Right. And would you like to provide an example of a purely capitalist society that has survived without subsidies and regulations?
Like it or not, you have to have rules to keep greed in check. This basic principle has been understood since people have been able to communicate. You have to have government spending to soften the natural cycles of the market, or else you end up in a boom and bust period that will end in catastrophe. You have to socialize or heavily regulate infrastructure or you will end up with companies that wield too much power, or costs that start denying a majority of citizens basic needs, which leads to revolutions or totalitarian dictatorships.
No amount of shouting will fix this reality. And if you want some more information, READ the Wealth of Nations. You'll discover that he supported regulation, taxing the wealthy, tariffs, protectionism, and laws against high interest rates. I know this would conflict with your ideology, but that's the problem with ideology. It's based on anecdotal evidence and similar nonsense.
I know the market freaks will have a hissy fit, but if you want standard rates, good service, and the ability to punish price gouging and other nefarious practices, look no further than your local electric company. Asking "how much does this service cost to provide" and "how much are people willing to pay for it" will give you two entirely different numbers for the same service.
And, once it's regulated and subsidized, you can pass regulation that will actually get implemented. Or continue dealing with corporations in natural monopoly situations and acting surprised each time they fuck you.
And for anyone about to say, "What about censorship! What about Big Brother!" - you probably need to read the news.
First of all, it would only take 5 machines to recoup. Second, you assume that the entire machine is lost.
Let's say you have to send a call tag and send another one out. Now you're out $25, and you have the broken unit back. Let's say that nearly half of it is broken, and it costs $100 in parts and labor to get it to a "refurb" state. You sell it on your website for $250. You're out $125, which is paid for in the sales of three more units.
As long as you keep your failure rate below 20%, you are breaking even. Do any volume, and your costs go down. Stay in business, and your costs will go down over time. Sell "extended" warranties for $49, which most users will never bother using. Manufacture a few accessories at a 50% margin, or just license it to third party manufacturers and collect the checks. You could probably forget about the profit and make plenty of money just from the fees.
A 17% net profit margin at launch? Christ. That's a wet dream for any real business owner.
"Put away the "energy independence" conceit. This notion, a favorite of Tojo and Hitler, was debunked by Churchill, who reasoned that true energy security came from a diversity of suppliers, not the foolish pursuit of self-sufficiency." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123552068199964531.html
You could watch Fox News for a day and hear countless references complaining of the new administration being marxist, maoist, socialist, which represents evil in the eyes of neoconservatives. Every politician has a few things in common with Hitler and Stalin, but you think the comparison never happens to Obama only because someone told you so.
The comparison of Bush and Hitler happened for a good reason. They both created an atmosphere where questioning the government in regards to it's wartime policies wasn't tolerated. They're both ultra nationalist, believed in only military solutions, drove their respective economies into the ground with war spending and war itself, and used secrets courts, secret prisons, and torture to deny people their right to due process.
If you can come up with some better commonalities with Obama, I'd love to hear them.
No, I'm arguing for rules that ensure that a healthy democracy can flourish along with the efficiencies that certain market principles can bring.
Outrageous interest rates, lawless capital markets, and investor rights and corporate rights that trump individual rights perform the same function as a non-democratic leftist revolution. That is to concentrate power away from the reach of the people.
Wal-Mart has a good relationship with Communist China because they have so much in common.
As I stated before, it's not an issue of money. But should we have Affirmative Action in the US? Absolutely. Should we loan Africa money at the same rates we loan money to Bank of America? Definitely. Not because someone came up with some figure, but because it's the right thing to do. Just as the Catholic Church should liquidate it's gold statues and property and feed the poor instead of standing around in palaces, pretending that they're Christ-like.
Your attitude fails to recognize the realities of history. I know it's awfully convenient to be ignorant and say, "Stop living in the past," but knowing history is the only way to understand the present.
If a relative of yours gave you money for college, to start a business, or to get out of a debt, you have benefitted from generational wealth. Statistically speaking, for every dollar of assets belonging to a white person, a black person will have eight to twelve cents.
When you have literally nowhere to turn when you're living paycheck to paycheck, you often get ensnared in high interest payday loans and credit cards, putting you deeper into debt, and at greater risk for bankruptcy. Something as simple as a back injury or a child being sick can lead to thousands of dollars of debt in lost pay. The lack of usury laws in America have created a nearly ten billion dollar industry which charges the equivalent of 400% APR interest for these types of loans. These immoral business practices not only damage the people who are given the loans, but the rest of society, as capital floods out of low return investments that create jobs into high-return investments that are unsustainable. In Adam Smith's day, the maximum rate you could charge was 5% - see below for a full quote.
I say white people because if you look at the top rung of people who own the country through assets, they are overwhelmingly white, and that skew against any non-white person permeates down to the lowest income levels. From incarceration rates to interest rates to a lack of education, being black in America has a much heavier burden than anyone is ready to admit.
In countries where interest is permitted, the law, in order to prevent the extortion of usury, generally fixes the highest rate which can be taken without incurring a penalty. This rate ought always to be somewhat above the lowest market price, or the price which is commonly paid for the use of money by those who can give the most undoubted security. If this legal rate should be fixed below the lowest market rate, the effects of this fixation must be nearly the same as those of total prohibition of interest. The creditor will not lend his money for less than the use of it is worth, and the debtor must pay him for the risk which he runs by accepting the full value of that use. If it is fixed precisely at the lowest market price, it ruins with honest people, who respect the laws of their country, the credit of all those who cannot give the very best security, and obliges them to have recourse to exorbitant usurers. In a country, such as Great Britain, where money is lent to government at three percent, and to private people upon good security at four, four and a half, the present legal rate, five per cent, is perhaps, as proper as any.
If you're a white person that didn't grow up in an urban slum in the United States, you owe a hell of a lot to a bunch of dead slaves and their survivors who have been not allowed to create the generational wealth that you benefit from. The reason they were not allowed to create this wealth is because the business people who run the country found it useful to defuse thoughts on class with a focus on race.
This kind of racism is still prevalent. When a young white person is kidnapped or killed, coverage can go on for years. When it's a non-white person, it's simply a statistic. When fomenting public support for killing Arabs, politicians can say, "Those people don't understand anything but violence," which is just as ridiculous as saying that Jews don't understand anything but money and Africans don't understand anything but poverty.
If your society was enriched by the enslavement or destruction of another, you don't owe them something, you owe them everything. Not only due to the wealth that was robbed from them, but by the moral obligation to right a wrong. It's doubtful that any person could untangle the horrors societies have done to another, and come up with some dollar figure, but that still doesn't excuse your kind of attitude.
Fuck CA..their stupid air pollution controls and all have screwed it up for the rest of us who don't have air problems yet.
Fixed that one for ya. What again is the problem with more efficient vehicles? Do you need a five litre engine to feel better about yourself?
Thank goodness at least I live in a state with no 'sniff' tests...so, I can at least put on after market exhaust with impunity...and have performance AND a nice pleasant 'rumble' of an exhaust note.
So you put looking cool and convenience above taking care of your surrounding environment? I hope I'm not your neighbor. And if you're one of those obnoxious little shits who thinks causing 120db of racket is "cool," you're a fucking twit. Your blast pack is a douchebag cowbell.
Damned granola state...ruining it for everyone else. Now..they're broke, won't live within their means...and the rest of us are gonna have to bail them out I guess....
New York and California subsidize the rest of the country, and have for decades. That's because they put in more federal money than they receive every single year. So, you're paying them back, and I doubt it's what you owe them.
Ok...rant off...I'll go sit in the corner now and try to cool off.
While you're there, try reading a bit. It's useful to actually know things instead of talking out of your ass.
Strawman argument. Why do people believe this is an effective debating tactic? I most certainly did not support the war.
Hey, don't strawman a strawman. I saw your sig supporting Fox News, and naturally assumed you shared talking points with Sean Hannity and the rest of the animal-brained.
Nor do I support redistribution of wealth from my wallet to other persons to buy them Lexuses.... er, houses. Those persons need to sell their houses and move someplace cheaper, like an apartment, not resort to theft from their neighbors.
First of all, you need to read the Wealth of Nations, especially Book V. You'll discover that Karl Marx isn't the only person who believed that people should contribute according to their ability to the state (for example, graduated tax rates where the rich pay more taxes.) This is not about anything but the stability of an economy. The boom and bust cycles inherent in markets require something to calm the cycles. There's a lot of information in the market, but that doesn't mean it cares about it's own survival. It's subject to the "irrational exuberance" and panic of people.
Moving along... There are two basic ways I see out of the housing asset bubble, which is the worst current symptom of the deregulation of the financial industry. As you can see here, there appears to be no bottom to home prices. This kind of drop even leaves hard working people, who made good choices, with an asset that is now worth 20 or 30% less than it was two years ago. These people have no choice but to stop spending money, since they cannot open lines of credit against an over-leveraged asset, and many of them are also losing their jobs.
As the real estate prices continue to drop, the economy will continue to implode. Imagine if you lose your job, and your home drops in value to where you're $80,000 upside down, which may be reality if you look at historical home prices. You're probably going to ditch it, because trying to survive and pay your mortgage is basically a dead end, further flooding the market with another foreclosure, leaving another bank with a toxic asset, and the cycle deepens. We can either let housing prices fall back in line with inflation and hope that the economy doesn't absolutely collapse, or step in to soften the landing with a combination of government spending, slightly higher inflation, and come out the other end with better infrastructure in the process.
This is the downward spiral that thinking people are worried about. If you aren't worried about it, that's fine. But present some real argument, instead of an idea spoon-fed to you by ideologues who were hired for their entertainment value.
But somehow killing a few hundred thousand people and torturing thousands of others has less moral hazards then trying to prevent the complete collapse of the value of real estate in America.
The footstools of the business party continue to scream, "Let the market do it's job!" It just did it's job - unregulated financial transactions led to a huge bubble which has burst. We are now doing what is necessary to correct the mistake of allowing Wall St to run it's own show. Glass-Steagal rules from the Great Depression are coming back, having just been removed in 1999. Banks will not be allowed to do anything but bank, and insurance agencies will not be allowed to do anything but insure, and hopefully this generation will never again listen to the bullshit argument that deregulation is a good thing.
Canada and it's "socialist" banking system, complete with protectionism, hard regulatory rules, and total government oversight, is now rated as the best banking system on earth. It's a crazy world, isn't it?
An increase in GDP is meaningless. How did the middle class do? How much is the average person paying for basic needs like health care and transportation? Is there a larger disparity in wealth? What's the poverty level? What's the average savings level?
I haven't seen a serious paper anywhere that claims that the middle class is doing better today than it was in the 1970s. The GDP is up because the majority of Americans are working harder, longer hours for less money. So a few people benefit, and the majority of Americans have seen a poorer standard of living - the only middle class in the western industrialized world to do so. Is that your definition of success?
When the mode of commerce changes, tax people in order to fund the government and pay for things like social services, roads, and other infrastructure.
I get so tired of this argument. Government is not always bad, taxes are not always bad, and markets are not always the answer. The rest of the world has been dealing with these realities since the 1970s. If we don't wake up, our wealth isn't going to last into another generation.
And finally, the "right" to get wealthy is less important than anything on the Bill of Rights. Liberty has nothing to do with owning a Hummer.
Governments are made of people. who are capable of brilliant maneuvers and colossal fuckups. If you read about Operation AJAX, you'll discover that fewer than 100 people overthrew the democratically elected Iranian government in the 50s. This was due to their access to american political influence and funding from the CIA. Similarly, you can read "The Dark Side" by Jane Mayer, and learn how a handful of dogmatic lawyers, with no qualifying experience in Islamic terrorism, international law, or even basic politics were able to dictate our policies on torture for 7 years. The thing with concentrations of power, outside of public view, is that it will lead to conspiracy, unless you believe that people don't act in their own interest. They absolutely do, and those in power are no different.
In the 50s, 60s, and 70s, the FBI denied that they were targeting civil rights political leaders for assassination, but the revelation provided by the COINTELPRO documents provided proof that they not only did that, but actively infiltrated and subverted any organization thought to pose a threat to the existing "social order" of the United States. The CIA are the world leaders in terrorist planning, conducting operations from Latin America, to Africa, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. Lots of secret organizations do lots of bad things, and those are just the "known" groups in the United States. Consider countries like China and Russia and the Middle East, and I'm sure you can give yourself a nightmare without much imagination.
To paraphrase Baudelaire, the greatest trick the conspirators have ever pulled is convincing the public that they don't exist.
Religion has, in part, to do with how did the universe come to be, and what does that mean for how an individual views the world.
As far as religions are simply popular cults, they retell creation stories, and can provide some moral values to their adherents. Over the past few thousand years, those values change in practice or the cult is abandoned for more "advanced" ideals. (For instance, the changing values of Judaism are nearly perfectly in line with their exposure to technologically superior cultures.)
It can also relate to what something believes without proof, since no religion I've ever seen has proof of it's validity.... Dawkins is clearly an atheist, and believes the universe just is. Since he has no proof of that, that is a religious belief, which he believes as strongly and irrationally as an Christian believes in God.
Sort of. Dawkins knows that there are many theories about how the universe came to be. There are certain theories that line up with each other, which also line up with the observable universe today. So, by default, he accepts this collection of theory as the known reality, until more is discovered, or what has been discovered is proven to be false. Anyone outside of this view is there purely on personal conviction based on faith and a little bit of ancient hearsay. (I say a little bit because, excepting many Muslims, very few religious people actually read the thing they've bet their soul on.)
To put it more succinctly, if you ask a scientist about something that is a mystery, they'll tell you that they have some ideas, but they don't know. A religious person would insist that their creator knows, and that the fact that it's a mystery is proof that their version of the creator exists.
Whichever stance you think is more supportable by rational thought is really up to you.
Religion is the adherence to a set of rules made by a particular culture hundreds or thousands of years ago, with small, rare changes in views. Science is the sum total of testable human knowledge from all cultures from the beginning of modern human history to the present. If Dawkins decided that all of science in 2009 was correct, and any new theories incompatible with 2009 science were wrong simply because they were new, he'd be religious.
Belief in a higher power has helped people cope with psychological stress and diseases of habit, but in my opinion, modern medicine has saved many hundreds million more lives than any spiritual affiliation. I'd wager that every single senator who supported that bill would laugh out loud if you suggested they visit a Shaman to cure cancer, but would accost you if you insisted that praying for someone had the same effect.
Regurgitation is not intelligence. Knowing the facts does help. Anyone can repeat the definitions of a Republic and a Democracy. What's interesting is that you said, "we can get back to the idea that growth and prosperity are driven by PEOPLE pursuing 'self interest rightly understood.'" You're absolutely right, but that's a democratic ideal, not a republican one in the classical sense. Remember, people advocated a republic instead of a democracy because they thought slaves, women, and non-land owners were too stupid and not invested enough to be allowed to vote.
Furthermore, I looked up the quote. Did you read the rest of that paragraph?
"The Americans, on the other hand, are fond of explaining almost all the actions of their lives by the principle of self-interest rightly understood; they show with complacency how an enlightened regard for themselves constantly prompts them to assist one another and inclines them willingly to sacrifice a portion of their time and property to the welfare of the state." --Alex de Tocqueville
How did you end up believing the exact opposite of what that quote actually meant? I actually already know. Through propaganda, the same talking heads have convinced people that Adam Smith was against government regulation of markets, which is exactly the opposite of what he wrote. They have convinced low income midwesterners that cutting the taxes for the rich will somehow result in a better economy for them. They have even convinced people that the separation of church and state was invented to protect the church, despite the backdrop of hundreds of years of religious wars waged by nations against each other.
The alliance between the evangelical voting bloc and the party of business is falling apart. It's too embarrassing for any critically thinking Republican to be associated with Sarah Palin. That's why the talking heads went nuts when it was pointed out, very plainly, that she was simply too ignorant to be the vice president. Evangelicals are learning that they have been hoodwinked for the past thirty years. They were needed for their vote and their money, but not their intellectual contributions.
As far as your hatred of Carter, that's a pretty standard parroting. I'd be interested if you could name any specific policies that you believe led to the economic conditions of that era.
Obama should cut taxes for millionaires and take away basic rights like due process if he wants any real support. I mean, he has the support of 65% of Americans, but not the richest ones.
The problem is that the market has come up with an awful solution to medical liability, which is pitting malpractice insurance against health insurance. Much of the cost of health care can be traced back to either. The other source of cost is that health care is sold as any other product on the free market, which is unfortunately very stupid. Deregulation of health care has led to the closure of hundreds of hospitals around the country, and pushed the costs out of the reach of much of the population. This is actually based on market principle, since the question moved from how much it costs to provide adequate health care, to how much people are willing to pay for it. Of course the upper sector of society is loving life with 3d pictures of their unborn child and access to obscure specialists at the drop of the hat, while the rest of the population struggles to pay for pills and basic care.
Now you have people dropping dead of overdoses and mixed prescriptions since the doctor is motivated to treat instead of heal, and billions of dollars are invested in figuring out how to sustain erections instead of preventing cancer. Hopefully the current economic situation will provide enough pressure to put an end to the ridiculous and unfounded belief that the market works for everything. Health care is no different than any other bit of infrastructure. You pay taxes and share risks for the benefit of the whole population.
First of all, I do not worship Obama. I voted for him, because the alternative was far worse. However, I do applaud his actions so far. I know that some rogue parts of the CIA will always be fucked up, but that's what America gets for having an unconstitutional secret society with a secret budget doing secret things. You said things like detainees had access to lawyers. I invite you to google "Gitmo detainee lawyer" and see if there are any new stories that dispute that. You said Pelosi was a chickenshit. I'd agree, but not more of a chickenshit than any other politician who wages war and has never been in one. Like the near entirety of the Bush cabinet. But let's get back to the real issue at hand: Geneva Conventions, Executive Orders, and what to do with a "terrorist," since "communist" and "nigger" are so out of style these days when denying a human being their basic rights.
You do not understand the Geneva Conventions because you have not read them, or because you have read them and you don't get it. The Geneva Convention is a Treaty signed by the United States. It applies to us at all times, even if we're fighting an enemy with no official state. If you don't believe me, then read it. It's near the beginning, I promise.
Also understand that as a treaty already signed into law, Congress doesn't have shit to do with anything. Under Article II of the Constitution, the President has the power to interpret treaties. Bush and Cheney instructed Yoo and some other cronies to give them the legal basis to torture terrorism suspects. The only way they could do this is to ignore the accepted meaning of the Geneva conventions and current military policy. They tried to invent another status because what they wanted to do was so plainly illegal, it was ludicrous to see it any other way.
Army Regulation 190-8 | OPNAVINST 3461.6 | AFJI 31-304 | MCO 3461.1 "Military Police: Enemy Prisoners of War, Retained Personnel, Civilian Internees and Other Detainees", 1997...
a. This regulation provides policy, procedures, and responsibilities for the administration, treatment, employment, and compensation of enemy prisoners of war (EPW), retained personnel (RP), civilian internees (CI) and other detainees (OD) in the custody of U.S. Armed Forces. This regulation also establishes procedures for transfer of custody from the United States to another detaining power.
b. This regulation implements international law, both customary and codified, relating to EPW, RP, CI, and ODs which includes those persons held during military operations other than war.
Emphasis mine. Let's get to the good parts.
1-5. General protection policy a. U.S. policy, relative to the treatment of EPW, CI and RP in the custody of the U.S. Armed Forces, is as follows: (1) All persons captured, detained, interned, or otherwise held in U.S. Armed Forces custody during the course of conflict will be given humanitarian care and treatment from the moment they fall into the hands of U.S. forces until final release or repatriation. (2) All persons taken into custody by U.S. forces will be provided with the protections of the GPW until some other legal status is determined by competent authority. (3) The punishment of EPW, CI and RP known to have, or suspected of having, committed serious offenses will be administered IAW due process of law and under legally constituted authority per the GPW, GC, the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts Martial. (4) The inhumane treatment of EPW, CI, RP is prohibited and is not justified by the stress of combat or with deep provocation. Inhumane treatment is a serious and punishable violation under international law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). b. All prisoners will receive humane treatment without regard to race, nationality, religion, political opinion, sex, or other criteria. The following acts are prohibited: murder, torture, corporal punishment, mutil
Pretending that the place, or name of the place where prisoners are held, can simply be changed at that that's somehow a change in the policy is absurd.
Did you read the article? He signed three executive orders. One closed Gitmo. The second formed a "Special Task Force" to come up with a way to deal with captured people who are suspected of being terrorists. Hopefully one that won't take a sweet dump all over the Geneva Conventions that we came up with after the atrocities of WWII. The third makes it clear to all branches of the government, including the CIA, that America respects said Geneva conventions, in accordance with the rules that were in place before they were dismantled by the Bush Administration. It specifically states that all the judgements from the Bush Administration should be ignored.
"...Executive Order revokes Executive Order 13440 that interpreted Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. It requires that all interrogations of detainees in armed conflict, by any government agency, follow the Army Field Manual interrogation guidelines. The Order also prohibits reliance on any Department of Justice or other legal advice concerning interrogation that was issued between September 11, 2001 and January 20, 2009.
The Order requires all departments and agencies to provide the ICRC access to detainees in a manner consistent with Department of Defense regulations and practice. It also orders the CIA to close all existing detention facilities and prohibits it from operating detention facilities in the future..."
Just like when Bush was C-in-C, Obama still doesn't have any new law from Congress that specifically spells out what to do with a non-uniformed person who is caught overseas attacking US soldiers and other interests, or assisting and financing those that do.
Read above.
The very same European countries than wanted nothing to do with helping to deal with these guys when Bush was in office are just as not interested in being stuck with them now that Obama's in charge. The same countries that, if these guys were to be returned to them, that would end up seeing them immediately killed... no change.
The issue has more to do with the political liability of holding a suspected terrorist, especially for countries like Britain and France, who have large muslim populations. Europe does not kill it's prisoners, that is against their values. America, China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Iran are some of the only countries that engage in capital punishment.
So, you're sounding very pleased that we're going to swap out GitMo for some other physical address, as it that makes any difference whatsoever.
I'm very, very pleased that at least on paper it's now illegal to torture someone in American custody. Just because you're too lazy, disaffected, or dumb to read a few paragraphs doesn't mean the world isn't changing. It just means you aren't.
The new Administration has fallen far short of a lot of people's expectations, including mine. Two points though. One, it's been only a month. And two, if you consider the situation that they have been handed, I think they are at least trying to do best that they can. I can't comment on the e-mail case specifically, but I have done a lot of reading on the black hole of illegally held terrorism suspects. In that case, they have two choices: bring lawsuits against a greater part of the current government and past governments involved, or do the right thing from here on out.
Personally, I would love to see every senior officer kicked out in disgrace over what they have done to American principle. Even if it's often violated in secret, at least we could pretend that we had some moral standards. But when the President and Vice President are ordering torture, renditions, and even assassinations, the chain of command is simply doing it's job. If the new Administration spent years wringing the necks of officers following orders, would the chain of command still work?
Perhaps if the economic situation weren't so bad, there could be a good year of congressional hearings, where dirty laundry is thrown on the table and people who deserve it are thrown in jail. And sure, the economic crisis may be something that the Obama Administration is intentionally overplaying in order to have some breathing room on everything else. They're not stupid, so they either believe the situation is that dire, or they are pretending to for political purposes.
For the sake of argument, imagine if you bought out a poorly run company. You may find mountains of incriminating papers, a staff that was half corrupted, and accountants who deserve to be set on fire. But if you're to turn this company around, would the smart thing to do be to march them all into the street for a mob lynching, or quietly and over time reform the company without completely ruining it's reputation in the process? The absolutely right thing to do is probably bankrupt the company and start over. It may be that in the current steaming pile of shit situation that the Bush dynasty has left us, re-forming the government is correct, but reforming the government is prudent.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. And would you like to provide an example of a purely capitalist society that has survived without subsidies and regulations?
Like it or not, you have to have rules to keep greed in check. This basic principle has been understood since people have been able to communicate. You have to have government spending to soften the natural cycles of the market, or else you end up in a boom and bust period that will end in catastrophe. You have to socialize or heavily regulate infrastructure or you will end up with companies that wield too much power, or costs that start denying a majority of citizens basic needs, which leads to revolutions or totalitarian dictatorships.
No amount of shouting will fix this reality. And if you want some more information, READ the Wealth of Nations. You'll discover that he supported regulation, taxing the wealthy, tariffs, protectionism, and laws against high interest rates. I know this would conflict with your ideology, but that's the problem with ideology. It's based on anecdotal evidence and similar nonsense.
I know the market freaks will have a hissy fit, but if you want standard rates, good service, and the ability to punish price gouging and other nefarious practices, look no further than your local electric company. Asking "how much does this service cost to provide" and "how much are people willing to pay for it" will give you two entirely different numbers for the same service.
And, once it's regulated and subsidized, you can pass regulation that will actually get implemented. Or continue dealing with corporations in natural monopoly situations and acting surprised each time they fuck you.
And for anyone about to say, "What about censorship! What about Big Brother!" - you probably need to read the news.
First of all, it would only take 5 machines to recoup. Second, you assume that the entire machine is lost.
Let's say you have to send a call tag and send another one out. Now you're out $25, and you have the broken unit back. Let's say that nearly half of it is broken, and it costs $100 in parts and labor to get it to a "refurb" state. You sell it on your website for $250. You're out $125, which is paid for in the sales of three more units.
As long as you keep your failure rate below 20%, you are breaking even. Do any volume, and your costs go down. Stay in business, and your costs will go down over time. Sell "extended" warranties for $49, which most users will never bother using. Manufacture a few accessories at a 50% margin, or just license it to third party manufacturers and collect the checks. You could probably forget about the profit and make plenty of money just from the fees.
A 17% net profit margin at launch? Christ. That's a wet dream for any real business owner.
I know, the "MSM" wouldn't dare criticize government policies that led to less profit for their advertisers...
Fox News contributor says comparing Obama to Adolf Hitler isn't out of bounds. (Which it isn't, but whatever.)
http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200902200013
"Put away the "energy independence" conceit. This notion, a favorite of Tojo and Hitler, was debunked by Churchill, who reasoned that true energy security came from a diversity of suppliers, not the foolish pursuit of self-sufficiency."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123552068199964531.html
You could watch Fox News for a day and hear countless references complaining of the new administration being marxist, maoist, socialist, which represents evil in the eyes of neoconservatives. Every politician has a few things in common with Hitler and Stalin, but you think the comparison never happens to Obama only because someone told you so.
The comparison of Bush and Hitler happened for a good reason. They both created an atmosphere where questioning the government in regards to it's wartime policies wasn't tolerated. They're both ultra nationalist, believed in only military solutions, drove their respective economies into the ground with war spending and war itself, and used secrets courts, secret prisons, and torture to deny people their right to due process.
If you can come up with some better commonalities with Obama, I'd love to hear them.
No, I'm arguing for rules that ensure that a healthy democracy can flourish along with the efficiencies that certain market principles can bring.
Outrageous interest rates, lawless capital markets, and investor rights and corporate rights that trump individual rights perform the same function as a non-democratic leftist revolution. That is to concentrate power away from the reach of the people.
Wal-Mart has a good relationship with Communist China because they have so much in common.
As I stated before, it's not an issue of money. But should we have Affirmative Action in the US? Absolutely. Should we loan Africa money at the same rates we loan money to Bank of America? Definitely. Not because someone came up with some figure, but because it's the right thing to do. Just as the Catholic Church should liquidate it's gold statues and property and feed the poor instead of standing around in palaces, pretending that they're Christ-like.
Your attitude fails to recognize the realities of history. I know it's awfully convenient to be ignorant and say, "Stop living in the past," but knowing history is the only way to understand the present.
If a relative of yours gave you money for college, to start a business, or to get out of a debt, you have benefitted from generational wealth. Statistically speaking, for every dollar of assets belonging to a white person, a black person will have eight to twelve cents.
When you have literally nowhere to turn when you're living paycheck to paycheck, you often get ensnared in high interest payday loans and credit cards, putting you deeper into debt, and at greater risk for bankruptcy. Something as simple as a back injury or a child being sick can lead to thousands of dollars of debt in lost pay. The lack of usury laws in America have created a nearly ten billion dollar industry which charges the equivalent of 400% APR interest for these types of loans. These immoral business practices not only damage the people who are given the loans, but the rest of society, as capital floods out of low return investments that create jobs into high-return investments that are unsustainable. In Adam Smith's day, the maximum rate you could charge was 5% - see below for a full quote.
I say white people because if you look at the top rung of people who own the country through assets, they are overwhelmingly white, and that skew against any non-white person permeates down to the lowest income levels. From incarceration rates to interest rates to a lack of education, being black in America has a much heavier burden than anyone is ready to admit.
I can't stand this argument.
If you're a white person that didn't grow up in an urban slum in the United States, you owe a hell of a lot to a bunch of dead slaves and their survivors who have been not allowed to create the generational wealth that you benefit from. The reason they were not allowed to create this wealth is because the business people who run the country found it useful to defuse thoughts on class with a focus on race.
This kind of racism is still prevalent. When a young white person is kidnapped or killed, coverage can go on for years. When it's a non-white person, it's simply a statistic. When fomenting public support for killing Arabs, politicians can say, "Those people don't understand anything but violence," which is just as ridiculous as saying that Jews don't understand anything but money and Africans don't understand anything but poverty.
If your society was enriched by the enslavement or destruction of another, you don't owe them something, you owe them everything. Not only due to the wealth that was robbed from them, but by the moral obligation to right a wrong. It's doubtful that any person could untangle the horrors societies have done to another, and come up with some dollar figure, but that still doesn't excuse your kind of attitude.
Das sagt deine Freundin auch immer!!!!!
Fuck CA..their stupid air pollution controls and all have screwed it up for the rest of us who don't have air problems yet.
Fixed that one for ya. What again is the problem with more efficient vehicles? Do you need a five litre engine to feel better about yourself?
Thank goodness at least I live in a state with no 'sniff' tests...so, I can at least put on after market exhaust with impunity...and have performance AND a nice pleasant 'rumble' of an exhaust note.
So you put looking cool and convenience above taking care of your surrounding environment? I hope I'm not your neighbor. And if you're one of those obnoxious little shits who thinks causing 120db of racket is "cool," you're a fucking twit. Your blast pack is a douchebag cowbell.
Damned granola state...ruining it for everyone else. Now..they're broke, won't live within their means...and the rest of us are gonna have to bail them out I guess....
New York and California subsidize the rest of the country, and have for decades. That's because they put in more federal money than they receive every single year. So, you're paying them back, and I doubt it's what you owe them.
Ok...rant off...I'll go sit in the corner now and try to cool off.
While you're there, try reading a bit. It's useful to actually know things instead of talking out of your ass.
Strawman argument. Why do people believe this is an effective debating tactic? I most certainly did not support the war.
Hey, don't strawman a strawman. I saw your sig supporting Fox News, and naturally assumed you shared talking points with Sean Hannity and the rest of the animal-brained.
Nor do I support redistribution of wealth from my wallet to other persons to buy them Lexuses.... er, houses. Those persons need to sell their houses and move someplace cheaper, like an apartment, not resort to theft from their neighbors.
First of all, you need to read the Wealth of Nations, especially Book V. You'll discover that Karl Marx isn't the only person who believed that people should contribute according to their ability to the state (for example, graduated tax rates where the rich pay more taxes.) This is not about anything but the stability of an economy. The boom and bust cycles inherent in markets require something to calm the cycles. There's a lot of information in the market, but that doesn't mean it cares about it's own survival. It's subject to the "irrational exuberance" and panic of people.
Moving along... There are two basic ways I see out of the housing asset bubble, which is the worst current symptom of the deregulation of the financial industry. As you can see here, there appears to be no bottom to home prices. This kind of drop even leaves hard working people, who made good choices, with an asset that is now worth 20 or 30% less than it was two years ago. These people have no choice but to stop spending money, since they cannot open lines of credit against an over-leveraged asset, and many of them are also losing their jobs.
As the real estate prices continue to drop, the economy will continue to implode. Imagine if you lose your job, and your home drops in value to where you're $80,000 upside down, which may be reality if you look at historical home prices. You're probably going to ditch it, because trying to survive and pay your mortgage is basically a dead end, further flooding the market with another foreclosure, leaving another bank with a toxic asset, and the cycle deepens. We can either let housing prices fall back in line with inflation and hope that the economy doesn't absolutely collapse, or step in to soften the landing with a combination of government spending, slightly higher inflation, and come out the other end with better infrastructure in the process.
This is the downward spiral that thinking people are worried about. If you aren't worried about it, that's fine. But present some real argument, instead of an idea spoon-fed to you by ideologues who were hired for their entertainment value.
But somehow killing a few hundred thousand people and torturing thousands of others has less moral hazards then trying to prevent the complete collapse of the value of real estate in America.
The footstools of the business party continue to scream, "Let the market do it's job!" It just did it's job - unregulated financial transactions led to a huge bubble which has burst. We are now doing what is necessary to correct the mistake of allowing Wall St to run it's own show. Glass-Steagal rules from the Great Depression are coming back, having just been removed in 1999. Banks will not be allowed to do anything but bank, and insurance agencies will not be allowed to do anything but insure, and hopefully this generation will never again listen to the bullshit argument that deregulation is a good thing.
Canada and it's "socialist" banking system, complete with protectionism, hard regulatory rules, and total government oversight, is now rated as the best banking system on earth. It's a crazy world, isn't it?
An increase in GDP is meaningless. How did the middle class do? How much is the average person paying for basic needs like health care and transportation? Is there a larger disparity in wealth? What's the poverty level? What's the average savings level?
I haven't seen a serious paper anywhere that claims that the middle class is doing better today than it was in the 1970s. The GDP is up because the majority of Americans are working harder, longer hours for less money. So a few people benefit, and the majority of Americans have seen a poorer standard of living - the only middle class in the western industrialized world to do so. Is that your definition of success?
When the mode of commerce changes , tax people in order to fund the government and pay for things like social services, roads, and other infrastructure.
I get so tired of this argument. Government is not always bad, taxes are not always bad, and markets are not always the answer. The rest of the world has been dealing with these realities since the 1970s. If we don't wake up, our wealth isn't going to last into another generation.
And finally, the "right" to get wealthy is less important than anything on the Bill of Rights. Liberty has nothing to do with owning a Hummer.
There's a good list at the end of the wikipedia article on "proven" conspiracies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
Governments are made of people. who are capable of brilliant maneuvers and colossal fuckups. If you read about Operation AJAX, you'll discover that fewer than 100 people overthrew the democratically elected Iranian government in the 50s. This was due to their access to american political influence and funding from the CIA. Similarly, you can read "The Dark Side" by Jane Mayer, and learn how a handful of dogmatic lawyers, with no qualifying experience in Islamic terrorism, international law, or even basic politics were able to dictate our policies on torture for 7 years. The thing with concentrations of power, outside of public view, is that it will lead to conspiracy, unless you believe that people don't act in their own interest. They absolutely do, and those in power are no different.
In the 50s, 60s, and 70s, the FBI denied that they were targeting civil rights political leaders for assassination, but the revelation provided by the COINTELPRO documents provided proof that they not only did that, but actively infiltrated and subverted any organization thought to pose a threat to the existing "social order" of the United States. The CIA are the world leaders in terrorist planning, conducting operations from Latin America, to Africa, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. Lots of secret organizations do lots of bad things, and those are just the "known" groups in the United States. Consider countries like China and Russia and the Middle East, and I'm sure you can give yourself a nightmare without much imagination.
To paraphrase Baudelaire, the greatest trick the conspirators have ever pulled is convincing the public that they don't exist.
Religion has, in part, to do with how did the universe come to be, and what does that mean for how an individual views the world.
As far as religions are simply popular cults, they retell creation stories, and can provide some moral values to their adherents. Over the past few thousand years, those values change in practice or the cult is abandoned for more "advanced" ideals. (For instance, the changing values of Judaism are nearly perfectly in line with their exposure to technologically superior cultures.)
It can also relate to what something believes without proof, since no religion I've ever seen has proof of it's validity.... Dawkins is clearly an atheist, and believes the universe just is. Since he has no proof of that, that is a religious belief, which he believes as strongly and irrationally as an Christian believes in God.
Sort of. Dawkins knows that there are many theories about how the universe came to be. There are certain theories that line up with each other, which also line up with the observable universe today. So, by default, he accepts this collection of theory as the known reality, until more is discovered, or what has been discovered is proven to be false. Anyone outside of this view is there purely on personal conviction based on faith and a little bit of ancient hearsay. (I say a little bit because, excepting many Muslims, very few religious people actually read the thing they've bet their soul on.)
To put it more succinctly, if you ask a scientist about something that is a mystery, they'll tell you that they have some ideas, but they don't know. A religious person would insist that their creator knows, and that the fact that it's a mystery is proof that their version of the creator exists.
Whichever stance you think is more supportable by rational thought is really up to you.
Religion is the adherence to a set of rules made by a particular culture hundreds or thousands of years ago, with small, rare changes in views. Science is the sum total of testable human knowledge from all cultures from the beginning of modern human history to the present. If Dawkins decided that all of science in 2009 was correct, and any new theories incompatible with 2009 science were wrong simply because they were new, he'd be religious.
Belief in a higher power has helped people cope with psychological stress and diseases of habit, but in my opinion, modern medicine has saved many hundreds million more lives than any spiritual affiliation. I'd wager that every single senator who supported that bill would laugh out loud if you suggested they visit a Shaman to cure cancer, but would accost you if you insisted that praying for someone had the same effect.
Some people just don't get it.
Regurgitation is not intelligence. Knowing the facts does help. Anyone can repeat the definitions of a Republic and a Democracy. What's interesting is that you said, "we can get back to the idea that growth and prosperity are driven by PEOPLE pursuing 'self interest rightly understood.'" You're absolutely right, but that's a democratic ideal, not a republican one in the classical sense. Remember, people advocated a republic instead of a democracy because they thought slaves, women, and non-land owners were too stupid and not invested enough to be allowed to vote.
Furthermore, I looked up the quote. Did you read the rest of that paragraph?
"The Americans, on the other hand, are fond of explaining almost all the actions of their lives by the principle of self-interest rightly understood; they show with complacency how an enlightened regard for themselves constantly prompts them to assist one another and inclines them willingly to sacrifice a portion of their time and property to the welfare of the state." --Alex de Tocqueville
How did you end up believing the exact opposite of what that quote actually meant? I actually already know. Through propaganda, the same talking heads have convinced people that Adam Smith was against government regulation of markets, which is exactly the opposite of what he wrote. They have convinced low income midwesterners that cutting the taxes for the rich will somehow result in a better economy for them. They have even convinced people that the separation of church and state was invented to protect the church, despite the backdrop of hundreds of years of religious wars waged by nations against each other.
The alliance between the evangelical voting bloc and the party of business is falling apart. It's too embarrassing for any critically thinking Republican to be associated with Sarah Palin. That's why the talking heads went nuts when it was pointed out, very plainly, that she was simply too ignorant to be the vice president. Evangelicals are learning that they have been hoodwinked for the past thirty years. They were needed for their vote and their money, but not their intellectual contributions.
As far as your hatred of Carter, that's a pretty standard parroting. I'd be interested if you could name any specific policies that you believe led to the economic conditions of that era.
Awww. False dichotomy win?
Palin/Romney 2012! I'll take leaders who believe that the earth is 6,000 years old for $200, Alex.
Obama should cut taxes for millionaires and take away basic rights like due process if he wants any real support. I mean, he has the support of 65% of Americans, but not the richest ones.
Aww, boo...
The problem is that the market has come up with an awful solution to medical liability, which is pitting malpractice insurance against health insurance. Much of the cost of health care can be traced back to either. The other source of cost is that health care is sold as any other product on the free market, which is unfortunately very stupid. Deregulation of health care has led to the closure of hundreds of hospitals around the country, and pushed the costs out of the reach of much of the population. This is actually based on market principle, since the question moved from how much it costs to provide adequate health care, to how much people are willing to pay for it. Of course the upper sector of society is loving life with 3d pictures of their unborn child and access to obscure specialists at the drop of the hat, while the rest of the population struggles to pay for pills and basic care.
Now you have people dropping dead of overdoses and mixed prescriptions since the doctor is motivated to treat instead of heal, and billions of dollars are invested in figuring out how to sustain erections instead of preventing cancer. Hopefully the current economic situation will provide enough pressure to put an end to the ridiculous and unfounded belief that the market works for everything. Health care is no different than any other bit of infrastructure. You pay taxes and share risks for the benefit of the whole population.
First of all, I do not worship Obama. I voted for him, because the alternative was far worse. However, I do applaud his actions so far. I know that some rogue parts of the CIA will always be fucked up, but that's what America gets for having an unconstitutional secret society with a secret budget doing secret things. You said things like detainees had access to lawyers. I invite you to google "Gitmo detainee lawyer" and see if there are any new stories that dispute that. You said Pelosi was a chickenshit. I'd agree, but not more of a chickenshit than any other politician who wages war and has never been in one. Like the near entirety of the Bush cabinet. But let's get back to the real issue at hand: Geneva Conventions, Executive Orders, and what to do with a "terrorist," since "communist" and "nigger" are so out of style these days when denying a human being their basic rights.
You do not understand the Geneva Conventions because you have not read them, or because you have read them and you don't get it. The Geneva Convention is a Treaty signed by the United States. It applies to us at all times, even if we're fighting an enemy with no official state. If you don't believe me, then read it. It's near the beginning, I promise.
Also understand that as a treaty already signed into law, Congress doesn't have shit to do with anything. Under Article II of the Constitution, the President has the power to interpret treaties. Bush and Cheney instructed Yoo and some other cronies to give them the legal basis to torture terrorism suspects. The only way they could do this is to ignore the accepted meaning of the Geneva conventions and current military policy. They tried to invent another status because what they wanted to do was so plainly illegal, it was ludicrous to see it any other way.
Army Regulation 190-8 | OPNAVINST 3461.6 | AFJI 31-304 | MCO 3461.1 ...
"Military Police: Enemy Prisoners of War, Retained Personnel, Civilian Internees and Other Detainees", 1997
a. This regulation provides policy, procedures, and responsibilities for the administration, treatment, employment, and compensation of enemy prisoners of war (EPW), retained personnel (RP), civilian internees (CI) and other detainees (OD) in the custody of U.S. Armed Forces. This regulation also establishes procedures for transfer of custody from the United States to another detaining power.
b. This regulation implements international law, both customary and codified, relating to EPW, RP, CI, and ODs which includes those persons held during military operations other than war.
Emphasis mine. Let's get to the good parts.
1-5. General protection policy
a. U.S. policy, relative to the treatment of EPW, CI and RP in the custody of the U.S. Armed Forces, is as follows:
(1) All persons captured, detained, interned, or otherwise held in U.S. Armed Forces custody during the course of conflict will be given humanitarian care and treatment from the moment they fall into the hands of U.S. forces until final release or repatriation.
(2) All persons taken into custody by U.S. forces will be provided with the protections of the GPW until some other legal status is determined by competent authority.
(3) The punishment of EPW, CI and RP known to have, or suspected of having, committed serious offenses will be administered IAW due process of law and under legally constituted authority per the GPW, GC, the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts Martial.
(4) The inhumane treatment of EPW, CI, RP is prohibited and is not justified by the stress of combat or with deep provocation. Inhumane treatment is a serious and punishable violation under international law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
b. All prisoners will receive humane treatment without regard to race, nationality, religion, political opinion, sex, or other criteria. The following acts are prohibited: murder, torture, corporal punishment, mutil
Pretending that the place, or name of the place where prisoners are held, can simply be changed at that that's somehow a change in the policy is absurd.
Did you read the article? He signed three executive orders. One closed Gitmo. The second formed a "Special Task Force" to come up with a way to deal with captured people who are suspected of being terrorists. Hopefully one that won't take a sweet dump all over the Geneva Conventions that we came up with after the atrocities of WWII. The third makes it clear to all branches of the government, including the CIA, that America respects said Geneva conventions, in accordance with the rules that were in place before they were dismantled by the Bush Administration. It specifically states that all the judgements from the Bush Administration should be ignored.
"...Executive Order revokes Executive Order 13440 that interpreted Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. It requires that all interrogations of detainees in armed conflict, by any government agency, follow the Army Field Manual interrogation guidelines. The Order also prohibits reliance on any Department of Justice or other legal advice concerning interrogation that was issued between September 11, 2001 and January 20, 2009.
The Order requires all departments and agencies to provide the ICRC access to detainees in a manner consistent with Department of Defense regulations and practice. It also orders the CIA to close all existing detention facilities and prohibits it from operating detention facilities in the future..."
Just like when Bush was C-in-C, Obama still doesn't have any new law from Congress that specifically spells out what to do with a non-uniformed person who is caught overseas attacking US soldiers and other interests, or assisting and financing those that do.
Read above.
The very same European countries than wanted nothing to do with helping to deal with these guys when Bush was in office are just as not interested in being stuck with them now that Obama's in charge. The same countries that, if these guys were to be returned to them, that would end up seeing them immediately killed ... no change.
The issue has more to do with the political liability of holding a suspected terrorist, especially for countries like Britain and France, who have large muslim populations. Europe does not kill it's prisoners, that is against their values. America, China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Iran are some of the only countries that engage in capital punishment.
So, you're sounding very pleased that we're going to swap out GitMo for some other physical address, as it that makes any difference whatsoever.
I'm very, very pleased that at least on paper it's now illegal to torture someone in American custody. Just because you're too lazy, disaffected, or dumb to read a few paragraphs doesn't mean the world isn't changing. It just means you aren't.
No chance.
There's an administration in place that understands that sacrificing our values to fight an enemy without values is self-contradictory.
The new Administration has fallen far short of a lot of people's expectations, including mine. Two points though. One, it's been only a month. And two, if you consider the situation that they have been handed, I think they are at least trying to do best that they can. I can't comment on the e-mail case specifically, but I have done a lot of reading on the black hole of illegally held terrorism suspects. In that case, they have two choices: bring lawsuits against a greater part of the current government and past governments involved, or do the right thing from here on out.
Personally, I would love to see every senior officer kicked out in disgrace over what they have done to American principle. Even if it's often violated in secret, at least we could pretend that we had some moral standards. But when the President and Vice President are ordering torture, renditions, and even assassinations, the chain of command is simply doing it's job. If the new Administration spent years wringing the necks of officers following orders, would the chain of command still work?
Perhaps if the economic situation weren't so bad, there could be a good year of congressional hearings, where dirty laundry is thrown on the table and people who deserve it are thrown in jail. And sure, the economic crisis may be something that the Obama Administration is intentionally overplaying in order to have some breathing room on everything else. They're not stupid, so they either believe the situation is that dire, or they are pretending to for political purposes.
For the sake of argument, imagine if you bought out a poorly run company. You may find mountains of incriminating papers, a staff that was half corrupted, and accountants who deserve to be set on fire. But if you're to turn this company around, would the smart thing to do be to march them all into the street for a mob lynching, or quietly and over time reform the company without completely ruining it's reputation in the process? The absolutely right thing to do is probably bankrupt the company and start over. It may be that in the current steaming pile of shit situation that the Bush dynasty has left us, re-forming the government is correct, but reforming the government is prudent.