Colleges encourage students to take out massive loans, that are not discharged in bankruptcy, to pay for their education. As if by magic tuition increases rapidly.
While at the same time the NCAA won't allow college athletes to be paid any of the billions in revenue they create for their schools. The money would be bad for them.
Clearly colleges are fine with a student in debt, but not one getting paid. Sad.
If there is no US debt, implying no need for Treasury bonds, that means there's nothing as clearly stable as Treasury bonds for people to invest in?
The way you "fixed" the quote is patently untrue. IBM one month commercial paper is much more stable than a Treasury bond (note the term bond means maturity greater than 10 years).
Sure IBM has minutely more credit risk, but the interest rate risk (duration) of the Treasury bond far exceeds the IBM paper. Thus, the Treasury bond is a much more unstable (risky) security.
You could then say, well a Treasury is more stable than any security of the same maturity. I would also say that is effectively untrue. A Treasury bond has no default risk, but only because we assume the Fed would print money to enable the Treasury to make the interest payments. But if the Fed does that we get high inflation which is the very definition of economic instability. So buying a Treasury can only be said to be stable with respect to securities in the denominated in the same currency .
A much safer option would be to buy corporate bonds denominated in many currencies, e.g. buy a Toyota bond in yen, an Rio Tinto one in British pounds and maybe Aussie dollars, a Vale in Brazilian reals, etc. This way you would have marginally more credit risk, but you've diversified away not only the risk the dollar will lose its value, but also risk of a single country's economic growth slowing, thereby lowering total risk.
Lastly, you could say that there are not enough of these corporate bonds. Well that may be because government issues crowd out the market. Companies may borrow more and grow if the US government wasn't demanding $1 trillion per year in funds.
In sum, the underlying article, and analysis, are unimaginative at best.
The protesters have been clear that the main goal of the movement is taking back, and protecting, our representative democracy. They have stated that to do so we need publicly financed elections. This means striking down the 'Citizens United' decision which allows entities to contribute unlimited amounts of money to campaigns. I fully support this goal.
I would only add that (1) we need preferential voting, and (2) we need paper trails on votes and clear auditing procedures - the electronic voting machines are way to easy to crack.
The reason why both the corporation and the stock owners are taxed is because they are separate entities. This structure affords stockholders limited liability - stockholders aren't liable for company debts. If you give up limited liability (partnership or sole proprietorship) then you are no different than the firm and you only get taxed once.
So complaining about double-taxation is disingenuous, considering you choose the corporate form for limited liability.
Lastly, quoting a corporate tax rate is misleading when many large firms (through tax credits and grants) actually receive money from the federal government, see corporate welfare and the quote from wikipedia below. Of course this doesn't even count the billions to financial companies through bailouts and the fed's zero interest rate policy.
"In March 2011, The New York Times reported that despite earning $14.2 billion in worldwide profits, including more than $5 billion from U.S. operations, General Electric did not owe taxes in 2010. General Electric had a tax benefit of $3.2 billion."
If I understand correctly, it seems nvidia was concerned it wouldn't be able to deliver the chips that microsoft wanted in a timely manner. So microsoft paid $200 million up front, for anticipated chip purchases, with only the possibility of getting $100 million back if they decided to cancel (the rest would be converted into preferred stock). This would give nvidia $200 million to use to develop the chip, and they would only have to pay back $100 million if they couldn't. In exchange for the $200 million up front microsoft got the right of first and last refusal with respect to any offer for 30% or more of nvidia.
Nope. Previous research concluded Titan's body consists of about half rock and half water ice. They are saying some of that water ice is actually liquid. They aren't assuming anything, but rather just building on prior research like normal.
Yep, I think the internal heat is tidally generated like Europa. Saturn's gravity stretches Titan at some times more than others, and this stretching causes friction and generates internal heat.
there is an 'if' in there but its too obvious so its usually not written. Note, 'for all' does this too (and the 'for all' notation is everywhere in analysis). Define a new function, domain is the real line:
f(x) = 1, for all x belonging to the rationals, and 0 else.
As to 'next', for integer n, the next is n+1. Pretty common (see mathematical induction).
As to the concept of 'next' for irrational and rational numbers: 'next' doesn't exist.
The USPS had an operating loss of 8 billion in 2010. This has nothing to do with pensions. The USPS operates at a loss and borrows from the Treasury (taxpayer) to fund its operations.
If you think the USPS is fine then I suppose you would support privatizing it and cutting it off from the Treasury? If the USPS is so solid let it go to the capital markets for funds.
The USPS is borrowing money at below market rates from the US Treasury. Because of our deficits (less tax income than expenses) the US Treasury gets the money to lend to the USPS from issuing Treasury debt.
So the US debt is larger because of the USPS and this statement of yours "Whether or not the USPS exists has absolutely no effect on the national debt." is completely wrong.
So it's purpose is to deliver mail to rural places? If that's the reason why do we need a federal agency that delivers mail everywhere? Why not a mail delivery agency that solely serves people in areas to which private companies won't deliver?
The CBO estimates we'll (the US) run deficits totaling 10 trillion between now and 2021. (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12103) We shouldn't be creating makework for government employees. Just shut down the USPS - it's useless.
I am becoming convinced that there is no way the national debt can actually be repaid; monetization is the only possible outcome.
The Toshiba 4S is a reactor with a 10 MW capacity. The peak summer load in New England is 28,130 MW (see link below). So you would need 2,813 of these reactors. Get 50% of New England's power from nukes and thats still 1406.5. Whats the cost to protect them by the way?
Sure, its the next best thing for Galena Alaska. For national energy policy, this is completely irrelevant.
The President had nothing to do with the carrier moving. If the Reagan's captain feels it is unsafe he/she dictates where the ship goes. The President may set the goal - 'go to Japan and assist' - for example. The execution is left to commanders.
If the President is standing on the bridge of the Regan, he cannot direct the operation of the ship whatsoever.
The 33% return you note is only capital gains (which is certainly a nice return). But I think the real sweetness is that prior to the spill BP paid an $0.84 quarterly dividend (BP was forced to stop paying it). If they reinstate the dividend at the same $0.84, BP's yield will be ($0.84*4)/$46.03 = 7.3%.
I think BP will reinstate its $0.84 dividend sometime in 2011. So if you buy now you can earn 7.3% per year (excluding capital gains) for the rest of your life. Not too bad in a world where the 30-year bond yields 4.5%.
Also keep in mind dividends are now taxed lower than interest. So on an after-tax basis (say at the 28% bracket) the difference is:
BP dividend: 7.3%*(1-0.15) = 6.21% Treasury yield: 4.5%*(1-.28) = 3.24%
...is that microsoft actually has 9%. Am I the only one who thought that Kin commercial (where the dude takes pictures of his ex-girlfriend) was super creepy?
When CA deregulated they: 1. left PG&E and So Cal Ed responsible for electricity distribution to the consumer. 2. sold much of the power generating capacity to private companies. 3. didn't cap the price So Cal Ed and PG&E had to pay the power producers for electricity 4. capped the price So Cal Ed and PG&E could charge the consumer; but they capped it well above the present price.
So what did the the private companies do; reduce power production to increase the price they could charge PG&E and So Cal Ed. This increased the retail price to the cap (your doubling). The wholesale price (to PGE & So Cal Ed) increased beyond the cap but they could't pass on the price increases (so no longer reduced power demand!) => blackout.
"It's curious that you mention bread here. So what's the proposed free market solution to those lines, then - price the bread higher so that some of the poorer people forming those lines couldn't afford to buy it at all?"
There is a drought and the price of wheat increases which causes the price of bread to increase. Some consumers switch from bread to rice (or rice based bread). This decreases the demand for wheat lowering the wheat and bread price.
It is this freedom to switch products which ensures the most efficient grain (wheat, rice,...) is used.
If the government mandates which grain is used then: drought => shortage of wheat, but they cant raise the price of bread => demand stays the same with reduced supply => shortage and breadline. Wheat is used regardless of its efficiency until...... the pencil pushers in the 'economic security directorate' say so.
Make no mistake, the poor are better off (and much better fed) in a free market. There is no better evidence really than American waistlines...
This is exactly right. Free market => prices set by the interaction of many individuals with no central control. Government control => prices set by an all powerful monopoly.
I am surprised the/. comments are overwhelmingly in favor of the monopoly. Maybe the following quote by Hayek is apt:
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design".
Your prices are lower because most of your power is from hydroelectric plants. It has nothing to do with your 'co-op' system. Hydro and coal are cheap. In states without hydro, and regulations on coal => higher prices.
Whoa whoa whoa...CA deregulated the wholesale market but not the retail rates. The retail rates were set too low and when the wholesale price increased => blackout - If it costs me $30 to buy a MWh but CA says I have to turn around and sell it for $5 I'll just leave the market. Sure the enron dudes took advantage of CA's idiotic move but thats to be expected. Your politicians left you with your pants down. Elect better politicians, then deregulate.
Prices are set in free markets by the interaction of thousands of self-interested individuals. The market price is controlled by no one entity. Further the market price serves as a signal to energy suppliers and consumers. If the price of electricity rises consumers should buy products that consume less electricity (say more efficient computers). Thus the market price organizes society.
In a rate-regulated system one entity (politicians which may be bought) controls the price - this is antithetical to freedom (see F.A. Hayek). Also, if the politicians put the price too low, more electricity is demanded than can be supplied (this is why there were bread lines in the USSR). Further, consumers don't receive the signal to switch to more energy efficient products, which exacerbates the problem.
The most economically efficient electricity market is one with, "bid-based, security-constrained, economic dispatch with nodal prices" - William Hogan, Harvard
Electric grids need constant management to ensure there is sufficient generation to meet the load (we don't store the electricity). If generation is insufficient you'll have to dispatch an intermediate load plant (generally natural gas). All this is done by regional the Independent System Operator (ISO) (nordpool in scandanavia; nepool, caiso, pjm, etc in the US). The real cooperation is in integrating the electricity coming out of the sahara into these regional grids. As the amount varies the ISOs will have to dispatch or turn off plants. If they don't know that the amount they receive from the sahara is about to change: blackout. It's definitely doable, but thats the tricky cooperation issue. Whats with the 100 million yen though; that's a rounding error.
Slashdot Mirror
Colleges encourage students to take out massive loans, that are not discharged in bankruptcy, to pay for their education. As if by magic tuition increases rapidly.
While at the same time the NCAA won't allow college athletes to be paid any of the billions in revenue they create for their schools. The money would be bad for them.
Clearly colleges are fine with a student in debt, but not one getting paid. Sad.
If there is no US debt, implying no need for Treasury bonds, that means there's nothing as clearly stable as Treasury bonds for people to invest in?
The way you "fixed" the quote is patently untrue. IBM one month commercial paper is much more stable than a Treasury bond (note the term bond means maturity greater than 10 years).
Sure IBM has minutely more credit risk, but the interest rate risk (duration) of the Treasury bond far exceeds the IBM paper. Thus, the Treasury bond is a much more unstable (risky) security.
You could then say, well a Treasury is more stable than any security of the same maturity. I would also say that is effectively untrue. A Treasury bond has no default risk, but only because we assume the Fed would print money to enable the Treasury to make the interest payments. But if the Fed does that we get high inflation which is the very definition of economic instability. So buying a Treasury can only be said to be stable with respect to securities in the denominated in the same currency .
A much safer option would be to buy corporate bonds denominated in many currencies, e.g. buy a Toyota bond in yen, an Rio Tinto one in British pounds and maybe Aussie dollars, a Vale in Brazilian reals, etc. This way you would have marginally more credit risk, but you've diversified away not only the risk the dollar will lose its value, but also risk of a single country's economic growth slowing, thereby lowering total risk.
Lastly, you could say that there are not enough of these corporate bonds. Well that may be because government issues crowd out the market. Companies may borrow more and grow if the US government wasn't demanding $1 trillion per year in funds.
In sum, the underlying article, and analysis, are unimaginative at best.
The protesters have been clear that the main goal of the movement is taking back, and protecting, our representative democracy. They have stated that to do so we need publicly financed elections. This means striking down the 'Citizens United' decision which allows entities to contribute unlimited amounts of money to campaigns. I fully support this goal.
I would only add that (1) we need preferential voting, and (2) we need paper trails on votes and clear auditing procedures - the electronic voting machines are way to easy to crack.
The reason why both the corporation and the stock owners are taxed is because they are separate entities. This structure affords stockholders limited liability - stockholders aren't liable for company debts. If you give up limited liability (partnership or sole proprietorship) then you are no different than the firm and you only get taxed once.
So complaining about double-taxation is disingenuous, considering you choose the corporate form for limited liability.
Lastly, quoting a corporate tax rate is misleading when many large firms (through tax credits and grants) actually receive money from the federal government, see corporate welfare and the quote from wikipedia below. Of course this doesn't even count the billions to financial companies through bailouts and the fed's zero interest rate policy.
"In March 2011, The New York Times reported that despite earning $14.2 billion in worldwide profits, including more than $5 billion from U.S. operations, General Electric did not owe taxes in 2010. General Electric had a tax benefit of $3.2 billion."
A summary of the agreement is in the 10-Q here under '8. Microsoft Agreement': http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000101287000004766/0001012870-00-004766-0001.txt
If I understand correctly, it seems nvidia was concerned it wouldn't be able to deliver the chips that microsoft wanted in a timely manner. So microsoft paid $200 million up front, for anticipated chip purchases, with only the possibility of getting $100 million back if they decided to cancel (the rest would be converted into preferred stock). This would give nvidia $200 million to use to develop the chip, and they would only have to pay back $100 million if they couldn't. In exchange for the $200 million up front microsoft got the right of first and last refusal with respect to any offer for 30% or more of nvidia.
So they assumed the moon had a water ocean
Nope. Previous research concluded Titan's body consists of about half rock and half water ice. They are saying some of that water ice is actually liquid. They aren't assuming anything, but rather just building on prior research like normal.
Yep, I think the internal heat is tidally generated like Europa. Saturn's gravity stretches Titan at some times more than others, and this stretching causes friction and generates internal heat.
Define a function:
f(x) = 1, x > 0, and 0 else.
there is an 'if' in there but its too obvious so its usually not written. Note, 'for all' does this too (and the 'for all' notation is everywhere in analysis). Define a new function, domain is the real line:
f(x) = 1, for all x belonging to the rationals, and 0 else.
As to 'next', for integer n, the next is n+1. Pretty common (see mathematical induction).
As to the concept of 'next' for irrational and rational numbers: 'next' doesn't exist.
The USPS had an operating loss of 8 billion in 2010. This has nothing to do with pensions. The USPS operates at a loss and borrows from the Treasury (taxpayer) to fund its operations.
If you think the USPS is fine then I suppose you would support privatizing it and cutting it off from the Treasury? If the USPS is so solid let it go to the capital markets for funds.
The USPS is borrowing money at below market rates from the US Treasury. Because of our deficits (less tax income than expenses) the US Treasury gets the money to lend to the USPS from issuing Treasury debt.
So the US debt is larger because of the USPS and this statement of yours "Whether or not the USPS exists has absolutely no effect on the national debt." is completely wrong.
Lastly, cool it with the name-calling.
So it's purpose is to deliver mail to rural places? If that's the reason why do we need a federal agency that delivers mail everywhere? Why not a mail delivery agency that solely serves people in areas to which private companies won't deliver?
The CBO estimates we'll (the US) run deficits totaling 10 trillion between now and 2021. (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12103) We shouldn't be creating makework for government employees. Just shut down the USPS - it's useless.
I am becoming convinced that there is no way the national debt can actually be repaid; monetization is the only possible outcome.
Will this prove to be a significant step in finally tracking them down and taking their gold? Let's hope so, they've fooled us too long.
The Toshiba 4S is a reactor with a 10 MW capacity. The peak summer load in New England is 28,130 MW (see link below). So you would need 2,813 of these reactors. Get 50% of New England's power from nukes and thats still 1406.5. Whats the cost to protect them by the way?
Sure, its the next best thing for Galena Alaska. For national energy policy, this is completely irrelevant.
http://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/mkt-electric/new-england.asp#gen
The President had nothing to do with the carrier moving. If the Reagan's captain feels it is unsafe he/she dictates where the ship goes. The President may set the goal - 'go to Japan and assist' - for example. The execution is left to commanders.
If the President is standing on the bridge of the Regan, he cannot direct the operation of the ship whatsoever.
The 33% return you note is only capital gains (which is certainly a nice return). But I think the real sweetness is that prior to the spill BP paid an $0.84 quarterly dividend (BP was forced to stop paying it). If they reinstate the dividend at the same $0.84, BP's yield will be ($0.84*4)/$46.03 = 7.3%.
I think BP will reinstate its $0.84 dividend sometime in 2011. So if you buy now you can earn 7.3% per year (excluding capital gains) for the rest of your life. Not too bad in a world where the 30-year bond yields 4.5%.
Also keep in mind dividends are now taxed lower than interest. So on an after-tax basis (say at the 28% bracket) the difference is:
BP dividend: 7.3%*(1-0.15) = 6.21%
Treasury yield: 4.5%*(1-.28) = 3.24%
a little less than double the return.
Of course, if BP repeats itself......
...is that microsoft actually has 9%. Am I the only one who thought that Kin commercial (where the dude takes pictures of his ex-girlfriend) was super creepy?
Electing better politicians should be fairly easy given the ones they have now! But it is CA...
When CA deregulated they:
1. left PG&E and So Cal Ed responsible for electricity distribution to the consumer.
2. sold much of the power generating capacity to private companies.
3. didn't cap the price So Cal Ed and PG&E had to pay the power producers for electricity
4. capped the price So Cal Ed and PG&E could charge the consumer; but they capped it well above the present price.
So what did the the private companies do; reduce power production to increase the price they could charge PG&E and So Cal Ed. This increased the retail price to the cap (your doubling). The wholesale price (to PGE & So Cal Ed) increased beyond the cap but they could't pass on the price increases (so no longer reduced power demand!) => blackout.
The deregulation plan was completely flawed.
"It's curious that you mention bread here. So what's the proposed free market solution to those lines, then - price the bread higher so that some of the poorer people forming those lines couldn't afford to buy it at all?"
There is a drought and the price of wheat increases which causes the price of bread to increase. Some consumers switch from bread to rice (or rice based bread). This decreases the demand for wheat lowering the wheat and bread price.
It is this freedom to switch products which ensures the most efficient grain (wheat, rice,...) is used.
If the government mandates which grain is used then: drought => shortage of wheat, but they cant raise the price of bread => demand stays the same with reduced supply => shortage and breadline. Wheat is used regardless of its efficiency until... ... the pencil pushers in the 'economic security directorate' say so.
Make no mistake, the poor are better off (and much better fed) in a free market. There is no better evidence really than American waistlines...
This is exactly right. Free market => prices set by the interaction of many individuals with no central control. Government control => prices set by an all powerful monopoly.
I am surprised the /. comments are overwhelmingly in favor of the monopoly. Maybe the following quote by Hayek is apt:
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design".
Your prices are lower because most of your power is from hydroelectric plants. It has nothing to do with your 'co-op' system. Hydro and coal are cheap. In states without hydro, and regulations on coal => higher prices.
Whoa whoa whoa...CA deregulated the wholesale market but not the retail rates. The retail rates were set too low and when the wholesale price increased => blackout - If it costs me $30 to buy a MWh but CA says I have to turn around and sell it for $5 I'll just leave the market. Sure the enron dudes took advantage of CA's idiotic move but thats to be expected. Your politicians left you with your pants down. Elect better politicians, then deregulate.
Prices are set in free markets by the interaction of thousands of self-interested individuals. The market price is controlled by no one entity. Further the market price serves as a signal to energy suppliers and consumers. If the price of electricity rises consumers should buy products that consume less electricity (say more efficient computers). Thus the market price organizes society.
In a rate-regulated system one entity (politicians which may be bought) controls the price - this is antithetical to freedom (see F.A. Hayek). Also, if the politicians put the price too low, more electricity is demanded than can be supplied (this is why there were bread lines in the USSR). Further, consumers don't receive the signal to switch to more energy efficient products, which exacerbates the problem.
The most economically efficient electricity market is one with, "bid-based, security-constrained, economic dispatch with nodal prices" - William Hogan, Harvard
Electric grids need constant management to ensure there is sufficient generation to meet the load (we don't store the electricity). If generation is insufficient you'll have to dispatch an intermediate load plant (generally natural gas). All this is done by regional the Independent System Operator (ISO) (nordpool in scandanavia; nepool, caiso, pjm, etc in the US). The real cooperation is in integrating the electricity coming out of the sahara into these regional grids. As the amount varies the ISOs will have to dispatch or turn off plants. If they don't know that the amount they receive from the sahara is about to change: blackout. It's definitely doable, but thats the tricky cooperation issue. Whats with the 100 million yen though; that's a rounding error.