quoting.
Uh-huh, tell that to the guy who spent 9 months trying to deal with the bureaucracy to try to open up a winery with NO employees, and wound up having to abandon his ambition because he burned up his tiny nestegg that he managed to save through college.
That is to say, fuck you. Regulation is there and real. If it weren't, there would be a ton of companies competing with each other.
But that is all regulation. If they don't like it, they will fight it until it is changed or they are out of business.
This guy sure loves porno!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbMuEjASwzg
Hopefully it will look more like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chqi8m4CEEY
Yes, it could. Feel free to get to work on that. You will make a fortune when a: these nutjobs get their way, or b: oil gets scarce and expensive.
Relative to shutting down worldwide production, yes, quite easy, and quite cheap.
Engineering challenges are more easily overcome than the laws of economics.
The stuff reproduces and continues to fall forever?
Sounds about par for the course on environmentalist logic.
That's not creating a bubble. The bubble is already there. This is POPPING the bubble before it gets any bigger.
If he had been allowed to do this with housing in 2002, much of this mess would never have happened.
Or by giving them unlimited access to money printed by the Federal Reserve while spreading the risk evenly among the entire banking sector via the FDIC, encouraging maximum risk?
Oh my, that can't be good.
*Implying the banks don't get gigantic sums of money from the current system.
Now you are making shit up. No-one used the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. I specifically defined the time period of the closest to free market implementation we ever had, and it happened to coincide with the greatest period of economic expansion ANYONE ever had.
You are clearly thinking of Keynesiansism, or Communism, or Fascism, or some other stupid authoritarian ideology, all of which fail, and all of which blame their failure on "impure" implementation. Free market ideology is not so weak. Economic growth is directly proportional to the freedom of individuals to make their own economic choices. A central bank is the antithesis of a free market (as it fixes interest rates, basically lying to the general public about how much money there is available for borrowing, artificially fixing people's time preference for money, leading to bubbles and busts that always follow bubbles), and as such, I noted that the implementation of such was the end of the free market era, just as the closure of the politburo was the end of socialist era in Russia. This is not hard to understand, and it certainly isn't the No True Scotsman fallacy.
You are the pot calling the napkin black.
You think the government waved a magic wand and all that crap went away? NO! You forget about the transition from serfdom that was happening at the same time. You forget prior to that era there was often NO food, and that criminality among the nobility was endemic.
Christ, what exactly do you think it is that makes a child go to work? By the same argument, if drugs were legalized tomorrow, you would claim that everyone would run out and start doing heroin. That's just stupid.
As for food, there are plenty of PRIVATE certification organizations that could easily replace the FDA, and do a much better job at it (even giving numerical ratings rather than having a pass/fail system--I for one, don't want ANY mouse droppings in my chocolate sprinkles).
That's the problem with big government supporters--they don't think. They want someone else to do it for them.
You say nonreversable (making it a bad idea), but everyone else says that it doesn't last long and has to keep being redone (making it a bad idea). Literally no plan that doesn't involve genocide of brown people is acceptable to you people (or did you think that the poor of the world eat cool air rather than mass harvested grain enabled by cheap fossil fuel use?).
There is no argument that you people will accept. Literally none.
*Water puts out hot coals.
I don't think you thought your brilliant critique of this plan through.
I would be the first to congratulate you on giving up all that the Industrial Revolution has offered, and going to live in the forest with happy little squirrels and such and leave the rest of us alone.
When it gets cold outside, you don't launch a project to adjust the axis of the Earth. You put on a fucking sweater. "Masking". Christ.
It must keep increasing? What, from 20 balloons to 40? This is an easy, cheap solution, but you people STILL want to starve half the world to death, and impoverish the rest to satisfy the Climate Gods.
Uh-huh, so it's fine for them to give with one hand, while they take with the other, but when they want to let you keep what is yours and stop giving you that which is other's, you claim they have no right because they are "rich" and "don't understand".
I weep for this country. RIP.
Incorrect. Corporations were created by government. A shrinking government would recent all corporate charters, opening up shareholders to lawsuits and criminal prosecution.
Exactly. Corporations are required by law to maximize the profits of the shareholders by any means necessary. They are thus sociopathic entities.
The world would be much better off if corporations were simply organized as joint stock ventures, with individual owners liable for the actions of their company both financially and criminally (with lower and higher burdens of proof respectively).
Except you, by definition, can not have a corporation without a government. It is the government that invented the idea of the corporate veil, and it is the government that holds shareholders harmless for the misdeeds the corporation commits in their name.
Get rid of governments, and you get rid of corporations. If corporations stick around, then they do so only by use of aggressive force, making them a form of government, likely a dictatorship, as your correctly point out.
No, the government introduced the t-virus to try to fix their buddies' mistakes, and now we have zombie banks running around eating each other. Neither regulation nor deregulation is going to help us.
"Give me control over a nation's money, and I care not who makes its laws." We've got to strike at the root of the problem, and the root is the Federal Reserve.