Can you mention one country outperforming the crisis that does not have way more and stronger goverment institutions then the US?

The liberatrian "small state" is as far as i have been able to tell religious in nature, with all empirical data contradicting the theory.

Shock therapy in eastern Europe is a good example of what happens if you simply dismantle a even a horribly inefficient government, and something similar have happened everything the small state "libertarian" theory have been tried in practice, things gets worse not better.
Libertarianism is based on assumptions that cannot be true for any system we can create from the ruins of the one we have.

The social democratic movement of Western Europe(Germany and Scandinavia in particular) Bernie Saunders is trying to introduce to America, is on the other hand very real, and most of it's polices have been tried out in practise and while they fall short of the full promise, they produced results rarely seen in other systems.

I am not saying his way are the right one but that the libertarian trap of ignoring the mess we have to start from should be avoided.

But were the downsides really accidental or a well understood consequence of a deliberate decision by the "Board of directors"? The red tape might be there on purpose to keep "junior management" from getting sucked in by the constant hype being pushed by "the press" for gadgets and bespoke IT solutions.

Most of the potential IT productivity gains for "traditional industries" might have been realised as far back as the mid 90ies, when all inventory, order processing and accounting were digitized, so a deliberate strategy to hold back and make do with cheaper commodity tools rather then try to fit everything to every niche inside the company, might release funds for other more important projects outside of IT.

Sure there are changes but were pretty far down the curve of diminishing returns that every new technology follows, so new innovations in IT have less of an effect then the innovations of the past.

Affirmative action is primarily the compromise made to avoid having half of the political and business elite of the US thrown in jail for high treason and will full violation of the US constitution which in the hindsight probably is what should have happened.

Instead a deal was made that essentially goes were going to give you amnesty but you will dedicate a set fraction of your economy toward the minorities whos right were violated for generations after they revolt had failed and universal equality became the American way. It's not the right solution but the people complaining about it ate typically the ones who parents got the better deal of not being prosecuted or bankrupted in a fair post slavery/apartheid trial.

It's way to easy to do clean slate ethics and just forget that any society is a product of it's past and that the US don't have that good a record of living up to the ideals it claims to support.
But clean state ethics like all utopianism is the tempting because it offer salvation in earth and that's why once in a wile a society tears itself apart in the not so cleansing fires of fascism which is always the outcome when someone tries to force an utopian vision based on clean slate ethics through.

But you need to make sure that is a personal expense. because unless you specifically close any loophole that might allow for the department to pay insurance costs, you can be sure the cost of insurance will fall right back on the tax payers leaving nothing changed.

As far as i know the responsibility and malpractice insurance required by doctors and lawyers can be company/clinic level and is not paid directly by "employees" but by the company they work for in most cases.

A much better solution would be to remove all investigations of police misconduct or use of force from the local justice system who depend on good day to day working relations with the police. As the real problem here is that the only ones who can discipline a cop cannot function unless the police supports them.
If the military justice system or a federal agency with no other domestic law enforcement responsibility then to police the police were automatically put in charge the minute any force are used by the police you would likely see a increase in convictions and a decrease in incidents.

Finance is a sub branch of law, and laws are specific to each jurisdiction, the reason finance is not widely outsourced is that same as the reason why there is no H1B lawyers.

What Europe and Asia does have the state play the role of investor of last resort in oddball basic research and kick the profiteers(contractors, private universities etc) out of the equation. There is essentially no reason ever for a job funded by taxes to be outsourced to a equally inefficient private bureaucracy and not the government itself. And plenty of reason why you want science done with an openness policy that runs against short term shareholder interests.

Also there might be a need to realise that the perpetual growth might be an impossibility and start adjusting the social structure so zero growth don't lead to people being forced to choose between returning to the old feudal order or violent revolt. Not doing so might hamper long slow but stable term growth because people panic if there is "bad years".

But we also had it easy when we emerged, since nobody else knew anything about anything, so all sorts of sysadmin jobs were wide open, and there were no Bangalore outsourcing industry, so the companies had to hire "local".

If you played with computers in the 80ies you essentially self selected into a skill set that was needed by the late 90ies but not taught by any vocational school until the 00's, and there were no older generation to displace since the entire market were expanding like crazy.

Now what you have is a fairly stable market, almost in stagnation if not decline, an older generation, already filling most of the demand, and an tendency for companies to hire in places with less political instability then the US. despite all of the silicon valley hype.

Danmark(and the rest of scandinavia) have completely different sensitivities then the anglo american culture, especially when it comes to explaining the world to kids, it's after all the place where an state run educational institution dissected and fed an giraffe to a bunch of lions in front of a bunch of kids. http://www.newscientist.com/ar... and routinely takes schoolchildren on excursions to slaughterhouses to prevent the Disneyfication of animals.

The difference in philosophy runs a lot deeper then the rating bodies.

A contractor is normally defined as a independent agent who can work for you and your competitor within the same time frame, once you start demanding they work exclusively for you, the contractor becomes a employee in most jurisdiction.

Another distinction, is that a contractor is a legal entity, i.e. a contractor can hire someone else to do the work as long as they meat the specified qualifications, ie if the contract specify one named individual the the base assumption is that there is a de facto employment contract.

There are overlaps between those two standards and lots of exceptions, but mostly in the more expensive end of the market. the closer you get to minimum wage the more likely it is that the details start pointing towards employee and not contractor once it gets down to actual case law.

The argument that gets made is that it would be unacceptable to have different classes of companies competing for the same market and not be subject to the exact same regulation, ie that Uber either get to try and prove that the rules are illegal or get out. Ubers main argument seams to be the rather silly but were not a taxi company so we dont need to follow any regulations and that just wont fly anywhere civilized.

The real problem for uber is not the volume regulation but the two main set of regulations that all taxi and bus companies have to follow, even in rural hinterlands with no volume regulation.

The first is the driver licensing, you need a special license to be allowed to drive paying customers, this involves additional tests of driving skills a full background check(criminal record) and completion of course in business regulations. Uber sometimes claim to vet their drivers for this but rarely follows the existing standard for due diligence. (more incompetent then the law is a thing on the continent).

Secondly the company must be operating under a rule set that makes it mandatory for them to accept liability(and to be insured against it) for almost everything involving a car driving under their banner, and bans them from discriminating against "costly" customer types(handicapped people) or poor neighbourhoods, specific terms and condition like fixed maximum tariffs might be in place and there is a lot of technical details hiding here but it's still mostly public "health and safety" and not meant to limit the number of operators. Uber really don't want to follow those rules, as half their business model is discriminatory pricing, and liability avoidance.

The third and the only one Uber wants to talk about is the volume limitations in place in congested cities, aka medallions here the rules span from Westministers(London) absurd rules mandating specific car designs etc, with a "full time drivers with detailed local knowledge only" restriction being the norm. It's rare that those volume restrictions are absolute ie an cap company based outside of the city can make some trips inside the city limits etc. And unlike the first two those rules are subject to fierce political debates as it's sort of an exemption to basic EU principles, getting into that market is an investment but not an impossible barrier.

Key Here Deutche Telecom, they are not known under that name in america so obviusly they are not concerned with US regulation.

Under EU regulation there were never a debate, broadband have always been under common carrier regulation and last mile subletting were made mandatory in the mid 90ies. And the anti molopoly regulation in europe are a lot less useless then the US counterpart.

Both Facebook and Google are being monitored by the EU antitrust regulators due to revenue sharing agreement with mobile and im guessing Deutche Telecom is hinting that there might be stuff going on in the backroom at contract negotiations that might in effect be favoratism of certain carriers or bribing to become default, which you cannot do as a "dominant niche player" in the european marketplace.

There are also mumblings in the corner that google might be filtering out competitors from the first page of search results and issue that have led to court cases against google. Again a big no no for a large company in europe.

But those models also get an actual pricetag for windows pro and if you buy in volume(20+) through a retailer you can get them OS-free. Dell sells linux laptops though the backdoors, and all of the large vendors will charge seperately for windows proffessional and deliver them with stock microsoft settings and not do the bundling discount they do for consumer laptop, but you pay more for those systems, then similar specced consumer laptops.

The core problem is that we dont consider discount through bundling 3rd party software as illegal trade harming cartel activity, which is why it wont be the last time some company bundle malware, but then again those parts of "weath of nations" that deal with the dangers of cartels have more or less been censored out of the copies US students are taught from.

Lets reduce his argument to it's core:

Non insiders might be allowed to use retorical tactics that had been exclusively reserved for insiders, and insiders will no longer be able to use the old "we have data you dont" line of reasoning to avoid debate.

Lets also remember that forbes editorial line is generally pro-privatization so it's kind of odd they would use the line that "open data" is good for outsourcing unless they are just trying to find a argument their political oppoents might buy, rather then a genuine concern.

Sure the date will be used by every group under the sun to give the appearance that their belief based statistics have data behind it, and some groups might use it to make an argument but it is an known cavear emptor of democracy that the public might be misled by charlatans and demagogues.

Looking at reality again data analysis is not the exclusive domain of the neo-mercantist and faux-liberatrain movements who tend to be incredible bad at it, but tend to be used just as effective among the proponents of government spending as among the opponents.

It's the publicly stated goal of every publicly traded company to create a monopoly like scenario where they can charge "supernormal" margins by destroying competition, sure they dont use those words but newspeak like market differentiation or leveraging intellectual property but the goal of any publicly traded company is always to overcharge customers, and avoid markets with real competition and low profit margins.

There might be naive idiots in congress who have bought the false premise that deregulation leads to competition and not cartel forming and other dirty tactics, but most of the trade lobbyist funding said politicians are less naive then that.

The system they are building with privatization and deregulation more neo-mercantilist then neo-capitalist

I like the init part of systemd but all of the mess that gets bolted on because the team behind it dont want to write or deal with API's and 3rd party plugins is breaking stuff faster then they can fix it because the project management team forgot to limit the project scope to something they could manage. Systemd does not "just work" for the people whom sysV did not also "just work".