Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

projekte.sueddeutsche.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

811–817 of 817 posts

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#811

Post by yathern »

jason_slack wrote: post #809
yathern wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's similar in many places in Europe, where you see houses laid out like this: http://c8.alamy.com/comp/F56ABW/old-and-narrow-houses-in-str... Your property size, and subsequent taxes were decided based on how much of the road you took up, ie the width of the house. This practice dates back surprisingly far (1500s?)

oh, that kind of "this". I was thinking the walls were thin. Width meaning taller and skinnier....lol

Haha I was thinking the same thing - until I remembered some trivia I learned on a recent trip to Germany

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#812

Post by explainplease »

fastball wrote: post #802
explainplease wrote: post #801

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're the one dodging questions here. You imply that you think murder isn't wrong, but you decline to define it. You raise strawman questions about "killing" when I specifically asked about murder. It's very simple: do you think murder is wrong? Yes or no? If your answer is yes, then we can talk about the definition of murder as opposed to war, justified homicide, etc. If your answer is no, then we can talk about ob…

My initial, poorly fleshed-out question was a measured response to your initial, poorly fleshed-out question. I was giving your question the response it deserved. If you wanted a more thoughtful response, you probably should've gone with something a bit more thoughtful than: "I don't believe in objective morality." "HA! WHAT ABOUT MURDER?! GOTCHA!" What about murder? Explain, please. What about murder do you think so…

Thank you, that is the kind of serious response I was hoping for (although a bit less snark would be nice, but, of course, without morality, what does it matter?).

I agree with you: without a higher power, there is no logical reason for objective morality. The closest that one may come is a purely utilitarian argument that society benefits as a whole if people refrain from actions such as murder, and that such societal benefits then pass to an individual who chooses to refrain from them. But, of course, that does not necessarily preclude an individual committing murder in a certain case if he calculates the benefit to himself to exceed that of refraining, if he thinks he can get away with it.

So, then, my question is this: if a person wants to commit murder for purely selfish reasons (e.g. revenge, financial, power, etc), would it be acceptable to you? If you were the only witness, would you turn him in and testify against him?

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#813

Post by speedplane »

thanatropism wrote: post #81
jlebrech wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if something isn't right but is legal, it should be made illegal. you cannot prosecute abuse prior to the change.

Middle-school bullying is legal. Should we criminalize middle-school bullying?

Schools don't allow bullying. But the criminal justice system is not well tailored to enforce this rule for a variety of reasons. Instead, the school's code of conduct enforces the rule and it leads to a much better result.

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#814

Post by tooltalk »

adamlett wrote: post #756
tooltalk wrote: post #738

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, that's what I thought -- because I don't know of any monopoly that didn't benefit from gov't subsidies or explicit protectionist policies.

Sure, that's what I thought Wow, that sure make me think we can have a fruitful discussion. because I don't know of any monopoly that didn't benefit from gov't subsidies or explicit protectionist policies. Two points: - What you don't know, is a lot. The inclination to believe that since you don't know of it, it must not exist or – to put it differently – that what you know is all there is to know, is called the Dunn…

wasn't AT&T a regulated monopoly -- at least since 1913? FCC effectively barred competition and AT&T's pricing and policies required approval from gov't. It wasn't until late 50's and 60's when a relentless third party device maker, Thomas Carter, challenged AT&T's (and gov't sanctioned) monopoly that subsequently weakened AT&T's grip on all things communication. The rest is history.

So, in your mind what caused AT&T to become a monopoly for so long?

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#815

Post by adamlett »

tooltalk wrote: post #814
adamlett wrote: post #756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, that's what I thought Wow, that sure make me think we can have a fruitful discussion. because I don't know of any monopoly that didn't benefit from gov't subsidies or explicit protectionist policies. Two points: - What you don't know, is a lot. The inclination to believe that since you don't know of it, it must not exist or – to put it differently – that what you know is all there is to know, is called the Dunn…

wasn't AT&T a regulated monopoly -- at least since 1913? FCC effectively barred competition and AT&T's pricing and policies required approval from gov't. It wasn't until late 50's and 60's when a relentless third party device maker, Thomas Carter, challenged AT&T's (and gov't sanctioned) monopoly that subsequently weakened AT&T's grip on all things communication. The rest is history. So, in your mind what caused AT&T…

wasn't AT&T a regulated monopoly -- at least since 1913? FCC effectively barred competition and AT&T's pricing and policies required approval from gov'

I’m pretty sure you’ve got it wrong.

Firstly, AT&T was already a monopoly by 1913. The Kingsbury Commitment[1], which is what I’m guessing you’re referring to, was in essence an agreement between AT&T and the government by which the government would tolerate the monopolistic status of the company in exchange for some minor concessions. While this didn’t hinder AT&T much, it also didn’t help them.

The way AT&T became a monopoly to begin with is quite simple, and basically a textbook example of how a natural monopoly arises: Early and continued investment in a business which has large fixed cost requirements (that is the cost to build out infrastructure), but tiny marginal cost (the cost of serving one more customer). Unchecked, this eventually builds up to an insurmountable barrier of entry for new players. At the same time incumbent players are highly incentivized to merge or acquire each other, because the value of their combined networks is greater than the sum of them.

Without government intervention, AT&T would have stayed a monopoly for as long as its infrastructure remained relevant. Which it still largely is.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsbury_Commitment

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#816

Post by tooltalk »

adamlett wrote: post #815
tooltalk wrote: post #814

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wasn't AT&T a regulated monopoly -- at least since 1913? FCC effectively barred competition and AT&T's pricing and policies required approval from gov't. It wasn't until late 50's and 60's when a relentless third party device maker, Thomas Carter, challenged AT&T's (and gov't sanctioned) monopoly that subsequently weakened AT&T's grip on all things communication. The rest is history. So, in your mind what caused AT&T…

wasn't AT&T a regulated monopoly -- at least since 1913? FCC effectively barred competition and AT&T's pricing and policies required approval from gov' I’m pretty sure you’ve got it wrong. Firstly, AT&T was already a monopoly by 1913. The Kingsbury Commitment[1], which is what I’m guessing you’re referring to, was in essence an agreement between AT&T and the government by which the government would tolerate the monop…

AT&T initially had a monopoly, but when their patents expired in early 1890's, they quickly began to lose their dominance to competitors. Between 1890's and 1913, AT&T lost telephone market share by about 40%, from 95% to 55%. After the Kingsbury Commitment and, more importantly, the nationalization of the entire telecommunication industry during WW1, however, their competitors were effectively eliminated.

[1] UNNATURAL MONOPOLY: CRITICAL MOMENTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BELL SYSTEM MONOPOLY https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/c...

Re: Paradise Papers: Dear Tim Cook

#817

Post by tooltalk »

adamlett wrote: post #756
tooltalk wrote: post #738

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, that's what I thought -- because I don't know of any monopoly that didn't benefit from gov't subsidies or explicit protectionist policies.

Sure, that's what I thought Wow, that sure make me think we can have a fruitful discussion. because I don't know of any monopoly that didn't benefit from gov't subsidies or explicit protectionist policies. Two points: - What you don't know, is a lot. The inclination to believe that since you don't know of it, it must not exist or – to put it differently – that what you know is all there is to know, is called the Dunn…

LOL!

First: I'm pretty sure what you meant to say was I employed a logical fallacy called appeal to ignorance to make my case, not the DK effect -- which is more about lack of self-awareness. Having studied econ and math in college, I kinda know what I don't know. I don't go around making boldly, unsubstantiated claims hoping others won't notice it, like your comments have shown.

Second: if you have to cite a Wiki article to demonstrate your knowledge of economic history in general, you probably don't know jack squat about monopolies, much less AT&T's corporate history. There are actually few good borderline cases that could at least help start an intelligent debate on your unsubstantiated claims about monopolies in unregulated space, but you have clearly no idea what they are. And I highly suspect that you are competent enough to have such a debate. AT&T is probably the worst case study to demonstrate (or destroy) your point.

thx for playing, but it's never advisable to wrestle with pigs. we both get dirty, the pigz like it.

Post reply on HN