However, if you think there is any "you" to discover without reference to other people, you are sadly mistaken.
- you are omitting a possibility of communicating with people over the new communication channels, which provides levels of communication necessary for development, while reduces the imposition of the opposite side as that of an actual real biological entity.
I am talking about communication without physical contact obviously. For immortal (or very long lived) creatures this may be the way it will work, in fact it seems that it is a necessity to exclude oneself from the biological contact with others in order to achieve greater lifespan.
All that I am proposing here is that we do not know what possibilities will open in front of people in that environment.
- just switching to terms that you can understand.
You can't argue with me because you are basically ignorant of economic theory. You think you know what things are called, but you have no idea how they are applied.
- this statement is void of any content.
There is nothing in that statement that conflicts with Keynesian theory. Keynesian theory suggests that counter cyclical investment and changes to the interest rate will soften the booms and the busts, and it did, from the late 1930s until the 2000s
- at the expense of creating long term imbalances in the system that will end up killing the economy.
There was consistent economic growth mixed with recessions.
- despite and not because of the central economic planning done by the government based on the Keynesian ideas. The consistent growth, which started after the WWII and continued until the collapse of the USSR allowed the markets to become globalized. The nineties were a disaster, many people say that Clinton was 'good' for economy, my opinion is that he was terrible with Greenspan fueling the bubble that burst around 2000.
Before deregulation in the 1980s, the middle class grew from the 40s through the 70s, and income equality improved.
- whatever. You are missing the elephant in the room, the globalization of the economy due to the softening of the cold war and then the collapse of the USSR, which was the major factor in the fall of the US economy as well. US economy was a much more closed system and too much of the 'growth' was due to the military industry, which, in my not so humble opinion is just another burden on the economy and not anything that is productive. Bombs blow up, and you build more, but who needs your bombs? People need iPhones more than bombs.
After the regulatory agencies were gutted and left to die, and the unions were virtually dismantled, income equality went down, inflation went up, and then the American manufacturing sector was dismantled and moved overseas. CEOs went from making around 100x their average employee in the early 80s to 300x their average employee today.
- you got it all mixed up. The government Created the Monopolies by propping them up with free money and by blocking any real competition with regulations. Once Monopolies grew big enough, then they bought the Government. At the same time the world globalized due to the collapse of the USSR and this allowed movement of the jobs to China, which does not have the regulations on environment of-course, but more importantly they don't have unions or minimum wage laws.
Chinese can produce cheaper and the Government created Monopolies took advantage of this fact in a way, that medium/small business never would be able to. Government taxation, regulations and free money to preferred monopolies and special tax provisions for the monopolies killed competition and the small/medium size business, so don't complain when the government created monopolies moved their production (since you like the government interfering with economy), they are economies of scale, unlike small business, which could not have gained as much from moving production to China.
Read above. You either refuse to understand Keynesian theories, or you are too stupid to comprehend them.
- and you have got an asshole in place of a mouth.
You think the government has a mind of it's own
- sure, it's brainless.
You cannot anthropomorphize large complex systems to be good or evil and be taken seriously anywhere but on an internet forum.
- why are you talking to me?
If you think there's some institutional bias, then you need to provide some evidence for your claim
look at the response to my post, I am like the most caring person here, you fucking pieces of shit, get out of my fucking comments, go to hell, all of you.
The market is not irrational in having business cycles, there is nothing irrational about eating and then taking a dump, is it?
Business cycles are exactly what is needed to keep economy healthy, the boom becomes a problem, just like overeating, and a bust is the solution of the problem - taking a dump and detoxing.
Boom ends up producing too much, creating jobs that should not have been there. As an example I will use the Internet dot com bubble. Would you argue that it was good for economy to have all those HTML 'coders' create websites with loaned money to buy pencils at a dollar and then sell them at 50% loss on the Internet? Of-course they would 'make it up on volume'.
If you don't understand how that is a boom, which leads to market being saturated with unneeded jobs (fat) and it is in a need of a correction, then I can't argue with you. The people MUST lose jobs, some companies MUST fail and some lenders MUST go under and prices on consumer items MUST deflate. This keeps the lenders and companies honest and gives the consumers time to think over their expenses as well.
Do you call that irrational? Calling it that is irrational from my perspective.
You are also wrong on the Keynes. It is all Keynes ideas of keeping the Bust out of the economy that is happening and is leading to over-consumption, and it is precisely for the Keynes ideas that government must keep the boom going and must not allow bust to happen.
Why would government want a bust? Government is a disease of the society comparative to hypertension and obesity and diabetes, that's how society gets sick and dies. It is also an economic burden, it is not a productive force. Government hates the bust portion of healthy economic cycle because it forces government to shrink.
To avoid the bust, the government prints money and borrows and in fact if it actually was able to take 100% of all personal incomes, it could not cover its expenses at this point - that is not just a chronic, that is a disease in acute form.
It's like trying to prevent someone, who overate from relieving themselves, the consequences could be very bad - intoxication and death (maybe an explosion even, ouch).
Just because so many governments of the world have adopted this Keynesian idea does not make it right, it is wrong, just like slavery was wrong even though accepted by a majority.
I consider it to be a great success of progress that allows individuals to rebel against the establishment in a more complete way, as you said, there is not much to care about, but that is a good thing. People used to be more caring because they had to rely upon one another in a close way, obviously we have become successful at removing this part from everyday life and it's a blessing in disguise. Think about all the nonsense that people needed to go through every day just to tend to their biological needs. Now think how the society will change once this is no longer a problem.
Glory of pure mind over matter. Glory of pure thought over feeling. Glory of being free from the routine.
This is a new revolutionary step, we have long enough suffered for being born into this biological world, just imagine what it would be like to be a homo sapience once people find a way to become Immortal! The new anti-establishment movements will dominate, what use is a government, what use is any sociological grouping as long as all of the primary needs are satisfied?
That's basically one way to achieve 'communism' (idea of which makes me want to puke BTW) - everyone gets what they need and all work is delegated to the system, endings and beginnings of which nobody knows or understands.
I imagine completely self absorbed individuals, completely anti-social and completely non-caring about the other beings, there will be some code of behavior, of-course, but the society as WE know it will be gone.
WHICH is a great thing, I am all for it and I don't care about keeping the nostalgia of the old ways, the traditions etc. It will belong in a history museum. People will be free from this nonsense to exercise total individualistic search of themselves. What they will come up with may take them to places that are scary or the opposite of that or both.
Don't you wish you could witness that Glorious time?
fuck you, people lived before FDA just as well, and FDA does nothing to protect you from the real dangers, it's not their policy to protect against anything with long term effects, only acute effects count. But acute effects are easy to pinpoint to the manufacturer and sue their ass off and out-compete them with better products.
Less than 1% of US citizens have any use for this, you unpatriotic elitist.
- right, excuse me, I forgot the rights that only very few people could use anyway are not the rights worth protecting, is that your position, YOU unpatriotic elitist?
Anybody who thinks money is freedom is an idiot. You're a slave to your own greed.
- oh, if your money is not providing you with freedom, it only means you don't have enough of it.
the Radio business? This is tightly regulated and controlled by FCC, which is a government agency if I am not mistaken. However I find it difficult to see how this is a monopoly with all the alternatives including the Internet radio, FM/AM etc. In its own niche it could as well be a monopoly but that does not make it an industry monopoly. It competes with different types of media as well as with the Internet radio, cable etc. A monopoly in a particular segment can arise and hold IF it is as efficient as possible and nobody can undercut it. Once the prices rise, it will be undercut by a competitor.
My point is valid that the company did not rationally considered options and did not prepare for the disaster as a coherent unit, in a way that is meaningful and that could be used. My point is valid that the technology of trying to stop the leak has not advanced since 30 years ago and probably longer than that. They are doing the same thing and failing in the same way they did before.
Oil is a commodity and commodities are the freest market in the world, largely devoid of government control. Their costs tend to based on what the market will bear, not what the government mandates.
- pure nonsense. Look at BP, previously known as Anglo Persian Oil company, or the guys who pumped oil in Iran before the fifties and then, when the Shah was removed and a democratic government came to power, this company went crying to Governments of UK and US and those governments killed democracy in Iran and helped the oil company to get a more favorable contract.
If that is not government 'control' or help, then what the hell is?
--
Nixon set price controls on food and where did this lead? It lead to food manufacturers making sure that the government provides strong subsidies to the farmers to grow corn and soy and wheat (and cotton, whatever) and this destroyed the health of first Americans and second of citizens of many other countries because in order to keep with the inflation, instead of setting the food prices at market rates, the companies had to concentrate on cutting costs only and this lead to the health disaster that is provided by fructose.
there no monopolies today, save for de Beers cartel that became what they are without dealing favors and money and power with governments' officials. It is pure nonsense to believe otherwise. You show me an example of a monopoly, I'll find the government involvement in it being a monopoly.
Microsoft you say? Easy: copyright is a government imposed protection, so are patents. More specifically Bill Gates dealt with IBM, a monopolist who is in governments all over the world and has been since the beginning, when they got a government contract to run census counts. Oh, and they are war profiteers, who were working for Nazis.
Standard Oil though was a monopoly that dealt with governments of-course, but they were a very effective monopoly. They had efficiencies nobody else had at all, it is the kind of monopoly that allows customers to purchase products at fair/acceptable prices. The reason they were broken up is not because they were a monopoly on the markets, but because they became a competing force against the US government and it could not be allowed by the US government, surely the politicians felt threatened. More importantly, by the time that monopoly was forced to break, it was not a monopoly at all! There were easily 5 or 6 competitors in the market that Standard could not take.
Why is an apple sticky? when you cut an apple and hold it with your bare hands, the juice will make your hand sticky, no question about it, that's what hand washing is for.
Oh, you are talking about the company? Same reason applies.
-- As for the truth of the statement, as much as for some people it is absolutely 'sticky', for others it's too sweet - sugary and unpleasant. I like my computers the way I like my coffee - no sugar. I can't stand Apple's products at all, it's a personal internal thing, when I see all of the Apple computers in all these movies, and all these 'creative' people with the logos all over the place - makes me cringe. You can't make me use an Apple product if you pay me.
Dude, Keynesian is an on going experiment. What else do you think all this money printing and borrowing is, that is then 'lent' to the banks at no interest? That's what it is, the goal is to provide the consumers with more credit and so they can take on more debt, just like the government is doing and buy more crap.
Keynesian is all around, it's all the cheap credit, it's the inflation, it's the creation of monopolies by government, it's the government 'jobs' that don't reduce the trade deficit by a penny.
Keynesian is all around when they say: "oh, this economy is doing better now, look, consumers are spending again". - what a cretinous thing to say. economy is about production, not about consumption. Any dunce and dolt can consume, wealth is not in money and not in money printing, it's about making shit people want to trade their useful shit for.
Canada is going to feel this, once US hits rock bottom more than other countries (more than Mexico I bet). Until Canada restructures their economy not to be dependent on the US by more than 80% of exports. France is having gigantic problems that will show up sooner than later, watch and see all of the printed money that was put into banks and lent to countries like Greece, why do you think the French pres. was talking smack to Merkel when she threatened not to give money to Greece? Because so much of the Greece debt was provided by France. France threatened to leave the EU, I say good luck, Merkel should have called the bluff.
Germany is unlike other countries in EU, it PRODUCES stuff people want. So what 'Keynesian' are you talking about in this case? It's much less than you'd believe, they don't borrow money to spend, they earn money to spend. Even their school education USED to be free, now it is NO longer the case, they will be paying over a thousand Euro starting this year per year of school, I am sure it'll have to go higher and higher and all due to all these Keynesian nonsense, that gave a green light to all these NON producing countries to take debt to cover their ever increasing social expenses by the government that can't be actually paid for.
Keynesian is wonderful if someone ELSE is footing the bill. Once they stop doing this stupid thing, watch the Keynesians crash and burn.
No FDA at all. I don't want my food producers to have to pay for the licenses to a government agency that is only good at eating and taking in tax and license money and nothing else.
If it's a flamebait, then I am going for it again.... BP, Transocean, Halliburton have not rationally considered the options and have not rationally analyzed the feasibility. They are doing exactly the same thing they have been doing for the past 30 years at least. The current oil spill is a mirror image of the Ixtoc disaster, the difference is just how deep they are drilling. They couldn't stop the spill in 50 meters of water with the blow out preventer, it did not work then, didn't work now; with the 'sombrero' = 'top hat', with the 'junk shot'= some metal balls they were throwing into the well then, they couldn't stop the leak with pumping the mud='top kill' etc.
Engineers can take all the offense they like, but this is simply the truth. Engineers are not running BP or Transocean or Halliburton. Engineers matter only to the question 'how much more money can we dig out of the earth' and not 'how do we deal with a disaster we may cause'.
Oh, and I PAY taxes. I would RATHER pay user fees for every single thing in my life just to avoid this particular accusation. I would rather pay for private roads, private security and private fire department. I would rather NOT have FDA and would buy food from sellers who do not have to pay for government licenses. I would rather do a lot of things, too bad I am surrounded by people, who don't have any principles at all.
this is a tired argument. Can we already take the roads away from the Fed because this argument is pathetic. People pay property taxes for a reason. If instead of paying taxes I was actually given choice of buying totally private and driving on totally private roads I would completely and totally do it. As it is, it's difficult to drive from point A to point B without crossing Some federal road.
Some would say 'crisis', but I see a business opportunity brewing in this. A darknet like sale system hosted outside of the US with out of US transaction and exchange mechanisms.
BTW, the 'citizens', I mean the consumers of the 'land of the free' are having real problems with trying to open offshore bank accounts, credit lines and the latest of these is that any foreign hedge funds are no longer allowed to advertise to US consumers. The government is tightening the grip on the people's money and freedoms. Eventually the exchange controls will be implemented, gold will be again illegal to do transaction in, the taxes will be exorbitant, the interest rates will go through the roof, the price controls will kick in and this will lead to shortages of everything, including food, which will of-course give the government the always bright idea of collectivization of the farmers, food products confiscations etc. The borders will shut down not to prevent anybody from coming in but to ensure that nobody can leave.
That will be the result of the Keynesian experiment, free money, no interest rates to the banks, printing of money, minimum wage laws, unions, social programs, the end of the cold war and globalization of economy, trade deficit, death of the free markets... the end will look a lot like the beginning of the socialist revolution in post tsar Russia.
So I guess they solved all of the other societal and economic problems in South Africa now, that they are considering this porn ban.
I don't know of any other single thing that can rile up the masses as much as this nonsense, this including killing of kittens and puppies and eating little babies with some tomato sauce. Well maybe not the masses, but I sure would be quite irritated.
Oh, and the BP fucked up the boom installation thus allowing the oil to come to the shore lines, to the marshes, they also use the dispersants in 1979 and now.
Most importantly, and which puts a nail into the coffin of your argument, every step of the way BP and Transocean and Halliburton engineers were trumped by the management and told not to pay attention to any of the known problems: the broken BOP, the rubber coming up, the dead battery, the bad concrete seals, the pumping of the mud out, the disregard to their own standards in terms of testing, they did not do a SINGLE thing right to PREVENT this and they had Nothing ready to stop this.
So to all of the 'engineers' taking 'offense' - shut the fuck up. You lost all of this and that's why there is this disaster and nothing is working to stop it. The only thing that worked before and may work now is drilling the relief wells.
I say take the BP engineers and management out, put in engineers from other oil companies and from NASA and Military and do what is necessary. Whether it means dumping a whole bunch of containers with rocks on top or using a nuke or both or anything else. The people who are in charge there right now cannot be trusted.
Slashdot Mirror
However, if you think there is any "you" to discover without reference to other people, you are sadly mistaken.
- you are omitting a possibility of communicating with people over the new communication channels, which provides levels of communication necessary for development, while reduces the imposition of the opposite side as that of an actual real biological entity.
I am talking about communication without physical contact obviously. For immortal (or very long lived) creatures this may be the way it will work, in fact it seems that it is a necessity to exclude oneself from the biological contact with others in order to achieve greater lifespan.
All that I am proposing here is that we do not know what possibilities will open in front of people in that environment.
Wow. You are now literally talking shit.
- just switching to terms that you can understand.
You can't argue with me because you are basically ignorant of economic theory. You think you know what things are called, but you have no idea how they are applied.
- this statement is void of any content.
There is nothing in that statement that conflicts with Keynesian theory. Keynesian theory suggests that counter cyclical investment and changes to the interest rate will soften the booms and the busts, and it did, from the late 1930s until the 2000s
- at the expense of creating long term imbalances in the system that will end up killing the economy.
There was consistent economic growth mixed with recessions.
- despite and not because of the central economic planning done by the government based on the Keynesian ideas. The consistent growth, which started after the WWII and continued until the collapse of the USSR allowed the markets to become globalized. The nineties were a disaster, many people say that Clinton was 'good' for economy, my opinion is that he was terrible with Greenspan fueling the bubble that burst around 2000.
Before deregulation in the 1980s, the middle class grew from the 40s through the 70s, and income equality improved.
- whatever. You are missing the elephant in the room, the globalization of the economy due to the softening of the cold war and then the collapse of the USSR, which was the major factor in the fall of the US economy as well. US economy was a much more closed system and too much of the 'growth' was due to the military industry, which, in my not so humble opinion is just another burden on the economy and not anything that is productive. Bombs blow up, and you build more, but who needs your bombs? People need iPhones more than bombs.
After the regulatory agencies were gutted and left to die, and the unions were virtually dismantled, income equality went down, inflation went up, and then the American manufacturing sector was dismantled and moved overseas. CEOs went from making around 100x their average employee in the early 80s to 300x their average employee today.
- you got it all mixed up. The government Created the Monopolies by propping them up with free money and by blocking any real competition with regulations. Once Monopolies grew big enough, then they bought the Government. At the same time the world globalized due to the collapse of the USSR and this allowed movement of the jobs to China, which does not have the regulations on environment of-course, but more importantly they don't have unions or minimum wage laws.
Chinese can produce cheaper and the Government created Monopolies took advantage of this fact in a way, that medium/small business never would be able to. Government taxation, regulations and free money to preferred monopolies and special tax provisions for the monopolies killed competition and the small/medium size business, so don't complain when the government created monopolies moved their production (since you like the government interfering with economy), they are economies of scale, unlike small business, which could not have gained as much from moving production to China.
Read above. You either refuse to understand Keynesian theories, or you are too stupid to comprehend them.
- and you have got an asshole in place of a mouth.
You think the government has a mind of it's own
- sure, it's brainless.
You cannot anthropomorphize large complex systems to be good or evil and be taken seriously anywhere but on an internet forum.
- why are you talking to me?
If you think there's some institutional bias, then you need to provide some evidence for your claim
- evide
look at the response to my post, I am like the most caring person here, you fucking pieces of shit, get out of my fucking comments, go to hell, all of you.
you are mistaken.
The market is not irrational in having business cycles, there is nothing irrational about eating and then taking a dump, is it?
Business cycles are exactly what is needed to keep economy healthy, the boom becomes a problem, just like overeating, and a bust is the solution of the problem - taking a dump and detoxing.
Boom ends up producing too much, creating jobs that should not have been there. As an example I will use the Internet dot com bubble. Would you argue that it was good for economy to have all those HTML 'coders' create websites with loaned money to buy pencils at a dollar and then sell them at 50% loss on the Internet? Of-course they would 'make it up on volume'.
If you don't understand how that is a boom, which leads to market being saturated with unneeded jobs (fat) and it is in a need of a correction, then I can't argue with you. The people MUST lose jobs, some companies MUST fail and some lenders MUST go under and prices on consumer items MUST deflate. This keeps the lenders and companies honest and gives the consumers time to think over their expenses as well.
Do you call that irrational? Calling it that is irrational from my perspective.
You are also wrong on the Keynes. It is all Keynes ideas of keeping the Bust out of the economy that is happening and is leading to over-consumption, and it is precisely for the Keynes ideas that government must keep the boom going and must not allow bust to happen.
Why would government want a bust? Government is a disease of the society comparative to hypertension and obesity and diabetes, that's how society gets sick and dies. It is also an economic burden, it is not a productive force. Government hates the bust portion of healthy economic cycle because it forces government to shrink.
To avoid the bust, the government prints money and borrows and in fact if it actually was able to take 100% of all personal incomes, it could not cover its expenses at this point - that is not just a chronic, that is a disease in acute form.
It's like trying to prevent someone, who overate from relieving themselves, the consequences could be very bad - intoxication and death (maybe an explosion even, ouch).
Just because so many governments of the world have adopted this Keynesian idea does not make it right, it is wrong, just like slavery was wrong even though accepted by a majority.
I consider it to be a great success of progress that allows individuals to rebel against the establishment in a more complete way, as you said, there is not much to care about, but that is a good thing. People used to be more caring because they had to rely upon one another in a close way, obviously we have become successful at removing this part from everyday life and it's a blessing in disguise. Think about all the nonsense that people needed to go through every day just to tend to their biological needs. Now think how the society will change once this is no longer a problem.
Glory of pure mind over matter.
Glory of pure thought over feeling.
Glory of being free from the routine.
This is a new revolutionary step, we have long enough suffered for being born into this biological world, just imagine what it would be like to be a homo sapience once people find a way to become Immortal! The new anti-establishment movements will dominate, what use is a government, what use is any sociological grouping as long as all of the primary needs are satisfied?
That's basically one way to achieve 'communism' (idea of which makes me want to puke BTW) - everyone gets what they need and all work is delegated to the system, endings and beginnings of which nobody knows or understands.
I imagine completely self absorbed individuals, completely anti-social and completely non-caring about the other beings, there will be some code of behavior, of-course, but the society as WE know it will be gone.
WHICH is a great thing, I am all for it and I don't care about keeping the nostalgia of the old ways, the traditions etc. It will belong in a history museum. People will be free from this nonsense to exercise total individualistic search of themselves. What they will come up with may take them to places that are scary or the opposite of that or both.
Don't you wish you could witness that Glorious time?
fuck you, people lived before FDA just as well, and FDA does nothing to protect you from the real dangers, it's not their policy to protect against anything with long term effects, only acute effects count. But acute effects are easy to pinpoint to the manufacturer and sue their ass off and out-compete them with better products.
Less than 1% of US citizens have any use for this, you unpatriotic elitist.
- right, excuse me, I forgot the rights that only very few people could use anyway are not the rights worth protecting, is that your position, YOU unpatriotic elitist?
Anybody who thinks money is freedom is an idiot. You're a slave to your own greed.
- oh, if your money is not providing you with freedom, it only means you don't have enough of it.
like it's a bad thing that there is an abundance, fuck empathy, ipods are much more satisfying.
37.1% 26/70 - I need to work on this, it is about 30.1 percent too high for my liking.
the Radio business? This is tightly regulated and controlled by FCC, which is a government agency if I am not mistaken. However I find it difficult to see how this is a monopoly with all the alternatives including the Internet radio, FM/AM etc. In its own niche it could as well be a monopoly but that does not make it an industry monopoly. It competes with different types of media as well as with the Internet radio, cable etc. A monopoly in a particular segment can arise and hold IF it is as efficient as possible and nobody can undercut it. Once the prices rise, it will be undercut by a competitor.
My point is valid that the company did not rationally considered options and did not prepare for the disaster as a coherent unit, in a way that is meaningful and that could be used. My point is valid that the technology of trying to stop the leak has not advanced since 30 years ago and probably longer than that. They are doing the same thing and failing in the same way they did before.
Oil is a commodity and commodities are the freest market in the world, largely devoid of government control. Their costs tend to based on what the market will bear, not what the government mandates.
- pure nonsense. Look at BP, previously known as Anglo Persian Oil company, or the guys who pumped oil in Iran before the fifties and then, when the Shah was removed and a democratic government came to power, this company went crying to Governments of UK and US and those governments killed democracy in Iran and helped the oil company to get a more favorable contract.
If that is not government 'control' or help, then what the hell is?
--
Nixon set price controls on food and where did this lead? It lead to food manufacturers making sure that the government provides strong subsidies to the farmers to grow corn and soy and wheat (and cotton, whatever) and this destroyed the health of first Americans and second of citizens of many other countries because in order to keep with the inflation, instead of setting the food prices at market rates, the companies had to concentrate on cutting costs only and this lead to the health disaster that is provided by fructose.
there no monopolies today, save for de Beers cartel that became what they are without dealing favors and money and power with governments' officials. It is pure nonsense to believe otherwise. You show me an example of a monopoly, I'll find the government involvement in it being a monopoly.
Microsoft you say? Easy: copyright is a government imposed protection, so are patents. More specifically Bill Gates dealt with IBM, a monopolist who is in governments all over the world and has been since the beginning, when they got a government contract to run census counts. Oh, and they are war profiteers, who were working for Nazis.
Standard Oil though was a monopoly that dealt with governments of-course, but they were a very effective monopoly. They had efficiencies nobody else had at all, it is the kind of monopoly that allows customers to purchase products at fair/acceptable prices. The reason they were broken up is not because they were a monopoly on the markets, but because they became a competing force against the US government and it could not be allowed by the US government, surely the politicians felt threatened. More importantly, by the time that monopoly was forced to break, it was not a monopoly at all! There were easily 5 or 6 competitors in the market that Standard could not take.
Why is an apple sticky? when you cut an apple and hold it with your bare hands, the juice will make your hand sticky, no question about it, that's what hand washing is for.
Oh, you are talking about the company? Same reason applies.
--
As for the truth of the statement, as much as for some people it is absolutely 'sticky', for others it's too sweet - sugary and unpleasant. I like my computers the way I like my coffee - no sugar. I can't stand Apple's products at all, it's a personal internal thing, when I see all of the Apple computers in all these movies, and all these 'creative' people with the logos all over the place - makes me cringe. You can't make me use an Apple product if you pay me.
Dude, Keynesian is an on going experiment. What else do you think all this money printing and borrowing is, that is then 'lent' to the banks at no interest? That's what it is, the goal is to provide the consumers with more credit and so they can take on more debt, just like the government is doing and buy more crap.
Keynesian is all around, it's all the cheap credit, it's the inflation, it's the creation of monopolies by government, it's the government 'jobs' that don't reduce the trade deficit by a penny.
Keynesian is all around when they say: "oh, this economy is doing better now, look, consumers are spending again". - what a cretinous thing to say. economy is about production, not about consumption. Any dunce and dolt can consume, wealth is not in money and not in money printing, it's about making shit people want to trade their useful shit for.
Canada is going to feel this, once US hits rock bottom more than other countries (more than Mexico I bet). Until Canada restructures their economy not to be dependent on the US by more than 80% of exports. France is having gigantic problems that will show up sooner than later, watch and see all of the printed money that was put into banks and lent to countries like Greece, why do you think the French pres. was talking smack to Merkel when she threatened not to give money to Greece? Because so much of the Greece debt was provided by France. France threatened to leave the EU, I say good luck, Merkel should have called the bluff.
Germany is unlike other countries in EU, it PRODUCES stuff people want. So what 'Keynesian' are you talking about in this case? It's much less than you'd believe, they don't borrow money to spend, they earn money to spend. Even their school education USED to be free, now it is NO longer the case, they will be paying over a thousand Euro starting this year per year of school, I am sure it'll have to go higher and higher and all due to all these Keynesian nonsense, that gave a green light to all these NON producing countries to take debt to cover their ever increasing social expenses by the government that can't be actually paid for.
Keynesian is wonderful if someone ELSE is footing the bill. Once they stop doing this stupid thing, watch the Keynesians crash and burn.
No FDA at all. I don't want my food producers to have to pay for the licenses to a government agency that is only good at eating and taking in tax and license money and nothing else.
That's right, it's not the engineers who run those companies and when I point this obvious fact out it gets a 'flamebait' score.
If it's a flamebait, then I am going for it again. ... BP, Transocean, Halliburton have not rationally considered the options and have not rationally analyzed the feasibility. They are doing exactly the same thing they have been doing for the past 30 years at least. The current oil spill is a mirror image of the Ixtoc disaster, the difference is just how deep they are drilling. They couldn't stop the spill in 50 meters of water with the blow out preventer, it did not work then, didn't work now; with the 'sombrero' = 'top hat', with the 'junk shot'= some metal balls they were throwing into the well then, they couldn't stop the leak with pumping the mud='top kill' etc.
Engineers can take all the offense they like, but this is simply the truth. Engineers are not running BP or Transocean or Halliburton. Engineers matter only to the question 'how much more money can we dig out of the earth' and not 'how do we deal with a disaster we may cause'.
Oh, and I PAY taxes. I would RATHER pay user fees for every single thing in my life just to avoid this particular accusation. I would rather pay for private roads, private security and private fire department. I would rather NOT have FDA and would buy food from sellers who do not have to pay for government licenses. I would rather do a lot of things, too bad I am surrounded by people, who don't have any principles at all.
this is a tired argument. Can we already take the roads away from the Fed because this argument is pathetic. People pay property taxes for a reason. If instead of paying taxes I was actually given choice of buying totally private and driving on totally private roads I would completely and totally do it. As it is, it's difficult to drive from point A to point B without crossing Some federal road.
Taxes pay for my lifestyle?! I am paying for my lifestyle, with all the work and all the bills.
Bankers, those get paid for their lifestyle from the Fed but not from taxes, purely from a money printing press.
Some would say 'crisis', but I see a business opportunity brewing in this. A darknet like sale system hosted outside of the US with out of US transaction and exchange mechanisms.
BTW, the 'citizens', I mean the consumers of the 'land of the free' are having real problems with trying to open offshore bank accounts, credit lines and the latest of these is that any foreign hedge funds are no longer allowed to advertise to US consumers. The government is tightening the grip on the people's money and freedoms. Eventually the exchange controls will be implemented, gold will be again illegal to do transaction in, the taxes will be exorbitant, the interest rates will go through the roof, the price controls will kick in and this will lead to shortages of everything, including food, which will of-course give the government the always bright idea of collectivization of the farmers, food products confiscations etc. The borders will shut down not to prevent anybody from coming in but to ensure that nobody can leave.
That will be the result of the Keynesian experiment, free money, no interest rates to the banks, printing of money, minimum wage laws, unions, social programs, the end of the cold war and globalization of economy, trade deficit, death of the free markets... the end will look a lot like the beginning of the socialist revolution in post tsar Russia.
babies with white wine sauce? You elitist bastard!
So I guess they solved all of the other societal and economic problems in South Africa now, that they are considering this porn ban.
I don't know of any other single thing that can rile up the masses as much as this nonsense, this including killing of kittens and puppies and eating little babies with some tomato sauce. Well maybe not the masses, but I sure would be quite irritated.
you are the first.
Oh, and the BP fucked up the boom installation thus allowing the oil to come to the shore lines, to the marshes, they also use the dispersants in 1979 and now.
Most importantly, and which puts a nail into the coffin of your argument, every step of the way BP and Transocean and Halliburton engineers were trumped by the management and told not to pay attention to any of the known problems: the broken BOP, the rubber coming up, the dead battery, the bad concrete seals, the pumping of the mud out, the disregard to their own standards in terms of testing, they did not do a SINGLE thing right to PREVENT this and they had Nothing ready to stop this.
So to all of the 'engineers' taking 'offense' - shut the fuck up. You lost all of this and that's why there is this disaster and nothing is working to stop it. The only thing that worked before and may work now is drilling the relief wells.
I say take the BP engineers and management out, put in engineers from other oil companies and from NASA and Military and do what is necessary. Whether it means dumping a whole bunch of containers with rocks on top or using a nuke or both or anything else. The people who are in charge there right now cannot be trusted.