"Standard oil also bought up every trolley system in the U.S. and had them burned and put out of business."
Really? That is pretty amazing, since there are lots of famous, long time trolly systems all over the country.
"Also when methanol became a popular fuel over gas SO got the government to ban it via prohibition"
Standard Oil never sold gasoline. They sold kerosene. And methanol has never been banned as a fuel. It was never considered a drug, because it just kills you if you ingest it.
Stop making shit up to support your argument. All that does is kill people, to a greater or lesser degree, depending on whether or not they believe your bullshit.
That's like saying working for pay and paying someone to work aren't the same. While technically correct, one still enables the other, and without that model, society collapses.
You can say that, but there is a marginal effect on sales, so there IS an effect. Just because its small doesn't mean it isn't there. If you take that effect and multiply it across the entire user base, or a large fraction of it, you make the system unworkable, and find yourself at the point where you just might have to start directly paying for content.
You can refuse to take the effect into account, but you can't refuse the effects of everyone refusing to take that effect into account.
"But to think of people who want control over their content as "sociopaths"?"
A sociopath is someone who prioritizes his own self above society, or rather, someone who gets CAUGHT doing so. Those people, myself included, could be called sociopaths for using ad blockers while continuing to consume content, though more likely we simply dehumanize those on the other side of the screen because we can't see them to confirm on a subconscious level that they are human.
But that is human nature, and it is the hand content producers are dealt. SO they can either deal with it, and keep ads unobtrusive/passive, or they can, as you suggest, create other revenue streams.
And you are free to do that. That doesn't stop the advertisers from giving money to the content producers (though if EVERYONE did that, it sure would, something that you should take into account when you do that).
That sounds great, except that excessive advertizing alienates users, no matter how good the content. If you put up too much, people won't come (or will use ad-blockers, decreasing your revenue while using your bandwidth).
You shouldn't try to use theory to disprove empirical facts. That is something that the Communists did, and wound up killing millions because of it.
Why did they have power? Men have it because men evolved to compete for women with economic contribution. Although men have power, they literally only have it to give it to women. So who REALLY has the power? But of course, that is a sexual power, not a physical or intellectual one, so that isn't good enough for feminists.
Whites became powerful because they valued personal and economic freedom among their own people and others. Is that so bad? I mean, do you REALLY think that South Africa or Zimbabwe are better places to live now than they were under white rule? Could they have treated the natives better? Sure, but giving them "equality" has done nothing but devastate two once great nations.
But then, I guess that is all racist and misogynist talk. Reality is a bigot.
They aren't using your bandwidth for free. They are providing the service you are requesting. You see the ad in exchange for that. That is the "price" of typing out a post on slashdot, reading some dude's blog, or looking up recipes in an online database.
Of course, that doesn't entitle them to stop you from using adblocker software, so it is in their best interests to use unobtrusive or passive advertising.
Yes, and that happened via the same process I mentioned. Japan was just further along the curve. Sadly, they then fell into the Keynesian trap, and are now destroying their capital base in the name of false growth.
Not at all. American workers were hundreds of times more effective than those 14 cent an hour workers. What happened is that hidden costs in the form of ever increasing regulatory compliance costs crept in until op0erations simply became unsustainable. "American made" did and still does mean "quality", but it is now at such a price that no-one will pay it. Instead, they buy Chinese crap, that is steadily increasing in quality, as they are building up a strong capital base (and paying their workers more and more as a result). It's still far behind where we were at our height, and we could recapture our crown as the kings of world manufacturing, if we would but return to the regulatory regime that we had in the years leading up to that golden age.
Being jealous of rich people isn't going to make you any richer, either, you fucking looter.
"We had no regulations under Laissez Faire, and it killed growth"
No, it didn't. In fact, the economic growth seen under such policies was extreme. So extreme, that it had never been seen before, and has only been duplicated in less free countries due to access to existing capital bases.
You cite "monopolies" and I suspect that you refer to the Standard Oil monopoly (where SO gained 90% of the market share in the kerosene market). What you fail to understand is that under SO's monopoly, the price of kerosene fell by 90% while the quality improved enough to allow it to be used as the source of motive power for machinery, rather than just being used for heat and light. "Anti-competative" is fine, when your competitors produce a crappy product at a high price. SO bought them out, and upgraded their facilities, often hiring the former workers back AT HIGHER WAGES. They were able to do this because they could increase their productivity with their superior knowledge and vertical integration. Further, that same monopoly CREATED the very concept of research and development, something the government has sadly co-opted and has thus ruined.
But those facts hurt your feelings, so I guess you can just ignore them. But you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring them.
"Amazon has been around for a couple of decades and during that period, prices of books have been the same as that before internet bookstores."
Stop lying. I can get books that used to cost $20-30 for $5-15 on Amazon, brand new.
And real prices for cars have fallen dramatically--it's just that our real wages have also fallen dramatically, because we have redistributed purchasing power away from capital and to asset prices, which has killed the funding pool for jobs. Get rid of the Fed, and nominal prices will start falling and real prices will plummet.
Moore's law exists because there is reletively little regulation in computer space. If the government got involved, regulation would quickly be subverted to prevent increases in efficiency, allowing those who subverted the process to cut R&D funding and give that money to the CEO's. The free market is like Moore's Law, only for EVERYTHING. When we had a free market, so-called monopolies like Standard Oil increased the quality of kerosene dramatically even while cutting both the real and nominal prices by 90%.
No they aren't. Just saying that there is a reason without providing one just proves that you are a gullible idiot.
You can't disprove Odin or Quetzalqoatl either. But you don't see me rushing into battle to get to Valhalla or tearing the hearts out of children with curly hair, do you?
So there is literally nothing you can do other than what you are doing right now to make even a little bit of money? Are you some kind of brain in a bottle or something?
The socialist produces nothing, so he can not understand how others can produce something.
The reason for capitalism is to produce ever more leverage on phyisical labor. The end point is unlimited capital, allowing you to do virtually anything with virtually nothing. This is a major step in that direction.
We destroyed our jobs through overregulation, where they created them by adopting market principles. Get rid of the regulations, and growth WILL resume. But not a second earlier.
As ever, socialists don't understand economics.
At least the bi is a libertarian idea, and as a result is less destructive to society than the current welfare system.
Fact is, prices reflect the amount of human labor in a product and all of its components. Transportation is probably the largest single component of practically all goods. As a result, you will see prices for such goods start to fall dramatically. We aleady see this in the economy of plemty that is the internet. You pay a nominal fee for access, then almost everything else is free, and those few things that aren't are plenty cheap.
Likely has to do with the rise of the internet. Free flow of information means people have more access to information disproving their parents' religious beliefs. Lots of contradictions in those bronze age oral histories and iron age letters. Q
Slashdot Mirror
"Standard oil also bought up every trolley system in the U.S. and had them burned and put out of business."
Really? That is pretty amazing, since there are lots of famous, long time trolly systems all over the country.
"Also when methanol became a popular fuel over gas SO got the government to ban it via prohibition"
Standard Oil never sold gasoline. They sold kerosene. And methanol has never been banned as a fuel. It was never considered a drug, because it just kills you if you ingest it.
Stop making shit up to support your argument. All that does is kill people, to a greater or lesser degree, depending on whether or not they believe your bullshit.
And yet it takes no time at all to make up slander against the dead.
That's like saying working for pay and paying someone to work aren't the same. While technically correct, one still enables the other, and without that model, society collapses.
You can say that, but there is a marginal effect on sales, so there IS an effect. Just because its small doesn't mean it isn't there. If you take that effect and multiply it across the entire user base, or a large fraction of it, you make the system unworkable, and find yourself at the point where you just might have to start directly paying for content.
You can refuse to take the effect into account, but you can't refuse the effects of everyone refusing to take that effect into account.
"But to think of people who want control over their content as "sociopaths"?"
A sociopath is someone who prioritizes his own self above society, or rather, someone who gets CAUGHT doing so. Those people, myself included, could be called sociopaths for using ad blockers while continuing to consume content, though more likely we simply dehumanize those on the other side of the screen because we can't see them to confirm on a subconscious level that they are human.
But that is human nature, and it is the hand content producers are dealt. SO they can either deal with it, and keep ads unobtrusive/passive, or they can, as you suggest, create other revenue streams.
I'm not making value judgements here. I'm just stating fact. Content providers are paid via ads. If everyone blocks ads, free content goes away.
It doesn't matter whether or not you care, or how you justify your actions. What is, is.
And you are free to do that. That doesn't stop the advertisers from giving money to the content producers (though if EVERYONE did that, it sure would, something that you should take into account when you do that).
Yes, you can do what you want. A sentiment I expressed in the second paragraph of my post.
You just said in your own post that they provide money to the content provider, which they do.
Do you also want to ban commercials from appearing on television? Literally the same principle.
That sounds great, except that excessive advertizing alienates users, no matter how good the content. If you put up too much, people won't come (or will use ad-blockers, decreasing your revenue while using your bandwidth).
You shouldn't try to use theory to disprove empirical facts. That is something that the Communists did, and wound up killing millions because of it.
Misandry is the word you are looking for.
Funnily enough, it doesn't even show up in my spell check.
But it is definitely real, and those who practice it get away with it even in extreme cases for the most part.
Why did they have power? Men have it because men evolved to compete for women with economic contribution. Although men have power, they literally only have it to give it to women. So who REALLY has the power? But of course, that is a sexual power, not a physical or intellectual one, so that isn't good enough for feminists.
Whites became powerful because they valued personal and economic freedom among their own people and others. Is that so bad? I mean, do you REALLY think that South Africa or Zimbabwe are better places to live now than they were under white rule? Could they have treated the natives better? Sure, but giving them "equality" has done nothing but devastate two once great nations.
But then, I guess that is all racist and misogynist talk. Reality is a bigot.
They aren't using your bandwidth for free. They are providing the service you are requesting. You see the ad in exchange for that. That is the "price" of typing out a post on slashdot, reading some dude's blog, or looking up recipes in an online database.
Of course, that doesn't entitle them to stop you from using adblocker software, so it is in their best interests to use unobtrusive or passive advertising.
Yes, and that happened via the same process I mentioned. Japan was just further along the curve. Sadly, they then fell into the Keynesian trap, and are now destroying their capital base in the name of false growth.
Not at all. American workers were hundreds of times more effective than those 14 cent an hour workers. What happened is that hidden costs in the form of ever increasing regulatory compliance costs crept in until op0erations simply became unsustainable. "American made" did and still does mean "quality", but it is now at such a price that no-one will pay it. Instead, they buy Chinese crap, that is steadily increasing in quality, as they are building up a strong capital base (and paying their workers more and more as a result). It's still far behind where we were at our height, and we could recapture our crown as the kings of world manufacturing, if we would but return to the regulatory regime that we had in the years leading up to that golden age.
Being jealous of rich people isn't going to make you any richer, either, you fucking looter.
"We had no regulations under Laissez Faire, and it killed growth"
No, it didn't. In fact, the economic growth seen under such policies was extreme. So extreme, that it had never been seen before, and has only been duplicated in less free countries due to access to existing capital bases.
You cite "monopolies" and I suspect that you refer to the Standard Oil monopoly (where SO gained 90% of the market share in the kerosene market). What you fail to understand is that under SO's monopoly, the price of kerosene fell by 90% while the quality improved enough to allow it to be used as the source of motive power for machinery, rather than just being used for heat and light. "Anti-competative" is fine, when your competitors produce a crappy product at a high price. SO bought them out, and upgraded their facilities, often hiring the former workers back AT HIGHER WAGES. They were able to do this because they could increase their productivity with their superior knowledge and vertical integration. Further, that same monopoly CREATED the very concept of research and development, something the government has sadly co-opted and has thus ruined.
But those facts hurt your feelings, so I guess you can just ignore them. But you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring them.
"Amazon has been around for a couple of decades and during that period, prices of books have been the same as that before internet bookstores."
Stop lying. I can get books that used to cost $20-30 for $5-15 on Amazon, brand new.
And real prices for cars have fallen dramatically--it's just that our real wages have also fallen dramatically, because we have redistributed purchasing power away from capital and to asset prices, which has killed the funding pool for jobs. Get rid of the Fed, and nominal prices will start falling and real prices will plummet.
Moore's law exists because there is reletively little regulation in computer space. If the government got involved, regulation would quickly be subverted to prevent increases in efficiency, allowing those who subverted the process to cut R&D funding and give that money to the CEO's. The free market is like Moore's Law, only for EVERYTHING. When we had a free market, so-called monopolies like Standard Oil increased the quality of kerosene dramatically even while cutting both the real and nominal prices by 90%.
No they aren't. Just saying that there is a reason without providing one just proves that you are a gullible idiot.
You can't disprove Odin or Quetzalqoatl either. But you don't see me rushing into battle to get to Valhalla or tearing the hearts out of children with curly hair, do you?
No, they are what the market can bear when there is little competition. And if everyone is unemployed, then the market won't bear much anyways.
Out of curiosity, how much are you paying to post on Slashdot? What will the market bear here?
So there is literally nothing you can do other than what you are doing right now to make even a little bit of money? Are you some kind of brain in a bottle or something?
The socialist produces nothing, so he can not understand how others can produce something. The reason for capitalism is to produce ever more leverage on phyisical labor. The end point is unlimited capital, allowing you to do virtually anything with virtually nothing. This is a major step in that direction.
We destroyed our jobs through overregulation, where they created them by adopting market principles. Get rid of the regulations, and growth WILL resume. But not a second earlier.
As ever, socialists don't understand economics. At least the bi is a libertarian idea, and as a result is less destructive to society than the current welfare system. Fact is, prices reflect the amount of human labor in a product and all of its components. Transportation is probably the largest single component of practically all goods. As a result, you will see prices for such goods start to fall dramatically. We aleady see this in the economy of plemty that is the internet. You pay a nominal fee for access, then almost everything else is free, and those few things that aren't are plenty cheap.
Yes, it is a chronic form of assault. If you want the minor IQ boost provided by nicotine, then take it in a smokeless manner.
Likely has to do with the rise of the internet. Free flow of information means people have more access to information disproving their parents' religious beliefs. Lots of contradictions in those bronze age oral histories and iron age letters. Q