Good point. I was assuming that people with the power to crash the world economy are rich. However, while I think that's true, I should have stated it as an assumption.
This really depends on WHERE you are talking about in the USA.
I was thinking about the part that consists of 50 states and a few territories. I was about to say that at least we don't throw them into pre-trial solitary, but then I remembered Kevin Mitnick.
Mitnick served five years in prison — four and a half years pre-trial and eight months in solitary confinement — because, according to Mitnick, law enforcement officials convinced a judge that he had the ability to "start a nuclear war by whistling into a pay phone"
Similarly with the UK helping us invade countries that we decide to attack despite them being no threat to us (*cough* Iraq *cough*). As an American I honestly hate to be insulting towards other people's countries, but why the hell do they play the lapdog to America? Serious question. Perhaps someone more familiar with UK or Scandinavian (actually Swedish, and perhaps Danish, not Norwegian AFAIK) domestic politics can explain it.
In Scandinavia it's a common pre-court procedure to deny the suspect of news and other means to by which they might influence or be influenced by the world outside.
Damn, some way in which the USA is better? Fact is stranger than fiction. Well, we used to have something called the Bill of Rights, which was part of the supreme law of the country. Nowadays it's largely ignored, being a 200+ year old relic and all, but perhaps a few minor authorities still have a sentimental attachment to it.
He should have blown up the world's economy, using criminal fraud. No criminal prosecution, or even investigation, despite enormous harm to millions and likely criminal action. Evil hackers? Give 'em solitary for life.
One thing auto makers can do is bring back old-school dashboards with tactile buttons laid out in a distinct, logical way.
That's the kind of thing aircraft manufacturer's understood a long time ago. When they switched to "glass cockpits" they actually did serious ergonomic design and testing. That's why many key controls are still of the sort you mention, and some critical functions still use old-fashioned "analog" (really electro-mechanical) displays and whatnot. Even before they went to glass cockpits aircraft designs involved serious ergonomic design/testing. Part of it is that the greater complexity of aircraft, and the more advanced instrumentation compared to cars, forced them to confront this problem a long time ago. Part of it though is the aircraft industry has these eccentric ideas about making things functional and useful. With cars it's "look at the pretty lights - marketing will love this".
It is like they are trying to drive business to China.
Or they're being highly protectionist. I'm not sure what the angle would be here. Somebody mentioned Tata buying Nokia factories. The Indian government, for all their supposed openness to global trade, can be very protectionist. They got their initial start in programming when they basically kicked out IBM. Remember, it's ok for India, (or much worse) China, to be highly protectionist, but if the US puts a nickel tariff on something, or questions whether pet food should be poisoned, we're either evil or idiots for interfering with the wonders of free trade.
I doubt that one. It's much easier to find people who speak English well enough, and can even be trained to use American accents, in India than in China. As I understand it, the reason Chinese speakers find it so hard to learn English, and vice versa, is because the languages are so different. Are some of the Indian languages closer to English? Also many Indians, especially those with more educated parents, learn English from a very early age. There are even public (government) schools that are taught in English.
The language barriers are much less dealing with India than China. That helps with programming, engineering, R&D, etc. Manufacturing is a different story, but the ability of many Indians to speak English is a big advantage they have over China when it comes to these things.
i have worked for a company that buys up assets and contracts from auto companies
So clearly you have no vested interest.
the free market will always adapt and prevail
I'm not sure whether that's an ideological statement or a religious principle. If the former, maybe you should read what actual economists have to say. The market is a great tool most of the time, but market failures are not rare. If it's being spouted as a religious principle, I'd recommend you check out the golden calf fiasco in Exodus.
Even Lehman Brothers was allowed to go under as late as September 2008 — under Bush.
Interesting example - because that's exactly what caused Bush and Paulson to panic and start handing out goodies to the rest of the finance industry.
The subsequent TARP was a bow to Congress
Really? The same TARP that was the brainchild of Bush's SecTreas Paulson? The one that congress initially rejected because it was a few pages that basically said give the SecTreas $700B and he pink swears to do the Right Thing with it (the same SecTreas who'd was chairman and CEO of Goldman-Sachs).
the taxpayers recovered 97% of the monies given to the evil "banksters" under the program. Compare to the figures of the auto-bailout
Ok. Auto-bailout: $10.5B. TARP: $24B (read the 2nd paragraph of your own link - that 97% number is very deceptive). For bonus points, discuss how much of the TARP money was paid back because the Fed loaned the banks money at an even lower rate. It doesn't take a financial genius to realize that it makes sense to payoff loan A using the loan B money, if loan B is at a lower rate.
Go back to the auto-bailout (and the subsequent cash-for-clankers fraud). Nothing represented as blatant a wealth-transfer from taxpayers to "workers" (or, indeed, to anyone else) in recent history.
Nice of you to limit transfer of taxpayer's money to only that received by "workers". You conveniently left out bank executives, bank shareholders, highly speculative "investors", etc.
The bottom line is that you are obsessed with how much money "workers" get from taxpayers, regardless of the fact that much more was transferred to people who aren't "workers". Your ideology blinds you to any real concern for the taxpayer's money. You may call yourself a Libertarian, and you may even vote that way, but considering your agenda and your defense of Bush, it's obvious that you're a Republican in libertarian's clothing. A corporatist (not excusing Democrats here) is as far as you can get from a genuine libertarian.
Actually... think I am going with the third option.
What's the third option? You're unclear. However if you mean the Tea party, dream on. They're just a faction of the Republican party, which some candidates pay lip service to. They will be absorbed by the corporatatic Borg of the two party duopoly.
Market failure is both a hard fact of reality and, apparently, anathema to the dumbest religion in history.
That cult is widespread, but I hope no Christians, Jews or Muslims are involved. If so, tell them to re-read Exodus (not sure what the Quranic equivalent is). The whole Market Worship (oops, I meant golden calf) thing was a big mistake.
I wish I could run my business into the ground and then just reach into the taxpayer's pockets, borrow $40B, and only have to pay $30B of it back.
You could if your business was a big enough bank. It wouldn't work if it was a car company. If by "your" company you mean one you owned, you would have been wiped out just as GM stockholders were. No problem though if it was a major bank. Your stock would have done ok, and even the CEO who helped drive the bank over a cliff probably wouldn't have lost his job. Maybe he would have gotten a bonus for heroically steering the company through difficult times and saving free enterprise.
it wasn't just GM that had problems, it was just the only one that got bailed out
Ever hear of the finance industry, aka Wall Street? By comparison the GM bailout is lost in the noise. Moreover, there were actual consequences for the company and its management. On Wall Street the CEO's who steered their companies off a cliff (save for the US Treasury and the US Federal Reserve) didn't even lose their jobs. They congratulated themselves for being survivors, and great defenders of the free market. They got bonuses to go with the accolades. Best of all, there were no criminal investigations, despite very strong reasons to conduct them (search on "William K. Black" for details from a banking regulator who got 1000 criminal convictions after the S&L crisis, and thinks this one smells worse).
Mod parent up. Taking Poe's law into account, there are two possibilities, neither of which should be modded down.
1. The PP is a parody. 2. It's from a... what's the polite term? Screw it - a wingnut. It should be seen in order to understand the political thinking of a certain faction, and to debate if one feels like a little sport.
Was the difference between the two situations an essential difference that invalidate the comparison, or was it mere variation due to historical circumstances?
The former. If you have a valid criticism of my characterization of the Know-Nothing party, then please cite it. Your "just kind of know" version of history is not very convincing.
that is right since the 1980's when some wanna be hipppy farts decided we are a country of innovators
Hippies (at least learn to spell it right - only two p's and ending in "ie"), a species that was extinct even back then, were responsible for the 80's loss of industry that was largely due to an overvalued dollar? Who knew.
needed a tech from a Canadian company to go to Detroit to fix a system
That's your first reason? You want "open borders" because you were inconvenienced?
a friend had her undocumented husband who lived & worked 20 years in the US and had teenage kids deported without warning after a misdemeanor traffic infraction
Good heavens, they got caught violating laws that they knew perfectly well existed, even before they came here. They also received a "punishment" that was no more than ending the violation that they were getting away with or 20 years. Is there no justice?
A Danish family renting a house I own got thrown out of the country because of an H1B mixup, now I am out a few months of rent.
You poor dear - an economic loss to you (that was far less than the economic loss of an American losing a job due to the H-1B program).
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't take those threats seriously if the prison was on dry land.
The important factor is if you are rich or not.
Good point. I was assuming that people with the power to crash the world economy are rich. However, while I think that's true, I should have stated it as an assumption.
Sense of humor, find some.
This really depends on WHERE you are talking about in the USA.
I was thinking about the part that consists of 50 states and a few territories. I was about to say that at least we don't throw them into pre-trial solitary, but then I remembered Kevin Mitnick.
Mitnick served five years in prison — four and a half years pre-trial and eight months in solitary confinement — because, according to Mitnick, law enforcement officials convinced a judge that he had the ability to "start a nuclear war by whistling into a pay phone"
Similarly with the UK helping us invade countries that we decide to attack despite them being no threat to us (*cough* Iraq *cough*). As an American I honestly hate to be insulting towards other people's countries, but why the hell do they play the lapdog to America? Serious question. Perhaps someone more familiar with UK or Scandinavian (actually Swedish, and perhaps Danish, not Norwegian AFAIK) domestic politics can explain it.
Troll? You're just ignorant about his allusion. Maybe you should drop the flamebait until you at least know something.
In Scandinavia it's a common pre-court procedure to deny the suspect of news and other means to by which they might influence or be influenced by the world outside.
Damn, some way in which the USA is better? Fact is stranger than fiction. Well, we used to have something called the Bill of Rights, which was part of the supreme law of the country. Nowadays it's largely ignored, being a 200+ year old relic and all, but perhaps a few minor authorities still have a sentimental attachment to it.
He should have blown up the world's economy, using criminal fraud. No criminal prosecution, or even investigation, despite enormous harm to millions and likely criminal action. Evil hackers? Give 'em solitary for life.
One thing auto makers can do is bring back old-school dashboards with tactile buttons laid out in a distinct, logical way.
That's the kind of thing aircraft manufacturer's understood a long time ago. When they switched to "glass cockpits" they actually did serious ergonomic design and testing. That's why many key controls are still of the sort you mention, and some critical functions still use old-fashioned "analog" (really electro-mechanical) displays and whatnot. Even before they went to glass cockpits aircraft designs involved serious ergonomic design/testing. Part of it is that the greater complexity of aircraft, and the more advanced instrumentation compared to cars, forced them to confront this problem a long time ago. Part of it though is the aircraft industry has these eccentric ideas about making things functional and useful. With cars it's "look at the pretty lights - marketing will love this".
Finland invaded India?
The Philippines is so much cheaper
That makes a lot more sense than China. AFAIK English is pretty widely spoken in the Philippines.
It is like they are trying to drive business to China.
Or they're being highly protectionist. I'm not sure what the angle would be here. Somebody mentioned Tata buying Nokia factories. The Indian government, for all their supposed openness to global trade, can be very protectionist. They got their initial start in programming when they basically kicked out IBM. Remember, it's ok for India, (or much worse) China, to be highly protectionist, but if the US puts a nickel tariff on something, or questions whether pet food should be poisoned, we're either evil or idiots for interfering with the wonders of free trade.
call centers
I doubt that one. It's much easier to find people who speak English well enough, and can even be trained to use American accents, in India than in China. As I understand it, the reason Chinese speakers find it so hard to learn English, and vice versa, is because the languages are so different. Are some of the Indian languages closer to English? Also many Indians, especially those with more educated parents, learn English from a very early age. There are even public (government) schools that are taught in English.
The language barriers are much less dealing with India than China. That helps with programming, engineering, R&D, etc. Manufacturing is a different story, but the ability of many Indians to speak English is a big advantage they have over China when it comes to these things.
i have worked for a company that buys up assets and contracts from auto companies
So clearly you have no vested interest.
the free market will always adapt and prevail
I'm not sure whether that's an ideological statement or a religious principle. If the former, maybe you should read what actual economists have to say. The market is a great tool most of the time, but market failures are not rare. If it's being spouted as a religious principle, I'd recommend you check out the golden calf fiasco in Exodus.
Even Lehman Brothers was allowed to go under as late as September 2008 — under Bush.
Interesting example - because that's exactly what caused Bush and Paulson to panic and start handing out goodies to the rest of the finance industry.
The subsequent TARP was a bow to Congress
Really? The same TARP that was the brainchild of Bush's SecTreas Paulson? The one that congress initially rejected because it was a few pages that basically said give the SecTreas $700B and he pink swears to do the Right Thing with it (the same SecTreas who'd was chairman and CEO of Goldman-Sachs).
the taxpayers recovered 97% of the monies given to the evil "banksters" under the program. Compare to the figures of the auto-bailout
Ok. Auto-bailout: $10.5B. TARP: $24B (read the 2nd paragraph of your own link - that 97% number is very deceptive). For bonus points, discuss how much of the TARP money was paid back because the Fed loaned the banks money at an even lower rate. It doesn't take a financial genius to realize that it makes sense to payoff loan A using the loan B money, if loan B is at a lower rate.
Go back to the auto-bailout (and the subsequent cash-for-clankers fraud). Nothing represented as blatant a wealth-transfer from taxpayers to "workers" (or, indeed, to anyone else) in recent history.
Nice of you to limit transfer of taxpayer's money to only that received by "workers". You conveniently left out bank executives, bank shareholders, highly speculative "investors", etc.
The bottom line is that you are obsessed with how much money "workers" get from taxpayers, regardless of the fact that much more was transferred to people who aren't "workers". Your ideology blinds you to any real concern for the taxpayer's money. You may call yourself a Libertarian, and you may even vote that way, but considering your agenda and your defense of Bush, it's obvious that you're a Republican in libertarian's clothing. A corporatist (not excusing Democrats here) is as far as you can get from a genuine libertarian.
Actually ... think I am going with the third option.
What's the third option? You're unclear. However if you mean the Tea party, dream on. They're just a faction of the Republican party, which some candidates pay lip service to. They will be absorbed by the corporatatic Borg of the two party duopoly.
Market failure is both a hard fact of reality and, apparently, anathema to the dumbest religion in history.
That cult is widespread, but I hope no Christians, Jews or Muslims are involved. If so, tell them to re-read Exodus (not sure what the Quranic equivalent is). The whole Market Worship (oops, I meant golden calf) thing was a big mistake.
I wish I could run my business into the ground and then just reach into the taxpayer's pockets, borrow $40B, and only have to pay $30B of it back.
You could if your business was a big enough bank. It wouldn't work if it was a car company. If by "your" company you mean one you owned, you would have been wiped out just as GM stockholders were. No problem though if it was a major bank. Your stock would have done ok, and even the CEO who helped drive the bank over a cliff probably wouldn't have lost his job. Maybe he would have gotten a bonus for heroically steering the company through difficult times and saving free enterprise.
Some amount of those 1M jobs would have very quickly been picked back up by other car manufacturers buying GM's assets ...
And Detroit is going to be a shining prosperous city again, instead of America's piece of the third world. Keep dreaming.
it wasn't just GM that had problems, it was just the only one that got bailed out
Ever hear of the finance industry, aka Wall Street? By comparison the GM bailout is lost in the noise. Moreover, there were actual consequences for the company and its management. On Wall Street the CEO's who steered their companies off a cliff (save for the US Treasury and the US Federal Reserve) didn't even lose their jobs. They congratulated themselves for being survivors, and great defenders of the free market. They got bonuses to go with the accolades. Best of all, there were no criminal investigations, despite very strong reasons to conduct them (search on "William K. Black" for details from a banking regulator who got 1000 criminal convictions after the S&L crisis, and thinks this one smells worse).
Mod parent up. Taking Poe's law into account, there are two possibilities, neither of which should be modded down.
1. The PP is a parody. ... what's the polite term? Screw it - a wingnut. It should be seen in order to understand the political thinking of a certain faction, and to debate if one feels like a little sport.
2. It's from a
Was the difference between the two situations an essential difference that invalidate the comparison, or was it mere variation due to historical circumstances?
The former. If you have a valid criticism of my characterization of the Know-Nothing party, then please cite it. Your "just kind of know" version of history is not very convincing.
guy who earned a STEM Ph.D. or M.D. at a U.S. university
Very few H-1B's have Ph.D.'s, and the program has nothing to do with M.D.'s.
that is right since the 1980's when some wanna be hipppy farts decided we are a country of innovators
Hippies (at least learn to spell it right - only two p's and ending in "ie"), a species that was extinct even back then, were responsible for the 80's loss of industry that was largely due to an overvalued dollar? Who knew.
needed a tech from a Canadian company to go to Detroit to fix a system
That's your first reason? You want "open borders" because you were inconvenienced?
a friend had her undocumented husband who lived & worked 20 years in the US and had teenage kids deported without warning after a misdemeanor traffic infraction
Good heavens, they got caught violating laws that they knew perfectly well existed, even before they came here. They also received a "punishment" that was no more than ending the violation that they were getting away with or 20 years. Is there no justice?
A Danish family renting a house I own got thrown out of the country because of an H1B mixup, now I am out a few months of rent.
You poor dear - an economic loss to you (that was far less than the economic loss of an American losing a job due to the H-1B program).