I'm tired of stating the same point but just to recap. Banks did something very stupid. They weren't forced to, anyone with an ounce of common sense could have seen that being allowed to sell on debt would lead to no-one giving a shit about who they lent to. The internet stock bubble was very similar; I guess that was the evil Fed's fault as well.
If BP has nothing to do with food and drink why mention it?
I don't like the government at all as it happens, but I have studied the history of my country and how shit life was for people before the end of World War II and how much better it is now. In fact the life expectancy and general quality of life has expanded more in the last 50 years than it did in the previous 5,000 despite your assertion that government intervention in anything is evil and to be avoided.
As for setting laws, who should do it? A king? A warlord? You? At least with a democratic government there are some checks and balances on those laws. The system sucks a lot but far less than the paradise you imagine a corporate free-for-all would. Do you think cartels and monopolies wouldn't form if there was no-one to stop them?
By the way I am genuinely interested in what you have to say. Could you point me to where you're getting all this stuff from as I had a hard time finding, for example, how the US was propping up the UK pound in the 20s?
God I hate fanboys. Dirt cheap RAM is still not free and upgrading a Windows installation from 32 bit to 64 bit is neither cheap or convenient unless there's fuck all installed on it. Here's another suggestion. Firefox devs should fix the memory management issues that have been there since at least v2.0. And I'm typing this from FF4 which is currently sitting at 300MB with only 5 tabs open.
Now in all that waffle you have failed to answer one simple question. When were any of the private actors FORCED to behave the way they did. Watch the video again, you missed how he criticised EVERYONE involved. You hate government so much that you're quite happy to excuse the stupidity of all the other people involved.
As for 'competition' between legal systems - it's a criminal justice system not a McDonalds. It's supposed to protect society by punishing criminals not turn a profit.
I have no idea how BP has anything to do with the government deciding whether food is safe to eat and water is safe to drink. Plus their liability for the accident now that it's happened is huge, which you should approve of since you're fundamentally against any kind of prevention of these sorts of things.
So food and water was safer before these regulations. There was no typhoid or cholera no, no everything was completely rosy for the average US and UK citizen in the 19th century. Watch your video again, try to switch of the fundamentalist libertarian bullshit for an hour and see how critical Schiff is of EVERYONE.
I have rewatched the video and the government comes in for far less criticisms than everyone else involved in the housing bubble. The mortgage lenders in particular come in for some fierce criticism. Try watching it again yourself, you've obviously only paid attention to the minute or so where he criticised Greenspan and Bush.
After you've watched it again please answer the following:
When did the US government force lenders to bundle up bad debts and then have 65% of them rated AAA+?
When did the US government force people to buy multiple properties and make no money from them?
When did the US government force people who couldn't posssibly afford to pay their debts to lie to get a mortgage?
When did the government force large corporations to offshore, leading to the unprecedented trade deficit and debt the US has now?
When did the US government force lenders here in the UK to behave in exactly the same way? We didn't have Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac and Clinton's housing act and yet all the banks here did exactly the same fuckwitted things that US banks did with exactly the same results. Same in Ireland and Iceland. Global financial crisis remember.
In absence of government, banks compete based on risk aversion and lending standards are high. Government created FDIC, which destroyed the reason for customers to bother checking the banks' risk aversion, destroyed reason for banks to bother with that, customers won't leave, they don't care.
The FDIC was created in 1933. The current financial crisis began to take shape in the early 2000s. Explain how the FDIC was so bad that it took over 70 years to cause the events of 2008.
If you don't trust your government how can you trust them to define what is criminal or define what is a valid contract?
If our borders are not defended then why haven't we all been invaded?
gov't can't do that either, unless you are calling most of the West uncivilized.
Most western countries manage exactly that. It's only the English-speaking countries that insist on burdening healthcare with free-market dogma
- not when it creates moral hazard of 10million USD oil caps.
What does that mean? Is it worse than food not being fit to eat and water not being fit to drink?
- free market capitalism and Constitutional republic that US had was better than what Churchill was talking about.
When did the US have free market capitalism? 1929 perhaps?
What I got from the video was that, while government meddling contributed, it was the selling of debt that really brought the house down. In the good old days if an organisation lent you money they expected to get paid back. With the selling on of debt that was no longer a problem so these companies started throwing money at people who would never be able to pay it back. Now you can blame your government for that behaviour but I'm not sure why.
Not buying Ford wouldn't keep you from being poisoned by their power supplies. Government regulation of how those items are made would.
Governments do control lives. They punish murderers, thieves and dangerous drivers. They ensure that our food and water supply isn't contaminated, that products we use are safe, that our borders are defended and, in civilised countries they ensure that everyone has access to the healthcare they need. They aren't perfect, but to paraphrase Churchill, "it's the worst system apart from all the others". Just as a matter of interest, how would removing limited liability help if there weren't any government to prosecute the misbehaving corporation. Would an individual have to sue?
So you would trust corporations to do this properly even though the link your sig is an object lesson in what happens when corporations aren't watched properly? Corporations can't be given absolute freedom, especially when the well-being of large amounts of people is at stake. A satellite orbiting the earth is so much less of a threat to health than millions of cars with the same power cell. It's a good idea, but I wouldn't trust Ford et al as far as I could throw them to do it properly.
why not just turn their distributed data centers into a gov-operated "cloud"?
Because UK governments of both Labour and Conservative have a long history of handing over large sums of money to incompetent corporations to create nonsensical spaghetti out of their IT requirements. That will not stop until people that know something about IT are in charge of the purchasing, or in other words, never.
The UK uses plenty of private corporations who promise what they can't possibly deliver and end up costing the UK taxpayer a great deal more than an internal IT department would. Fujitsu Siemens, Capita, EDS, IBM and many others have costly failures against their names on UK government projects. The trouble is, when they're all shit, and have no incentive to improve, then the private sector might as well be the public sector.
How amazing - people not trusting corporations. Damn Luddites. I bet there isn't a single example of corporations poisoning their customers in the whole of human history [/sarcasm]. I'm not terrified of a universe we understand, I'm terrified of some crap destroying our food supply, or else our whole food supply being dependent on organisations who have shown over and over again that they cannot, in any circumstances. be trusted.
$0 with adverts every other song. It was limited to 20 hours a month and then they changed it to 10 hours a month. So now it sucks more. I don't mind paying for it, it's great.
Failing to me means making a loss, not selling enough products, about to go out of business. It does not mean 'has more and better competition than it used to'. They're struggling for sure but they still made several hundred million euros last year. A lot of companies would love to be 'failing' like that.
Nokia is failing in the same way as Microsoft is failing. They're having trouble keeping up with nimbler rivals but they are still immensely profitable. Just because they're not doing well in the US market doesn't mean they're about to go bust. Far from it.
Ah yes the all-powerful unions that have completely failed to stop any of the changes that all but destroyed them. The teachers' unions will talk shit but do what they're told. This isn't 1975.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm tired of stating the same point but just to recap. Banks did something very stupid. They weren't forced to, anyone with an ounce of common sense could have seen that being allowed to sell on debt would lead to no-one giving a shit about who they lent to. The internet stock bubble was very similar; I guess that was the evil Fed's fault as well.
If BP has nothing to do with food and drink why mention it?
I don't like the government at all as it happens, but I have studied the history of my country and how shit life was for people before the end of World War II and how much better it is now. In fact the life expectancy and general quality of life has expanded more in the last 50 years than it did in the previous 5,000 despite your assertion that government intervention in anything is evil and to be avoided.
As for setting laws, who should do it? A king? A warlord? You? At least with a democratic government there are some checks and balances on those laws. The system sucks a lot but far less than the paradise you imagine a corporate free-for-all would. Do you think cartels and monopolies wouldn't form if there was no-one to stop them?
By the way I am genuinely interested in what you have to say. Could you point me to where you're getting all this stuff from as I had a hard time finding, for example, how the US was propping up the UK pound in the 20s?
God I hate fanboys. Dirt cheap RAM is still not free and upgrading a Windows installation from 32 bit to 64 bit is neither cheap or convenient unless there's fuck all installed on it. Here's another suggestion. Firefox devs should fix the memory management issues that have been there since at least v2.0. And I'm typing this from FF4 which is currently sitting at 300MB with only 5 tabs open.
Now in all that waffle you have failed to answer one simple question. When were any of the private actors FORCED to behave the way they did. Watch the video again, you missed how he criticised EVERYONE involved. You hate government so much that you're quite happy to excuse the stupidity of all the other people involved.
As for 'competition' between legal systems - it's a criminal justice system not a McDonalds. It's supposed to protect society by punishing criminals not turn a profit.
I have no idea how BP has anything to do with the government deciding whether food is safe to eat and water is safe to drink. Plus their liability for the accident now that it's happened is huge, which you should approve of since you're fundamentally against any kind of prevention of these sorts of things.
So food and water was safer before these regulations. There was no typhoid or cholera no, no everything was completely rosy for the average US and UK citizen in the 19th century. Watch your video again, try to switch of the fundamentalist libertarian bullshit for an hour and see how critical Schiff is of EVERYONE.
I have rewatched the video and the government comes in for far less criticisms than everyone else involved in the housing bubble. The mortgage lenders in particular come in for some fierce criticism. Try watching it again yourself, you've obviously only paid attention to the minute or so where he criticised Greenspan and Bush.
After you've watched it again please answer the following:
The FDIC was created in 1933. The current financial crisis began to take shape in the early 2000s. Explain how the FDIC was so bad that it took over 70 years to cause the events of 2008.
If you don't trust your government how can you trust them to define what is criminal or define what is a valid contract?
If our borders are not defended then why haven't we all been invaded?
Most western countries manage exactly that. It's only the English-speaking countries that insist on burdening healthcare with free-market dogma
What does that mean? Is it worse than food not being fit to eat and water not being fit to drink?
When did the US have free market capitalism? 1929 perhaps?
What I got from the video was that, while government meddling contributed, it was the selling of debt that really brought the house down. In the good old days if an organisation lent you money they expected to get paid back. With the selling on of debt that was no longer a problem so these companies started throwing money at people who would never be able to pay it back. Now you can blame your government for that behaviour but I'm not sure why.
Not buying Ford wouldn't keep you from being poisoned by their power supplies. Government regulation of how those items are made would.
Governments do control lives. They punish murderers, thieves and dangerous drivers. They ensure that our food and water supply isn't contaminated, that products we use are safe, that our borders are defended and, in civilised countries they ensure that everyone has access to the healthcare they need. They aren't perfect, but to paraphrase Churchill, "it's the worst system apart from all the others". Just as a matter of interest, how would removing limited liability help if there weren't any government to prosecute the misbehaving corporation. Would an individual have to sue?
So you would trust corporations to do this properly even though the link your sig is an object lesson in what happens when corporations aren't watched properly? Corporations can't be given absolute freedom, especially when the well-being of large amounts of people is at stake. A satellite orbiting the earth is so much less of a threat to health than millions of cars with the same power cell. It's a good idea, but I wouldn't trust Ford et al as far as I could throw them to do it properly.
This?
A leak in the reactor could cause a few problems though.
Given how badly the morons around here drive, the last thing I'd want is them in charge of is a small nuclear reactor.
Because UK governments of both Labour and Conservative have a long history of handing over large sums of money to incompetent corporations to create nonsensical spaghetti out of their IT requirements. That will not stop until people that know something about IT are in charge of the purchasing, or in other words, never.
A lot of places do use thin clients, Java is used all over the place, and oh well two out of three isn't bad.
The UK uses plenty of private corporations who promise what they can't possibly deliver and end up costing the UK taxpayer a great deal more than an internal IT department would. Fujitsu Siemens, Capita, EDS, IBM and many others have costly failures against their names on UK government projects. The trouble is, when they're all shit, and have no incentive to improve, then the private sector might as well be the public sector.
How amazing - people not trusting corporations. Damn Luddites. I bet there isn't a single example of corporations poisoning their customers in the whole of human history [/sarcasm]. I'm not terrified of a universe we understand, I'm terrified of some crap destroying our food supply, or else our whole food supply being dependent on organisations who have shown over and over again that they cannot, in any circumstances. be trusted.
A fight to the finnish? (sorry...)
$0 with adverts every other song. It was limited to 20 hours a month and then they changed it to 10 hours a month. So now it sucks more. I don't mind paying for it, it's great.
It's not really free since you have to listen to adverts every other song.
Take an image of the machine and create a VM. Then create lots of copies. Now you are as good as immune to any but the worst disaster.
Convicted habitual criminals are rarely popular.
Failing to me means making a loss, not selling enough products, about to go out of business. It does not mean 'has more and better competition than it used to'. They're struggling for sure but they still made several hundred million euros last year. A lot of companies would love to be 'failing' like that.
Nokia is failing in the same way as Microsoft is failing. They're having trouble keeping up with nimbler rivals but they are still immensely profitable. Just because they're not doing well in the US market doesn't mean they're about to go bust. Far from it.
They already are by virtue of being hugely wealthy.
And Allright as well. How long does it take to proofread a summary?
Ah yes the all-powerful unions that have completely failed to stop any of the changes that all but destroyed them. The teachers' unions will talk shit but do what they're told. This isn't 1975.
You're all newbies to me :-P