The chairmen of the four committees inform their minority party petitioners that the respective committees have far too much work to do, uncovering crimes, corruption and breaches of national security involving Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton et al., to allow any distractions.
Unlike time, your thoughts run backwards.
Anything less important that (i) defend the borders, (ii) maintain civil peace, and (iii) enforce contracts,must NOTbe touched by government, which is too ignorant (technical term, meaning lacking the full flow of information as from free markets) and too corrupt (legal term meaning too eager to abuse political power for profit and self-aggrandizement) to be trusted with anything other than its proper, limited and constitutional function.
First, thank you for engaging! I could not agree with you more about tax manipulations by governments. Tax Peter to pay Paul soon gets Peter pissed off. So governments raise rates on all but give unequal deductions to hide the redistribution. BUT if you pursue equity you must come to court with clean hands. EU is as dirty as they come. Apple sets not one but two high hurdles for the weasels in Brussels. FIRST prove that something was available to some firms but not others. SECOND then show how Ireland is acting any differently than the EU itself. See for example http://www.forbes.com/sites/lo... See, EU wants "flexibility" in its own dealings but not have to face competition from others. "It's not cronyism when WE do it..."
That is incorrect, my MonCalamari friend.
This is clear from the word "fairness", There is nothing unfair about Ireland's tax rate, nor has the EU been able to bully Ireland to raise. Ireland has had the same tax rate for many years now.
Failing on the direct assault, EU now claims that low taxes in general are "subsidies.' No, low taxes are sound public policy for Ireland. IF that sound public policy embarrasses Brussels, too bad. The EU cannot torture the concept of market competition to abuse Ireland.
In fact, what the EU seeks is protectionism for the high tax states, freedom from competition by more efficient and less greedy countries. Protectionism bad for industries, just as it is bad for states.
Abd "unfair" is when the EU subsidizes Airbus, or when the Export-Import bank subsidizes Boeing, or when the US taxpayers subsidize ethanol. That's unfairness for you, not Ireland doing its best for Irish workers.
Dislike Apple as much as the next sentient creature.
But the EU is way out of bounds. Apple has followed the law; Ireland is protesting bureaucrats in Brussels, and the dirigistes will get smacked down in due course.
Here's how to think about it - nations compete just as much as individuals and corporations. A low-tax, low benefit state competes on the merits with a high tax, high benefit state. People can vote in elections for what they prefer, and vote with their feet if that doesn't work.
The only loser in that situation is the high-tax BUT low benefit state. And that's the EU. The bullies in Brussels lose on the merits and so try to squash the competition.
That's too bad. It's only the competition that keeps the politicos and hacks in any sort of control.
Provocative line: “The US is the only developed nation on Earth which allows pharmaceutical companies to set their own prices.” Of those 18 provocative words, the most egregious is “allows.” http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
That presumes government owns all property, real and intellectual, in which it magnanimously “allows” us a share, but only as it, government, please. That further presumes that government itself is not the cause of the problem in the first place. Both of those presumptions are wrong, to our great harm.
To make this simple, I lay the matter out in clear terms below. That way we can begin discussions wherever it is that you first disagree.
Free markets work best to allocate scarce resources.
For free markets to work, certain premises are required: many small, independent agents; free flow of information; no distortions such as tariffs, barriers, monopolies
The proper role of government is to ensure those premises. Instead, government chooses to meddle directly, and inevitably makes things worse. This is known as iatrogenic disease.
In particular, private monopolies are not an issue today. All private monopolies fail: someone always cheats, or defects; substitutes arise; technology advances; fashions change. And if a monopoly should arise, we have a vast apparatus in the US, between the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission.
(Not that those folks have a good track record, viz. AT&T, IBM, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon Indeed when he was six, my son asked a challenging question, “how can it be a monopoly if it’s something you don’t need?” I wonder.)
Today, private monopolies cannot arise. With modern technology, international trade and global markets, they are simply infeasible.
No, the only durable monopolies are those imposed by government, because government first holds the monopoly on violence. Now some government monopolies are good, and temporary. Copyrights, trademarks, and patents are in the US Constitution.
Others, not so much. That latter includes all the frauds amongst cronies and politicos. That category is the worst violation of free market premises ever, and the one most perpetrated. Cronyism has done orders of magnitude more damage to the US economy than any other violation, including insider trading.
As to patents, a primer on the economics. Invention, like any other good or service, must be rewarded in order for it to be produced. Unlike goods and services, intellectual property is peculiarly subject to theft. So government gives inventors standing (term limited) to protect their property with civil remedies.
That patent is like a lottery ticket. The inventor tried 10 things. Lost his investment of time, effort, and cash in nine of them. The tenth thing seems to work. Now he must make enough on that tenth thing not only to reward that effort, but to recompense him for the other nine as well.
Say the 10 ventures cost $100,000 each. That means the tenth winner must return AT LEAST $1 million. Quite a bit more, in fact, because government comes around to seize its taxes first, and after that, the inventor must do more than break even.
That’s the social contract. Before the fact, the politico promises the productive person if he takes risk and makes something that works, he can cash in that lottery ticket.” But after the fact, the politico hypocritically turns all populist and say “I don’t feel that $1,000,000 is merited. I feel $500,000 is more than enough”
Who the (trigger warning) is that politico to decide market value? How dare that politico feel it’s up to him to “allow” one price rather than another?
Is the patent valid? Then do not violate the terms of the deal.
Is there no other competition? Then tell the (trigger warning) FDA to do its job.
Is the IP such that people really do need it, as my son asked?
"Tax avoidance is the legal utilization of the tax regime to one's own advantage, in order to reduce the amount of tax that is payable by means that are within the law. The United States Supreme court has stated that "The legal right of an individual to decrease the amount of what would otherwise be his taxes or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted." See Gregory v. Helvering."
Driving a car on public streets brings public responsibilities.
I was hit from behind at a red light, completely his fault. I was effectively totalled. He tried to run away but I managed enough steering to cut him off. When the police came, turns out he was uninsured.
He got an $85 "fine," far cheaper than thousands in insurance costs.
I had to track him down, put a lien on his house to get (partially) repaid.
Tell me again why we let uninsured motorists drive?
Physics degree, actuary by training, investment banker by profession; that is math-literate.
And I confirm that models cannot be trusted nor can they replace sound judgment and experience. Besides the issue of visual basic dolts, and obvious limitations of input quality, there remains the fundamental question of scope of application.
In the late 1980s, S&P rated First Executive as triple-A, even though that life insurer was loaded with junk bonds. S&P bought into the weak argument that diversification of junk bonds would work.
The SUBTLE error here by S&P is that credit risk is highly correlated and requires more individual bonds than were ever available for diversification.
But the more important BLATANT error by S&P was that First Executive was NOT a passive, diversified pool of junk bonds. No, First Executive was an actively managed machine for producing ever-rising reported income. So Fred Carr actively-managed his way to ruin by greedily stretching for returns.
S&P's junk bond models were wrong, but even if they were right, they were applied immodestly, to do things (like anticipate management behavior) for which those models were not qualified.
At Moody's I was unable to persuade the rating committee to rate First Executive below an A3. (That's 6 notches below triple-A.) The limiting factor? Moody's methodology including guys who asked "But how could S&P be THAT wrong?!"
In fact, First Executive failed, spectactularly.
Models exist solely to let us play many rounds of the game, in simulation. Models help us find unanticipated correlations, un-imagined peaks and valleys in the game solution surface. Models are never the final answer.
IF the teacher is paid by the university, then it's the university's property, not his.
That is what completes the relationship: Tuition from student to university, which "outsources/hire" professor to deliver services to student.
The tests prove we do not in fact think faster under stress.
But there is an interesting, and real perception effect, one I've experienced playing squash.
The brain sweeps twice as fast for updating conscious perceptions as it does for activating motor responses, something like 40 hz perception vs. 20 hz. motor. So it sometimes feels like I'm moving slowly towards the ball. I get two clicks of thinking for every click of movement.
Slashdot Mirror
The chairmen of the four committees inform their minority party petitioners that the respective committees have far too much work to do, uncovering crimes, corruption and breaches of national security involving Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton et al., to allow any distractions.
Unlike time, your thoughts run backwards. Anything less important that (i) defend the borders, (ii) maintain civil peace, and (iii) enforce contracts,must NOTbe touched by government, which is too ignorant (technical term, meaning lacking the full flow of information as from free markets) and too corrupt (legal term meaning too eager to abuse political power for profit and self-aggrandizement) to be trusted with anything other than its proper, limited and constitutional function.
Fact check? Not. Google whores for hillary http://www.democracynow.org/20... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/... https://theintercept.com/2016/... https://aeon.co/essays/how-the... http://thehill.com/policy/tech... http://observer.com/2016/08/te...
First, thank you for engaging! I could not agree with you more about tax manipulations by governments. Tax Peter to pay Paul soon gets Peter pissed off. So governments raise rates on all but give unequal deductions to hide the redistribution. BUT if you pursue equity you must come to court with clean hands. EU is as dirty as they come. Apple sets not one but two high hurdles for the weasels in Brussels. FIRST prove that something was available to some firms but not others. SECOND then show how Ireland is acting any differently than the EU itself. See for example http://www.forbes.com/sites/lo... See, EU wants "flexibility" in its own dealings but not have to face competition from others. "It's not cronyism when WE do it..."
That is incorrect, my MonCalamari friend. This is clear from the word "fairness", There is nothing unfair about Ireland's tax rate, nor has the EU been able to bully Ireland to raise. Ireland has had the same tax rate for many years now. Failing on the direct assault, EU now claims that low taxes in general are "subsidies.' No, low taxes are sound public policy for Ireland. IF that sound public policy embarrasses Brussels, too bad. The EU cannot torture the concept of market competition to abuse Ireland. In fact, what the EU seeks is protectionism for the high tax states, freedom from competition by more efficient and less greedy countries. Protectionism bad for industries, just as it is bad for states. Abd "unfair" is when the EU subsidizes Airbus, or when the Export-Import bank subsidizes Boeing, or when the US taxpayers subsidize ethanol. That's unfairness for you, not Ireland doing its best for Irish workers.
Dislike Apple as much as the next sentient creature. But the EU is way out of bounds. Apple has followed the law; Ireland is protesting bureaucrats in Brussels, and the dirigistes will get smacked down in due course. Here's how to think about it - nations compete just as much as individuals and corporations. A low-tax, low benefit state competes on the merits with a high tax, high benefit state. People can vote in elections for what they prefer, and vote with their feet if that doesn't work. The only loser in that situation is the high-tax BUT low benefit state. And that's the EU. The bullies in Brussels lose on the merits and so try to squash the competition. That's too bad. It's only the competition that keeps the politicos and hacks in any sort of control.
Provocative line: “The US is the only developed nation on Earth which allows pharmaceutical companies to set their own prices.” Of those 18 provocative words, the most egregious is “allows.” http://www.abc.net.au/news/201... That presumes government owns all property, real and intellectual, in which it magnanimously “allows” us a share, but only as it, government, please. That further presumes that government itself is not the cause of the problem in the first place. Both of those presumptions are wrong, to our great harm. To make this simple, I lay the matter out in clear terms below. That way we can begin discussions wherever it is that you first disagree. Free markets work best to allocate scarce resources. For free markets to work, certain premises are required: many small, independent agents; free flow of information; no distortions such as tariffs, barriers, monopolies The proper role of government is to ensure those premises. Instead, government chooses to meddle directly, and inevitably makes things worse. This is known as iatrogenic disease. In particular, private monopolies are not an issue today. All private monopolies fail: someone always cheats, or defects; substitutes arise; technology advances; fashions change. And if a monopoly should arise, we have a vast apparatus in the US, between the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission. (Not that those folks have a good track record, viz. AT&T, IBM, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon Indeed when he was six, my son asked a challenging question, “how can it be a monopoly if it’s something you don’t need?” I wonder.) Today, private monopolies cannot arise. With modern technology, international trade and global markets, they are simply infeasible. No, the only durable monopolies are those imposed by government, because government first holds the monopoly on violence. Now some government monopolies are good, and temporary. Copyrights, trademarks, and patents are in the US Constitution. Others, not so much. That latter includes all the frauds amongst cronies and politicos. That category is the worst violation of free market premises ever, and the one most perpetrated. Cronyism has done orders of magnitude more damage to the US economy than any other violation, including insider trading. As to patents, a primer on the economics. Invention, like any other good or service, must be rewarded in order for it to be produced. Unlike goods and services, intellectual property is peculiarly subject to theft. So government gives inventors standing (term limited) to protect their property with civil remedies. That patent is like a lottery ticket. The inventor tried 10 things. Lost his investment of time, effort, and cash in nine of them. The tenth thing seems to work. Now he must make enough on that tenth thing not only to reward that effort, but to recompense him for the other nine as well. Say the 10 ventures cost $100,000 each. That means the tenth winner must return AT LEAST $1 million. Quite a bit more, in fact, because government comes around to seize its taxes first, and after that, the inventor must do more than break even. That’s the social contract. Before the fact, the politico promises the productive person if he takes risk and makes something that works, he can cash in that lottery ticket.” But after the fact, the politico hypocritically turns all populist and say “I don’t feel that $1,000,000 is merited. I feel $500,000 is more than enough” Who the (trigger warning) is that politico to decide market value? How dare that politico feel it’s up to him to “allow” one price rather than another? Is the patent valid? Then do not violate the terms of the deal. Is there no other competition? Then tell the (trigger warning) FDA to do its job. Is the IP such that people really do need it, as my son asked?
You give me the answer, and I'll give you the data. Or else you give me the data, and I'll give you the answer. So says warmism.
"Tax avoidance is the legal utilization of the tax regime to one's own advantage, in order to reduce the amount of tax that is payable by means that are within the law. The United States Supreme court has stated that "The legal right of an individual to decrease the amount of what would otherwise be his taxes or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted." See Gregory v. Helvering."
Driving a car on public streets brings public responsibilities. I was hit from behind at a red light, completely his fault. I was effectively totalled. He tried to run away but I managed enough steering to cut him off. When the police came, turns out he was uninsured. He got an $85 "fine," far cheaper than thousands in insurance costs. I had to track him down, put a lien on his house to get (partially) repaid. Tell me again why we let uninsured motorists drive?
Physics degree, actuary by training, investment banker by profession; that is math-literate.
And I confirm that models cannot be trusted nor can they replace sound judgment and experience. Besides the issue of visual basic dolts, and obvious limitations of input quality, there remains the fundamental question of scope of application.
In the late 1980s, S&P rated First Executive as triple-A, even though that life insurer was loaded with junk bonds. S&P bought into the weak argument that diversification of junk bonds would work.
The SUBTLE error here by S&P is that credit risk is highly correlated and requires more individual bonds than were ever available for diversification.
But the more important BLATANT error by S&P was that First Executive was NOT a passive, diversified pool of junk bonds. No, First Executive was an actively managed machine for producing ever-rising reported income. So Fred Carr actively-managed his way to ruin by greedily stretching for returns.
S&P's junk bond models were wrong, but even if they were right, they were applied immodestly, to do things (like anticipate management behavior) for which those models were not qualified.
At Moody's I was unable to persuade the rating committee to rate First Executive below an A3. (That's 6 notches below triple-A.) The limiting factor? Moody's methodology including guys who asked "But how could S&P be THAT wrong?!"
In fact, First Executive failed, spectactularly.
Models exist solely to let us play many rounds of the game, in simulation. Models help us find unanticipated correlations, un-imagined peaks and valleys in the game solution surface. Models are never the final answer.
IF the teacher is paid by the university, then it's the university's property, not his. That is what completes the relationship: Tuition from student to university, which "outsources/hire" professor to deliver services to student.
If you attract the attention of the US military, then you deserve to be destroyed.
Not to underplay the severity of the loss, strategically and financially, we should understand the accounting properly.
With perhaps $20 billion R&D, the B-2 may have an average cost of $1.2 b. spread over 21 built. But the MARGINAL cost to replace is more like $200 m.
The tests prove we do not in fact think faster under stress. But there is an interesting, and real perception effect, one I've experienced playing squash. The brain sweeps twice as fast for updating conscious perceptions as it does for activating motor responses, something like 40 hz perception vs. 20 hz. motor. So it sometimes feels like I'm moving slowly towards the ball. I get two clicks of thinking for every click of movement.