Slashdot Mirror
Obama To Get Secure BlackBerry 8830
CWmike writes "President Barack Obama is set to receive a high-security BlackBerry 8830 soon, The Washington Times reported today. The device is said to be in the final stages of development at the National Security Agency, which will check that its encryption software meets federal standards. It might not be ready for months. It was reported that Obama will be able to send text and e-mail messages and make phone calls on the device, but only to those with the secure software loaded on their own devices. The list includes First Lady Michelle Obama and top aides. The security software is made by Genesis Key, whose CEO, Steven Garrett, is quoted as saying: 'We're going to put his BlackBerry back in his hand.' The Sectera Edge was pegged in January by analysts as the top device choice because of its reputation for secure data communications when used by other federal workers. And there are many reasons why Obama might have been told 'no' on his BlackBerry. But Obama may wish he had chosen a Sectera if BlackBerry has more outage problems like its latest last week, which meant no mobile e-mail for hours across the US."
We all should be able to tell that arrogant ass No! He is not at the top, "We the People" are and he is suppose to answer to us.
Enough of the love fest already.
The BlackBerry network does have outages from time to time. But the linked article is from April 18, 2007!
Last time I checked, it was 2009...
Yes, it pays salaries, but when it comes down to it, what are the people earning those salaries producing? Nothing of value, just moving funds from one party to another. I understand that those people need to eat and that the fact that we have the service means we need to have people running it, but regardless of all that, these employees are not putting any value back into the economy for their efforts.
Examples follow.
Note: All figures are arbitrary! I am not using exact figures or percentages here. If you know the exact figures for the social security budget and the amount you pay to social security, feel free to substitute those values for mine.
Let 's say that in a given pay period, I earn $1000. It then stands to follow that I have produced at least $1000 worth of goods / services. I would not be worth keeping on as an employee if the cost of employing me was larger than the revenue I generated.
Current figures:
Myself: $1000
Social Security: $0
Recipient: $0.
First arbitrary figure: Let's assume 10% of my pay goes to the social security administration. Now, it looks like this:
Myself: $900
Social Security: $100
Recpient: $0.
Now, the employees of the Social Security administration need to eat as well, so of course a portion of those funds will go to them. I'm going to go with 10% again, as a purely arbitrary figure. So the final totals look like:
Myself: $900
Social Security: $90
Recipient: $10.
Now, we're already assuming I've contributed at least $1000 worth of labour, as I would not be worth keeping as an employee if I did not. Were all that money to remain available for my use, The full $1000 would be going back into the economy. Instead, I'm only putting $900 back into the economy, whereas payroll for social security employees puts back 90, and the social security recipient puts back 10. That totals $1000, so no additional money is being put back into the economy by either the social security employees or recipient. The social security administration produces no goods, and the only services it provides are free- all of their revenue comes from mandatory withholdings from my paycheck. Similarly, the social security recipient produces no goods or services- all of his or her revenue comes from the social security administration.
So up until this point, yeah, I'm losing money, but the overall economy isn't really being negatively impacted. But wait! Theres a little more to it than that.
Assuming I, the social security officer, and the social security recipient all spend money only on products and services that operate 100% out of the US, a grand total of $1000 goes back into the economy. This is the same 'stimulus' to the economy that would occur if The entire $1000 was in my hands. This model assumes no overhead other than payroll for the social security office, which is an impossibly conservative estimate as well.
However, that social security recipient is not likely to spend the money that way. With limited fixed income, a social security recipient is far more likely to purchase inexpensive imported 'sweat shop' goods than goods assembled in america. While most of us spend money on imported products, the frugality imposed by limited income serves to increase the ratio of imported to domestic purchased goods. Not just that- Social Security recipients have a tendency to live in areas where other low income individuals live. These areas have notably higher crime rates. All other things being equal, an individual living in these areas is more likely to spend part of his or her income on drugs, unregistered weapons, prostitution, etc etc, just because of accessibility.
Example: Living in a "nice" neighborhood, you may be of the inclination to try, say, marijuana. Ok, great. Now you have to figure out who has it. 'White collar' pot smokers tend to go through a friend of a friend of a friend to get their fix- I know several of these. On the other hand, if you were living in a
So what if everybody stops spending? The whole economy dies.
No, it's the people who stop buying food that die.
Economy is not a physical thing, stop obsessing about it. It's just a collection of interactions between people, and money is not God.
The only way you can say that "spending doesn't stimulate" is if you take spending entirely as granted.
Isn't it? Do you grow your own food? Do you chop up wood in the forest to heat your house? Do you walk to work? Do you sow your own clothes? Do it for a couple of years and tell me how it worked out for you.