"All" is a big claim? I'm pretty sure there are a bunch of people claiming deflation is a concern who would likely think that locking in 3.87% might very well end up being higher than inflation. At least one person from whomever loaned you the money seems to think that, for example.
If you are a conservative and not a "so-called Conservative" he didn't put words in your mouth. Though if you are dumb enough to think he did, you might be better off letting others speak for you instead of proudly declaring your idiocy.
The "so-called" conservatives would be:
* The Republican party in the USA. * The Coalition in Australia. * The Tories in the UK. * I expect a bunch of others I don't know details about.
I shouldn't need to say this, but you've shown you aren't the sharpest knife so, those labels mean the actual outcomes of those politicians running the show not the views of all of their voters or even all of the individual representatives.
It was also an explicit Republican policy under Reagan: "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker" - so cut taxes but keep spending where it is for now (and as 30 years of history has shown never actually cut spending to match, just borrow the difference and keep increasing spending).
Nothing prevents me from sticking an ipv6 only hosts on the internet that is incompatible with existing ipv4 hosts and can't communicate with them (without an intermediate node that understands both). Sure it mightn't be able to reach other ipv6 hosts either if the only route is via ipv4, but it's still possible to add something incompatible in the mix.
Yes, and extrapolation even works sometimes when you have a lot of data and extrapolate just a little bit further. But this isn't a case of that, it's a massive extrapolation from a small data set.
He's not a broker so how commission is calculated for a broker is irrelevant. Percentage of sales makes no sense for a trader, you aren't trying to motivate them to buy and sell their purchase limit in the same stock as many times as they can each day after all.
A broker can't lose money on a sale - having them buy a stock for you earns them money, having them sell a stock for you earns them money. Out of that money they'll pay the broker his cut if he works on commission. The brokerage firm happen to call their cut "commission", but that's a very different usage of the word.
For a broker or clothing sales person there is no difference between profit and sales anyway - it just means the percentage number is going to be different (to factor in the profit margin).
No, it's illegal because his job allowed him to buy $X worth of stock (well the rules are going to be more complicated than that) and he bought >$X worth of stock. Same situation as if you work at the corner store and the owner tells you to buy 100 loafs of bread for today and you instead buy 200 because you think there will be lots of customers wanting bread.
Financial markers are tightly regulated and so government enforcement tends to come into play in what in other fields would be a civil dispute.
Isn't that what commission means? If a sales person in a clothing store works on commission they get X% of their sales. If a trader works on commission he gets X% of the profits on his trades over some time frame.
Since he clearly lost a fortune his commission would be 0 of course.
When you are working as a trader for some "investment" firm the firm keeps the profits (and the losses) but most of your income is in the form of commissions or bonuses.
Exactly. So this will be the last iteration of cell phone infrastructure, since no one will ever be able to build anything that isn't completely interoperable ever again.
And once that small town grows a bit and needs more coverage why would any company spend any money to build it? After all everyone is sharing the infrastructure so there's no competitive advantage since everyone is sharing, it's just an extra cost with likely no increase in revenue. The people will put up with a few dropped calls after all.
It is after all a forced cartel between the companies involved.
Sure the government could just tax everyone and use that money to build the towers an so on for a cell phone network infrastructure and then either give access to that to whomever wants to provide a cell phone service, or charge for such access and hopefully recover the costs for building and running the infrastructure. Or it could farm that out to a private monopoly. That's basically how the "copper" phone network in say Australia works. That's sort of how roads and foot paths work - just without the service providing middle man since the raw infrastructure is good enough (though of course you do have transport companies providing a service on top of the road infrastructure).
The downside to that approach is that the government (or other monopoly owner) of the infrastructure has little incentive to upgrade it. There's no room for private risk taking and experimenting with new technologies that can't work on top of that infrastructure. There's no competition being used to determine the "right" amount and type of such infrastructure.
Capitalism is far from perfect, but the base bones of it is that limited resources are allocated to those who will pay the most for them, with the hope that they are paying the most because they can sell the results for the most which in turn we hope is because that is what the population most wants to buy. Of course unless you happen to be a libertarian of the most extreme sense you likely don't think all those hopes actually always turn out to be the case...
Unfortunately reality doesn't match your fantasies. Spectrum is a limited resource - with our current technologies we can only fit a certain amount of "stuff" into a given amount of spectrum. So having it "free" and letting anyone do anything they want with it doesn't work - the transmissions interfere with each other and we end up either with no one getting to use it for anything useful at all, or the people who can afford the biggest transmitters being able to use all of it for whatever they want.
Rather than that society usually resorts to one of::
1. Have the government use it as they see fit not allowing the private sector to use it at all. So the government would run the phone network and the television stations and so on. 2. Have the government allocate parts of the spectrum to private sector users placing whatever restrictions it deems beneficial.
That second one is what most of the Western world uses. The government splits up the spectrum and allocates parts to certain activities "from A to B will be for television, from C to D will be for radio, from E to F will be for cell phones, from G to H will be free for all with a maximum power limit, etc". Then it comes up with some mechanism of assigning bits of spectrum to companies/etc; an auction is one such mechanism, "Tom donated $X to my election campaign so he can have it" is another...
This doesn't happen with sidewalks and roads because the physical world limits things. However, when it does happen again there are solutions. You mentioned toll roads - if there's a huge demand for traffic between two points then a toll road is a common way to have the people who make up the traffic pay for the infrastructure. Toll sidewalks are not as common, though I'm sure somewhere in the world there's a paid walkway. Usually for sidewalks lots of traffic means lots of businesses who can be taxed to pay for upgrades (converting the road to a pedestrian only walkway, widening footpaths, building alternative routes, etc). If it's in a residential area then it would usually be solved by adding restrictions to non-resident traffic - restricting parking to residents, etc
I don't know any details but that's bizarre, was it 14 individual assaults all on people by themselves?
I can't see how you could do that with an x-acto knife in a largish group without there being an available stick or even just a bag of books and someone who has done the tiniest bit of training and can control distance. Sure it's very likely you are going to get cut, but it's unlikely it'll be "your are dead" serious, and it's just as likely you'll smash his hand.
Though I guess, ironically, it's Texas so maybe without a gun handy they can't work out how to defend themselves.
Smaller government essentially boils down to keeping government spending down. In America that has exactly nothing to do with keeping taxes down. In a sane world it would of course, but we aren't in one.
Economic liberalism otherwise known as being fiscally liberal, means the opposite of what you seem to think.
The "liberal" doesn't mean "liberal in how they spend other people's money", it's an economic system in which as many of the economic decisions as possible are made by individuals (as opposed to collectives) - the complete opposite of the government deciding how money will be spent.
The US provided material support to the UK in the Falklands War and promised manpower if the UK lost an aircraft carrier. Which is just about as close to "enemy" as you get.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it the phrase "so-called" you are having trouble with? Just in case you are that stupid it means "not actually".
"All" is a big claim? I'm pretty sure there are a bunch of people claiming deflation is a concern who would likely think that locking in 3.87% might very well end up being higher than inflation. At least one person from whomever loaned you the money seems to think that, for example.
If you are a conservative and not a "so-called Conservative" he didn't put words in your mouth. Though if you are dumb enough to think he did, you might be better off letting others speak for you instead of proudly declaring your idiocy.
The "so-called" conservatives would be:
* The Republican party in the USA.
* The Coalition in Australia.
* The Tories in the UK.
* I expect a bunch of others I don't know details about.
I shouldn't need to say this, but you've shown you aren't the sharpest knife so, those labels mean the actual outcomes of those politicians running the show not the views of all of their voters or even all of the individual representatives.
It was also an explicit Republican policy under Reagan: "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker" - so cut taxes but keep spending where it is for now (and as 30 years of history has shown never actually cut spending to match, just borrow the difference and keep increasing spending).
It's a vacuum like you have in space. As opposed to a vacuum like you have when hoovering the carpet.
Nothing prevents me from sticking an ipv6 only hosts on the internet that is incompatible with existing ipv4 hosts and can't communicate with them (without an intermediate node that understands both). Sure it mightn't be able to reach other ipv6 hosts either if the only route is via ipv4, but it's still possible to add something incompatible in the mix.
Yes, and extrapolation even works sometimes when you have a lot of data and extrapolate just a little bit further. But this isn't a case of that, it's a massive extrapolation from a small data set.
He's not a broker so how commission is calculated for a broker is irrelevant. Percentage of sales makes no sense for a trader, you aren't trying to motivate them to buy and sell their purchase limit in the same stock as many times as they can each day after all.
A broker can't lose money on a sale - having them buy a stock for you earns them money, having them sell a stock for you earns them money. Out of that money they'll pay the broker his cut if he works on commission. The brokerage firm happen to call their cut "commission", but that's a very different usage of the word.
For a broker or clothing sales person there is no difference between profit and sales anyway - it just means the percentage number is going to be different (to factor in the profit margin).
what could possibly go wrong, particularly when you extrapolate twice as far as you actually have data for.
No, it's illegal because his job allowed him to buy $X worth of stock (well the rules are going to be more complicated than that) and he bought >$X worth of stock. Same situation as if you work at the corner store and the owner tells you to buy 100 loafs of bread for today and you instead buy 200 because you think there will be lots of customers wanting bread.
Financial markers are tightly regulated and so government enforcement tends to come into play in what in other fields would be a civil dispute.
If it works you get your X% of the profits for doing the trades - if they don't notice (or don't care) that you broke the rules anyway.
Isn't that what commission means? If a sales person in a clothing store works on commission they get X% of their sales. If a trader works on commission he gets X% of the profits on his trades over some time frame.
Since he clearly lost a fortune his commission would be 0 of course.
When you are working as a trader for some "investment" firm the firm keeps the profits (and the losses) but most of your income is in the form of commissions or bonuses.
You have a very strange definition of "valuable to the economy".
Exactly. So this will be the last iteration of cell phone infrastructure, since no one will ever be able to build anything that isn't completely interoperable ever again.
And once that small town grows a bit and needs more coverage why would any company spend any money to build it? After all everyone is sharing the infrastructure so there's no competitive advantage since everyone is sharing, it's just an extra cost with likely no increase in revenue. The people will put up with a few dropped calls after all.
It is after all a forced cartel between the companies involved.
And everyone else is reasonably happy that you are an idiot. It's a win-win as they say.
As always it's a trade off.
Sure the government could just tax everyone and use that money to build the towers an so on for a cell phone network infrastructure and then either give access to that to whomever wants to provide a cell phone service, or charge for such access and hopefully recover the costs for building and running the infrastructure. Or it could farm that out to a private monopoly. That's basically how the "copper" phone network in say Australia works. That's sort of how roads and foot paths work - just without the service providing middle man since the raw infrastructure is good enough (though of course you do have transport companies providing a service on top of the road infrastructure).
The downside to that approach is that the government (or other monopoly owner) of the infrastructure has little incentive to upgrade it. There's no room for private risk taking and experimenting with new technologies that can't work on top of that infrastructure. There's no competition being used to determine the "right" amount and type of such infrastructure.
Capitalism is far from perfect, but the base bones of it is that limited resources are allocated to those who will pay the most for them, with the hope that they are paying the most because they can sell the results for the most which in turn we hope is because that is what the population most wants to buy. Of course unless you happen to be a libertarian of the most extreme sense you likely don't think all those hopes actually always turn out to be the case...
Unfortunately reality doesn't match your fantasies. Spectrum is a limited resource - with our current technologies we can only fit a certain amount of "stuff" into a given amount of spectrum. So having it "free" and letting anyone do anything they want with it doesn't work - the transmissions interfere with each other and we end up either with no one getting to use it for anything useful at all, or the people who can afford the biggest transmitters being able to use all of it for whatever they want.
Rather than that society usually resorts to one of::
1. Have the government use it as they see fit not allowing the private sector to use it at all. So the government would run the phone network and the television stations and so on.
2. Have the government allocate parts of the spectrum to private sector users placing whatever restrictions it deems beneficial.
That second one is what most of the Western world uses. The government splits up the spectrum and allocates parts to certain activities "from A to B will be for television, from C to D will be for radio, from E to F will be for cell phones, from G to H will be free for all with a maximum power limit, etc". Then it comes up with some mechanism of assigning bits of spectrum to companies/etc; an auction is one such mechanism, "Tom donated $X to my election campaign so he can have it" is another...
This doesn't happen with sidewalks and roads because the physical world limits things. However, when it does happen again there are solutions. You mentioned toll roads - if there's a huge demand for traffic between two points then a toll road is a common way to have the people who make up the traffic pay for the infrastructure. Toll sidewalks are not as common, though I'm sure somewhere in the world there's a paid walkway. Usually for sidewalks lots of traffic means lots of businesses who can be taxed to pay for upgrades (converting the road to a pedestrian only walkway, widening footpaths, building alternative routes, etc). If it's in a residential area then it would usually be solved by adding restrictions to non-resident traffic - restricting parking to residents, etc
That's not obvious at all.
I don't know any details but that's bizarre, was it 14 individual assaults all on people by themselves?
I can't see how you could do that with an x-acto knife in a largish group without there being an available stick or even just a bag of books and someone who has done the tiniest bit of training and can control distance. Sure it's very likely you are going to get cut, but it's unlikely it'll be "your are dead" serious, and it's just as likely you'll smash his hand.
Though I guess, ironically, it's Texas so maybe without a gun handy they can't work out how to defend themselves.
smaller government != keeping taxes down.
Smaller government essentially boils down to keeping government spending down. In America that has exactly nothing to do with keeping taxes down. In a sane world it would of course, but we aren't in one.
Nope, your definitions are just wrong.
Economic liberalism otherwise known as being fiscally liberal, means the opposite of what you seem to think.
The "liberal" doesn't mean "liberal in how they spend other people's money", it's an economic system in which as many of the economic decisions as possible are made by individuals (as opposed to collectives) - the complete opposite of the government deciding how money will be spent.
Right, and neither of those two things are fiscally liberal. Hence both main parties in America are not fiscally liberal.
Why the "Really?", what contradiction do you see with those two claims?
Sure, but the claim wasn't "isn't an enemy now" it was "has never been an enemy".
The US provided material support to the UK in the Falklands War and promised manpower if the UK lost an aircraft carrier. Which is just about as close to "enemy" as you get.
Because everyone knows Apple isn't sitting on mountains of cash or anything like that.