It's not a euphemism. They're the same thing.

And that's what some people support about Uber: that they have broken laws that should never have existed in the first place. But lobbying for new bad laws makes them just as bad as everyone else.

I'm sure you could come up with some userscript to filter that out.

I can't imagine that 80% of the population subsists on $2 a day or less, but 75% has a television. Better to raise the price and let those who most value it buy it than to have a price that fails to convey the information that prices are supposed to convey -- in this case, that they should use less water.

See a more complete and accurate list (in thousands) in recent history from Death by Government.

A few of the numbers:
- USSR: 61,911,000
- China (PRC): 35,236,000
- Germany: 20,946,000
- China (KMT): 10,075,000

"abcdef".chars

That was added later as the Sixteenth Amendment. Furthermore, the Constitution is not perfect as we all well know. If it were, blacks would still be 3/5 of a person.

The fact that India is not as developed as the United States says nothing about the effect of taxation or tax avoidance. You can't say "Bob is fat and Ronald is not. Bob is mean and Ronald is not. Therefore, being fat makes people mean."

That may be true, but how many people die when the FDA fails to approve drugs on time? Why not just have incentives to avoid hurting people rather than telling them how to do it? If someone falsely advertises, they can be sued for fraud. If their drug has X side effect (maybe even death), they can be sued for all damages caused by their nondisclosure of said side effects. Federal regulation is not the most effective way to keep people safe. The problem is that we have an easy time imagining what would happen if the FDA doesn't exist -- "snake oil," unsafe drugs, etc -- but we fail to see what innovation didn't happen or what lives weren't saved because of the FDA.

I'm aware that I accidentally submitted the same comment twice. Sorry about that -- wish Slashdot would let you delete your comments.

They've figured out that regulations hurt innovation and make it difficult to compete with established businesses collecting economic rent.

They've figured out that the regulations they're always pushing for make it near-impossible to compete with established companies and hurt innovation.

I believe the word is save, not hoard. Deflation does not work like you think it does. Money is just like any other good in the economy, and so its price is set just like every other good -- by supply and demand schedules. There's nothing special about money that exempts it from the normal way we analyze goods. Under your logic, the same would happen to stocks. If a stock goes up, then people would buy more of it and it would become a "vicious cycle" of price increases in the stock. Yes, there are bubbles due to bad judgement, but the idea is the same: the price of currency can go up and down. When it goes up too fast, that just means that it hasn't found its correct price point yet. The price of money doesn't change how many goods are produced. No one is going to say "Darn, I can't sell for 0.0005 BTC, I'll have to set the price to 0.0004 BTC and pay my employees 20% less. I don't want to do that. I'll just stop producing anything and let my capital rot!"

I think the lesson is that deflation is actually be a good thing, especially for long-term savings. Plus, who doesn't want to wake up to lower prices every day?

Yes, the sun does disrupt sale of lighting equipment. That does not mean we ban it.

Future-proofing: if you decide that you want to use some other format later then you won't be transcoding lossy to lossy.