less cars : roll on $2 per litre

Dave Hughes wrote:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 23:26:06 -0700, Travis wrote:

They efficiently produce products which the market wants.

They've made the market want their products, and therein lies the fault of
capitalism. It's a subtle difference, but the reason we don't have a pure
capitalist society. Or have you never needed consumer protection laws?

Nobody is forcing people to buy MS. There are many competing products,
including much cheaper products which are highly compatible with MS
products. People choose MS anyway.

Capitalism produced the Hummer H3, a vehicle which is useless for
offroad driving, but appeals to certain noobs who don't know better.
The soviets on the other hand produced the Trabant, and anyone could
get one a decade or so after being put onto a waiting list for one.
However, capitalism has also produced a number of very reliable very
well equipped very economical compact cars and hybrids.

While people are stupid and tend to buy things like Hummer H3s, they
have a choice. They can install Linux (and run a Windows emulator if
they need to) and install OpenOffice. This will cost them nothing, or
at most a nominal cost.

Notwithstanding wasteful gluttonous abominations like the H3, I'd
prefer to have the choice of buying one of those, or buying a compact
hybrid car, rather than having to sit on a ten year waiting list for a
Trabant.

Like I said, while capitalism is far from a perfect system, much like
democracy it is superior to every other system yet tried. There is a
very good reason why the poorest countries of the world usually have
socialist governments. Excessive focus on the "fairness" of wealth
distribution tends to detract from the proper way to end poverty -
creating wealth to be distributed.

Travis

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:44:37 -0700, Travis wrote:

Like I said, while capitalism is far from a perfect system, much like
democracy it is superior to every other system yet tried. There is a
very good reason why the poorest countries of the world usually have
socialist governments.

Enjoy your publicly funded education did you? How about your last stay in
hospital? And if *you* (or your parents) have the money to go private,
what does that say about the humanity of the person who can't?

I am going to try to stay out of this thread from now on. However, I have
seen nothing to make me believe that while capitalism has its good points,
it is the only way to manage an economy. I contend that the healthiest
countries (socially and economically) are those who take a middle of the
road approach, which Australia is fast deviating from. You (and others)
obviously do not agree with me, and that's fine. But I don't think we're
going to convince each other, so let's end this now before Godwin gets
involved (Although since I'm the one with vaguely socialist views, I get
to win when you call me a Nazi! Woohoo!).

To all the regular a.b.ers. I apologise for getting so side tracked, and
will endeavour to restrain myself. A little bit, anyway :-)

--
Dave Hughes |
There are some things so serious you have to laugh at them.
- Niels Bohr

In aus.bicycle on 20 Aug 2006 02:44:37 -0700
Travis wrote:

Nobody is forcing people to buy MS. There are many competing products,
including much cheaper products which are highly compatible with MS
products. People choose MS anyway.

That's not quite so.

The MS story isn't straight forward... It involves, for example,
buying up competing products and stopping production. It involves
trying to *stop* people being interoperable, check on the stories
about Samba for example.

The difficulty is that they have distorted the market - they have the
penetration and they put lots of obstacles in the way of others. So
it's not possible to be fully MS compliant, check the current status
of the EU lawsuit.

They also have agreements with many OEMs so that MS is all the OEMs
can sell their PC with, or write drivers for.

Given that they have a large market share and they aggressively stop
competition and interoperability, then the choice is hardly free. TO
not use MS causes a lot of problems.

So they aren't a good mark for the free market either because they've
done all the textbook monopolist things and have had to be forcibly
restrained from doing so.

Zebee

--
Frank

Drop DACKS to reply
"Terryc" wrote in message
.
...
wrote:

I think you would be hard pressed to find a 20 storey apartment block
from the 1850s.

When did they start using concrete in tall building construction?
I believe the practical/economic height was limited by the compression
strength of bricks.

I doubt it. Look at some of the Roman and other (and much earlier) brick
constructions. Lots of height, but they were not meant to be climbed by
everyone regularly.

I heard/read/saw somewhere (can't be stuffed looking for a cite) that it was
the invention of the lift that enabled tall building construction. That's
why buildings higher than about 7 stories didn't commonly appear before the
mid 1850s. That would mean the practical/economic height was limited by the
compression strength of knees...

me

me

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
In aus.bicycle on 20 Aug 2006 02:44:37 -0700
Travis wrote:

Nobody is forcing people to buy MS. There are many competing products,
including much cheaper products which are highly compatible with MS
products. People choose MS anyway.

That's not quite so.

The MS story isn't straight forward... It involves, for example,
buying up competing products and stopping production. It involves
trying to *stop* people being interoperable, check on the stories
about Samba for example.

I'm not here to defend Microsoft, and if they are indeed engaging in
anti-competitive behaviour they should have the book thrown at them.

Capitalists say competition is healthy and drives progress,
productivity and wealth, which is the opposite of endorsing tactics
like those alledgedly used by Microsoft, or M$ if you prefer to spell
it that way.

So they aren't a good mark for the free market either because they've
done all the textbook monopolist things and have had to be forcibly
restrained from doing so.

Examples of where people and companies have NOT played fair and have
distorted a free market are not black marks on the free market, they're
black marks on anti-competitive behaviour. You can't argue against
free markets by citing examples of non-free markets, just as you can't
argue against globalisation (i.e. free trade across international
borders) by citing examples of tarrifs etc, like European farm
subsidies.

Travis

So it only took 193 posts to make this a Microsoft bashing thread?


--
gplama

Terryc wrote:
Theo Bekkers wrote:

Ten years? We're not talking car batteries here, you need deep
discharge batteries. Will last maybe 5 years in lead-acid, and cost
twice as much as a regular car battery.

Yes, I have a few. {:-(.

Apparently their life is closely related to the cost of the charger
you
use and the depth/rate of discharge. A $300 battery requires a $500
charger.

Cost varies from 150-200% for Centurion, etc, to quadruple for name
brands.

what use have you used them for?
Mine have just been standby for power outages, so they don't really
get stressed.

My mother-in-law's shop-rider. The damn thing takes 2 x 12V batteries and
they cost around $230 each. And they do get stressed in one of those things.

Theo

Terryc wrote:
wrote:

I think you would be hard pressed to find a 20 storey apartment block
from the 1850s.

When did they start using concrete in tall building construction?

I think it was the Romans that invented it. :-)
But nobody wanted tall buildings before they had elevators, as Zebee said.

Theo

Spiny Norman wrote:
, "Theo Bekkers" wrote

Ten years? We're not talking car batteries here, you need deep
discharge batteries. Will last maybe 5 years in lead-acid, and cost
twice as much as a regular car battery.

My department at work has a Prius (sp?) and the batteries are supposed
to last 10 years. This is a hybrid car rather than an electric car.

I'd be very interested to know what the replacement cost would be and the
effect it has on overall economy. Say the cost of batteries divided by ten
added to the annual fuel cost, then calculated back to litres of fuel that
could have been bought instead.

Theo

Theo Bekkers wrote:
Terryc wrote:

wrote:


I think you would be hard pressed to find a 20 storey apartment block
from the 1850s.

When did they start using concrete in tall building construction?


I think it was the Romans that invented it. :-)

yes lime mortar


But nobody wanted tall buildings before they had elevators, as Zebee said.

Theo