Agree, I just spent about 30 minutes cruising around some sites overseas I was not able to see as clearly with online Maps.google.com
Put me in a good mood. It's really nice and I appreciate someone putting the link in the summary.
If by "no regulation" you mean people do whatever they want (hire professional assassins, etc.), then that might be true, I guess, for commodities markets. You'd have to study the cocaine distribution or heroin distribution "cartels". But in that scenario the corporation itself would have no control against internal theft etc., you may not ever know who's in charge, even civil law would be in question, and you would wind up with chaos (like ISIS or the drug trade).
If you are just postulating a "rigged" system where some laws are enforced, but not antitrust or restraint of trade laws, I think we been there, done that. The two remedies to it were antitrust law (including civil lawsuits), and international trade (see what happens to USSR auto monopolies when they have to compete with Toyota or Volkswagon.
I'm married to a tenured prof, and I had the idea about 7 years ago (reserved a domain guerillacampus.org) to "uber" the college classroom. My idea was to use only fully tenured professors at area colleges to teach "on the side", so that students who paid would know they were getting the same generic teaching ingredients. Now I've got twins entering as freshmen, and looking at all the expenses and loans anew. I see Minerva Project is trying something similar, to replicate a "highly selective" competitive environment without the added expense of "campus" largesse.
No doubt there is an opportunity somewhere in MOOCs or Minervas or Uber-professors to provide the teaching with lower expense. However, I found that it was a lot more difficult than having an idea and recruiting the teachers. Vetting students, recruiting, providing a certified brand of diploma, etc. proved fairly significant, and without scale of students one faces very high administrative challenges. He's not the first to have the idea and it's not going to be easy when students drop out or demand transcripts 5 years later, or don't pay their teachers as planned. But I hope he succeeds, if only to send a warning shot over the universities bows, ie that colleges have potential competition if they remain in the "arms race" to build massive capital intensive campuses.
Dammit, please. I watched the touchscreen market, via DigiTimes, for years. The geeks in Taiwan who were carving the niche for ATM touchscreen displays were the top of the touchscreen pyramid. Apple was buying IPods (pods not pads) from Taiwan contract manufacturers, who would show other "cool stuff" they had. Apple saw it quickly and wrote software and gets a lot of credit, but designed Taiwanese inventions into it. I was told the small firm Apple claims did it for them in Vancouver was from the Taipei outfit.
Apple basically did to Taiwan what Bill Gates did to IBM. Which is great, I have no problem with it, but please give Terry Gou and Simon Lin (the Jobs and Gates counterparts in Taipei) some credit for what happened. They are the reason the Samsung vs. Apple patents go nowhere - its because Taiwan geeks made the hardware. It's less the invention of the hardware than it is the licensing fees. Control of the licensing fees is what made Gates and Jobs, and that's largely a legal play. Again, fine, but it just pains me to see the actual engineers ignored.
Graham Pickren wrote an excellent Ph.D thesis in 2013 "Political ecologies of electronic waste: uncertainty and legitimacy in the governance of e-waste geographies". While it isn't about nuclear waste, per se, it rather brilliantly describes how industrialized nations apply a "fetishism" to material which tracks downstreams but not upstreams. http://www.envplan.com/abstrac...
The point of the article is that the dirtiest recycling (or most questionable Yucca storage) is practically always better than the cleanest extraction (mining).... and this applies to the risk at Yucca (for storage) vs. mining uranium in the USA Southwest. Nevada's strangely among the most willing states to allow in situ mining, even when mercury effluent (from gold mining) turns their extraction points into Superfund sites. 14 years ago Nevada and NM legislators were trying to provide the private sector with $30 million to develop environmental restoration technologies for in-situ leach (ISL) mining of uranium. "In a statement from his office in Washington, D.C. Domenici said he decided to remove the ISL provisions from his comprehensive nuclear energy plan in order to calm fears stoked by "substantial misinformation about the legislation." (Gallup Independent, Nov. 10, 2001)"
Treatment of Planetary Environmental health oddly follows the same "waste centric" obsessions of western medical history. Western medicine is pretty great today, but went through a couple of centuries of giving mercury as a laxative, and being always focused on what comes out of the body rather than the nutrition stream. Closing the "waste deposit" while giving tax incentives to mine uranium is "anal retentive" environmentalism.
See also Pickren et. al. at AREA Waste, commodity fetishism and the ongoingness of economic life http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!