Because patents are part of their valuation. Credits are obtained with patents as a security. They are assigned value, and kept as assets. If they become worthless over night, many companies will just be bankrupt in the morning.
If the entirety of your assets consist of credit, debt, rights, licenses, patents, copyrights, etc., then you are already bankrupt. Emperor's new robe and whatnot.
No, you are not. Factually, you can continue buying yachts and politicians to no end. The rules are the rules and they hold except when they don't, and they hold more often than not. In particular when "you" have a say in the matter.
I am not saying that this is morally right, I am just saying that this is the way it is. It is necessary to understand reality before attempting to change it. And time to change it it is.
Patents also promote investing in research & development.
No, they don't. There's plenty of evidence out there refuting your claim.
I doubt Microsoft and other companies would be spending billions in research if everything they discovered or came up with was immediately available to everyone else.
There are many barriers to entry aside from patents. Actually getting something done is one, for example.
Because patents are part of their valuation. Credits are obtained with patents as a security. They are assigned value, and kept as assets. If they become worthless over night, many companies will just be bankrupt in the morning.
the U.S. is hurtling at full speed towards a deficit meltdown
Your beloved market thinks otherwise. That number is the interest the US has to pay to borrow money. That number was very small, reflecting the opinion of the market on risk of default. It actually fell further after the downgrade.
S&P's reasoning is not at all sound. That wasn't a "small math error", btw.
Sure, we all prefer white hats, but the black hats are out there, in congress, running major corporations, and even in the White House. Nothing is going to change that, so we must secure our network from the threat they represent.
That is a very defeatist attitude.
It has been this bad in the past, but it changed. Then it changed back, so it is time to fight again. Just hiding and hoping that if you stick to the ground nothing will happen to you has never helped.
There is only one solution to problems derived from spending too much. It's the same solution you and I have to employ in our own financial lives. SPEND LESS.
That may be the solution sometimes. Sometimes, it makes the problem worse. Imagine a restaurant that, for some reason, sees a reduction in customer numbers and thus in revenue. Spending less might mean turning off the AC or serving lower quality food, causing further customer loss. Spending more might mean revamping the menu and investing in marketing, attracting more customers.
So, you see, it is not as simple as SPEND LESS.
In the case of the US, comprehensive single payer health care (for example) would probably lead to a huge boost in productivity and consumer spending, because people would be healthier and would have less to worry about. It might be worth the investment.
Certainly not a freefall by any stretch of the imagination. That's 3.4% a year. You have to recalibrate your vocabulary. Additionally, that slow depreciation is what allows the US to stay competitive.
It is interesting that deficit isn't the only, nor it seems, most important issue. FTA:
The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.
Doubtful, regardless of what the ratings agencies say, US debt is still the safest in the world.
Oh, it's not like they'll completely stop buying US Treasuries, etc. It's just that they will demand higher interest rates be paid on them, which will cost the entire US economy and every individual seeking credit.
You mean, like what happened to Japan? They were downgraded quite a lot deeper at some point in 1998. Now look at their interest rates.
It's partisan ass-hattary like yours that got us in this mess.
That does not fit the data. The right has been completely unwilling to compromise. They essentially took your country hostage over their radical demands.
Therefore I am avoiding seeking any treatment for my current problems for fear of them turning out to be chronic and causing my rates to permanently increase 3-5x when I have to switch to a new provider.
How is that a problem with the new system? If anything, the old system had the same problem, perhaps worse.
In any case, it shows that the US's health system is bad and in need of a thorough fix.
And - don't be silly. Go to the doctor. Long term damage due to chronic illness may be more crippling than an expensive plan.
Credit rating is ideologically ignorant - it's a matter of high debt and inability to meet payments.
No, in fact it is ideologically very non-ignorant, as it has an ideology that it is trying to push on the world. c.f. Krugmans commentary on the issue.
It is also arguably irrelevant in many situations. You can compare us 10y bond yields with, I don't know, greece's 10y bond yield or a bunch of orthers. The world is not about to end on the US. It is quite possible that S&P have just made fools of themselves.
A 1GW Coal plant belches about half of what TMI and Fukushima excreted in terms of long-lasting radionucleides, in the form of thorium and uranium/every year/.
Oh, really? Same stuff? You are a liar and a NE shill.
What did it take to get that final incident? Just a 9.0 earthquake and a 43 foot tsunami. But yeah, totally unsafe and blow up all the time. Even the POS of Chernobyl was running fine until they started to muck about with it.
The problem in Fukushima was loss of mains power together with generalized chaos from the monster tsunami. A sputtering cesna together with political unrest or mild underregulation of the nuclear companies can have the same effect. The monster tsunami is a nice cover, but is still a distraction.
I am with those who insist that the main technical problem with nuclear energy is a sound regulatory framework. I don't see it. And without it, it is unsafe technology.
A similar incident (you don't need a tsunami) in any German reactor would almost certainly trigger a collapse of its economy. In fact, had the reactor been closer to Tokyo, that would have been it, too. When you weight the small risk against the ridiculously huge consequences, I obtain a clear no. I can, however, imagine circumstances where it would be a clear yes: for example: build it underground in a remote area. And, as with the military, don't let a private company run it. Interestingly, none of this options are ever considered by the fanbois.
It's far worse than that. It's about irrational fear on one hand and unknowledgeable hardcore anti-nuclear power fanatics on the other.
Fair and balanced, heh?
It is between irresponsible nuclear energy fanbois on one hand and political and financial/technical reality on the other hand. Nuclear is not going anywhere, and it's time for the nuclear energy advocates to stop pretending. Things don't get anymore true because you repeat them over and over. When you weight the probability of something going wrong with the consequences it comes out that nuclear is not for most places on this planet.
It is simply not true that coal (for example) is worse than nuclear. It might be so on a an average day, but if shit hits the fan, nuclear can recover all the distance in a single day, and then make some the next day. And given the corruption and incompetence of the nuclear industry, we'll see another blow to its image within a decade. I'd bet it will be a Thorium reactor by the chinese, who are going to fuck up as surely as the sun gets up tomorrow.
Go ahead, claim it's impossible, so you are on the record when it does.
"Ban all nuclear power! Power everything with rainbow farts from Unicorns!"
If you tax the hell out of the biggest corporations and wealthiest individuals, what do you think happens? They just throw up their hands and say "You got me this time government!". No, they maintain their profits by cutting costs, hiring less workers and not giving out raises for the ones they have.
Whether the money goes into the pockets of military contractors or Big Finance doesn't matter, it is still lost to us for no benefit.
You have no idea of what you are talking about. Read the nobel prize winner to understand what's going on. Read the archives: he's got almost a 100% of his predictions right:
Finding a bug in your own code costs one of unit of work. QA finding a bug in your work costs 10 units of work. Having a customer find a bug in your code costs 100 units of work. Doing code reviews increases efficiency. Plus, you get to both teach and learn from your peers.
That's all nice and dandy, but the problem is that in reality it still makes sense sometimes to produce and sell buggy software. This is so for a variety of reasons. Amongst them the fact that actually pulling off a business is a very multifacetic thing, and the product is only one of many aspects. In many cases, the cost of making a good product is simply prohibitive when viewed in the grand scheme of things.
Slashdot Mirror
I fear that a purely technical solution will make this situation a lot worse. People filming the riots will be beaten up, or worse.
Watching this amazing video, I can't but wonder: what the hell is going on in the UK? Where did so much hate and anger come from?
No, you are not. Factually, you can continue buying yachts and politicians to no end. The rules are the rules and they hold except when they don't, and they hold more often than not. In particular when "you" have a say in the matter.
I am not saying that this is morally right, I am just saying that this is the way it is. It is necessary to understand reality before attempting to change it. And time to change it it is.
No, they don't. There's plenty of evidence out there refuting your claim.
There are many barriers to entry aside from patents. Actually getting something done is one, for example.
Because patents are part of their valuation. Credits are obtained with patents as a security. They are assigned value, and kept as assets. If they become worthless over night, many companies will just be bankrupt in the morning.
Your beloved market thinks otherwise. That number is the interest the US has to pay to borrow money. That number was very small, reflecting the opinion of the market on risk of default. It actually fell further after the downgrade.
S&P's reasoning is not at all sound. That wasn't a "small math error", btw.
That is a very defeatist attitude.
It has been this bad in the past, but it changed. Then it changed back, so it is time to fight again. Just hiding and hoping that if you stick to the ground nothing will happen to you has never helped.
That may be the solution sometimes. Sometimes, it makes the problem worse. Imagine a restaurant that, for some reason, sees a reduction in customer numbers and thus in revenue. Spending less might mean turning off the AC or serving lower quality food, causing further customer loss. Spending more might mean revamping the menu and investing in marketing, attracting more customers.
So, you see, it is not as simple as SPEND LESS.
In the case of the US, comprehensive single payer health care (for example) would probably lead to a huge boost in productivity and consumer spending, because people would be healthier and would have less to worry about. It might be worth the investment.
Certainly not a freefall by any stretch of the imagination. That's 3.4% a year. You have to recalibrate your vocabulary. Additionally, that slow depreciation is what allows the US to stay competitive.
is here: http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2011/08/05/sp-downgrades-u-s-debt-rating-press-release/
It is interesting that deficit isn't the only, nor it seems, most important issue. FTA:
You mean, like what happened to Japan? They were downgraded quite a lot deeper at some point in 1998. Now look at their interest rates.
That does not fit the data. The right has been completely unwilling to compromise. They essentially took your country hostage over their radical demands.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=2&hp
That is simply not happening. Please come back to reality.
How is that a problem with the new system? If anything, the old system had the same problem, perhaps worse.
In any case, it shows that the US's health system is bad and in need of a thorough fix.
And - don't be silly. Go to the doctor. Long term damage due to chronic illness may be more crippling than an expensive plan.
No, in fact it is ideologically very non-ignorant, as it has an ideology that it is trying to push on the world. c.f. Krugmans commentary on the issue.
It is also arguably irrelevant in many situations. You can compare us 10y bond yields with, I don't know, greece's 10y bond yield or a bunch of orthers. The world is not about to end on the US. It is quite possible that S&P have just made fools of themselves.
No? Whoa.
It actually says a mighty shipload of a lot about software and the software business.
It also means, incidentally, that you cannot call stuff 'useless' just because you feel like it.
That is unfortunately not true. We might have yet to see the levels that are typical in the US, but the EPP grants software patents regularily.
Oh, really? Same stuff? You are a liar and a NE shill.
The problem in Fukushima was loss of mains power together with generalized chaos from the monster tsunami. A sputtering cesna together with political unrest or mild underregulation of the nuclear companies can have the same effect. The monster tsunami is a nice cover, but is still a distraction.
I am with those who insist that the main technical problem with nuclear energy is a sound regulatory framework. I don't see it. And without it, it is unsafe technology.
A similar incident (you don't need a tsunami) in any German reactor would almost certainly trigger a collapse of its economy. In fact, had the reactor been closer to Tokyo, that would have been it, too. When you weight the small risk against the ridiculously huge consequences, I obtain a clear no. I can, however, imagine circumstances where it would be a clear yes: for example: build it underground in a remote area. And, as with the military, don't let a private company run it. Interestingly, none of this options are ever considered by the fanbois.
Fair and balanced, heh?
It is between irresponsible nuclear energy fanbois on one hand and political and financial/technical reality on the other hand. Nuclear is not going anywhere, and it's time for the nuclear energy advocates to stop pretending. Things don't get anymore true because you repeat them over and over. When you weight the probability of something going wrong with the consequences it comes out that nuclear is not for most places on this planet.
It is simply not true that coal (for example) is worse than nuclear. It might be so on a an average day, but if shit hits the fan, nuclear can recover all the distance in a single day, and then make some the next day. And given the corruption and incompetence of the nuclear industry, we'll see another blow to its image within a decade. I'd bet it will be a Thorium reactor by the chinese, who are going to fuck up as surely as the sun gets up tomorrow.
Go ahead, claim it's impossible, so you are on the record when it does.
How's that called. Nuclear strawman? Hahaha.
Don't know what planet you are living, but on this one he has been incredibly accurate with his predictions.
Do you hear that choppers? They are black. It's the Randroids going after you.
Get some perspective, moron. We are far from taxing "the hell" out of anything.
You have no idea of what you are talking about. Read the nobel prize winner to understand what's going on. Read the archives: he's got almost a 100% of his predictions right:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
Sure, you can continue to be wingnut. You can also base your understanding on sound science and evidence.
As others have told you, reality does not leave much option.
At least not in that particular situation. The actual option is to unionize and kick ass. But people are too scared. And that is the problem.
That's all nice and dandy, but the problem is that in reality it still makes sense sometimes to produce and sell buggy software. This is so for a variety of reasons. Amongst them the fact that actually pulling off a business is a very multifacetic thing, and the product is only one of many aspects. In many cases, the cost of making a good product is simply prohibitive when viewed in the grand scheme of things.
Reality is messy.