Slashdot Mirror

“They will advocate some institutionalized changes in the way social media should work. Every change will involve compliance costs. Facebook will make sure that it can complyand that its competitors cannot without great expense. That will give them a distinct advantage in the marketplace, make it more difficult for startups to compete, and guarantee this platform a leading place by law. This is why Mark readily agreed to be regulated. Regulations always work to the advantage of the largest market players.”

https://www.aier.org/article/f...

Hey bro, I understand your frustration. Aviation is expensive, especially as a hobby, and nobody likes Uncle Sam breathing down their neck.

And I hate to break it to you, but ADS-B is also required in class E airspace at various altitudes depending on where you are: FAA Nextgen info. These requirements are subject to change, and we all know the FAA regulatory process is pretty much one way, unless congress gets involved. The FAA grounds planes all the time. Every time an FAA licensed IA mechanic inspects an airplane and determines that the airplane isn't airworthy (like, not having required equipment), it's grounded until it's fixed. And don't think you'll be able to squeak through some airspace undetected. If you knew the capabilities available to track and assign target IDs to anything moving, in the air or on the ground, being tracked by ADS-B would be the least of your worries.

There are much cheaper options for ADS-B than a $5000 radio. However, some use your existing mode C transponder or require an external GPS source, so they have a bit of extra complexity and will be a bit more expensive to install and maintain.

These cheaper options are not more expensive than the mode C mandate was years ago due to inflation. $500 in 1960 is equivalent to over $4000 today. $500 in 1970 is equivalent to over $3000 today: Inflation calculator

And sadly, your $20,000 dollar airplane has a $20,000 engine. It's going to need to be rebuilt or replaced eventually, and your friends will only be able to kick the can down the road for so long by replacing a valve or cylinder here and there. Also, your exhaust components don't last beyond a thousand hours or so, so you'll need new stainless steel exhaust parts. And that muffler! You inspect that flame tube frequently, right? No cracks, hasn't broken off and fallen out, right? Mufflers only last a few hundred hours, and they are around $500 to replace. And those aging Marvel Shebler carburetors, not cheap!

The point is that if you or your friends can't afford to drop $1k every now and then (an aviation standard monetary unit), once or twice a year on maintenance and safety items, then you should probably pick a different hobby. In the grand scheme of things, this isn't terribly different than a nice -ish car that is out of warranty. Timing belts and clutches add up.

And as for ADS-B allowing the FAA to track everything about who, what, and where you go when you fly: yep, it's kinda creepy. And have you seen what it takes to sign up a new student for flight training?! They almost strip-search new students to prove they are US Citizens or are here legally and have a good reason to learn to fly. 911 changed things bro, in a big way.

I do not wish planes to be grounded or pilots to not fly as any form of elitism. In fact, I am rather fond of folks flying anything, even drones and quadcopters, as more people responsibly participating in aviation is a good thing.

And lastly, I am not going to return your ill sentiment, but I will tell you this: you do not have any more of a right to fly or occupy an airspace than you have the right to drive. Flying, just like driving, is a privilege, not a right. Violate that privilege and you'll hurt someone and/or go to jail. And please don't be one of the pilots described in A Darker

...steel tariffs... Sure he's kinda fulfilling a promise, but he's actually harming the people he was supposed to help.

Again, "You may disagree on what he is doing and disagree on whether his policy will help". I think we both agree that it does count as "fulfilling a promise". Whether it achieves the goal or not is debatable.

There were two parts to your claim, first he's trying to fulfill promises, and second, he's trying to help people.

With the tariffs I think it's fulfilling a promise, but I don't think he actually believes it will help people as much as he thinks a trade war will be exciting and good for his poll numbers.

"tax cut" which was effectively just a massive wealth transfer to the rich

Taxing less is a wealth transfer? That doesn't make sense. Keeping more of the money you earned is a wealth transfer?

The money to fund the tax cut is coming from the treasury and massively raising the debt. Sooner or later that money has to be paid back, either through inflation (everyone is a bit less wealthy), raising taxes down the line, or cutting back on other programs.

The tax cut doesn't make the nation wealthier, it just transfers more of that wealth to the richest.

I guess if you feel entitled to other peoples money.

You're assuming that people create wealth in a void and the only role of government is to take from group A and give to group B. Once you acknowledge just how many external factors affect how much money you earn that statement is meaningless from a taxation perspective.

However, can you explain: "When upper-income Americans prosper, so do middle-income and lower-income Americans. Conversely, when high earners are stagnating, so are income-earners in all other categories."

You're citing a paper from a libertarian think-tank, publish in 1996, arguing that the middle class was growing in 1991.... Why do I care about an off-topic publication looking at wealth distribution 27 years ago?

Why don't you look at what's happened in the subsequent decades.

Economics is not a zero sum game. Taxing a person more doesn't help someone else. Just as taxing a person less doesn't hurt another person. Your choice of words "wealth transfer" is odd to me when talking about a tax cut.

I agree economics is not a zero sum game, and in some circumstances corporate tax cuts help the economy as a whole, but these are not those circumstances. If the cut was helping you'd see evidence in the form of raises and investments, instead they're giving out dividends and buying back shares.

The minuscule amount of economic activity generated is not sufficient to pay the cost, hence a wealth transfer.

nonsensical promises on healthcare and then pushed for a healthcare bill that broke all of them?

He did make a good faith effort and he did succeed in ending the forced mandate. He can't repeal healthcare without Congress.

A good faith effort to do what? Show me his good healthcare bill? Heck, show me any good GOP healthcare bill.

The Congressional bill sucked because their ideas suck, the only viable GOP healthcare plan was mandates, and Obama took those. Now all the other things that could improve healthcare are "liberal" ideas they won't touch.

But I don't think for a moment he really cares about helping his base.

I think he is an idiot that likes the country. I think he does care more so than the average politician. Just my opinion.

Evidence?

...steel tariffs... Sure he's kinda fulfilling a promise, but he's actually harming the people he was supposed to help.

Again, "You may disagree on what he is doing and disagree on whether his policy will help". I think we both agree that it does count as "fulfilling a promise". Whether it achieves the goal or not is debatable.

"tax cut" which was effectively just a massive wealth transfer to the rich

Taxing less is a wealth transfer? That doesn't make sense. Keeping more of the money you earned is a wealth transfer? I guess if you feel entitled to other peoples money. However, can you explain: "When upper-income Americans prosper, so do middle-income and lower-income Americans. Conversely, when high earners are stagnating, so are income-earners in all other categories." Economics is not a zero sum game. Taxing a person more doesn't help someone else. Just as taxing a person less doesn't hurt another person. Your choice of words "wealth transfer" is odd to me when talking about a tax cut.

nonsensical promises on healthcare and then pushed for a healthcare bill that broke all of them?

He did make a good faith effort and he did succeed in ending the forced mandate. He can't repeal healthcare without Congress.

But I don't think for a moment he really cares about helping his base.

I think he is an idiot that likes the country. I think he does care more so than the average politician. Just my opinion.

Cool story, but you forgot to adjust for inflation.

Could you have lived on $250/month? Because that's the equivalent in 1995 dollars. (Per AIER's calculator... nit-pick with them if you object to the numbers)

With $200 of that going to rent, you would have been left with ~$12 per week. Not a particularly glamorous lifestyle.

The social safety net in this country is laughable.

Because the vast majority of all H1Bs go to IT jobs.

https://www.aier.org/research/...

I think we are all missing the blame. The voters are the ones who keep voting in politicians who are controlled by the wealthy. Washington was mostly not in favor of the bank bailout, but felt forced to pass it. If they didn't bail out the banks, our retirement funds would shrivel and they would get voted out.....or at least that is what they were being told by the corruption behind the system. So after initially being against a bank bailout, many politicians hung their head and voted for it. This is exactly why the corruption behind the republican party keeps pushing to privatize every fund possible, such as social security and pension funds. That helps them take control of the 1 item they still don't control.....our vote.

Besides, the government grew under Bush by more than any president in history while the debt grew under Obama more than any other.

If you are one of the people blaming one party over another, then you are part of the problem. The republicans are crooks, and the democrats idiots for not being smart enough to expose it, and not being able to find actual solutions. Your choice, corrupt or stupid....most politicians seem to fit into one of those 2 categories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt http://www.aier.org/research/briefs/750-big-government-under-the-bush-administration

According to the American Institute for Economic Research [ http://www.aier.org/cgi-aier/colcalculator.cgi ],
40 dollars in 1984 is worth $ 76.34 today. In 1984 I was paying $ 40.00 per month for telephone service. I had a "Call-Pak Unlimited" which meant that I had UNLIMITED calling for the Chicagoland area. What used to be the 847, 708, 312, 773, and part of the 815 area codes. PLUS this service came with 20 minutes of "Continental United States Long Distance".

Match THAT today in a "land-Line" service package. Then throw in the FANTASTIC service they USED to have and tell me how much better off we are !!
[Yes, I can, and *DO* beat that price with my Cingular Phone. Which is why I do NOT have a Land-Line.]

Fifteen BILLION? No way. More like $82 MILLION. A lot of money, but let's keep our decimal point in the right place.

Free cost-of-living calculator here [American Institute for Economic Research]

Check these sites out to investigate variations in COS (Cost of Living). I work in expensive Boulder, CO and I still need to make $4400 more to live in Pasadena, CA. Ouch!

Salary Calculator (includes foreign countries)
Versus Year
Various Sources
Compare cities side-by-side
A short article with a cost of living index list



~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"