Spending cuts do target Medicare, Social Security, and the like because they cost the most money. That's what happens when you have less money - you spend less. When things get better, you can spend more, it's a great incentive for creating wealth and a great reason not to stop that through taxation and other burdens.
Like raiding a farm for wheat that a rich farmer was planning to replant (example of the rich getting richer), you solved the temporary problem of feeding people and may feel like you added a dose of social equity. But the following year there'll be that much less food to go around, forcing prices up and making things even harder on the poor. Rich people are negatively effected too (the farmer makes less money) but the people that get really screwed are the ones at the bottom.
Let the farmer replant everything, there's more food available for everyone and prices go down. Of course it's more complicated then that, if someone's just hoarding wheat that screws everyone. But in general I think repealing the "tax breaks for the rich" will mean less investments going forward and less money available to the people (through jobs, grants, programs). So I really feel like it's just shooting ourselves in the foot.
Under a seven day return policy, someone can purchase a game, playing through it in a week, and then return it for a full refund. Unless you have a lot of content or are super addictive, this seems like it would kill most indie game developers. If I recall Google has a 30 minute return policy on apps.
All investment banks aren't equal, the practice of taking a bushel of money and investing it so start-ups can take off really benefits society, and you need smart people to make those decisions. Similarly having a mechanism for people to get loans to buy houses, attend college, and the like is also very beneficial.
It's just when you have "investors" that do things like create CDO's that are design to fail, so someone they can make a profit by shorting it, or lenders that exhort people into unreasonable rates, that bankers become evil.
Today everything becomes obsolete so fast, nobody wants to make a long term investment in a high tech device. But if we do reach a limit, and the advance of electronics grinds to a halt I think a whole new economic model will emerge. Where people will spend more money for higher quality items that they'll expect to last for a long time.
Like spending $12K on a device, but knowing it will be awesome for the next 15~20 years.
From a legal point of view I think the estate is wrong, but I can definitely understand having a dad like Tolkien and not wanting someone to make millions from a book that uses literary deconstruction, of all ways, to say your dad was messed up in one way or another. I'm being presumptuous but if in the end the book is just about shock value to drag Tolkien through the mud, that is kind of messed up.
I don't think being communist has anything to do with, but it is something to see a super power use "Top Gun" footage and represent it as actual footage of their military:D
There's still going to be lots of jobs in things like infrastructure, retail, the service industry, maintenance (bridges for example constantly need people working on them), and construction. Things that you can't outsource to other countries, and need a person to do.
But there's lots and lots of talented unemployed people out there, and I'd much rather see our leaders bring them jobs that let them use their full potential, then taking back jobs like assembling ipods.
Also in the big picture if the cafe down the street is surrounding by tech companies it's going to be way better off, then being surrounding by factories. If I'm a doctor I can afford to pay way more when remodeling my house. The whole system is able to benefit, and I don't think anyone is particularly left out.
"...it feels like we’re conceding manufacturing prowess to other nations. Since manufacturing fuels jobs, that’s a serious problem."
I disagree, the old manufacturing jobs were people manually assemble things just aren't going to be worth what the US expects as a good salary nowadays. We need high value jobs like engineering, IT, and medicine where training and education can shine through.
Well if I had stumbled upon a nickel-hydrogen combination that produces copper and energy I wouldn't spend a lot of time trying to convince the scientific community that it's real (since I'm not an academic). Instead I'd start implementing it and selling energy. Like if I discovered a room temperature super conductor but couldn't back up the physics behind it, I'd be more interested in putting my super-conductor to use, then going back and spending a decade on chalk-boards trying to figure out why it works.
Anyways if this is a hoax (the reactor doesn't produce 8:1 energy with nickel-hydrogen fuel) it seems like the sort of thing that can be debunked pretty readily:3
I had the same reaction, but then I looked at their financials the most recent quarter alone had $20.3 billion in revenue (up from $12.3 billion last year), for comparison investment powerhouse Goldman Sachs made $10.7 billion, and Microsoft made $16.2 billion during the same period. I don't own any Apple products (and don't plan on buying them), and really have no idea why people are buying their stuff so much. But people are for whatever reason.
That being said I was watching a presentation on the PS3 being hacked, and noted while the researchers spent ~12 months to break in to Microsoft / Sony's (when they cared) stuff but it took them 11 days to jailbreak the iPhone, and 1 day to jailbreak the iPad so perhaps the lack of security will catch up to them. ( Link - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEFMAP0mTvY&feature=related )
Consumers have a ton of power as well, they could have chosen at any point simply not to buy cheap imported goods and it would've ended right then and there. It's only because hundreds of millions of people are buying those goods every week that the engine keeps going.
Likewise China's rise is largely due to a billion people working as hard as they can to make the country (and their own lives) the best it can be. If Americans (speaking in generalities) had the same resolve/objective world politics would be a lot different right now. But from my own experience, the vast majority of our work force is seeking to live a comfortable life while contributing as little as possible to the greater organization, citing rhetoric similar to the above, but toned down.
I don't really know what to say, if you have one group of people trying to be as lazy as possible, and another group of people trying to become as strong as possible. The latter will always win. Blaming corporations, capitalists, or politicians won't change that fact.
Honestly I think it would be good experience for everyone in the US to start a business, hire a bunch of employees, and see how fun it is to put up with a bunch people constantly shirking their responsibilities to go have fun, and then blaming you (as the immoral, omnipotent, profit-seeking, villain / business owner) for every bad thing that happens.
I think that scientists, engineers, and researchers do incredibly valuable work and should be supported within reasonable ethical boundaries. But I think it's a mistake to take the current theories of the day as "The Truth" (they're so often over turned by later research), or believe that scientists are going to be immune from the influences of emotions, personal beliefs, ambitions, and their peers.
Rather than clinging to the old model, and try to intimidate people into using it, the industry needs to change figure alternative ways to get revenue for content.
Will it ultimately result in less money for the same amount of art (music/video/writing)? Probably, but in a day and age with our technology does it really make sense that publishers get billions of dollars (not going to the artists) for burning cd's and posting videos?
It's creepy and wrong to purposefully listen in on a conversation, but people in polite society still show discretion. You wouldn't talk about leaving your job in front of your boss's office, counting on the rules of polite society to make him deaf to your conversation right?
Likewise you shouldn't broadcast emails/passwords to everyone in a large radius, counting on the rules of polite society to shield you.
The incident with Google is unfortunate, but I still think this is just akin to something like filming a documentary in a city and forgetting to scrub the background noise.
Stocks in any form are gambling on the future of the company and it's leadership. Whether it's for an hour or a decade. There's really no guarantee that a company that's been around a hundred years will continue to be there. Lehman Brothers is a good example of that, in a lot of ways short term trading is safer. It's easier to predict what will happen in the next three days, than the next thirty years.
If someone is looking for a way to invest their money and "forget it" then I'd go with CD's.
Regulation comes at the cost of innovation and growth. I agree companies should be held accountable for their actions, as well as individuals and governments. But it's easy to get carried away, punishing the potential of someone doing something wrong, without giving people a chance, can be pretty stifling.
As far as EU governments go, with governments like Greece which misled the world on deficits and nearly triggered another financial collapse, not to mention an estimated 8% of their GDP going to corruption. No I don't think they qualify as a gold standard for trust, but they do regulate their businesses severely. Apparently it takes 15 steps in order to start a company in Greece, with up to months inbetween each one, all in the name of keeping corporations "safe."
As far as experts go, if you don't know any personally, they may seem to be impartial and high minded, but despite all the knowledge they're still just people - with petty prejudices, fears, desires, and other human traits.
So I think it's dangerous to forgo the right to evaluate information on the pretext of being "too dumb" In some situations you may need an expert to interpret the situation (preferably more than one), but after that you should be able to make a judgement about what to think.
Slashdot Mirror
Spending cuts do target Medicare, Social Security, and the like because they cost the most money. That's what happens when you have less money - you spend less. When things get better, you can spend more, it's a great incentive for creating wealth and a great reason not to stop that through taxation and other burdens.
Like raiding a farm for wheat that a rich farmer was planning to replant (example of the rich getting richer), you solved the temporary problem of feeding people and may feel like you added a dose of social equity. But the following year there'll be that much less food to go around, forcing prices up and making things even harder on the poor. Rich people are negatively effected too (the farmer makes less money) but the people that get really screwed are the ones at the bottom.
Let the farmer replant everything, there's more food available for everyone and prices go down. Of course it's more complicated then that, if someone's just hoarding wheat that screws everyone. But in general I think repealing the "tax breaks for the rich" will mean less investments going forward and less money available to the people (through jobs, grants, programs). So I really feel like it's just shooting ourselves in the foot.
Under a seven day return policy, someone can purchase a game, playing through it in a week, and then return it for a full refund. Unless you have a lot of content or are super addictive, this seems like it would kill most indie game developers. If I recall Google has a 30 minute return policy on apps.
All investment banks aren't equal, the practice of taking a bushel of money and investing it so start-ups can take off really benefits society, and you need smart people to make those decisions. Similarly having a mechanism for people to get loans to buy houses, attend college, and the like is also very beneficial.
It's just when you have "investors" that do things like create CDO's that are design to fail, so someone they can make a profit by shorting it, or lenders that exhort people into unreasonable rates, that bankers become evil.
Today everything becomes obsolete so fast, nobody wants to make a long term investment in a high tech device. But if we do reach a limit, and the advance of electronics grinds to a halt I think a whole new economic model will emerge. Where people will spend more money for higher quality items that they'll expect to last for a long time.
Like spending $12K on a device, but knowing it will be awesome for the next 15~20 years.
From a legal point of view I think the estate is wrong, but I can definitely understand having a dad like Tolkien and not wanting someone to make millions from a book that uses literary deconstruction, of all ways, to say your dad was messed up in one way or another. I'm being presumptuous but if in the end the book is just about shock value to drag Tolkien through the mud, that is kind of messed up.
I don't think being communist has anything to do with, but it is something to see a super power use "Top Gun" footage and represent it as actual footage of their military :D
There's still going to be lots of jobs in things like infrastructure, retail, the service industry, maintenance (bridges for example constantly need people working on them), and construction. Things that you can't outsource to other countries, and need a person to do.
But there's lots and lots of talented unemployed people out there, and I'd much rather see our leaders bring them jobs that let them use their full potential, then taking back jobs like assembling ipods.
Also in the big picture if the cafe down the street is surrounding by tech companies it's going to be way better off, then being surrounding by factories. If I'm a doctor I can afford to pay way more when remodeling my house. The whole system is able to benefit, and I don't think anyone is particularly left out.
"...it feels like we’re conceding manufacturing prowess to other nations. Since manufacturing fuels jobs, that’s a serious problem."
I disagree, the old manufacturing jobs were people manually assemble things just aren't going to be worth what the US expects as a good salary nowadays. We need high value jobs like engineering, IT, and medicine where training and education can shine through.
Well if I had stumbled upon a nickel-hydrogen combination that produces copper and energy I wouldn't spend a lot of time trying to convince the scientific community that it's real (since I'm not an academic). Instead I'd start implementing it and selling energy. Like if I discovered a room temperature super conductor but couldn't back up the physics behind it, I'd be more interested in putting my super-conductor to use, then going back and spending a decade on chalk-boards trying to figure out why it works.
:3
Anyways if this is a hoax (the reactor doesn't produce 8:1 energy with nickel-hydrogen fuel) it seems like the sort of thing that can be debunked pretty readily
I had the same reaction, but then I looked at their financials the most recent quarter alone had $20.3 billion in revenue (up from $12.3 billion last year), for comparison investment powerhouse Goldman Sachs made $10.7 billion, and Microsoft made $16.2 billion during the same period. I don't own any Apple products (and don't plan on buying them), and really have no idea why people are buying their stuff so much. But people are for whatever reason.
That being said I was watching a presentation on the PS3 being hacked, and noted while the researchers spent ~12 months to break in to Microsoft / Sony's (when they cared) stuff but it took them 11 days to jailbreak the iPhone, and 1 day to jailbreak the iPad so perhaps the lack of security will catch up to them. ( Link - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEFMAP0mTvY&feature=related )
Consumers have a ton of power as well, they could have chosen at any point simply not to buy cheap imported goods and it would've ended right then and there. It's only because hundreds of millions of people are buying those goods every week that the engine keeps going.
Likewise China's rise is largely due to a billion people working as hard as they can to make the country (and their own lives) the best it can be. If Americans (speaking in generalities) had the same resolve/objective world politics would be a lot different right now. But from my own experience, the vast majority of our work force is seeking to live a comfortable life while contributing as little as possible to the greater organization, citing rhetoric similar to the above, but toned down.
I don't really know what to say, if you have one group of people trying to be as lazy as possible, and another group of people trying to become as strong as possible. The latter will always win. Blaming corporations, capitalists, or politicians won't change that fact.
Honestly I think it would be good experience for everyone in the US to start a business, hire a bunch of employees, and see how fun it is to put up with a bunch people constantly shirking their responsibilities to go have fun, and then blaming you (as the immoral, omnipotent, profit-seeking, villain / business owner) for every bad thing that happens.
Google on average pays 20% in taxes, as stated in their earnings. Which is still pretty low, but nowhere near the 2.4% in the article.
I think that scientists, engineers, and researchers do incredibly valuable work and should be supported within reasonable ethical boundaries. But I think it's a mistake to take the current theories of the day as "The Truth" (they're so often over turned by later research), or believe that scientists are going to be immune from the influences of emotions, personal beliefs, ambitions, and their peers.
Rather than clinging to the old model, and try to intimidate people into using it, the industry needs to change figure alternative ways to get revenue for content.
Will it ultimately result in less money for the same amount of art (music/video/writing)? Probably, but in a day and age with our technology does it really make sense that publishers get billions of dollars (not going to the artists) for burning cd's and posting videos?
It's creepy and wrong to purposefully listen in on a conversation, but people in polite society still show discretion. You wouldn't talk about leaving your job in front of your boss's office, counting on the rules of polite society to make him deaf to your conversation right?
Likewise you shouldn't broadcast emails/passwords to everyone in a large radius, counting on the rules of polite society to shield you.
The incident with Google is unfortunate, but I still think this is just akin to something like filming a documentary in a city and forgetting to scrub the background noise.
You notice that Firefox has 360 million users, Chrome has 70 million users*, and IE has more than both of those combined.
*http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9177101/Firefox_trumps_Chrome_in_active_user_gains_Mozilla_director_argues
Stocks in any form are gambling on the future of the company and it's leadership. Whether it's for an hour or a decade. There's really no guarantee that a company that's been around a hundred years will continue to be there. Lehman Brothers is a good example of that, in a lot of ways short term trading is safer. It's easier to predict what will happen in the next three days, than the next thirty years.
If someone is looking for a way to invest their money and "forget it" then I'd go with CD's.
Regulation comes at the cost of innovation and growth. I agree companies should be held accountable for their actions, as well as individuals and governments. But it's easy to get carried away, punishing the potential of someone doing something wrong, without giving people a chance, can be pretty stifling.
As far as EU governments go, with governments like Greece which misled the world on deficits and nearly triggered another financial collapse, not to mention an estimated 8% of their GDP going to corruption. No I don't think they qualify as a gold standard for trust, but they do regulate their businesses severely. Apparently it takes 15 steps in order to start a company in Greece, with up to months inbetween each one, all in the name of keeping corporations "safe."
As far as experts go, if you don't know any personally, they may seem to be impartial and high minded, but despite all the knowledge they're still just people - with petty prejudices, fears, desires, and other human traits.
So I think it's dangerous to forgo the right to evaluate information on the pretext of being "too dumb" In some situations you may need an expert to interpret the situation (preferably more than one), but after that you should be able to make a judgement about what to think.