Why have so many conservatives forgotten the rational, compassionate foundations upon which they have built their current hateful ideologies?
Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision.
The Road to Serfdom is an iconic conservative, anti-big-government text, a “passionate warning against the dangers of state control over the means of production”. And yet, the author argues that social insurance is not only acceptable, but a very good idea. Single-payer health insurance is the classic example of “providing for … common hazards of life”.
If you want to know where Starbucks’ emerging markets are, there are probably worse places to start than right here: Current Worldwide Annual Coffee Consumption per capita from ChartsBin. Current meat consumption is interesting, too.
Click through and play with the map for a lot more detail, but here’s a screenshot to get you started:
Apple launches long-awaited subscriptions for App Store (Macworld)
Seems to me that this is a pretty fair model for subscriptions. And yet, I keep seeing articles and blog posts claiming this will be “the death of Pandora” and other crap like that, due to Apple taking 30% of the revenue, and the publishers can’t afford that. As I read it, publishers have two options: in-app subscription purchases with 30% to Apple, and outside-the-app (e.g., on their website) subscriptions at 0% to Apple. The agreement is that they have to offer the in-app subscription at a price no higher than the outside subscription, but I don’t see anything that says they must provide an in-app subscription option at all.
Apple’s position appears to be, “If we help you make sales, we want a piece of the action; but if you do it, it’s all yours” — which seems pretty fair to me. (The guy at the newsstand certainly didn’t sell me my copy of Bicycle Times as a volunteer this morning…)
Am I missing something obvious?