Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: No transit costs. (Score 1) 106

Actually we used to have a curious form of economy for the longest time in many parts of Europe where key infrastructure was in the hands of the state while the rest of the economy worked out in a market economy. The net result was that there was a lot more competition for the consumer market because the playing field for the competitors was a lot more level.

In this example it would mean that the cables would be owned by a state controlled monopoly while the ISPs compete on equal footing by renting cable from the state monopoly and providing the ISP service to the customers. Much lower entrance cost into the market meant that a lot of small ISPs competed, allowing the price to drop. Then in their unending wisdom our regulators decided to "liberate" the market because that bad, bad state government made everything so terribly expensive due to all the red tape and bureaucracy that state monopolies entail.

Now, about 15 years after the monopoly fell, we have two major ISPs left, zero competition between the two (who curiously seem to divine whenever the competitor raises the price and matches it immediately), prices are up at the ceiling, bandwidths have been stagnant for a few years now, cables are congested because nobody invests in new infrastructure and the whole shit is going down the drain.

Thanks, free market!

Comment Re:Can we just make it legal to shoot executives? (Score 1) 106

I really say one should test that literally. How well does a golden parachute really work if you toss said manager out of the 50th floor? Inquisitive minds want to know! And let's be honest here, it sure ain't no loss if a CEO or two die in the process, we have far more than we need anyway.

Comment Re:freedom (but only for those we like) (Score 3, Insightful) 98

This. Exactly this.

The correct answer to people spouting bullshit is to call out their bullshit. Don't silence them by squelching them, silence them by showing them that they are wrong, that they are not the "vocal minority that dares to say what others only think", but that they are a loudmouth few who babble what everyone else knows is BULLSHIT.

Comment Re: No transit costs. (Score 2) 106

The free market is a nice idea but fails at the entrance fee.

If I have an established system, I can operate at much lower cost than someone who would have to establish the system first. If I already have a factory pumping out a product (which has redeemed its cost already by me being able to set the price due to having a de facto monopoly due to a lack of competitors), I can easily squish any and all competition that may arise by lowering the price to the point where it is not feasible for someone who still has to redeem his investment. By fixing the price at a level where he cannot redeem his costs, I can ensure the continuation of my de facto monopoly. This is crucial in markets where the initial cost of doing business is magnitudes higher than the operational cost. Like, say, ISPs.

There are a few ways to crack open such a monopoly. But that first and foremost needs the will of the law makers to actually do something against it.

Comment Re:And is an example of the worst... (Score 1) 109

As an European it sounds really odd to me to equate "liberal" with the political left. A liberal over here would be considered a right winger. Actually, "conservative" is something you'd put further to the political middle than right over here. Which, oddly enough, makes our "conservatives" usually more left leaning than the "liberals". Not by a lot, mind you, by European standards they're both firmly entrenched to the right of the middle of the political spectrum.

Maybe because we actually do have socialist and social-democratic parties.

Comment Re:And is an example of the worst... (Score 5, Interesting) 109

You might also remember that the 60s were generally a decade of prosperity, not just for the 1% on top but for pretty much any and all people in the US. It was a decade of economic growth, people could actually afford building new homes, two cars and still pay off their mortgage.

How much thereof was due to the moon program? Directly? Probably little. But indirectly the program had incredible impact on the US economy. Due to its secrecy and the "we" spirit, pretty much any and all work had to be done inside the US, creating jobs. New inventions, not only in technology but also in process management and management itself, boosted the economy further than anything before. The inertia of this all led the US well into the 80s.

If anything, we'd need something like this again. Something that means more domestic production jobs, innovation and new possibilities. Right now we do have corporate welfare as well. But in the worst kind. Where the people pay for corporations to take jobs abroad.

Slashdot Top Deals

I have a very small mind and must live with it. -- E. Dijkstra