The rich evil corporations are at the mercy of the public
Giving examples of how corporations reached a limit of extortive behavior doesn't show that they are at the mercy of the public. Particularly, odd is your use of Bank of America's Debit-card fees, considering that Bank of America received a lot of support in terms of below market interest rate loans from the Government, despite public discontent with such deals.
We just said "if you do that, we will take our business elsewhere...
Oligopolies know that this is an empty gesture. Their competitors are similarly structured and you or someone else will likely switch back. Most of such sentiment comes out in the wash and they know it.
Thanks for that link. I subscribed to the "Three-Toed Sloth" feed.
I like the hopeful conclusion: "I trust that I will no longer have to referee papers where people use GnuPlot to draw lines on log-log graphs, as though that meant something, and that in five to ten years even science journalists and editors of Wired will begin to get the message. "
I intentionally ignored your Muslim comments in my prior post. There are plenty of racists and religious bigots in the US, but they don't all declare the US government enemies. Though, statements like you made above would likely have you labeled as a terrorist by the HSA. The constitution and the recent changes in laws regarding the "defense" of the US seem to be totally against your "reverse-jihad" against Muslims. It wouldn't surprise me if you got the attention of some law enforcement agency and you find yourself locked up or killed as a terrorist.
Interesting. But I was just illustrating that couchslug's definitions made the US an enemy of his. The US hasn't treated declared enemies kindly. And they are making it easier, legally, to deal with such enemies.
The CIA was providing bad intelligence in the months prior to the 2003 invasion. It is possible that a few of the quoted politicians knew that the intel was bad or questionable, but I assume most took it at face value. I also assume that Bush and Cheney knew or suspected the quality of the intel. Saddam ill played brinkmanship didn't help things, either.
Do you realize that you just declared the US federal government an EXISTENTIAL enemy of yours?
Eminent Domain is in the constitution and is enforced by force. Obama has already had assassinated a US citizen who allegedly declared the US government as an enemy. Obama just signed into law the ability of the POTUS to hold US citizens indefinitely without trial by the military (though he promised not to use those powers).
Thanks for the links. It seems that the report does NOT "exclude broad categories of welfare spending" as claimed by our Anonymous Coward above. In fact they simply apply the spending data as they receive it from the Census Bureau. (PDF page 47 or report page 21) However, they do add to the Census Bureau's tax receipts figures the FY 2004 deficit in proportion to the figures from the Census Bureau. This seems to be a reasonable assumption even though future taxes are nearly guaranteed to be distributed differently in the future.
Below is the explanation from the report FY 2004 Tax Foundation report:
Each year the Census Bureau releases the Consolidated Federal Funds Report, which estimates the amount of federal spending in each state and territory during the prior fiscal year. The latest report allocates approximately 92 percent of total FY 2004 federal spending. The 8 percent not allocated includes net inter est outlays, foreign aid, and other outlays that are not allocable to the states. For the purposes of this report, the Tax Foundation uses this census data as is.
In the calculation of spending-to-tax ratios, however, an adjustment must be made to bring federal tax collections and federal spending into alignment. Therefore, a deficit is treated as an unfunded tax liability in the current year, allocated in the same fashion as the federal tax burden. Similarly, the model assumes that a surplus is used to pay down the federal debt to domestic capital holders.
I didn't notice anything wrong regarding the methodology or data sources that the Census Bureau used. It doesn't appear that the that the Census Bureau are including amounts for military personnel stationed overseas. So, there is a bit of argument to be had about such outlays being distributed evenly per capital across the USA (or something similar). Also amounts reported for military wages reflect the place of employment(duty station) rather than home residence. but this doesn't seem like it would move the numbers in a meaningful way if the methodology were changed. Total federal expenditures are broken into five categories: retirement and disability, other direct payments, grants to state and local governments, procurement, salaries and wages,and other. All of this information is disclosed or summarized in the FY 2004 Tax Foundation report.
Unless I'm missing something, it seems that ALL categories of welfare spending are included. Our Anonymous Coward above is either misinformed, making up "facts", or has information that can shed light on the discrepancy claimed but is choosing not to share. My bet is on misinformed.
FYI - It looks like you have the dates 2009 and 2006 on the wrong links. The dates are also inconsistent. The Fiscal Year 2004 data was in the report released in 2006. The Fiscal Year 2009 data was in the report released in 2011. Also the FY 2009 report was only on Local and State Tax burdens relative to income, i.e., no expenditures were considered.
3. On the whole, California takes in far more in federal benefits than it pays in federal tax. Unlike your analysis, which excludes broad categories of welfare spending, I look at gross flows of funds.
Do you have a link to the reports or data that supports this? I'd like to see it.
My comment was directed specifically to "the choice between no sweatshops or sweatshops". I have noticed NPR and many mainstream media reporters and commentators like to present a "silver lining" which is often just false a dichotomy or other logical fallacy and a disservice to the quality of the story presented. This seems to be the case here. It otherwise seems like a good report.
And one way to "improve things further" is the path that Apple as taken, to hold their suppliers accountable for working conditions.
Agreed.
How many other tech companies are doing this?
I have no idea. However, given the "me too" impulses of many modern CEOs, I hope that Apple's publicity will spark more companies (not just tech) to act effectively.
Where are the news stories decrying their use of "slave labor" (which is already inaccurate to begin with)?
It may be my reading comprehension, but I don't understand what you are trying to ask or rhetorically highlight.
given a choice between no sweatshops or sweatshops as they currently exist, the workers are actually better off with the sweatshops.
The choice isn't limited to no sweatshops or sweatshops as they currently exist. It may be an improvement over the past period of no sweatshops, but no one is proposing that factories be closed and not replaced. The challenge is how to improve things further given the consequences of global politics, culture and economics. To simply call it a win because it is better than one conceivable alternative or has improved from the past is unethical.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I realized that the assumption was sexual attraction. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2629106&cid=38750976
On second thought, it was maybe sexual attraction that was assumed. Because that is the only motivation for anything?
I found it interesting that the responses seem to implicitly assume that I'm male, as if only males can or would stand up to assholes.
Good example.
I see what you did there.
I usually do the same. But it seemed so uncalled for. It's not as if you lead with an innuendo or double entendre.
Part of estate planing? You know, just in case.
Really? That is what you had a problem with?
Yeah. I'm the bad guy for calling out an asshole. BTW - she appreciated it. http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2629106&cid=38749938
Perfect example of why this is stupid.
Bravo. Well written.
Of course, adolescents show no sign of evolving past infantile emotional and logical hangups prior to maturity.
She's married, asshole. And if she weren't, I'm sure she didn't come to Slashdot to be facetiously and pseudonymously hit on.
WTF? Really?
Even our capitalistic society has agreed that unregulated monopolies are not optimal.
FTFY
The conclusion to this thread gives me hope. Its length depresses me.
The rich evil corporations are at the mercy of the public
Giving examples of how corporations reached a limit of extortive behavior doesn't show that they are at the mercy of the public. Particularly, odd is your use of Bank of America's Debit-card fees, considering that Bank of America received a lot of support in terms of below market interest rate loans from the Government, despite public discontent with such deals.
We just said "if you do that, we will take our business elsewhere...
Oligopolies know that this is an empty gesture. Their competitors are similarly structured and you or someone else will likely switch back. Most of such sentiment comes out in the wash and they know it.
Thanks for that link. I subscribed to the "Three-Toed Sloth" feed.
I like the hopeful conclusion:
"I trust that I will no longer have to referee papers where people use GnuPlot to draw lines on log-log graphs, as though that meant something, and that in five to ten years even science journalists and editors of Wired will begin to get the message. "
I intentionally ignored your Muslim comments in my prior post. There are plenty of racists and religious bigots in the US, but they don't all declare the US government enemies. Though, statements like you made above would likely have you labeled as a terrorist by the HSA. The constitution and the recent changes in laws regarding the "defense" of the US seem to be totally against your "reverse-jihad" against Muslims. It wouldn't surprise me if you got the attention of some law enforcement agency and you find yourself locked up or killed as a terrorist.
Interesting. But I was just illustrating that couchslug's definitions made the US an enemy of his. The US hasn't treated declared enemies kindly. And they are making it easier, legally, to deal with such enemies.
The CIA was providing bad intelligence in the months prior to the 2003 invasion. It is possible that a few of the quoted politicians knew that the intel was bad or questionable, but I assume most took it at face value. I also assume that Bush and Cheney knew or suspected the quality of the intel. Saddam ill played brinkmanship didn't help things, either.
Do you realize that you just declared the US federal government an EXISTENTIAL enemy of yours?
Eminent Domain is in the constitution and is enforced by force. Obama has already had assassinated a US citizen who allegedly declared the US government as an enemy. Obama just signed into law the ability of the POTUS to hold US citizens indefinitely without trial by the military (though he promised not to use those powers).
Good Luck.
Thanks for the links. It seems that the report does NOT "exclude broad categories of welfare spending" as claimed by our Anonymous Coward above. In fact they simply apply the spending data as they receive it from the Census Bureau. (PDF page 47 or report page 21) However, they do add to the Census Bureau's tax receipts figures the FY 2004 deficit in proportion to the figures from the Census Bureau. This seems to be a reasonable assumption even though future taxes are nearly guaranteed to be distributed differently in the future.
Below is the explanation from the report FY 2004 Tax Foundation report:
Each year the Census Bureau releases the Consolidated Federal Funds Report, which estimates the amount of federal spending in each state and territory during the prior fiscal year. The latest report allocates approximately 92 percent of total FY 2004 federal spending. The 8 percent not allocated includes net inter est outlays, foreign aid, and other outlays that are not allocable to the states. For the purposes of this report, the Tax Foundation uses this census data as is.
In the calculation of spending-to-tax ratios, however, an adjustment must be made to bring federal tax collections and federal spending into alignment. Therefore, a deficit is treated as an unfunded tax liability in the current year, allocated in the same fashion as the federal tax burden. Similarly, the model assumes that a surplus is used to pay down the federal debt to domestic capital holders.
I didn't notice anything wrong regarding the methodology or data sources that the Census Bureau used. It doesn't appear that the that the Census Bureau are including amounts for military personnel stationed overseas. So, there is a bit of argument to be had about such outlays being distributed evenly per capital across the USA (or something similar). Also amounts reported for military wages reflect the place of employment(duty station) rather than home residence. but this doesn't seem like it would move the numbers in a meaningful way if the methodology were changed. Total federal expenditures are broken into five categories: retirement and disability, other direct payments, grants to state and local governments, procurement, salaries and wages,and other. All of this information is disclosed or summarized in the FY 2004 Tax Foundation report.
Unless I'm missing something, it seems that ALL categories of welfare spending are included. Our Anonymous Coward above is either misinformed, making up "facts", or has information that can shed light on the discrepancy claimed but is choosing not to share. My bet is on misinformed.
FYI - It looks like you have the dates 2009 and 2006 on the wrong links. The dates are also inconsistent. The Fiscal Year 2004 data was in the report released in 2006. The Fiscal Year 2009 data was in the report released in 2011. Also the FY 2009 report was only on Local and State Tax burdens relative to income, i.e., no expenditures were considered.
3. On the whole, California takes in far more in federal benefits than it pays in federal tax. Unlike your analysis, which excludes broad categories of welfare spending, I look at gross flows of funds.
Do you have a link to the reports or data that supports this? I'd like to see it.
My comment was directed specifically to "the choice between no sweatshops or sweatshops". I have noticed NPR and many mainstream media reporters and commentators like to present a "silver lining" which is often just false a dichotomy or other logical fallacy and a disservice to the quality of the story presented. This seems to be the case here. It otherwise seems like a good report.
And one way to "improve things further" is the path that Apple as taken, to hold their suppliers accountable for working conditions.
Agreed.
How many other tech companies are doing this?
I have no idea. However, given the "me too" impulses of many modern CEOs, I hope that Apple's publicity will spark more companies (not just tech) to act effectively.
Where are the news stories decrying their use of "slave labor" (which is already inaccurate to begin with)?
It may be my reading comprehension, but I don't understand what you are trying to ask or rhetorically highlight.
given a choice between no sweatshops or sweatshops as they currently exist, the workers are actually better off with the sweatshops.
The choice isn't limited to no sweatshops or sweatshops as they currently exist. It may be an improvement over the past period of no sweatshops, but no one is proposing that factories be closed and not replaced. The challenge is how to improve things further given the consequences of global politics, culture and economics. To simply call it a win because it is better than one conceivable alternative or has improved from the past is unethical.