pravinva

Some perspective please. At 14 dollars an hour, these workers are in the top 1 percentof all human beings on earth. Privileged, even, one could say

The writer tries to pretend that there is something drastically opposite from knowing that the state captured by business is different from the danger of mere statism. Well, the answer that preserves liberty is to reduce the chances of the state being captured. This begins by having a limited govt. If the madam of the bordello is out of business, there is no need for customers to line up

They want Scandinavian socialism. But not sure how many want the higher taxes and lowered import tariffs. Most taxes in Denmark are at the local level. National income tax is less than 5 percent. Most people would be slightly amenable to higher taxes if they could be assured that it would be spent locally. I.e no major redistribution country wide. With high VAT, a highly regressive type tax, the middle class bears the tax burden. The rich live in Switzerland anyway

No, no, no. The marginal revolution of the 19th century solved that question. Value is not determined by what it cost to do something. For eg. You can dig deep in south Africa to mine diamonds, but the bits of subterranean rock that emerges along with it doesn't have the same value. Value is always subjective. If you paint Monalisa it has a different value from the one in the Louvre

There ought to be a #TooOld similar to #TooSoon

Just call it billing at the end user neutrality and be done with it. Nothing to do with treating packets equally. It's a question for economics and not technology. By insisting that status quo prevail, populists idiots who understand no economics will get it good and hard as they deserve

It's a problem only if it's denominated in foreign currency.likely

Not at all.a few years ago, the Chinese monopoly over so called rare earths threatened to increase prices of all electronics. But it took barely 2 years for new mines to be opened outside China profitably and the monopoly was broken. Ammunition is very rarely a market demand. It's dealt by govt bureaucracy and shady arms brokers. I.e nothing to do with economic activity. War is always a political act.

The slippery slope towards empire for the east India company didn't start by protecting dams and dredging or performing economic activities. It began by superior ammunition and military services that they provided to the various kings and nawabs who were warring with each other.taking sides, and extracting political power in return. Equity ownership means nothing if it's a business that has zero market value. Political power OTOH is what leverage is all about. Arm's exporters have more leverage than ownership in useless ports or airports.

What are you on about? AWS practically requires BGP. Static routing is rarely the best choice when you set up DX.

Netflix rolls its own CDNs because Cloudfront can't meet all their demands, yet.

All shares are valued solely based on their future potential (cash flows). It matters not a whit what you did in the past, if your future is bleak, you share price will reduce to under book value

Is non fossil fuel energy research too hard to be funded? Gates and Bezos etc have funded just about a billion. Why not 20 billion

So, people are status conscious.go over to overcoming bias.com and read it from the master Robin Hanson. Every thing we do is based on stay.including pretending to care about inequality

So the worry is that you need govt courts and police to enforce rules? That's not a great argument. The number of private police today is far greater than govt employed ones. Most international trade disputes are settled by private arbitration and not the govt courts. What's the real worry?

" we don't live in aggregate; we live as individuals. If the U.S. economy grows 1% because of the efficiency of the international labor pool, but no individual's income grows 1% (except coincidentally); it doesn't help the individual who loses his/her job - their economy contracted 100%. "

This is superficial reasoning. Bastiat taught economists to look beyond this obvious job loss. Protectionism causes MORE job losses than free trade. The number of jobs in an economy are a function of aggregate demand and impacted by fiscal and monetary policy-trade doesn't change it one bit. Trade changes the _nature_ of the jobs, not the number. So the right thing is to allow freedom to trade.