Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Great! (Score 4, Insightful) 158

Modded insightful? What are you calling a oil or coal subsidy? Generally when people talk about subsidies for fossil fuels, they are really pulling bullshit out of their asses. Are there tax breaks and funds that indirectly go to oil and coal companies? Yes. Are those direct fossil fuel subsidies? Not really. They are tax benefits for capital construction that apply to all industries. Depreciation benefits that apply to all mining and resource industries. When they tout the really big numbers for oil subsidies they usually throw in infrastructure spending that benefits cars regardless of fuel source (but happens to be primarily oil based). Maybe some home heating subsidies which usually means gas, electricity from coal, or heating oil. Maybe they include military and civilian fuel purchases by the government that happen to be based on fossil fuels.

Those aren't really subsidies for fossil fuels as much as they are the reality that to provide energy, you have to generally use fossil fuels for a lot of it at this point. So those huge "coal and oil subsidies" are really just energy subsidies.

Comment Re:Sigh. How many major standards wars is this? (Score 3, Interesting) 72

We need new standards when the old standards are insufficient. Tesla developed their own standard because there wasn't anything else fast enough (CHAdeMO is slower). CCS is designed to work as an extension to the standard J1772 level-2 (240V) chargers, and I think it's faster.

The good news is that it should be possible to create adaptors. Tesla already has CHAdeMO adaptors, and I suspect CSS adaptors will be available soon. I would suspect that CHAdeMO and CSS will have adaptors for each other at some point. For the short term, it means carrying around extra cables, but eventually it will be all sorted out.

Comment Re:Duh. (Score 0) 403

No, it's the other way around. It's the corporate payroll that still keeps some people off of full welfare. Grilling a cheese sandwich is not the kind of a job that can or should pay whatever the insane minimum wage law dictates (7+ dollars an hour for grilling sandwiches? I think machines will do better).

Comment Re:Stop breathing! (Score 1) 559

Ironic that somebody like you (clearly a collectivist) says that Harding is one of the worst, when in fact Harding was probably the last decent POTUS America had because he didn't interfere with the 1921 depression by doing anything stupid like pumping money into the failed businesses, so that depression went away in about a year leading to what is currently known as the 'roaring twenties'.

Comment Re:This is a good thing (Score 1) 395

You are not actually hearing me, I said this already: *supply and demand always meet somewhere and the market clears.*

The market clears. The market clears given a natural balance between supply and demand. 100,000,000 unemployed individuals means 200,000,000 pairs of hands, 200,000,000 pairs of eyes and of legs that could be employed doing something if the market was allowed to clear.

Yes, automation is coming. I personally am responsible for over 9000 low skilled jobs that were automated away in a check processing facility for example. A few dozen jobs that my systems automated away for a retailer (actually they just didn't have to hire a bunch of new people as their throughput grew). Potentially thousands of truck dispatcher/planner jobs that I am working on automating today.

As these jobs go away, the goods are becoming more competitive. The government is responsible for inflation (money printing through machinations with the Treasury and the Fed and other central banks) thus preventing quite a large price drop that would have happened in a free market, other than that all of this automation forces prices down.

The people that are automated away are a pool of new potential hires also at lower prices (and they should be at lower prices after their current jobs are automated away) and in a free market there would be demand for these people at lower prices by companies that do not have automation.

You are of an opinion that every job will be automated, I am of an opinion that in a free market the market clears given the natural discovery of prices. Supply and demand meet and the markets clear, the prices for people fall and they are again competitive against automation. But this does not work in an oppressive regime set up by the mobs through the violence of the State.

The falling prices for goods and services would still provide a better quality of life to people who need less money to get that quality. But of-course we are not allowed to have actual free market with all this oppression, so in the system that we have today you will have your hundreds of millions of unemployed people roaming around, who believe that the system must provide for them.

You have an untenable goal: to provide hundreds of millions of jobless individuals with a quality of life that their politicians promised them at the expense of the oppressed individuals and companies and you believe that these individuals and companies will not leave and go to markets that are much less oppressed? Interesting.

My position is that your collectivism is oppression and it leads to this misery in the long run because that's the only outcome of oppression: misery. The free market gives us more choices of cheaper products, the oppression gives us a promise of an entitlement at somebody else's expense. I think there is an incompatibility in terms there and it will not work itself nicely for the benefit of the oppressors.

I run a software firm with a number of offices, one of them is in the Ukraine where I have most of my development team and that's because it is mutually beneficial for all of us, for me with lower prices and for them with higher earnings and thus with higher standard of living than most other people there. I don't want to hire in places where it is so much more expensive due to taxes, laws, lawsuits, regulations, basically due to the State oppressing me. My clients are other businesses, who in turn get a cheaper product/service from me than from others, some of who have local developers. Who do you think can provide a cheaper service, the local developers or outsourced ones (given approximately the same quality)?

My point is that oppression doesn't work in the long run but countries like yours (and my country of birth) wouldn't have any of that freedom that people like me demand, so we will not see eye to eye but I am pretty sure about the final outcome.

Comment Re:Not so much (Score 1) 280

I disagree, for me reviews and experience is good enough. However in the *free market of ideas* you could have your licensing done by a rating agency (not government) and you could go to a more expensive doctor who would be rated/licensed by a *private entity*. I don't see why you want a government doing this given that government does not let any form of competition to exist, wouldn't you rather have competing agencies as opposed to monopolistic ones setting your prices as well as providing reviews/licensing (if you are interested in paying for such a service?)

Comment Re:This is a good thing (Score 1) 395

Ok, so a company holds a press release to make themselves look like something they may or may not be. AFAIC press releases like that are usually some form of a stunt or maybe a backroom deal with a politician for additional tax breaks (which would make sense for them if they can do that deal). They are not successful in Finland because it is Finland, they are successful because they did something and people can do something useful anywhere. They owe nothing to Finland specifically whether they understand it or not and if they have customers and employees and investors they have already *given more than anything that government can steal from them in form of income and other taxes*.

Yes, companies give something to the society before they are taxed one penny, they are giving a valuable service, opportunities for investment and possibly for employment. They shouldn't be taxed at all actually, but they are, so eventually they will come around or they will be dismissed - outcompeted.

And again, please explain how your model intends to account for the disappearance of jobs en mass due to automation.

- labour and capital are always in competition, government oppression makes labour artificially more expensive, thus providing more incentives for automation that exist otherwise.

There shouldn't be any government involvement in any business whatsoever, this would ensure an actual balance between cost reducing automation and between labour prices. It is all about supply and demand, supply and demand always meet somewhere and the market clears.

Government oppression artificially raising the price destroys the point of balance where supply and demand naturally meet and then you get more automation that would exist otherwise thus increasing unemployment via government oppression.

So are you really saying that the 98 % of society that isn't extremely wealthy just has to first take massive debt

- government involvement in education and loan guarantees is the reason for the massive amounts of useless debt that recent graduates have. The loan guarantees and all other forms of government intervention is what artificially raises tuition prices by flooding the market with more money than it would otherwise have.

Thus the artificial demand allows the suppliers to raise prices to create wrong price points, similar to the wrong price points for labour that government creates with all the business related laws, minimum wage, etc.

People start businesses when they can afford it, governments make starting businesses unaffordable for many reasons: money printing, laws, taxes, etc. Without government oppression there would be more businesses starting and new businesses do not automate as much as the established ones and not at first anyway. The prices for products fall in a free market capitalist system, providing more products and choices for less money. Students don't need debt to finish college if government does not artificially modify the equation and create imbalances in supply/demand by pumping money into the system.

As to 'taking any form of income away from people' - income through oppression? Income through income taxes? You think you can have a system that will promote welfare through oppression and not destroy jobs and move businesses elsewhere? Well, for that you would need a single employer in the country, the government itself, we already had that back in the USSR. Like I said, I don't want anything to do with Finland, I am disgusted by every thing collective.

Comment Re:Not so much (Score 1) 280

How exactly do you think you rate doctors today, by their diplomas or their experience? Because AFAIC I only care about experience and their reputation, not any of the licensing nonsense.

Sure, sure, there can be rating agencies and there are rating agencies and they should have nothing to do with any government, because that's where the corruption comes from (like in the banking industry, where rating agencies are not allowed to rate government bonds anything below A or they lose their license to rate government bonds as was the case with Egan-Jones agency).

I don't care about licensing, I only care about experience and reviews, yes.

Comment Re:Not so much (Score 1) 280

training and education is one of the few things government actually should do.

- no, it shouldn't. It shouldn't do any of these things and the fact that they are doing all of that is exactly the reason that jobs are leaving and they will leave, I include doctors and pilots and Uber drivers as well. Yes, all of those will disappear too, some due to outsourcing (doctors), some due to automation (drivers and doctors), some due inability of the public to pay without being productive themselves (pilots and doctors and many others).

Comment Re:This is a good thing (Score 1) 395

So you are saying: somebody paid *capital gains taxes* here for some bizarre reasons and this means that businesses will keep paying income, payroll, property and other oppressive taxes here as well in coming years rather than moving away or failing due to becoming uncompetitive in the global economy?

Hmm, I think you don't understand the difference between running a company and cashing out of one.

Slashdot Top Deals

There must be more to life than having everything. -- Maurice Sendak

Working...