Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Brazil has long had a very protectionist (Score 1) 111

by diamondmagic (#48809329) Attached to: Nintendo Puts Business In Brazil On Hiatus

The theorem doesn't require money. You could be trading apples for money, apples for butter for oranges, apples directly for oranges, doesn't matter. If three's comparative advantage, people trade. Period.

If people aren't trading, that doesn't mean the theorem is wrong; it means one of the conditions isn't being satisfied.

Comment: Re:Brazil has long had a very protectionist (Score 1) 111

by diamondmagic (#48797699) Attached to: Nintendo Puts Business In Brazil On Hiatus

What part of beneficial for both of us don't you understand? Both parties will be able to eat more total food. The less productive group will still be eating less, but more than if they didn't trade at all.

There is no situation in which it's bad to permit people to trade. Again, mathematical theorem.

Comment: Re:Third World Status, Here We Come! (Score 1) 496

by diamondmagic (#48797665) Attached to: Ted Cruz To Oversee NASA and US Science Programs

So let me get this straight, in 1776 the Founding Fathers got together to protest the mass poverty and bad British tea, and started NASA so we could lob said tea into space. It eventually made us so rich we became the best developed country on the Earth and now we're exploring how to cultivate tea and coffee on Mars.

Uh huh. If it were that easy to create developed nations, we'd be going into third world countries handing out space programs, not rice (and all the less lovely stuff our foreign aid props up)

Comment: Re:Brazil has long had a very protectionist (Score 1) 111

by diamondmagic (#48788265) Attached to: Nintendo Puts Business In Brazil On Hiatus

How in the world does comparative advantage not exist in a place like Brazil? To say there's no comparative advantage is so statistically improbable you may as well get hit by an asteroid. A million times.

You know what comparative advantage is, right? If it takes me $5 to produce an apple and $4 to produce an orange, and it takes you $2 to produce an apple and $1 to produce an orange; that's comparative advantage: Even though you produce both fruits by far and away cheaper than I do, you produce oranges at an opportunity cost 2x cheaper, and so Economics says we will trade, and it will be beneficial for both of us to do so.

Comment: Re:Brazil has long had a very protectionist (Score 2) 111

by diamondmagic (#48786007) Attached to: Nintendo Puts Business In Brazil On Hiatus

You're not supposed to produce everything as cheap as your neighbors, it's actually bad thing to do that. Even if your neighbor produces literally everything below the cost of domestic production, so long as the two entities have different opportunity costs for different goods, it's still more beneficial to outsource stuff and trade. Economists call this comparative advantage and it's a mathematical theorem.

Comment: What problem would have this solved? (Score 0) 216

by diamondmagic (#48758719) Attached to: Bill Would Ban Paid Prioritization By ISPs

Can anyone name ONE Net Neutrality issue ever that this would have prevented?

The big one everyone seems to point to was the Cogent/Netflix/Verizon issue, which was not "last mile", and so wouldn't have been solved by this bill (assuming the bill can actually do everything it says it can). That issue wasn't even a Net Neutrality issue, it was a peering dispute over a pipe that just happened to be a heavy carrier of Netflix traffic.

This seems entirely populist, why would they wait until now, after Republicans took control of congress, to bring it up? This is just like the Republican's repeated ACA/Obamacare bills, yes, it's dealing with something bad, but the bill isn't going anywhere, and it wouldn't even be a bill if they were in power. It's grandstanding.

Also, the bill seems to grant the FCC powers over commerce. Um, yikes. Who here wants the FCC examining your purchases and checking your router table configuration over it?

Comment: Re:This is what's wrong... (Score 1, Insightful) 216

by diamondmagic (#48758611) Attached to: Bill Would Ban Paid Prioritization By ISPs

To preface, this is not a partisan-based slam. This is a slam on our entire system. The fact that we accept something won't pass despite it being universally wanted by "the people" (not pronounced "corporations") shows our biggest hurdle that we as a country need to overcome. Not race/gender equality or financial disparity, but the ability of this country to be propelled forward by a system that is representative to the needs of the many, not the powerful.

I don't even know where to start on how dangerous this is. This is populism straight up, tyranny of the majority, screw any minority/individual's rights.

When any group of people can hold a vote and force someone out of their house - or take away their property or life - that's plain wrong.

When it is incorrect, it is, at least *authoritatively* incorrect. -- Hitchiker's Guide To The Galaxy

Working...