I put roasted "beans" into my coffee machine, I push a button, it makes some grinding and pumping noises , and soon I have 1 oz of espresso.
Sure they can make other things, and if you coat them in chocolate you aren't going to be making espresso with them. But given they are seeds not beansto start with, picking the espresso part of the name to argue over seems silly.
You can buy business class and first class tickets. Lots of airlines have an "Economy Plus" or "Economy Premium" or whatever level too - without the huge hike in price from Economy -> Business (and without the business class frills too) but with more legroom and so on.
So do you pay extra for the better ticket? Or just buy whatever orbitz/priceline/travelocity gives as the cheapest option?
Which is irrelevant because the iOS devices never get one version behind anyway in the 3 year window used. SO "versions behind" is only relevant to the android phones anyway.
But there's too much randomness to make such fine grained predictions. The housing boom in the US could have kept going for another year or two. Or it could have burst a year or two earlier. You can easily tell that there's a bubble, you can easily tell that it is going to pop at some point, you can't tell exactly when that pin will appear.
If you could you would have made several trillion dollars in the last few months in just the silver futures market.
Maintenance costs? Insurance? Property taxes/council rates/whatever you have there (often wrapper in the mortgage though)? Returns on investing the down payment elsewhere? Any value placed on mobility?
There's far more than the mortgage payments to consider.
That would be speculation that the price will be higher in 20 years time. That rent is going to have a hard time covering both the costs and the opportunity cost of that that cash would be earning in another investment vehicle. Certainly not if you consider other investment option of equal risk.
If you are living in it, it isn't an investment. Since it isn't generating income. Just like owning a stock which doesn't pay a dividend isn't investment. You are speculating that the price will be higher in the future.
There are 50 states. They should each have their own banking systems, their own education systems, etc, etc. So you don't need to scale up to larger sizes than those European nations.
for ignoring their patent when they started the various versions of food stamps a number of decades ago. Imagine the royalties due for all those years of ignoring Amazon's patent.
Yes extrapolating 2 data points in 3 years into an exponential curve to curve out to 30 years would be silly. Extrapolating 400 years of data out another 400 years is less silly.
The economy is based on 2-3% annual growth, so if that exponential curve doesn't continue we are all screwed anyway.
No it isn't. The Latvian Lat is weaker against the euro in the last couple of years. Sure it is up a little this month (due to the euro having some issues), but that's off of multi-year lows.
And yet in 2001 I saw CS students turn an iPAQ (Oh shit it had a name starting with i even) into a SIP phone without thousands of buttons and switches. And of course all the pre-iPhone full touch screen PDAs and phones that weren't named iPAQ.
Also note that Apple has made a fortune on the iPhone, so that they have some competition didn't seem to harm them too much. They've already been rewarded for their invention without the need for patenting things which are completely obvious and functional.
That's the subsidy. It's the government giving money to the banks.
And you can't just declare bankruptcy for the fun of it - you do actually have to meet the requirements and a freshly minted college grad about to start their career in medicine does not meet them.
But that misses the point that the entire idea of removing that subsidy to banks (aside from that it should be a state issue in the first place) is so that students won't be able to get such loans. And hence won't be able to afford current college prices. And hence college prices will fall, since colleges would rather have some students in order to charge them fees.
Did you notice what happened to house prices in Las Vegas and Scottsdale when it people suddenly couldn't get their no money down, no income check loan for $700,000? if you happened to not be paying attention at the time (there was a lot of other stuff going on with banks imploding every week) what happened was: the prices plummeted.
Same principle applies - prices will fall to meet what students can afford, with a floor determined by the cost of providing the education. Now the methods used prior to student loans taking over will work again - the summer job, the scholarship, etc.
Yes because removing something which is pure profit from banks would be great for them.
Government guaranteed loans - it's effectively a treasury bond but at 4-5 times the interest rate. Yeah banks must hate them. I wonder why they lobbied so hard against Obama's limiting of them a few years back?
Well yeah, it's pretty much the situation in every other country that runs "student loans" of some form. I was actually vaguely copying Australia, for example.
Get a scholarship? Though I guess if you are too stupid to understand that when demand falls and the current price is not due to fundamental costs of production that the price will fall to match.
The entire idea is for you not to be able to afford to go to college. Then colleges don't have enough student and need to lower prices to attract more. Now you can afford to go to college. Oh look you have your degree and you don't have a huge debt at the end 0 but somehow you think that is a bad thing I guess because you want to be enslaved to a lender for the rest of your life.
People weren't getting loans from the government to buy gas.
If student loans vanish and colleges don't lower prices, then college places go unfilled and people don't go to college because they can't afford it. Hence colleges make less money and will lower their prices to increase their profits. You've shifted the demand curve down, it will be more profitable for colleges to lower prices.
So basically allow such loans to be even larger than they are now and hence college prices to be even higher. That doesn't seem like such a great plan.
Here's a slightly different idea:
1. Ditch the private lenders entirely. The government directly loans the money (of course given the state of the government's finances they'll borrow is from another lender anyway). 2. Have it be paid via the IRS - if you have such a debt and you get 1% (or some other small number) added to your tax rate in each bracket except the 0% one. That money pays off your loan debt. 3. Optionally have some early payment incentives so paying more than the IRS enforced amount sees each dollar paid remove $1.10 of debt (or whatever, maybe add a minimum payment, and a time limit - only while still as college, etc). 4. Leverage the large purchaser status the government could be at by making the students not receive a loan but a place at college. 5. The government buys places at colleges around the country offering them what it thinks is a reasonable price (after some negotiation). Colleges are free to take it or leave it, they are not forced to sell the government any places and can sell the government X places and sell another Y places themselves at whatever price they want. 6. The government could then assign a debt equal to the cost to the student or subsidize the by charging the student a lower amount. 7. There are now limited places the government managed to purchase, so rank students via test results/etc and hand out places to the better performing students first. Tweak the allocations to further whatever crazy social policy you want this week. 8. Collect underpants. 9. ??? 10. Profit?
Of course Ron Paul would hate such a plan. And he's probably right, implementing at the state level would likely work just as well.
Slashdot Mirror
How could there not be?
I put roasted "beans" into my coffee machine, I push a button, it makes some grinding and pumping noises , and soon I have 1 oz of espresso.
Sure they can make other things, and if you coat them in chocolate you aren't going to be making espresso with them. But given they are seeds not beansto start with, picking the espresso part of the name to argue over seems silly.
You can buy business class and first class tickets. Lots of airlines have an "Economy Plus" or "Economy Premium" or whatever level too - without the huge hike in price from Economy -> Business (and without the business class frills too) but with more legroom and so on.
So do you pay extra for the better ticket? Or just buy whatever orbitz/priceline/travelocity gives as the cheapest option?
Which is irrelevant because the iOS devices never get one version behind anyway in the 3 year window used. SO "versions behind" is only relevant to the android phones anyway.
Wow, so you can't read then I take it?
How do you manage to write?
I suspect worrying about the legal system will be way down the list if a super volcano erupts underneath you.
No you can't. Sure you can get lucky.
But there's too much randomness to make such fine grained predictions. The housing boom in the US could have kept going for another year or two. Or it could have burst a year or two earlier. You can easily tell that there's a bubble, you can easily tell that it is going to pop at some point, you can't tell exactly when that pin will appear.
If you could you would have made several trillion dollars in the last few months in just the silver futures market.
Maintenance costs? Insurance? Property taxes/council rates/whatever you have there (often wrapper in the mortgage though)? Returns on investing the down payment elsewhere? Any value placed on mobility?
There's far more than the mortgage payments to consider.
That would be speculation that the price will be higher in 20 years time. That rent is going to have a hard time covering both the costs and the opportunity cost of that that cash would be earning in another investment vehicle. Certainly not if you consider other investment option of equal risk.
If you are living in it, it isn't an investment. Since it isn't generating income. Just like owning a stock which doesn't pay a dividend isn't investment. You are speculating that the price will be higher in the future.
You could if the constitution wasn't ignored.
There are 50 states. They should each have their own banking systems, their own education systems, etc, etc. So you don't need to scale up to larger sizes than those European nations.
Whereas I think he's a bit optimistic about the intelligence level of people in general.
for ignoring their patent when they started the various versions of food stamps a number of decades ago. Imagine the royalties due for all those years of ignoring Amazon's patent.
Yes extrapolating 2 data points in 3 years into an exponential curve to curve out to 30 years would be silly. Extrapolating 400 years of data out another 400 years is less silly.
The economy is based on 2-3% annual growth, so if that exponential curve doesn't continue we are all screwed anyway.
No it isn't. The Latvian Lat is weaker against the euro in the last couple of years. Sure it is up a little this month (due to the euro having some issues), but that's off of multi-year lows.
You seriously the LVL is the "stronger" item in: http://www.google.com//finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=Linear&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1319647789518&chddm=1845016&cmpto=CURRENCY:AUDEUR&cmptdms=0&q=CURRENCY:LVLEUR&
And yet in 2001 I saw CS students turn an iPAQ (Oh shit it had a name starting with i even) into a SIP phone without thousands of buttons and switches. And of course all the pre-iPhone full touch screen PDAs and phones that weren't named iPAQ.
Also note that Apple has made a fortune on the iPhone, so that they have some competition didn't seem to harm them too much. They've already been rewarded for their invention without the need for patenting things which are completely obvious and functional.
That's just what those weather controlling, HARP using, economy crashing, illuminati would say.
That's the subsidy. It's the government giving money to the banks.
And you can't just declare bankruptcy for the fun of it - you do actually have to meet the requirements and a freshly minted college grad about to start their career in medicine does not meet them.
But that misses the point that the entire idea of removing that subsidy to banks (aside from that it should be a state issue in the first place) is so that students won't be able to get such loans. And hence won't be able to afford current college prices. And hence college prices will fall, since colleges would rather have some students in order to charge them fees.
Did you notice what happened to house prices in Las Vegas and Scottsdale when it people suddenly couldn't get their no money down, no income check loan for $700,000? if you happened to not be paying attention at the time (there was a lot of other stuff going on with banks imploding every week) what happened was: the prices plummeted.
Same principle applies - prices will fall to meet what students can afford, with a floor determined by the cost of providing the education. Now the methods used prior to student loans taking over will work again - the summer job, the scholarship, etc.
Yes because removing something which is pure profit from banks would be great for them.
Government guaranteed loans - it's effectively a treasury bond but at 4-5 times the interest rate. Yeah banks must hate them. I wonder why they lobbied so hard against Obama's limiting of them a few years back?
And what does that have to do with whether student loans are regulation or subsidy?
Well yeah, it's pretty much the situation in every other country that runs "student loans" of some form. I was actually vaguely copying Australia, for example.
Whether a subsidy is good or bad is irrelevant to the point that removing a subsidy isn't deregulation.
Get a scholarship? Though I guess if you are too stupid to understand that when demand falls and the current price is not due to fundamental costs of production that the price will fall to match.
The entire idea is for you not to be able to afford to go to college. Then colleges don't have enough student and need to lower prices to attract more. Now you can afford to go to college. Oh look you have your degree and you don't have a huge debt at the end 0 but somehow you think that is a bad thing I guess because you want to be enslaved to a lender for the rest of your life.
People weren't getting loans from the government to buy gas.
If student loans vanish and colleges don't lower prices, then college places go unfilled and people don't go to college because they can't afford it. Hence colleges make less money and will lower their prices to increase their profits. You've shifted the demand curve down, it will be more profitable for colleges to lower prices.
So basically allow such loans to be even larger than they are now and hence college prices to be even higher. That doesn't seem like such a great plan.
Here's a slightly different idea:
1. Ditch the private lenders entirely. The government directly loans the money (of course given the state of the government's finances they'll borrow is from another lender anyway).
2. Have it be paid via the IRS - if you have such a debt and you get 1% (or some other small number) added to your tax rate in each bracket except the 0% one. That money pays off your loan debt.
3. Optionally have some early payment incentives so paying more than the IRS enforced amount sees each dollar paid remove $1.10 of debt (or whatever, maybe add a minimum payment, and a time limit - only while still as college, etc).
4. Leverage the large purchaser status the government could be at by making the students not receive a loan but a place at college.
5. The government buys places at colleges around the country offering them what it thinks is a reasonable price (after some negotiation). Colleges are free to take it or leave it, they are not forced to sell the government any places and can sell the government X places and sell another Y places themselves at whatever price they want.
6. The government could then assign a debt equal to the cost to the student or subsidize the by charging the student a lower amount.
7. There are now limited places the government managed to purchase, so rank students via test results/etc and hand out places to the better performing students first. Tweak the allocations to further whatever crazy social policy you want this week.
8. Collect underpants.
9. ???
10. Profit?
Of course Ron Paul would hate such a plan. And he's probably right, implementing at the state level would likely work just as well.
Yes, because putting off college for a year or two would be the end of world as we know it!