WaMu failed. They paid the price for their inability to compete. The free market system, in this case, weeded out the poorly performing company. That their employment contract specified a certain benefit is not a failure of free markets, but a choice made by a company whose other choices caused their failure.
Let's not forget which country has the highest standard of living, and the highest per capita income. It's not resource rich UAE or Saudi Arabia, but us in America. If having a super wealthy class of people is the price we have to pay for near universal prosperity, I'm willing.
No one in this country needs to starve to death, and if anyone on this board were to have all of their possessions taken from them and dumped on a street corner of any town or city in the country in their underwear, the chance they'd stay at the absolute bottom of the socio-economic ladder approaches 0. We have high inequality, but also high mobility opportunity. I own a home despite being raised in the projects. I paid my own way through college, staying debt free. In America, there is opportunity aplenty, and that opportunity springs from the abundance of a free market economy.
As far as being in the super-wealthy club, you're right that we allow inherited wealth to have a large impact. The alternative is an estate tax that encourages the wealthy to consume near the end of life rather than produce. All things considered, I'd prefer that the people who produced their wealth keep control over their wealth. Even if that means hiring the asshat 2nd cousin of some other CEO. They will pay the price for their decisions, because the invisible hand will reward those who provide the most benefit. You are right that it rewards those who help those who have the most. But their is no better way to encourage wealth creation. And Free market economics is the best system anyone has ever discovered for creating wealth.
Without an engine that rewards production, the amassing of wealth must come from a zero-sum game. You have to take someone else's wealth. Under a free market economy, you get to trade something of less value to yourself for something of more value to yourself. The catch is that everybody gets to do this and some people have more things of value to trade. Those people end up ahead, because they deliver more value to others.
We have a whole lot of meritocracy. Look at the list of billionaires Forbes publishes every year and see how many of them are new, and how many are self-made. I will never be a billionaire, but there's a very good chance I will go from having inherited nothing to being a millionaire by the time I die, all without ever having to fear death by starvation. If that's not enough opportunity for you, I don't know what is.
The ruling that caused the homeschooling ban was actually vacated almost immediately after issuance. It was overturned on August 8th. The "ban" required any parent who wished to homeschool to be credentialed by the state before they could be considered qualified to fill the mandatory education requirements for all minors. This made the vast majority of homeschool families into truants. Let me reiterate that homeschooling was banned for all people who were not credentialed by the state as teachers for the the grade level of their own children. This means that without a bachelor's degree, homeschooling was banned. There was absolutely no possibility of anyone without a bachelor's being legally able to homeschool their children.
This (WARNING:PDF) is not the vaguely reasonable credentials test, this is bachelor's + teacher specific training. And that's only for elementary school. High school requires approximately 1 year of training per subject. How many people do you know that are credentialed to teach 5 high school subjects? So you can say it's not a ban, just a regulation, but for all intent's and purposes, it was a ban.
This just bothers me. Studies on the topic consistently show the "fundies" who home schooled outperform their peers over all grade levels, and destroy their public and private school counterparts when controlling for household income level and parental education level. So as far as education goes, those "fundies" are kicking Joe Sixpack around the block.
Research into the social adjustment and self-image of home schooled children does show a lag, but it is wiped out completely by the time a child reaches adulthood. Check out http://www.nheri.org/, which is a research organization with an apparent home schooling bias, but which puts out good research. Those "fundies" make large families that outperform society as a whole. It's the public schools that churn out leafblowers and fry cooks.
The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is provided for in Article 1, section 9. Implicit in the placement of the clause is that it is a limitation on the powers of Congress.
For the record, I believe the New Deal legislation wasn't necessary, and we're in agreement on its unconstitutionality. Especially using the interstate commerce clause to justify the restriction on growing food for your family.
I believe the suspension of habeas corpus by the executive branch was also unconstitutional. Though one would think the Congress would have been willing to grant the military great latitude in deference to the President's requests, the power to suspend it rightfully lies with Congress, and can be exercised on in cases of rebellion, invasion, or in the requirement of public safety.
So you'd support a sexually integrated military? Because you've either got to segregate gays for living/training, or allow that any discrimination does not further the goal of an effective military.
The world may change to a point where not wanting to share quarters with people who are sexually attracted to you is deemed a failure to to their job, but short of creating a gay only division, there's not a lot that can be done there. I see your point about justice, but I'm reasonably sure you also see my point about the most effective decision being the right one. I'm just pretty sure we'll have to agree to disagree on which should be but 1st in the decision making.
Did high schools ever require civics or economics? You'd think and educated society is the cornerstone of any democracy. Otherwise the successful governing requires an aristocracy. Thankfully, our meritocratic democracy has produced the aristocracy the market demands. W00t! for business leaders determining the path of America instead of the hoi polloi. Ipso facto aristocracy via democracy.
By the way I'm not a supporter of aristocracy, but I'm opposed democracy by the lowest common denominator (bread and circuses) more.
People should be accountable to smaller group of others that they represent. A federalist system is a good system, because the majority of the authority lies closer to home.
Representative constitutional federalist democracy for the win. And in that order.
Bear in mind, this darkest moment of his presidency falls in line with his reshaping of the federal government to address the welfare of the individual. He did what was necessary to enact the unconstitutional new deal reforms that are the hallmark of his presidency.
His court packing initiative was and end run around the constitution, but so was Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus. It's only a dark and horrible time if you believe it wasn't necessary.
The equal protection clause took care of that one. Before then, the constitution didn't guarantee the rights of blacks and wasn't intended to. So yes, states' rights were being infringed.
Our nation was founded with a specifically limited federal government, wherein all the powers not delegated to the federal government were reserved to the states or the people. Barring constitutional amendments, the scope of the federal government should be limited far more than it has been. State sovereignty was a cornerstone of the constitution, and it allowed for some pretty bad things. But that's the idea behind a federation: limited central control.
There was no decision by the Supreme Court regarding xyzmall.com. I think you're probably referring to http://www.shopsatwillowbend.com/ which was decided by the 6th Circuit, and never made it to the Supreme Court.
Don't ask, don't tell is horrible policy. Those who are openly gay should either be accepted into the military or kept out. If allowing gays to serve reduces overall effectiveness, they should not be allowed to serve. If it increases effectiveness, they should be allowed to serve. I don't know enough to say if the result of gays serving alongside and often living in close quarters with those they may be attracted to is a good idea, because it expands our pool of eligible volunteers for the armed services, or a bad idea, because the overall impact of a sexually integrated armed forces would be to reduce effectiveness and troop morale. I'd certainly be opposed to allowing women in the military if the order came down that they could no longer be segregated for training and living...
The socialization of health care is something I'm opposed to for a whole host of reasons.
Tax code simplification is not a major hallmark of either nominee's platforms. There's lots of changes both candidates would make, but I don't think simplification really describes them. The Fair Tax consumption tax on the other hand...
Science and research should NOT be funded primarily by the government.
Increased funding for charter schools and increased school choice are 2 planks of McCain's platform that I support. Also increased local control of the hiring and firing of teachers. I also support vouchers for the attendance of private school for ANY parent that chooses to send their child to private school, not just low income parents. I support merit pays based in large part on the improvement in standardized testing. Competition in our school system is necessary for it's reform, and Obama has kept in line with the teacher's unions on these issues, and opposes vouchers in all cases. John McCain supports the policies that will bring real reform to our nation's schools. More money won't.
I'm all for merit-based decisions making. Racial, gender, religious, and sexual preferences have no place in hiring for positions where these things are not BFOQs.
I support the end of our current occupation in Iraq. I understand the importance of leaving a stable, democratic government behind. No matter how we feel about the original occupation, the question is what should we do from here. McCain is right on the importance of winning in Iraq.
Certain heinous crimes like the rape of a child? I applaud Obama for saying that the Supreme court got that one wrong, but the truth is Obama has pledged to appoint justices who have "oneâ(TM)s deepest values, oneâ(TM)s core concerns, oneâ(TM)s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of oneâ(TM)s empathy.â Regardless of whether you agree with the Constitution, I think it is vital that we have judges who will rule on it, and not their own deepest values.
If the constitution hadn't been amended to give women the vote, or to repeal prohibition, or to forbid a poll tax, it would be wrong for the court to rule that any of these things were unconstitutional.
I support the repeal of Griswold v. Connecticut, Loving v. Virginia, and Roe v. Wade. These cases should have been decided on equal protection grounds, not the imaginary right to privacy rooted in the emanations and penumbras of a living constitution. Scalia is by far my favorite justice, and better by far than Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, and Souter, who have all at one point or another expressed favor for finding the death penalty constitutional, something which is so clearly outside the scope of their proper role as interpreters of the constitution that every American who believes America to be a constitutional representative democracy should be opposed to it.
Change in the laws of the country should come from the legislature, not the bench. If the legislature passes a law that can not be interpreted in such a way as to bring it in line with the constitution, it should be struck down. Of the major candidates, only McCain has this one right.
The question posed to him that he said was "above his pay grade" was not the question of when a collection of 36 chromosomes becomes a "human life", but "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view."
This isn't a tough question for Obama. He's been clear that human rights start at birth. To paraphrase his position, I think accurately, one could say that he believes a fetus in a uterus has no more rights than a hamburger in a stomach.
No sensible person would say that he was referring to God, when immediately preceding his "above my pay grade" phrase, he said "[W]hether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective..."
He was saying that science doesn't have the answer to where a baby is entitled to human rights. That's absolutely correct. Science doesn't deal in ethics and morals. Science can tell us when human life begins (conception) but not when human life gains personhood. He was also saying theology doesn't give him the answer to when a baby gains human rights. Obama says that's above his pay grade, but his actions clearly show he believes the answer is at birth.
The joy of capitalism is that the invisible hand of society tends to align the good of profit-seekers with the good of mankind. Now I'm off to hunt for those pesky rent seekers and monopolists...
You have the right to burn the contents of the disk. It's the fact that you have to circumvent a copy protection measure to transcode that's the illegal part.
Yeah, the faith based economy that has the highest unemployment rate since 2000, and still has a lower unemployment rate than European countries by a good 8-10%. The faith based economy that just expanded by 3.3% this last quarter, and has been labeled recession without a single quarter of contraction. I think the economy might just have strong fundamentals that are not so faith based as you might think.
You seem smart, though. Even if we disagree on the utility of markets in making systems more efficient. There's not really a way to send a personal message on Slashdot, is there?
My point was precisely that the free market does provide a built-in cost for the depletion of finite resources. As they become more scarce, they become more expensive. Renewables should never become more scarce, thus should be fully immune to the curve that will eventually hit every non-renewable, finite resource.
The market will produce sugar can at the cost of the rain forest (though cattle ranching causes far more deforestation). Sad but true fact. You can attempt to change the market by buying only shade-grown free trade sugar/ethanol, but there will always be a market for cheap sugar. This is the root of a naturally occurring conflict between those who value the rain forest and those who value efficiently produced commodity goods. On this, we agree, though I'm guessing we're on opposite sides of which is more important to the human race.
On the self-censorship of media, I think you and I have a very different view of the media. I see conservative bias in the underserved conservative news outlets such as with Rush and Fox News. I see some liberal bias in mainstream "objective" news such as Walter Cronkite, and Dan Rather, and NPR. I see clear and persuasive liberal bias on CNN, CNBC, and the vast majority of the remainder of the print media. I understand it has become the meme of the day to say that the American media is "Corporate-biased" but I see more human interest stories than those that decry the possible increase in capital gains taxes and high marginal tax rates. The Wall Street Journal and Economist excepted.
Slashdot Mirror
WaMu failed. They paid the price for their inability to compete. The free market system, in this case, weeded out the poorly performing company. That their employment contract specified a certain benefit is not a failure of free markets, but a choice made by a company whose other choices caused their failure.
Let's not forget which country has the highest standard of living, and the highest per capita income. It's not resource rich UAE or Saudi Arabia, but us in America. If having a super wealthy class of people is the price we have to pay for near universal prosperity, I'm willing.
No one in this country needs to starve to death, and if anyone on this board were to have all of their possessions taken from them and dumped on a street corner of any town or city in the country in their underwear, the chance they'd stay at the absolute bottom of the socio-economic ladder approaches 0. We have high inequality, but also high mobility opportunity. I own a home despite being raised in the projects. I paid my own way through college, staying debt free. In America, there is opportunity aplenty, and that opportunity springs from the abundance of a free market economy.
As far as being in the super-wealthy club, you're right that we allow inherited wealth to have a large impact. The alternative is an estate tax that encourages the wealthy to consume near the end of life rather than produce. All things considered, I'd prefer that the people who produced their wealth keep control over their wealth. Even if that means hiring the asshat 2nd cousin of some other CEO. They will pay the price for their decisions, because the invisible hand will reward those who provide the most benefit. You are right that it rewards those who help those who have the most. But their is no better way to encourage wealth creation. And Free market economics is the best system anyone has ever discovered for creating wealth.
Without an engine that rewards production, the amassing of wealth must come from a zero-sum game. You have to take someone else's wealth. Under a free market economy, you get to trade something of less value to yourself for something of more value to yourself. The catch is that everybody gets to do this and some people have more things of value to trade. Those people end up ahead, because they deliver more value to others.
We have a whole lot of meritocracy. Look at the list of billionaires Forbes publishes every year and see how many of them are new, and how many are self-made. I will never be a billionaire, but there's a very good chance I will go from having inherited nothing to being a millionaire by the time I die, all without ever having to fear death by starvation. If that's not enough opportunity for you, I don't know what is.
I prefer free-market economy, because capitalism is a Marxist word. -Jonah Goldberg
The ruling that caused the homeschooling ban was actually vacated almost immediately after issuance. It was overturned on August 8th. The "ban" required any parent who wished to homeschool to be credentialed by the state before they could be considered qualified to fill the mandatory education requirements for all minors. This made the vast majority of homeschool families into truants. Let me reiterate that homeschooling was banned for all people who were not credentialed by the state as teachers for the the grade level of their own children. This means that without a bachelor's degree, homeschooling was banned. There was absolutely no possibility of anyone without a bachelor's being legally able to homeschool their children.
This (WARNING:PDF) is not the vaguely reasonable credentials test, this is bachelor's + teacher specific training. And that's only for elementary school. High school requires approximately 1 year of training per subject. How many people do you know that are credentialed to teach 5 high school subjects? So you can say it's not a ban, just a regulation, but for all intent's and purposes, it was a ban.
This just bothers me. Studies on the topic consistently show the "fundies" who home schooled outperform their peers over all grade levels, and destroy their public and private school counterparts when controlling for household income level and parental education level. So as far as education goes, those "fundies" are kicking Joe Sixpack around the block.
Research into the social adjustment and self-image of home schooled children does show a lag, but it is wiped out completely by the time a child reaches adulthood. Check out http://www.nheri.org/, which is a research organization with an apparent home schooling bias, but which puts out good research. Those "fundies" make large families that outperform society as a whole. It's the public schools that churn out leafblowers and fry cooks.
Are you sure it wasn't Arnold Schwarzenegger?
Obviously, Edison never absorbed the idea that it was better to work smarter, not harder. Tesla on the other hand...
The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is provided for in Article 1, section 9. Implicit in the placement of the clause is that it is a limitation on the powers of Congress.
For the record, I believe the New Deal legislation wasn't necessary, and we're in agreement on its unconstitutionality. Especially using the interstate commerce clause to justify the restriction on growing food for your family.
I believe the suspension of habeas corpus by the executive branch was also unconstitutional. Though one would think the Congress would have been willing to grant the military great latitude in deference to the President's requests, the power to suspend it rightfully lies with Congress, and can be exercised on in cases of rebellion, invasion, or in the requirement of public safety.
Zing!
So you'd support a sexually integrated military? Because you've either got to segregate gays for living/training, or allow that any discrimination does not further the goal of an effective military.
The world may change to a point where not wanting to share quarters with people who are sexually attracted to you is deemed a failure to to their job, but short of creating a gay only division, there's not a lot that can be done there. I see your point about justice, but I'm reasonably sure you also see my point about the most effective decision being the right one. I'm just pretty sure we'll have to agree to disagree on which should be but 1st in the decision making.
Did high schools ever require civics or economics? You'd think and educated society is the cornerstone of any democracy. Otherwise the successful governing requires an aristocracy. Thankfully, our meritocratic democracy has produced the aristocracy the market demands. W00t! for business leaders determining the path of America instead of the hoi polloi. Ipso facto aristocracy via democracy.
By the way I'm not a supporter of aristocracy, but I'm opposed democracy by the lowest common denominator (bread and circuses) more.
People should be accountable to smaller group of others that they represent. A federalist system is a good system, because the majority of the authority lies closer to home.
Representative constitutional federalist democracy for the win. And in that order.
Bear in mind, this darkest moment of his presidency falls in line with his reshaping of the federal government to address the welfare of the individual. He did what was necessary to enact the unconstitutional new deal reforms that are the hallmark of his presidency.
His court packing initiative was and end run around the constitution, but so was Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus. It's only a dark and horrible time if you believe it wasn't necessary.
The equal protection clause took care of that one. Before then, the constitution didn't guarantee the rights of blacks and wasn't intended to. So yes, states' rights were being infringed.
Our nation was founded with a specifically limited federal government, wherein all the powers not delegated to the federal government were reserved to the states or the people. Barring constitutional amendments, the scope of the federal government should be limited far more than it has been. State sovereignty was a cornerstone of the constitution, and it allowed for some pretty bad things. But that's the idea behind a federation: limited central control.
There was no decision by the Supreme Court regarding xyzmall.com. I think you're probably referring to http://www.shopsatwillowbend.com/ which was decided by the 6th Circuit, and never made it to the Supreme Court.
That's right. If hiring someone helps the organization, hire them. If it hurts, hire someone else.
Let's see which policies I disagree with...
Don't ask, don't tell is horrible policy. Those who are openly gay should either be accepted into the military or kept out. If allowing gays to serve reduces overall effectiveness, they should not be allowed to serve. If it increases effectiveness, they should be allowed to serve. I don't know enough to say if the result of gays serving alongside and often living in close quarters with those they may be attracted to is a good idea, because it expands our pool of eligible volunteers for the armed services, or a bad idea, because the overall impact of a sexually integrated armed forces would be to reduce effectiveness and troop morale. I'd certainly be opposed to allowing women in the military if the order came down that they could no longer be segregated for training and living...
The socialization of health care is something I'm opposed to for a whole host of reasons.
Tax code simplification is not a major hallmark of either nominee's platforms. There's lots of changes both candidates would make, but I don't think simplification really describes them. The Fair Tax consumption tax on the other hand...
Science and research should NOT be funded primarily by the government.
Increased funding for charter schools and increased school choice are 2 planks of McCain's platform that I support. Also increased local control of the hiring and firing of teachers. I also support vouchers for the attendance of private school for ANY parent that chooses to send their child to private school, not just low income parents. I support merit pays based in large part on the improvement in standardized testing. Competition in our school system is necessary for it's reform, and Obama has kept in line with the teacher's unions on these issues, and opposes vouchers in all cases. John McCain supports the policies that will bring real reform to our nation's schools. More money won't.
I'm all for merit-based decisions making. Racial, gender, religious, and sexual preferences have no place in hiring for positions where these things are not BFOQs.
I support the end of our current occupation in Iraq. I understand the importance of leaving a stable, democratic government behind. No matter how we feel about the original occupation, the question is what should we do from here. McCain is right on the importance of winning in Iraq.
Certain heinous crimes like the rape of a child? I applaud Obama for saying that the Supreme court got that one wrong, but the truth is Obama has pledged to appoint justices who have "oneâ(TM)s deepest values, oneâ(TM)s core concerns, oneâ(TM)s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of oneâ(TM)s empathy.â Regardless of whether you agree with the Constitution, I think it is vital that we have judges who will rule on it, and not their own deepest values.
If the constitution hadn't been amended to give women the vote, or to repeal prohibition, or to forbid a poll tax, it would be wrong for the court to rule that any of these things were unconstitutional.
I support the repeal of Griswold v. Connecticut, Loving v. Virginia, and Roe v. Wade. These cases should have been decided on equal protection grounds, not the imaginary right to privacy rooted in the emanations and penumbras of a living constitution. Scalia is by far my favorite justice, and better by far than Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, and Souter, who have all at one point or another expressed favor for finding the death penalty constitutional, something which is so clearly outside the scope of their proper role as interpreters of the constitution that every American who believes America to be a constitutional representative democracy should be opposed to it.
Change in the laws of the country should come from the legislature, not the bench. If the legislature passes a law that can not be interpreted in such a way as to bring it in line with the constitution, it should be struck down. Of the major candidates, only McCain has this one right.
That was satire, right?
The question posed to him that he said was "above his pay grade" was not the question of when a collection of 36 chromosomes becomes a "human life", but "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view."
This isn't a tough question for Obama. He's been clear that human rights start at birth. To paraphrase his position, I think accurately, one could say that he believes a fetus in a uterus has no more rights than a hamburger in a stomach.
No sensible person would say that he was referring to God, when immediately preceding his "above my pay grade" phrase, he said "[W]hether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective..."
He was saying that science doesn't have the answer to where a baby is entitled to human rights. That's absolutely correct. Science doesn't deal in ethics and morals. Science can tell us when human life begins (conception) but not when human life gains personhood. He was also saying theology doesn't give him the answer to when a baby gains human rights. Obama says that's above his pay grade, but his actions clearly show he believes the answer is at birth.
The joy of capitalism is that the invisible hand of society tends to align the good of profit-seekers with the good of mankind. Now I'm off to hunt for those pesky rent seekers and monopolists...
You have the right to burn the contents of the disk. It's the fact that you have to circumvent a copy protection measure to transcode that's the illegal part.
So you hate Mexicans? Racist.
jcr: Right again.
That ought to garner McCain a few votes from identity politics voters who want a woman president, and view Palin and Clinton as equally good choices.
Yeah, the faith based economy that has the highest unemployment rate since 2000, and still has a lower unemployment rate than European countries by a good 8-10%. The faith based economy that just expanded by 3.3% this last quarter, and has been labeled recession without a single quarter of contraction. I think the economy might just have strong fundamentals that are not so faith based as you might think.
You seem smart, though. Even if we disagree on the utility of markets in making systems more efficient. There's not really a way to send a personal message on Slashdot, is there?
My point was precisely that the free market does provide a built-in cost for the depletion of finite resources. As they become more scarce, they become more expensive. Renewables should never become more scarce, thus should be fully immune to the curve that will eventually hit every non-renewable, finite resource.
The market will produce sugar can at the cost of the rain forest (though cattle ranching causes far more deforestation). Sad but true fact. You can attempt to change the market by buying only shade-grown free trade sugar/ethanol, but there will always be a market for cheap sugar. This is the root of a naturally occurring conflict between those who value the rain forest and those who value efficiently produced commodity goods. On this, we agree, though I'm guessing we're on opposite sides of which is more important to the human race.
On the self-censorship of media, I think you and I have a very different view of the media. I see conservative bias in the underserved conservative news outlets such as with Rush and Fox News. I see some liberal bias in mainstream "objective" news such as Walter Cronkite, and Dan Rather, and NPR. I see clear and persuasive liberal bias on CNN, CNBC, and the vast majority of the remainder of the print media. I understand it has become the meme of the day to say that the American media is "Corporate-biased" but I see more human interest stories than those that decry the possible increase in capital gains taxes and high marginal tax rates. The Wall Street Journal and Economist excepted.