There is an obvious direct relationship between the desirability of a country, and the tax-revenue they collect. Norway collects twice the tax as the USA, and they are richer per capita, and have a very stable society. (Mass killings happen everywhere, and are a timeless phenomenon.)
I did a little more digging around in your source and found the following tidbit regarding Zimbabwe:
In the most recent year, total government expenditures, including consumption and transfer payments, equaled 97.8 percent of GDP. Underinvestment has led to inadequate infrastructure. The wage bill is high and climbing.
By your theory Zimbabwe ought to be a veritable utopia.
Note that the USA collects the least tax revenue of any OECD country [wikipedia.org] (as a % of GDP).
From your source..
In the most recent year, total government expenditures, including consumption and transfer payments, equaled 38.9 percent of GDP. Spending increases totaled well over $1 trillion in 2009 alone, an increase of more than 20 percent over 2008. Stimulus spending has hurt the fiscal balance and placed federal debt on an unsustainable trajectory. Gross government debt exceeded 90 percent of GDP in 2010.
I am all for entitlement reform, but note that many of these programs are self-funded through pay-roll. i.e.: people pay into them through-out there lives, and then collect the benefits in old age.
Well, no. The supreme court has ruled that is a particular tax that was enacted at the same time as a particular benefit program. Your acts of paying in convey to you no vesting whatsoever. Just to give you an example of what I mean, if I buy a private life insurance program I can borrow against it or will it to my heirs. I can't do that with OASDI or SSI. The legislature could repeal the benefits tomorrow (logically, not practically) and you would have to continue paying, but could not withdraw once you become old. Similarly, they could repeal the tax tomorrow, but continue the benefits. If a private company were to try the former, then you could sue and, if nothing else, gain ownership of their property if any. If a private company were to try the latter...well, they wouldn't.
No. It would not, unless, of course, you have some facts to back up this remarkable assertion.
Well, I know that the total of federal, state, and local governmental spending was 6.9% of GDP around 1900. I also know that projections for this year are for that to be 40%. So, if one assumes that what has happened in the past isn't impossible, then one should conclude that government could be much smaller. Possibly the GP's claim of 1/10 is an exaggeration, but if one compares the 1/10 claim to your "can [not] operate on a tiny fraction of it's current revenue. Not even close" then I think I would have to side with the 1/10. After all, 6.9% is one-sixth of 40%.
No? Didn't think so.
I just wanted to mention this in order to say that I find it extremely irritating. By saying this you've claimed that it is absolutely certain that no evidence could possibly be presented to support the assertion. I have an image in mind of a dog scurrying away with its tail between its legs. It's as though you want to assert your dominance so completely that you prohibit anyone from gainsaying you. Well, I find it irritating.
I mean that it's absurd to suggest that the government we want can operate on a tiny fraction of it's current revenue.
The government we want? I believe that the government I want can operate on a tiny fraction of its current revenue. Perhaps it's the government you want that is incapable of doing so.
An ad hominem fallacy occurs when you oppose neither the premisses an opponent has nor his reasoning, but instead attack the person making the argument. The phrase ad hominem means "against the man." This fallacy can occur when you claim that the proponent making the claim stands to benefit from adopting the conclusion, that the proponent is deficient in some way, or, as here, simply by name calling. In fact, when committing the ad hominem fallacy you don't even need to know what your opponents arguments are.
"Fallacy" means that the reasoning is deficient in some way, and logicians generally lend no credence to ad hominem fallacies.
But I do agree that the Tea Party Republicans are a problem with their impossibly rigid views and policies. Most, if not all, should be made to rethink their positions by having them voted out of their positions.
Is that truly your view? It seems somewhat...rigid. Actually, it seems impossibly rigid. Perhaps you should be persuaded to rethink your position.
Confession time: I don't really believe that. My point, and I do have one, is that it seems to me that there are two parties who haven't come to an agreement because of rigid requirements they have placed on the outcome.
I have a lot of sympathy for the Tea Party. I would probably join up if I only knew where to go about it. Of course, I'm basing this solely on the slogan, "taxed enough already." Well, that and the fact that some pundits, whom I have come to disagree with, seem to go into such a rage every time they mention the name. Seemingly, I can't go too far wrong by opposing them at every juncture.
It seems to me that one thing has been lost in all the debate. That thing is: what the reason for the debt ceiling was. If memory serves, at the time it was passed there was a serious movement afoot to pass an amendment to the constitution requiring a balanced budget. Opponents of the amendment at the time claimed that congress could accomplish the same thing by passing a law limiting congressional borrowing. The advantages of a borrowing ceiling was that it would be much easier to pass, and that it would be flexible enough to allow for changing conditions--conditions like war. Proponents claimed that it would be too easy to change the debt ceiling, and would amount to little more than window dressing. I think that the proponents were right. How many times has the debt ceiling been raised? Sixty times? Seventy? Looks like window dressing. In that respect, what the Republicans are doing is simply following (slightly) the original stated intent of the law.
Actually, I'm not a proponent of either the borrowing ceiling or the balanced budget amendment. I would rather see an amendment to the constitution that placed a limit on spending, perhaps as a fraction of the previous year's GDP. I can see a necessity for relaxing that requirement in the event of war, but it seems to me that it would have to be a declared war.
Interesting allusion - just what the hell do the Koch Brothers have to do with legislators' incentives? There's just one party who wants to sell anything here, and that is the government.
Interesting analogy - just what the hell is the house supposed to be that government wants to sell?
I thought it was pretty obvious. Legislators and administrators want to sell access and influence. Suppose you're a coal-fired electricity generating company, and let's ignore the existing pollution legislation for the moment. Also, suppose cap-and-trade will cost you a billion dollars a year. It will profit you to spend up to a billion dollars a year to avoid cap-and-trade. Now suppose you want to convince your congressman not to enact cap-and-trade, or suppose you want your president to put pressure on your congressman, or suppose you want your president to allow waivers for your company. The first thing you'll need to do is talk to your legislator or president. You normally can't do that. There are 312 million people in the US, and your legislator doesn't have that many thirty-minute slots. How do you get one of those slots? The normal way is one of those $75,000 breakfasts. So, do you spend $75,000 (one time) for a chance to remove one billion dollars a year of costs? You bet you do. Now, at the breakfast, the junior senator from Megastate lets you know that the Democrats are pressing hard, and he's concerned about getting re-elected, and the RNC coffers are desperately in need of a million dollars of cash infusion. So, do you spend $1,000,000 (one time) for a chance to remove one billion dollars a year of costs? You bet you do. Okay, now let's add the existing anti-pollution legislation into account. None of the above analysis is changed appreciably.
Now suppose you're a representative who's smart enough to get elected. You've got $1,000,000 of appropriations to appropriate. You can't keep the money; it belongs to the government. One of those other representatives will spend it instead. Suppose you have two research proposals in front of you. One guy says he's pretty sure he can prove that carbon dioxide concentration in the biosphere has a negative feedback effect. He just needs a grant to connect the dots. More CO2, means more plants, which means more carbohydrate, which means less CO2. What's the down side? You've spend one million dollars of someone else's money. What's the upside? There is no upside. Well, truth and science and freedom and yada yada yada. Nothing you can monetize. The other guy says he's pretty sure he can prove that carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is at a critical point for asthma sufferers. He just needs a grant to connect the dots. A tiny percentage increase in the concentration will trigger asthma attacks and frequently death. Bonus points if it will disproportionately affect the poor and minorities. What's the down side? You've spent one million dollars of someone else's money. What's the up side? There's $75,000 breakfasts and million dollar campaign contributions and awards ceremonies and votes. There's also all that yada yada yada, but who cares about yada yada yada? So, which of the two grant proposals do you promote? It's a no-brainer, even for a representative.
That's the house that the government wants to sell.
You want the United States to be administered, protected, and paid for by the British?
As I tell both geekoid and Myopic, Sir John James Cowperthwaite KBE CMG, governed Hong Kong with a strictly hands-off approach. In fact, he refused to let bureaucrats collect economic information on Hong Kong for fear they would find the temptation to interfere irresistible. Heritage Foundation frequently finds it among the freest nations as measured by economic and political freedom. At least, they did before the Chinese takeover. I haven't looked recently.
Oh, you mean the big-government high-regulation Hong Kong, here on planet earth? Or do you mean some other Hong Kong?
Hong Kong is big government? I don't see any actual evidence in your post. For actual evidence, and as I tell geekoid, see the Wikipedia entry for John James Cowperthwaite.
Here's a hint: the universities and research agencies that employ most normal scientists get the same amount of money regardless of the findings on anthropogenic climate change.
Here's another hint: suppose you want to sell your house, and suppose there are fifty people who offer for a dollar to go around telling people what a great house you own, and suppose there are fifty people who offer for a dollar to go around telling people what a crappy house you own. You're not going to give those two groups the same amount of money. Government doesn't either.
Most climatologists who support global warming are employed by public sector or non-profit universities and rely on research grants from the federal government. How is this in any way equivalent to taking money from Big Oil and Coal?
Let's see...if they decide people really need to do something about AGW, then we'll end up giving government huge new powers. On cap-and-trade, government will sell indulgences. Actually, I don't know what they'll be called, but I'm talking about a government grant to emit a given amount of carbon dioxide. Kind of like sins against government, instead of the regular kind. Even if we don't go with cap-and-trade there will be huge new incentives to lobby congress either for or against carbon dioxide, with huge new contributions to campaign coffers. It's kind of a win-win for congress critters. They win if they're against carbon dioxide, and they win if they're for it. I figure that's one reason why researchers who have this brilliant new idea how to disprove AGW don't receive those research grants you mentioned.
As P.J. O'Rourke once said--giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenagers.
All major governments currently control their money supplies by fiat. Most major governments are debtors. That means that most major governments benefit from inflation. They are able to pay their debts with money which is worth less. That implies that most major governments have the means, motive, and opportunity to inflate their currencies.
Of course Amazon sells it using the DARPA developed internet...very little of which was financed through the use of California sales taxes.
ships it on public roads...for which it pays the shipping companies, who, in turn, use the money Amazon gives them to pay fuel and vehicle taxes.
often using the US Postal Service...which is a private company (with a government granted monopoly) financed by postage.
hire programmers who were educated in public schools and at public universities...who receive higher incomes and, therefore, pay more income taxes. The money to pay the income taxes comes from Amazon.
sue their competitors in Federal Court...for which Amazon pays their own lawyers. The money to support Federal Courts, themselves, I think comes from federal income taxes, which Amazon pays. But perhaps you meant California State Court. You actually have some point with this one. On the other hand, Amazon pays taxes to support Washing State Court, and Amazon's competitors, possibly including competitors in California, can sue Amazon in Washington.
over patents issued by the USPTO...for which Amazon pays federal income taxes.
Their facilities are protected from crime by publicly funded police...for which Amazon pays Washington state and local income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and a variety of others.
and from foreign invaders by the US military...for which they pay federal income taxes.
If one of their buildings catches fire, it will be put out by publicly funded fire fighters...for which Amazon pays Washington state and local income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and a variety of others.
That's a developed world lifestyle, and it's made possible by the continuous effort of a capable government. Perhaps so, but why should Amazon pay California sales taxes?
I love being able to give people new information! As it turns out, California doesn't have their own army. They also don't have their own navy, air force, or marines. In fact, California's percentage of defense spending as a fraction of their total budget is very nearly zero percent.
Yeah, that's why it was so much harder to invent the telephone. You can invent only one television if you want, but you have to simultaneously invent two telephones.
...piracy is chiefly a product of a market failure, not a legal one...
Darn. I wasn't able to decide what the even meant without further study. A quick look at Wikipedia yields the definition of market failure to be "...a concept within economic theory wherein the allocation of goods and services by a free market is not efficient. That is, there exists another conceivable outcome where market participants' overall gains from that outcome would outweigh their losses (even if some participants lose under the new arrangement)." Well there's yer problem. It ain't a free market. Look at it this way. There's a relatively free market in paving stones. Now, we don't see widespread piracy in paving stones. Why is that? Is it because the PSAA (Paving Stone Association of America) is so efficient at stamping it out? No. It's because there's no profit in it. If Pirate Peninsula of Sweden were to start delivering paving stones at one-tenth of the price of PSAA's paving stones, then PPoS would quickly go broke. That's because the cost of producing additional paving stones is about equal to the price. For each paving stone that PPoS delivered they would lose about 90%. That immediately suggests why copyright piracy exists--it's because the price of copies is much higher than the cost of producing an additional copy. But then, the question remains...why is the price of copies so much higher than the cost of producing an additional copy? The answer to that question, too, is quick. It's because government have granted the copyright owner a monopoly on the production of the copies. I tell you what...you let government grant PSAA a monopoly on the production of paving stones and overnight you would see pirates spring up.
I'm EXTREMELY glad they removed that app. I'm sure I speak for all open-minded, freedom-loving people when I say that I don't want anyone exposed to that kind of material.
I sure hope any potential employers google "Robert Soloway" and find "Spam king" high on the results list.
I don't know if that's a good idea. If you take someone who has shown he's willing to commit crimes and make it impossible for him to earn a living legitimately, then what ways does that leave him to earn one?
Well, there was always the question of where Book learned so much about crime. And shooting. And hand-to-hand combat. Then there was the question of why Inara would leave the, supposedly lucrative, inner planets for a ship filled with miscreants. And what was in that hypodermic. And whether she had a way to keep from dying. Then there was the question of whether Malcolm would ever return to his Christian faith. And how he really felt about Inara. And whether he could get a steady source of income when seemingly every one of the border planets were against him. And why he entered the war. Then there was the question of why Jane seemed to get along so well with Book. And why he sent so much money home to his mother. And whether he could ever respect Simon. Then there was the question of what the Hands of Blue represented. And how the Blue Sun corporation was involved. And what exactly they were doing with River. Then there was the question of whether River would ever get well. And find true love. And live a normal life. And how Kaylee's relationship with Simon would work out. And whether Saphron would come back. Or Jubal. Or Badger. Or Niska.
I'm thinking they could have made it through season two.
We could unpublish it from the catalog so that it was no longer available, but if it was very rogue then we could remove applications from handsets - we don't want things to go that far, but we could
I wonder whether "very rogue" is anything like when Windows Genuine Advantage was classified as a security update, and pushed out with the rest of the critical patches.
Slashdot Mirror
There is an obvious direct relationship between the desirability of a country, and the tax-revenue they collect. Norway collects twice the tax as the USA, and they are richer per capita, and have a very stable society. (Mass killings happen everywhere, and are a timeless phenomenon.)
I did a little more digging around in your source and found the following tidbit regarding Zimbabwe:
In the most recent year, total government expenditures, including consumption and transfer payments, equaled 97.8 percent of GDP. Underinvestment has led to inadequate infrastructure. The wage bill is high and climbing.
By your theory Zimbabwe ought to be a veritable utopia.
~Loyal
Note that the USA collects the least tax revenue of any OECD country [wikipedia.org] (as a % of GDP).
From your source..
In the most recent year, total government expenditures, including consumption and transfer payments, equaled 38.9 percent of GDP. Spending increases totaled well over $1 trillion in 2009 alone, an increase of more than 20 percent over 2008. Stimulus spending has hurt the fiscal balance and placed federal debt on an unsustainable trajectory. Gross government debt exceeded 90 percent of GDP in 2010.
I am all for entitlement reform, but note that many of these programs are self-funded through pay-roll. i.e.: people pay into them through-out there lives, and then collect the benefits in old age.
Well, no. The supreme court has ruled that is a particular tax that was enacted at the same time as a particular benefit program. Your acts of paying in convey to you no vesting whatsoever. Just to give you an example of what I mean, if I buy a private life insurance program I can borrow against it or will it to my heirs. I can't do that with OASDI or SSI. The legislature could repeal the benefits tomorrow (logically, not practically) and you would have to continue paying, but could not withdraw once you become old. Similarly, they could repeal the tax tomorrow, but continue the benefits. If a private company were to try the former, then you could sue and, if nothing else, gain ownership of their property if any. If a private company were to try the latter...well, they wouldn't.
~Loyal
No. It would not, unless, of course, you have some facts to back up this remarkable assertion.
Well, I know that the total of federal, state, and local governmental spending was 6.9% of GDP around 1900. I also know that projections for this year are for that to be 40%. So, if one assumes that what has happened in the past isn't impossible, then one should conclude that government could be much smaller. Possibly the GP's claim of 1/10 is an exaggeration, but if one compares the 1/10 claim to your "can [not] operate on a tiny fraction of it's current revenue. Not even close" then I think I would have to side with the 1/10. After all, 6.9% is one-sixth of 40%.
No? Didn't think so.
I just wanted to mention this in order to say that I find it extremely irritating. By saying this you've claimed that it is absolutely certain that no evidence could possibly be presented to support the assertion. I have an image in mind of a dog scurrying away with its tail between its legs. It's as though you want to assert your dominance so completely that you prohibit anyone from gainsaying you. Well, I find it irritating.
I mean that it's absurd to suggest that the government we want can operate on a tiny fraction of it's current revenue.
The government we want? I believe that the government I want can operate on a tiny fraction of its current revenue. Perhaps it's the government you want that is incapable of doing so.
~Loyal
It's hard to convince a zealot of anything.
An ad hominem fallacy occurs when you oppose neither the premisses an opponent has nor his reasoning, but instead attack the person making the argument. The phrase ad hominem means "against the man." This fallacy can occur when you claim that the proponent making the claim stands to benefit from adopting the conclusion, that the proponent is deficient in some way, or, as here, simply by name calling. In fact, when committing the ad hominem fallacy you don't even need to know what your opponents arguments are.
"Fallacy" means that the reasoning is deficient in some way, and logicians generally lend no credence to ad hominem fallacies.
~Loyal
But I do agree that the Tea Party Republicans are a problem with their impossibly rigid views and policies. Most, if not all, should be made to rethink their positions by having them voted out of their positions.
Is that truly your view? It seems somewhat...rigid. Actually, it seems impossibly rigid. Perhaps you should be persuaded to rethink your position.
Confession time: I don't really believe that. My point, and I do have one, is that it seems to me that there are two parties who haven't come to an agreement because of rigid requirements they have placed on the outcome.
I have a lot of sympathy for the Tea Party. I would probably join up if I only knew where to go about it. Of course, I'm basing this solely on the slogan, "taxed enough already." Well, that and the fact that some pundits, whom I have come to disagree with, seem to go into such a rage every time they mention the name. Seemingly, I can't go too far wrong by opposing them at every juncture.
It seems to me that one thing has been lost in all the debate. That thing is: what the reason for the debt ceiling was. If memory serves, at the time it was passed there was a serious movement afoot to pass an amendment to the constitution requiring a balanced budget. Opponents of the amendment at the time claimed that congress could accomplish the same thing by passing a law limiting congressional borrowing. The advantages of a borrowing ceiling was that it would be much easier to pass, and that it would be flexible enough to allow for changing conditions--conditions like war. Proponents claimed that it would be too easy to change the debt ceiling, and would amount to little more than window dressing. I think that the proponents were right. How many times has the debt ceiling been raised? Sixty times? Seventy? Looks like window dressing. In that respect, what the Republicans are doing is simply following (slightly) the original stated intent of the law.
Actually, I'm not a proponent of either the borrowing ceiling or the balanced budget amendment. I would rather see an amendment to the constitution that placed a limit on spending, perhaps as a fraction of the previous year's GDP. I can see a necessity for relaxing that requirement in the event of war, but it seems to me that it would have to be a declared war.
~Loyal
the judge squashed the US extradition request,
Extradition requests are frequently quashed, seldom squashed.
~Loyal
Interesting allusion - just what the hell do the Koch Brothers have to do with legislators' incentives? There's just one party who wants to sell anything here, and that is the government.
~Loyal
Interesting analogy - just what the hell is the house supposed to be that government wants to sell?
I thought it was pretty obvious. Legislators and administrators want to sell access and influence. Suppose you're a coal-fired electricity generating company, and let's ignore the existing pollution legislation for the moment. Also, suppose cap-and-trade will cost you a billion dollars a year. It will profit you to spend up to a billion dollars a year to avoid cap-and-trade. Now suppose you want to convince your congressman not to enact cap-and-trade, or suppose you want your president to put pressure on your congressman, or suppose you want your president to allow waivers for your company. The first thing you'll need to do is talk to your legislator or president. You normally can't do that. There are 312 million people in the US, and your legislator doesn't have that many thirty-minute slots. How do you get one of those slots? The normal way is one of those $75,000 breakfasts. So, do you spend $75,000 (one time) for a chance to remove one billion dollars a year of costs? You bet you do. Now, at the breakfast, the junior senator from Megastate lets you know that the Democrats are pressing hard, and he's concerned about getting re-elected, and the RNC coffers are desperately in need of a million dollars of cash infusion. So, do you spend $1,000,000 (one time) for a chance to remove one billion dollars a year of costs? You bet you do. Okay, now let's add the existing anti-pollution legislation into account. None of the above analysis is changed appreciably.
Now suppose you're a representative who's smart enough to get elected. You've got $1,000,000 of appropriations to appropriate. You can't keep the money; it belongs to the government. One of those other representatives will spend it instead. Suppose you have two research proposals in front of you. One guy says he's pretty sure he can prove that carbon dioxide concentration in the biosphere has a negative feedback effect. He just needs a grant to connect the dots. More CO2, means more plants, which means more carbohydrate, which means less CO2. What's the down side? You've spend one million dollars of someone else's money. What's the upside? There is no upside. Well, truth and science and freedom and yada yada yada. Nothing you can monetize. The other guy says he's pretty sure he can prove that carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is at a critical point for asthma sufferers. He just needs a grant to connect the dots. A tiny percentage increase in the concentration will trigger asthma attacks and frequently death. Bonus points if it will disproportionately affect the poor and minorities. What's the down side? You've spent one million dollars of someone else's money. What's the up side? There's $75,000 breakfasts and million dollar campaign contributions and awards ceremonies and votes. There's also all that yada yada yada, but who cares about yada yada yada? So, which of the two grant proposals do you promote? It's a no-brainer, even for a representative.
That's the house that the government wants to sell.
~Loyal
You want the United States to be administered, protected, and paid for by the British?
As I tell both geekoid and Myopic, Sir John James Cowperthwaite KBE CMG, governed Hong Kong with a strictly hands-off approach. In fact, he refused to let bureaucrats collect economic information on Hong Kong for fear they would find the temptation to interfere irresistible. Heritage Foundation frequently finds it among the freest nations as measured by economic and political freedom. At least, they did before the Chinese takeover. I haven't looked recently.
~Loyal
Oh, you mean the big-government high-regulation Hong Kong, here on planet earth? Or do you mean some other Hong Kong?
Hong Kong is big government? I don't see any actual evidence in your post. For actual evidence, and as I tell geekoid, see the Wikipedia entry for John James Cowperthwaite.
~Loyal
Here's a hint: the universities and research agencies that employ most normal scientists get the same amount of money regardless of the findings on anthropogenic climate change.
Here's another hint: suppose you want to sell your house, and suppose there are fifty people who offer for a dollar to go around telling people what a great house you own, and suppose there are fifty people who offer for a dollar to go around telling people what a crappy house you own. You're not going to give those two groups the same amount of money. Government doesn't either.
~Loyal
Most climatologists who support global warming are employed by public sector or non-profit universities and rely on research grants from the federal government. How is this in any way equivalent to taking money from Big Oil and Coal?
Let's see...if they decide people really need to do something about AGW, then we'll end up giving government huge new powers. On cap-and-trade, government will sell indulgences. Actually, I don't know what they'll be called, but I'm talking about a government grant to emit a given amount of carbon dioxide. Kind of like sins against government, instead of the regular kind. Even if we don't go with cap-and-trade there will be huge new incentives to lobby congress either for or against carbon dioxide, with huge new contributions to campaign coffers. It's kind of a win-win for congress critters. They win if they're against carbon dioxide, and they win if they're for it. I figure that's one reason why researchers who have this brilliant new idea how to disprove AGW don't receive those research grants you mentioned.
As P.J. O'Rourke once said--giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenagers.
~Loyal
Inflation.
All major governments currently control their money supplies by fiat. Most major governments are debtors. That means that most major governments benefit from inflation. They are able to pay their debts with money which is worth less. That implies that most major governments have the means, motive, and opportunity to inflate their currencies.
~Loyal
If that weren't true, then you could point to a counter-example.
Hong Kong, prior to the Chinese takeover.
~Loyal
Of course Amazon sells it using the DARPA developed internet ...very little of which was financed through the use of California sales taxes.
ships it on public roads ...for which it pays the shipping companies, who, in turn, use the money Amazon gives them to pay fuel and vehicle taxes.
often using the US Postal Service ...which is a private company (with a government granted monopoly) financed by postage.
hire programmers who were educated in public schools and at public universities ...who receive higher incomes and, therefore, pay more income taxes. The money to pay the income taxes comes from Amazon.
sue their competitors in Federal Court ...for which Amazon pays their own lawyers. The money to support Federal Courts, themselves, I think comes from federal income taxes, which Amazon pays. But perhaps you meant California State Court. You actually have some point with this one. On the other hand, Amazon pays taxes to support Washing State Court, and Amazon's competitors, possibly including competitors in California, can sue Amazon in Washington.
over patents issued by the USPTO ...for which Amazon pays federal income taxes.
Their facilities are protected from crime by publicly funded police ...for which Amazon pays Washington state and local income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and a variety of others.
and from foreign invaders by the US military ...for which they pay federal income taxes.
If one of their buildings catches fire, it will be put out by publicly funded fire fighters ...for which Amazon pays Washington state and local income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and a variety of others.
That's a developed world lifestyle, and it's made possible by the continuous effort of a capable government.
Perhaps so, but why should Amazon pay California sales taxes?
~Loyal
the real problem: Defense spending
I love being able to give people new information! As it turns out, California doesn't have their own army. They also don't have their own navy, air force, or marines. In fact, California's percentage of defense spending as a fraction of their total budget is very nearly zero percent.
~Loyal
I was there when afidel's law was born. Waiting for a thread to be afideled.
~Loyal
Yeah, that's why it was so much harder to invent the telephone. You can invent only one television if you want, but you have to simultaneously invent two telephones.
~Loyal
...piracy is chiefly a product of a market failure, not a legal one...
Darn. I wasn't able to decide what the even meant without further study. A quick look at Wikipedia yields the definition of market failure to be "...a concept within economic theory wherein the allocation of goods and services by a free market is not efficient. That is, there exists another conceivable outcome where market participants' overall gains from that outcome would outweigh their losses (even if some participants lose under the new arrangement)." Well there's yer problem. It ain't a free market. Look at it this way. There's a relatively free market in paving stones. Now, we don't see widespread piracy in paving stones. Why is that? Is it because the PSAA (Paving Stone Association of America) is so efficient at stamping it out? No. It's because there's no profit in it. If Pirate Peninsula of Sweden were to start delivering paving stones at one-tenth of the price of PSAA's paving stones, then PPoS would quickly go broke. That's because the cost of producing additional paving stones is about equal to the price. For each paving stone that PPoS delivered they would lose about 90%. That immediately suggests why copyright piracy exists--it's because the price of copies is much higher than the cost of producing an additional copy. But then, the question remains...why is the price of copies so much higher than the cost of producing an additional copy? The answer to that question, too, is quick. It's because government have granted the copyright owner a monopoly on the production of the copies. I tell you what...you let government grant PSAA a monopoly on the production of paving stones and overnight you would see pirates spring up.
~Loyal
I'm EXTREMELY glad they removed that app. I'm sure I speak for all open-minded, freedom-loving people when I say that I don't want anyone exposed to that kind of material.
~Loyal
I sure hope any potential employers google "Robert Soloway" and find "Spam king" high on the results list.
I don't know if that's a good idea. If you take someone who has shown he's willing to commit crimes and make it impossible for him to earn a living legitimately, then what ways does that leave him to earn one?
~Loyal
Well, there was always the question of where Book learned so much about crime. And shooting. And hand-to-hand combat. Then there was the question of why Inara would leave the, supposedly lucrative, inner planets for a ship filled with miscreants. And what was in that hypodermic. And whether she had a way to keep from dying. Then there was the question of whether Malcolm would ever return to his Christian faith. And how he really felt about Inara. And whether he could get a steady source of income when seemingly every one of the border planets were against him. And why he entered the war. Then there was the question of why Jane seemed to get along so well with Book. And why he sent so much money home to his mother. And whether he could ever respect Simon. Then there was the question of what the Hands of Blue represented. And how the Blue Sun corporation was involved. And what exactly they were doing with River. Then there was the question of whether River would ever get well. And find true love. And live a normal life. And how Kaylee's relationship with Simon would work out. And whether Saphron would come back. Or Jubal. Or Badger. Or Niska.
I'm thinking they could have made it through season two.
~Loyal
It would be like forcing car manufacturers to take responsibility for bad drivers.
No. It would be like forcing gun manufacturers to take responsibility for murderers.
~Loyal
We could unpublish it from the catalog so that it was no longer available, but if it was very rogue then we could remove applications from handsets - we don't want things to go that far, but we could
I wonder whether "very rogue" is anything like when Windows Genuine Advantage was classified as a security update, and pushed out with the rest of the critical patches.
~Loyal
It's so they can fire you for lying on your job application.
~Loyal