- Last Active
I really love Fed Square. I can appreciate the scepticism about it’s design when you look at a photo on the web. To be honest, you need to stand in the middle of it in person to fully appreciate the space. And it’s part of the Arts Precinct in Melbourne so don’t be that surprised that the design is way out there.
As for Apple’s design, the new cube will definitely compliment the surroundings better than the original. As a purely commercial entity they are incredibly lucky to get the space at all - it is supposed to primarily be a public & entertainment space.
Hopefully the new store design is enough to mute the politics a bit and get the thing built.
Hmm, so if I accidentally kill someone while driving compared to someone who isn’t a multimillionaire, according to your views I should be held to higher account, even if the exact same circumstances prevailed?
Or or if Someone illegally parks a Ferrari, and the next day, in the exact same spot, someone else illegally parks a Dodge Challenger, the Ferrari owner should be fined more for the infraction?Goodness no. Both you & the non-millionaire would be in jail & denied freedom until your time was served. As your freedom is not based on the amount you earn that I think that would be an equal deterrent. ie. you are both losing 100% of your freedom.But if the Ferarri owner is paying a fine that is just loose change to him, then he may even decide it makes more financial sense to park there everyday as opposed to time lost trying to find a free spot in that congested area. If the Dodge owner copped the same fine and couldn't cover all of his mortgage payment that month as a result he probably would think twice before doing it again. They are unequal deterrent effects.Of course if the Ferrari owner just leases the car for show and actually isn't a millionaire at all (he's just faking it ) then sure, paying the same fine as the Dodge owner would have an equal deterrent effect.
radarthekat said:Soli said:A $40k fine for improper handling of hazardous waste? How is that in any way a disincentive to a company as large and profitable as Apple? I wish fines were based on the gravity of the potential maximum risk to the environment over the longterm multiplied by a factor of the company's wealth so that a company as large as Apple wouldn't even consider trying to get away with harming the environment.
vmarks said:The difficulty in fines is always what the unintended consequences are as opposed to the desired results.
Duke Energy spilled coal ash into the Dan River in NC. They were fined and made to clean it up, but the cost of cleanup was steep, and Duke Energy decided they were able to do "cost recovery" by increasing everyone's bill, to the tune of 183 Million.
That is, if you want something to be punitive, what do you do in order to prevent it from just being a fee passed on to the consumer? With Duke Energy, the utilities commission has to approve rate increases... which were approved.Is Duke energy operating in a truly free market then? It sounds like maybe they aren't if price increases such as these don't translate into customers going to competitors (which would then be the effective penalty for them).When companies are protected from market forces (and penalties!) in this manner then the only way to tackle it is politically.It's amazing how fast things can change when politicians start to lose votes.
thrang said:Should Macy's means test your income level before telling you the price of a sweater?
And why would a small violation in one state have a fine based on the entire net worth of a one of the largest corporations in the world.
Equality is a good idea. Try it, you'll like it.Well now that depends on what they do with that information.If Macy's wanted to discourage me from going back to their store, then increasing the price of the sweater from 5% of my monthly pay to 20% of my pay would certainly make me think twice about going back there.Much in the same way as increasing Apple's fine from 0.004% of their revenue to 0.5% might make them think more about the (business) risks associated with incorrect hazardous material handling.