Either a subsidiary does establish a physcial presence in the state for the parent company or it does not.
If it does then amazon should be collecting sales taxes for CA sales under the current system.
If it does not then CA passing law saying that it does it irrelevant since it is a Federal issue.
But clearly Amazon's lawyers know more than me about this. So can CA pass a law saying that "all companies who sell things to CA residents are now classified as having a physcial persence in CA"???
You can call it whatever you like.Whether it is "art" as such is really up to other people - but I'm sure you'll be able to find some people who think so.
You can't throw people in jail if they committed no crime. Both bankers and homeowners who caused this mess only crime was making a poor financial decision.
So you just didn't bother reading the rather important part of the sentence that stated:
activity they did that runs counter to some fraud law
or you just don't let facts get in the way of ranting?
And yes every "homeowner" who took out a stated income loan (OK not every, some people actually do use such loans legitimately - but during the boom it was the minority) should be charged with mortgage fraud or with tax evasion depending on whether it was the mortgage or the tax return they lied on. Every homeowner who took out more than one "this is my primary residence" should be up on fraud charges. But of course we can't put the entire states of California and Arizona in prison... It would also collapse housing prices to reasonable levels, but the government wants to keep housing too expensive for people to afford apparently.
Some people who caused the problems will get bailed out, but it is part of the costs of stimulating the economy. If it results in more jobs, then it will be a net win.
That's a really bad metric. It doesn't matter what jobs? How about the government bails out the fast food industry and funds it by taxing the tech industries at 110%. I'm pretty sure you'll get more burger flippers than you will engineers for the money after all. And clearly the government is the best at allocating such resources most efficiently.
Nationalizing the financial system is not a realistic solution and doesn't solve the problem. Corporations will asks for special favors from the government who has little incentive to minimize risks. Voters will want cheap loans and the government will give them to people who don't deserve it.
Which is why you don't keep it nationalized for long - you know like a said in the posts you don't bother reading. And the government already arranges for such loans anyway, so there's no change anyway (other than bankers not getting a risk free cut of course).
Sure if said hacker is part of organisation and committed two racketeering activities then why shouldn't the laws that have existed for 40 years (and have been applied to as diverse cases as the mob, a police department, the catholic church, a police department, and a texas health care provider) be applied?
Fraud seems the obvious RICO offense that said hacker would commit multiple times. Maybe theft if they snagged copies of secret government documents of if the jury squints enough.
I didn't say it was. The financial system is another story though.
The banks all being nationalized does not halt all that economic activity.
And you can't just create more regulation and oversight because the banks are private companies with lawyers and lobbyists to attack that at the legislative step as well as in the courts after the fact. Of course if you nationalize it first, that problem goes away in a flash.
And I really don't think there is a way to "stablize the banking system and stimulate the economy" that doesn't also bail out the people who caused the problem in the first place. And reinforce their view that they can take stupid risks in order to make yet more money because the government will bail them out everytime. So sure you fix this problem, but a decade or two later something bigger appears because the same idiots are still doing the same thing.
You stop that cycle by letting those idiots lose all their wealth and then throwing them in prison for every no matter how minor activity they did that runs counter to some fraud law somewhere.
Nationalize all the banks today and people still go to work, pay taxes, buy home and cars tomorrow (and the next day and the next...)
If all those "firesale" assets were such great things after all then that nationalize will net the government a fortune and end all that "debt ceiling" crap overnight. If they aren't then might as well take the hit directly rather than with bankers taking their cut out of the bailouts.
If all those things were cheap enough that you could do all them while still not being able to afford to eat (insert other neccesity in place of eat if you like), then yes you would be poor whilst having all those things.
I was trying to find a tiny bit of common ground with the post I was replying to - since complete negation usually results in all the content being ignored.
While being humorously absurd to everyone else.
Which I guess is very similar very to trolling for those with a different sense of humour.
Worthless is obvious hyperbole, as in essentially every usage of the phrase it means "worth far less than advertised".
Those fire sale prices were closer to the real value than what the government tried to stop them at. Just because the government succeeded in its bail out and kicked the can down the road doesn't change the nature of the problem. Now all that stuff that was almost set to its actual value is overvalued again and the banks will all fail again and need bailing out again. Only of course now the problem it larger, and at some point the bail out fails. US real estate is still overpriced. US banks are still over leveraged. The US financial system is still a house of cards.
I didn't claim that businesses and banks are the only ones that suffer - of course arguing against absurd claims you make up is always easy so go ahead.
I'm not sure if you've looked at the unempoyment and underemployment numbers recently - but I'm pretty sure said bailouts didn't stop that "cause people to lose their jobs in great numbers" part.
Yes banks failing would suck greatly for everyone. But it would suck less than them failing later in even bigger fashion.
Bailouts would be fine if the government bit the bullet and nationalized *every* (yes even the ones not in trouble, tough luck for them your industry is no more) bank in the country and ate the losses completely. And then started a privitization scheme to get out of that business - after reworking the entire regulatory framework with no lobbiest around anymore since all the banks wanting to lobby don't exist anymore. Though that may be more painful for the people than just letting them fail it'd be less painful than the end collapse of continual bailouts.
The separation of powers and trial by jury are perhaps the single biggest reason for the ascendency of Western civilization. It cut down on violence, vendettas, and corruption. In other parts of the world, when someone gets an official job, they sack all the old employees, and bring in their own people -- usually blood relatives.
Which has exactly nothing to do with the fact that the police and the prosecution both come under the executive branch. And nothing to do with whether that is a sane choice. Or if we need 50,000 branches to keep every possible government function under a different one.
So you are suggesting that for every possible function we need a compeltely indepedant branch of government?
Back in reality, the police do that evidence collection and they come under the Executive branch. And the prosecutors do the prosecution part, and they also come under the Executive branch.
You think it would be better if the people arguing that you guilty and the people deciding if you are guilty were under the same branch?
It would have allowed some worthless securities to maintain their clarly overvalued nature for a little longer, sure. So that even more leverage could be applied on top of them and their enivitable evential collapse made even worse. That doesn't seem such a great plan to me.
Yes maor bank faulires would have been catostrophic for the economy, but doubling down so that a future collapse is even bigger does not make things better - unless all you care about is right now of course.
And no Americans would not suddenly lose all their savings. The FDIC would cover that, well the Federal Government would because the FDIC doesn't have enough money. So instead of the banks being bailed out and billions of dollars being handed to the big banks by the government, the banks would fail and that money would be handed out directly to the people instead.
I'm not quite sure how me saying that the banks and their owners should be allowed to lose all their money, while the people are directly bailed out makes me an evil free market loving moron. But apparently handing over billions of dollars to the top 0.005% of the wealthy is the socalist thing to do?
Sure because the can has been kicked down the road for so long that institutions that should have failed before they got so large were instead propped up.
I didn't see the part of capitalism in which the government is supposed to prop up failing institutions (say by lowering interests rates to keep stock prices artificially high), but of course that is all capitalism's fault too.
And I'm pretty sure those bailouts will end up being a much bigger productivity and wealth killer than a systemic failure of the banking would have been. And of course a systemic failure of the banking system is also a bigger productivity and wealth killer than actually having that severe recession 10 years ago would have been.
But none of that has anything to do with the simple fact that the original post wasn't claiming that banks failing was the problem so claiming it was doing so was either in error or intentionally misleading.
Slashdot Mirror
No Way!
People who are bad at managing their money tend to end up living paycheck-to-paycheck and running out of money.
What an amazing coincidence.
Economics isn't even a real nobel prize, and it's as related to reality as the peace prize...
I'm pretty sure taco wasn't editing the New York Times.
That seems very unlikely, given that wiring batteries in series gives you more voltage not more current.
Parallel gives lets you add the currents...
Dear God, you'll be almost suicidal when you find out they don't know how milk cows or make butter or even such trivial things as weaving wool.
Unfortunately surely?
It'd be great if that was the biggest problem a country faced after all.
Either a subsidiary does establish a physcial presence in the state for the parent company or it does not.
If it does then amazon should be collecting sales taxes for CA sales under the current system.
If it does not then CA passing law saying that it does it irrelevant since it is a Federal issue.
But clearly Amazon's lawyers know more than me about this. So can CA pass a law saying that "all companies who sell things to CA residents are now classified as having a physcial persence in CA"???
You can call it whatever you like.Whether it is "art" as such is really up to other people - but I'm sure you'll be able to find some people who think so.
You can't throw people in jail if they committed no crime. Both bankers and homeowners who caused this mess only crime was making a poor financial decision.
So you just didn't bother reading the rather important part of the sentence that stated:
activity they did that runs counter to some fraud law
or you just don't let facts get in the way of ranting?
And yes every "homeowner" who took out a stated income loan (OK not every, some people actually do use such loans legitimately - but during the boom it was the minority) should be charged with mortgage fraud or with tax evasion depending on whether it was the mortgage or the tax return they lied on. Every homeowner who took out more than one "this is my primary residence" should be up on fraud charges. But of course we can't put the entire states of California and Arizona in prison... It would also collapse housing prices to reasonable levels, but the government wants to keep housing too expensive for people to afford apparently.
Some people who caused the problems will get bailed out, but it is part of the costs of stimulating the economy. If it results in more jobs, then it will be a net win.
That's a really bad metric. It doesn't matter what jobs? How about the government bails out the fast food industry and funds it by taxing the tech industries at 110%. I'm pretty sure you'll get more burger flippers than you will engineers for the money after all. And clearly the government is the best at allocating such resources most efficiently.
Nationalizing the financial system is not a realistic solution and doesn't solve the problem. Corporations will asks for special favors from the government who has little incentive to minimize risks. Voters will want cheap loans and the government will give them to people who don't deserve it.
Which is why you don't keep it nationalized for long - you know like a said in the posts you don't bother reading. And the government already arranges for such loans anyway, so there's no change anyway (other than bankers not getting a risk free cut of course).
You seriously think that none of them would be children just because the average age happens to be in the 30s?
if not, then why would you think I'd be surprised? The use of the words "a bunch" rather than "they" didn't give any hints?
Sure if said hacker is part of organisation and committed two racketeering activities then why shouldn't the laws that have existed for 40 years (and have been applied to as diverse cases as the mob, a police department, the catholic church, a police department, and a texas health care provider) be applied?
Fraud seems the obvious RICO offense that said hacker would commit multiple times. Maybe theft if they snagged copies of secret government documents of if the jury squints enough.
Surely anyone arguing otherwise would have to justify privitizing the army?
At least in your strange "the only reason for nationalized things is because they are too big too fail" world.
The non-fireproof clothes anyway.
I didn't say it was. The financial system is another story though.
The banks all being nationalized does not halt all that economic activity.
And you can't just create more regulation and oversight because the banks are private companies with lawyers and lobbyists to attack that at the legislative step as well as in the courts after the fact. Of course if you nationalize it first, that problem goes away in a flash.
And I really don't think there is a way to "stablize the banking system and stimulate the economy" that doesn't also bail out the people who caused the problem in the first place. And reinforce their view that they can take stupid risks in order to make yet more money because the government will bail them out everytime. So sure you fix this problem, but a decade or two later something bigger appears because the same idiots are still doing the same thing.
You stop that cycle by letting those idiots lose all their wealth and then throwing them in prison for every no matter how minor activity they did that runs counter to some fraud law somewhere.
Nationalize all the banks today and people still go to work, pay taxes, buy home and cars tomorrow (and the next day and the next...)
If all those "firesale" assets were such great things after all then that nationalize will net the government a fortune and end all that "debt ceiling" crap overnight. If they aren't then might as well take the hit directly rather than with bankers taking their cut out of the bailouts.
The EU is a country?
Man, things just keep changing...
If all those things were cheap enough that you could do all them while still not being able to afford to eat (insert other neccesity in place of eat if you like), then yes you would be poor whilst having all those things.
Your browser sets of alarm bells when you go to http://www.mybank.com/?
You must love bells!
I was trying to find a tiny bit of common ground with the post I was replying to - since complete negation usually results in all the content being ignored.
While being humorously absurd to everyone else.
Which I guess is very similar very to trolling for those with a different sense of humour.
Amazing technology makes shit cheaper and hence poor people have what used to considered the trappings of wealth.
Who would have thunk it!
Next you'll try and tell me that the poor own more than one set of clothes - they might as well be nobles!
Worthless is obvious hyperbole, as in essentially every usage of the phrase it means "worth far less than advertised".
Those fire sale prices were closer to the real value than what the government tried to stop them at. Just because the government succeeded in its bail out and kicked the can down the road doesn't change the nature of the problem. Now all that stuff that was almost set to its actual value is overvalued again and the banks will all fail again and need bailing out again. Only of course now the problem it larger, and at some point the bail out fails. US real estate is still overpriced. US banks are still over leveraged. The US financial system is still a house of cards.
I didn't claim that businesses and banks are the only ones that suffer - of course arguing against absurd claims you make up is always easy so go ahead.
I'm not sure if you've looked at the unempoyment and underemployment numbers recently - but I'm pretty sure said bailouts didn't stop that "cause people to lose their jobs in great numbers" part.
Yes banks failing would suck greatly for everyone. But it would suck less than them failing later in even bigger fashion.
Bailouts would be fine if the government bit the bullet and nationalized *every* (yes even the ones not in trouble, tough luck for them your industry is no more) bank in the country and ate the losses completely. And then started a privitization scheme to get out of that business - after reworking the entire regulatory framework with no lobbiest around anymore since all the banks wanting to lobby don't exist anymore. Though that may be more painful for the people than just letting them fail it'd be less painful than the end collapse of continual bailouts.
The separation of powers and trial by jury are perhaps the single biggest reason for the ascendency of Western civilization. It cut down on violence, vendettas, and corruption. In other parts of the world, when someone gets an official job, they sack all the old employees, and bring in their own people -- usually blood relatives.
Which has exactly nothing to do with the fact that the police and the prosecution both come under the executive branch. And nothing to do with whether that is a sane choice. Or if we need 50,000 branches to keep every possible government function under a different one.
So you are suggesting that for every possible function we need a compeltely indepedant branch of government?
Back in reality, the police do that evidence collection and they come under the Executive branch. And the prosecutors do the prosecution part, and they also come under the Executive branch.
You think it would be better if the people arguing that you guilty and the people deciding if you are guilty were under the same branch?
Please show me where the poor get given a cell phone and a car.
All the rest is done far better by the civilized world, as mentioned already.
It would have allowed some worthless securities to maintain their clarly overvalued nature for a little longer, sure. So that even more leverage could be applied on top of them and their enivitable evential collapse made even worse. That doesn't seem such a great plan to me.
Yes maor bank faulires would have been catostrophic for the economy, but doubling down so that a future collapse is even bigger does not make things better - unless all you care about is right now of course.
And no Americans would not suddenly lose all their savings. The FDIC would cover that, well the Federal Government would because the FDIC doesn't have enough money. So instead of the banks being bailed out and billions of dollars being handed to the big banks by the government, the banks would fail and that money would be handed out directly to the people instead.
I'm not quite sure how me saying that the banks and their owners should be allowed to lose all their money, while the people are directly bailed out makes me an evil free market loving moron. But apparently handing over billions of dollars to the top 0.005% of the wealthy is the socalist thing to do?
Sure because the can has been kicked down the road for so long that institutions that should have failed before they got so large were instead propped up.
I didn't see the part of capitalism in which the government is supposed to prop up failing institutions (say by lowering interests rates to keep stock prices artificially high), but of course that is all capitalism's fault too.
And I'm pretty sure those bailouts will end up being a much bigger productivity and wealth killer than a systemic failure of the banking would have been. And of course a systemic failure of the banking system is also a bigger productivity and wealth killer than actually having that severe recession 10 years ago would have been.
But none of that has anything to do with the simple fact that the original post wasn't claiming that banks failing was the problem so claiming it was doing so was either in error or intentionally misleading.