The problem is that there is so many taxes, both direct and indirect, that it just makes more sense to assign a function, assuming it can be assigned, to the worker residing in India.

You cant credibly just claim that taxes are the cause of every issue and expect it to be taken at face value. Do you really think that taxes are the only reason why Disney can save huge amounts by outsourcing from the US to India? Sure a combination of taxes, worker rights etc, combined with much lower living costs in India may justify it, but do you really want to slash the services provided by government and allow American firms to disregard worker safety and rights to the same extent as India, in the likely false hope that it will stop firms moving labour abroad where they can.

There's one (appeal to authority), and even that is dubious as he doesn't state it as fact that Franklin would react in the way he supposes; it's also equally present in the post he was responding to. Your own post definitely includes one. However it wouldn't take a student of philosophy to know any of this.

I tried being polite but you are not only a fucking idiot but one that wants to throw away what George Washington gave you.

I tend to lose a lot of sympathy for people when, like in this case, someone responds to a reference they don't have personal experience of, by doing a two minute Google/Wikipedia search and then respond like they have actually studied it.

And moreover the global audience is more diverse, and therefore is more open to unusual films than the north-americans.

So. Fucking. What. I don't care if Sub-Saharan Africans are more willing to accept novel supercar designs if they can't afford to buy them. There's a pretty huge open and diverse audience within the US as well, from the Americans I know, but if that isn't where the studio thinks the big money is then they don't focus most of their effort on it.

You must be the soul of the party wherever you go....

Says the person who went off on one because of a single sentence comment on an online forum.

And finnaly world wide public = paying public too, so they are as important (or more) as north-american public. And note that the global audience is much more numerous and diverse than the north-american public.

No they aren't. Film studios care more about markets that make them money (or may in future make them more money), not about markets which have larger populations and which are more diverse.

If a studio can keep 90% of ticket sales of a new release in the US but only gets to keep 50% of the much smaller number of ticket sales for a new release in Hungary then they clearly are going to give less of a toss about the Hungarian market.

Air is free. I've never had to pay anyone to produce it for my respiration.

No it isn't, think of all the legislation that goes into limiting emissions and protecting vegetation in order to improve/maintain air quality. That firewood wouldn't be on public land if their weren't laws protecting the public forest from which the wood came. None of the examples you give are truly 'free' by the definition you seem to want to use: free of cost or consequence to all.

Well no one is forcing him to live in one of the most expensive areas in the world (assuming it actually is). I make less than 15k per year after taxes and I don't really consider myself poor. In the country I'm living in now the average income is about $250 per month or about $3000 USD per year.

You're earning 500% the average income for the country in which you live, no shit you don't consider yourself poor. Your entire point is nonsense, of course you have to consider location when defining what 'poor' is. I don't care that someone earning $5k in another country can live like a king or not, someone earning $5k in the UK is poor.

Your inability to consider what is worth paying people decent money for says a lot more about your ignorance than anything else.

And they were pretty good at it to. Why do you think dogs made it into space four years before humans did!?

Automobiles have a very limited impact on roads compared to heavy, loaded, tractor trailers.

To give an anecdotal example, the firm I work for probably has ~400 lorries enter and leave site each day. The road outside directly outside, the first T junction, and the roundabout onto the main road all need repair a few times a year. What really highlights the difference is that on the roundabout, the lane used to turn into our site is wrecked but the other lane which our vehicles don't use can go years without needing repair, just because of a couple of hundred ~25T+ vehicles breaking from 60mph to 0-10mph every day.

Why would you want a system that financially encourages people to keep the oldest death trap toxic belching rust buckets on the road?

I.e., the poor who drive older, used cars would be taxed more than the rich who can afford a new car every year.

I'm inclined towards the view that taxing new cars at point of sale based on emissions, instead of part of the road/fuel tax currently levied might be a more effective way to get emissions down without being too harmful to people at the bottom of society using older more inefficient cars because they can't afford to upgrade.

Tracking every mile a car does seems like surrendering a lot of information to the state in return for a very limited benefit.

Sadly true, so feel free to entice them over to Australia and you'll have my thanks.

As crap as call centre customer service so often is, it doesn't make this a waste of money. Even if the company was perfect and never did anything wrong, they would from time to time receive calls from customers who are angry/touchy/rude, and giving staff good training in how to keep those interactions relatively positive is useful.

$5 per month would be perfect, IMHO. Worth getting rid of the ads...

Free without ads would be 'perfect' but it doesn't mean it is a viable business model.

If they roughly half the cost, then they would need to more than double the number of paying customers just to stay where they are. I'm sure if they thought they could make more money by lowering the price they would.