Why the hate on Obama?

[Sibirsky]

And you're not guilty of it? Let me see...

Guilty as charged. You know that is not our position.

Of course I do, but that's often the way you come across. And I like to give you things to reply to.

No it isn't. It's the way you twist my position to come across. I have pointed out countless times during the healthcare debate why we are having the problems we are and how I would address them. Without an NHS type single-payer system, or a public option, or letting the poor die from lack of care.

[Genivaria]

I do. Just the way you made it sound like that was a bad thing irked me.

It is a bad thing.

Most people agree that income inequality is not good in a society.
Most people also agree that when political power is concentrated in the hands just a few we have tyranny.
The same is true when economic wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few.

[Sibirsky]

It is a bad thing.

Most people agree that income inequality is not good in a society.
Most people also agree that when political power is concentrated in the hands just a few we have tyranny.
The same is true when economic wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few.

And the government is the reason for that massive income and wealth inequality.

[Genivaria]

Most people agree that income inequality is not good in a society.
Most people also agree that when political power is concentrated in the hands just a few we have tyranny.
The same is true when economic wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few.

And the government is the reason for that massive income and wealth inequality.

Which is something we disagree on.
Off topic, has anyone heard of the program called teamspeak?
People can actually talk to each other through mics, I was thinking about having something like this for NS.

[Norstal]

And the government is the reason for that massive income and wealth inequality.

Which is something we disagree on.
Off topic, has anyone heard of the program called teamspeak?
People can actually talk to each other through mics, I was thinking about having something like this for NS.

Yes, though I didn't know NS has a server for it.

Did you get banned again?

[Sibirsky]

And the government is the reason for that massive income and wealth inequality.

Which is something we disagree on.
Off topic, has anyone heard of the program called teamspeak?
People can actually talk to each other through mics, I was thinking about having something like this for NS.

You disagree with facts.

[Genivaria]

Which is something we disagree on.
Off topic, has anyone heard of the program called teamspeak?
People can actually talk to each other through mics, I was thinking about having something like this for NS.

You disagree with facts.

Facts are usually accompanied by proof. Proof please.

[Sibirsky]

You disagree with facts.

Facts are usually accompanied by proof. Proof please.

For the 8972386234834th time...
Artificial barriers to entry. Which decrease business opportunities and increase costs of goods and services.

[Wamitoria]

Facts are usually accompanied by proof. Proof please.

For the 8972386234834th time...
Artificial barriers to entry. Which decrease business opportunities and increase costs of goods and services.

He asked for proof. Something like Mathema- oh wait...

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I don't hate Obama but I think he should have gone further to universalise America's healthcare system. I know it is associated with social welfare but the real winners of NHS USA will be the middle class and the less well off.

Tsk. If you're too lazy to become rich, you don't deserve universal health care.

What about those who can't work because of incapacity? I think everyone deserves dignity.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

Facts are usually accompanied by proof. Proof please.

For the 8972386234834th time...
Artificial barriers to entry. Which decrease business opportunities and increase costs of goods and services.

And what about natural barriers to entry?

[Sibirsky]

For the 8972386234834th time...
Artificial barriers to entry. Which decrease business opportunities and increase costs of goods and services.

He asked for proof. Something like Mathema- oh wait...

You trying to say something?
2/3rd of millionaire's in the US own their own business. Starting your own business is the single best way of becoming wealthy.

The annual cost of federal regulations in the United States increased to more than $1.75 trillion in 2008. Had every U.S. household paid an equal share of the federal regulatory burden, each would have owed $15,586 in 2008. By comparison, the federal regulatory burden exceeds by 50 percent private spending on health care, which equaled $10,500 per household in 2008. While all citizens and businesses pay some portion of these costs, the distribution of the burden of regulations is quite uneven. The portion of regulatory costs that falls initially on businesses was $8,086 per employee in 2008. Small businesses, defined as firms employing fewer than 20 employees, bear the
largest burden of federal regulations. As of 2008, small businesses face an annual regulatory cost of $10,585 per employee, which is 36 percent higher than the regulatory cost facing large firms (defined as firms with 500 or more employees).

The findings in this report indicate that in 2008, U.S. federal government regulations cost an estimated $1.75 trillion, an amount equal to 14 percent of U.S. national income. When combined with U.S. federal tax receipts, which equaled 21
percent of national income in 2008, these two costs of federal government programs in 2008 consumed 35 percent of national income. This obviously represents a substantial burden on U.S. citizens and businesses.

The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms (PDF)

In California... (the Cali study includes indirect costs, which the Federal study did not include).

The cost of regulation results in an employment loss of 3.8 million jobs which is a tenth of the State’s population. Since small business constitute 99.2% of all employer businesses in California, and all of non-employer business, the regulatory cost is borne almost completely by small business. The total cost of regulation was $134,122.48 per small business in California in 2007, labor income not created or lost was $4,359.55 per small business, indirect business taxes not generated or lost were $57,260.15 per small business, and finally roughly one job lost per small business. This study provides the most comprehensive and complete analysis of the total regulatory burden in California.

COST OF STATE REGULATIONS ON CALIFORNIA SMALL BUSINESSES STUDY (PDF)

[Farnhamia]

Tsk. If you're too lazy to become rich, you don't deserve universal health care.

What about those who can't work because of incapacity? I think everyone deserves dignity.

Charlotte, really, think: was I being serious?

[Sibirsky]

For the 8972386234834th time...
Artificial barriers to entry. Which decrease business opportunities and increase costs of goods and services.

And what about natural barriers to entry?

What about them? Because we have some barriers to entry erecting more is ok?

[Mr Bananagrabber]

And what about natural barriers to entry?

What about them? Because we have some barriers to entry erecting more is ok?

They cause income inequality. Income inequality occurs naturally. Maybe i've misunderstood, but it seemed like you were saying that the govt is solely (or mostly) responsible for the existence of income inequality. If I've misinterpreted I apologise.

[Sibirsky]

What about them? Because we have some barriers to entry erecting more is ok?

They cause income inequality. Income inequality occurs naturally. Maybe i've misunderstood, but it seemed like you were saying that the govt is solely (or mostly) responsible for the existence of income inequality. If I've misinterpreted I apologise.

Yes it does occur naturally. I would argue that more than half of the barriers to entry are artificial. We're talking about small businesses, so massive capital intensive businesses are not really an issue. Licenses and regulations are.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

They cause income inequality. Income inequality occurs naturally. Maybe i've misunderstood, but it seemed like you were saying that the govt is solely (or mostly) responsible for the existence of income inequality. If I've misinterpreted I apologise.

Yes it does occur naturally. I would argue that more than half of the barriers to entry are artificial. We're talking about small businesses, so massive capital intensive businesses are not really an issue. Licenses and regulations are.

Well, that sounds like a guess. If you want to go and argue it that'd be nice.

Way I see it right: Small business is already by definition small (in terms of setup costs). So under normal circumstances it should be relatively easy to find a loan to start up, the industry will be competitive, ie, it should have price = marginal cost and there should be virtually no economic profit. Now add in licences (which the incumbent firms are able to pay for). This sets up a barrier to entry, so now the incumbent firms either a) are sufficiently competitive that they still price at marginal cost. So no problem caused by the licence. Or b) they now have enough power to price above marginal cost, making economic profit. Given that the creditor was originally willing to lend to you based on you making small economic profit (due to it being small business), now that the industry is making economic profit the creditor has an incentive to loan you the fixed cost of the licence fee. These loans will be made until price comes down to marginal cost and there's no longer much profit being made. p=mc. We now have a competitive industry.
So in the long run licencing should have no impact on competitiveness.

[The Black Forrest]

Most people agree that income inequality is not good in a society.
Most people also agree that when political power is concentrated in the hands just a few we have tyranny.
The same is true when economic wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few.

And the government is the reason for that massive income and wealth inequality.

Of course that would NEVER EVER happen if government was not a factor.

The free market faery would now allow it!

[Farnhamia]

And the government is the reason for that massive income and wealth inequality.

Of course that would NEVER EVER happen if government was not a factor.

The free market faery would now allow it!

Now, don't go misrepresenting Sibirsky's position. He's the first one to say that the FMF doesn't exist and that there never really has been a truly free market, because of government intervention.

[Sibirsky]

Yes it does occur naturally. I would argue that more than half of the barriers to entry are artificial. We're talking about small businesses, so massive capital intensive businesses are not really an issue. Licenses and regulations are.

Well, that sounds like a guess. If you want to go and argue it that'd be nice.

Way I see it right: Small business is already by definition small (in terms of setup costs). So under normal circumstances it should be relatively easy to find a loan to start up, the industry will be competitive, ie, it should have price = marginal cost and there should be virtually no economic profit. Now add in licences (which the incumbent firms are able to pay for). This sets up a barrier to entry, so now the incumbent firms either a) are sufficiently competitive that they still price at marginal cost. So no problem caused by the licence. Or b) they now have enough power to price above marginal cost, making economic profit. Given that the creditor was originally willing to lend to you based on you making small economic profit (due to it being small business), now that the industry is making economic profit the creditor has an incentive to loan you the fixed cost of the licence fee. These loans will be made until price comes down to marginal cost and there's no longer much profit being made. p=mc. We now have a competitive industry.
So in the long run licencing should have no impact on competitiveness.

Did you miss the part about regulatory costs being higher for small businesses?

Did you miss certain licenses costing 6 figures per year? That's a hell of a hurdle.

[Sibirsky]

And the government is the reason for that massive income and wealth inequality.

Of course that would NEVER EVER happen if government was not a factor.

The free market faery would now allow it!

You have massive reading comprehension problems. Specifically when I asked you several times to drop the free market fairy bullshit, but you keep spouting. Unless you can carry on an intelligent debate, don't talk to me. And more recently here...

Income inequality occurs naturally.

Yes it does occur naturally.

[Sibirsky]

Of course that would NEVER EVER happen if government was not a factor.

The free market faery would now allow it!

Now, don't go misrepresenting Sibirsky's position. He's the first one to say that the FMF doesn't exist and that there never really has been a truly free market, because of government intervention.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

Well, that sounds like a guess. If you want to go and argue it that'd be nice.

Way I see it right: Small business is already by definition small (in terms of setup costs). So under normal circumstances it should be relatively easy to find a loan to start up, the industry will be competitive, ie, it should have price = marginal cost and there should be virtually no economic profit. Now add in licences (which the incumbent firms are able to pay for). This sets up a barrier to entry, so now the incumbent firms either a) are sufficiently competitive that they still price at marginal cost. So no problem caused by the licence. Or b) they now have enough power to price above marginal cost, making economic profit. Given that the creditor was originally willing to lend to you based on you making small economic profit (due to it being small business), now that the industry is making economic profit the creditor has an incentive to loan you the fixed cost of the licence fee. These loans will be made until price comes down to marginal cost and there's no longer much profit being made. p=mc. We now have a competitive industry.
So in the long run licencing should have no impact on competitiveness.

Did you miss the part about regulatory costs being higher for small businesses?

Did you miss certain licenses costing 6 figures per year? That's a hell of a hurdle.

Didn't miss that at all. Like I explained, the toss-up the creditors have is over the size of the loan and how far above marginal cost the industry sets price. So the larger the markup (the less competitive the industry is), the more incentive they have to loan the money. The lower the markup (the more competitive is), the less incentive they have to make a loan (which doesn't matter to us because the industry is already competitive).

[Sibirsky]

Did you miss the part about regulatory costs being higher for small businesses?

Did you miss certain licenses costing 6 figures per year? That's a hell of a hurdle.

Didn't miss that at all. Like I explained, the toss-up the creditors have is over the size of the loan and how far above marginal cost the industry sets price. So the larger the markup (the less competitive the industry is), the more incentive they have to loan the money. The lower the markup (the more competitive is), the less incentive they have to make a loan (which doesn't matter to us because the industry is already competitive).

Ok. And a license costing $100,000 per year or more is a massive barrier to entry. A county allowing 2 certain licenses and both being held by the same owner is a massive barrier to entry. Increased costs to small businesses, compared to their larger counterparts are a massive barrier to entry.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

Didn't miss that at all. Like I explained, the toss-up the creditors have is over the size of the loan and how far above marginal cost the industry sets price. So the larger the markup (the less competitive the industry is), the more incentive they have to loan the money. The lower the markup (the more competitive is), the less incentive they have to make a loan (which doesn't matter to us because the industry is already competitive).

Ok. And a license costing $100,000 per year or more is a massive barrier to entry. A county allowing 2 certain licenses and both being held by the same owner is a massive barrier to entry. Increased costs to small businesses, compared to their larger counterparts are a massive barrier to entry.

I've already explained twice how the licences don't significantly reduce competition.