w2qw

Yeah we have 6 states. Australia is a federation like the US. There's no equivalent to this form because we don't have any state income taxes.

Your graph only three data points. Lets say hypothetically the traffic was 100m requests/yr and dropped off immediately after the redesigned you'd still expect to see something like

• 2009 - 100m
• 2010 - 60m
• 2011 - 0

This page has some graphs with more data points but the tl;dr is traffic was down by more than 50% within a month.

Admittedly reddit's growth was much more muted but Digg did really just destroy the site.

Your graphs are actually consistent with Digg traffic dropping off a cliff immediately after the redesign. My memory is hazy but according to this a week after the release they replaced the CEO and two months later they layed off 37% of staff.

You can still build one. I still can’t – in any reasonable way – poach whichever oil rig workers you choose to underpay.

Lets breakdown what those costs are though.

1. Some portion is paid to workers to construct the oil rig.
2. Some may be paid to the government as part of a lease agreement generally to compensate the public for your exclusive use of the well.
3. Some is paid to previous suppliers.

3 is really a combination of 1 & 2 so lets exclude that. For 2 we could have a government that takes this money later. Often this is the case for a lot of these deals. A lease you can pay later and royalties are paid when you actually produce product. That really just leaves 3. If you were able to compel these workers to work for you without compensation then this "How does capitalism empower people to own what they produce?"wouldn't be true so you'd have to offer some compensation but that compensation could be equity in the form of a workers cooperative.

Is it more difficult for you to compete, sure but that's like saying it's more difficult for me to be an artist. I think we should be talking about where we are stepping on the scales for one or another.

United States tax dollars, in the form of DARPA grants, paid for the development of the internet. So there is precedent for extremely expensive operations to be successfully carried out under democratic control

You could government fund everything if you want. It's usually quite beneficial in things you suggest which are early stage how it would be commercial viable is pretty uncertain. But there are trade offs.

• In market economies you may need to raise the money with debt. If you are an oil producing economy and suddenly the oil price drops you may no longer be able to pay those debts. If you instead lease it to a private company which you then collect royalties or taxes from you don't have to take that risk. You could fund it with taxes however that limits your growth if you are a smaller economy.
• With the right incentives companies will compete if you have just a single nationalised producer where bureaucrats don't the same level of incentive as owners they likely will run it less efficient. There is obviously the case though that often private companies push for regulations that limit competition and try to reduce their costs for externalities they impose on others.

Also, since oil deposits are a natural resource, one could argue government ought to be involved in their collection.

I think it's correct to say government should be collecting revenue from the natural resource but I don't think they need to specifically be the ones running it.

I should clarify I think capitalism is great but doesn't mean our implementation is perfect (and an example is privately owned land).

I made sure to say more difficult not just difficult. Building an oil rig is inherently difficult because you need many different types of labor with many different skill sets. As a practical matter it's often easy for one organization to pay for this labor upfront but theoretically they could cooperate to build an oil rig and share in the returns.

If you were going to mention the rights to extract oil then that's a whole other probldm.

that is used to collect the products of another person's labor.

This is only really true if they have a monopoly where it's more difficult or impossible for others to compete. Otherwise if the labourer isn't getting the full value of their labour they can go somewhere else.

You're at bit late at preemptively paying it off to avoid the 7%. Wait until the next rate is released (~March 2024) and then decide.

This is just federal spending. Most educational spending is at the state level.

Sorry I was referring to this bit "The referendum amendment clearly says parliament will have the power to make laws with “respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures”". It would be up to the high court to interpret what that means. I think that's what OP was referring to when saying that High Court interprets constitutional legislation.

As bad as privatising land registries as it's not like the 6% stamp duty you pay is going to the land registry. There's probably a nominal fee that these land registries are getting on each lookup and transfer.

Is the Voice not (or will be) constitutional legislation? I do agree that it largely hands over the powers to the parliament but there is a caveat that they can rule on what it means for them to be able to make representations to parliament.

Yeah that single tax movement has been around since the 1880s. Replacing all other taxes is maybe a bit extreme but pretty much all economists suggest increasing land taxes including our own Henry Tax review.

However, completely retarded in the digital age. Productivity does not require land anymore.

If this was the case land wouldn't make up the majority of "wealth" and we wouldn't be having a housing crisis.