But in a Ponzi scheme there are no assets. The government has 'invested' all those early SS contributions. So why not sell off a few of those investments to pay back the people who are now expecting some return for their SS payments? I'm sure China would be happy to buy an aircraft carrier or two and there should be plenty of buyers for the drones and stealth fighters.
Sure the Republicans are willing to slash government programs, but only those that benefit the majority. They are completely unwilling to slash things like defense, which is just like a black hole- the more you spend the more it will want to just maintain it's arsenal. And since the Republicans are unwilling to raise taxes for anyone - even people that are exploiting the loopholes you mentioned, the debt will continue to go up. Now the Democrats aren't much better on the spending front - cutting a bit of everything, but not enough to balance the budget on it's own. However they do want to raise revenues by not extending some of the tax cuts on the rich, so they may eventually get to the point of having a balanced budget (perhaps even before the heat death of the universe).
Wouldn't going over the cliff solve that problem for the Republicans? The tax increases happen without them voting for them. Then they can start voting for tax decreases with a clear conscience.
Now I agree with you that government spending is out of control, but why do you consider SS and Medicare as stealing? Aren't they more like repayment of a loan? The people who receive them paid into SS their entire working lives. Now they are getting some of that money back. What makes this any different then interest paid by the government? Also, how would you fund the 50% of the government you want to keep without taxes (since you want to abolish those)? Donations?
But saving that money may stunt the growth of your economy, or even drive it into a recession. Let's say the government stops spending so much on defense. That may cause a few companies to lose their only customer, pushing them into bankruptcy. Those companies had workers, which are now out of a job. The local supermarket now has customers with no cash, so it has to scale down operations, laying off even more people. This chain reaction can cause the economy to shrink by a lot more then the government spending cuts, especially if the cuts are fast - the companies don't have the time to adapt and find new customers.
The end result could be that decreasing spending leads to increased debt (through lower tax revenue).
There was a deal, but it was reached in the senate. Now the house has to approve it. In a way it would actually be better if no deal is reached on the whole package. Since that would mean an automatic tax raise/spending cut, any further laws would all be easier for the Republicans to swallow - no need for them to go against their promises not to raise taxes.
Well your first statement is correct, that nations that are based more on trade and production are the ones that are the richest. But at the same time your caveman neighbor can conquer you if you don't spend money on an army. Sure it won't make him rich for long, but it will also destroy you. So as long as not every nation in the work is 'sane', arms races will kind of necessary for survival.
Wasn't the justification for the US/USSR arms race the desire to have the other guy bankrupt himself through overspending on the military? And it worked. The Soviet Union did spend itself into oblivion. Unfortunately the US didn't notice that and continued to spend vastly too much money on it's military, while starting a few wars to stop it's soldiers from feeling to bored.
Didn't it show that republicans can't even seriously negotiate with other republicans? The democrats at least haven't (as far as I know) rejected proposals from their own side.
Why not let it be up to the parents. Let them make up any value judgements on their own genes. And if they decide their genes are 'defective', they can always adopt.
But how do you define consent when the patient is mentally ill? With many disorders, getting them 'stable' requires quite a few drugs. So what makes that consent any different from drugging up your annoying roommate and asking him if he wants some electroshock therapy. ('Yeah sure, whatever you say giant squirrel.').
But if you think about this it's actually a pretty lousy argument. It makes your conception the most important fact in history. Think how many other IFs you could justify just to make yourself happen. 'If your mother hadn't been raped, you wouldn't have happened. If your father hadn't had one of his balls shot off you wouldn't have happened. If Hitler hadn't existed your parents wouldn't have met. If Nagasaki hadn't been bombed the celebration of the end of the war would have been a day later so you wouldn't have happened,.......' Once you start thinking like that EVERYTHING that happened becomes a good thing, since it resulted in the miracle of YOU. So why not look at it without such selfish thought. If your parents filtered out that gene, they would have had the child without that gene. That's it.
So can we also chop off the hands of convicted thieves and rip out the tongues of white collar offenders? Those guys are also likely to repeat their offenses, so we should make it more difficult for them.
Good idea. And since the fee goes to the company, the traders can't complain as much about the 'tax', since it should increase the value of the stocks.
Saying something like that would likely get her beaten and maybe even maimed/killed. It's hard for a woman to assert power in a culture where she is little more then property of her husband. I guess she could kill him while he slept, but unless she managed to coordinate her actions with all the other women in the village/city, that would still get her killed.
So how would you tax corporations giving loans to their owners, then 'forgetting' to demand repayment? Or just charging 0.1% interest for 100 years.
There are plenty of ways to move money from a corporation into private hands, and most of them are not easily taxable. There is also the problem of the location of owners. Suddenly every major stockholder will be a citizen of the cayman islands, paying no taxes (aside from a small bribe to the local government). So corporations will be free to exploit US infrastructure and services, but give back even less then they do now.
That's because the bats can't hide herds of cattle in their larder, while sharing the blood of the starved mouse they found on their way back to the cave.
But the scenario you described only happens when there is an IPO, or when a company subsequently releases shares. If you invest in a company before it's IPO you'd better have a damn good lawyer to make sure your investment isn't diluted to nothing.
And nearly all trades that happen on the stock market are just people trading the lottery tickets they'd bought. The company they are supposedly investing in doesn't see a cent of it.
And what exactly is the difference between unrestrained capitalism and anarchy? Can you have an economic system when the only law that matters is the one you can enforce yourself? In such a system Prenda wouldn't try to sue you. They'd hire a few mercs and have them kill you and take your stuff.
Well if you're looking for a successor to Ultima, then don't look at FPS games. Try Morrowind or Skyrim. I think they have just about everything Ultima had (well except detailed bread baking and hunger).
And a small government will be any better at collecting taxes from big corporations? Sure they'll need to collect less money, but don't expect them to lower taxes for individuals. Less funding for the IRS will just lead to even more corporations implementing similar tax avoidance schemes, since the chance of being audited will be near zero. And since there will be more money left over, our corporate overlords will be able to bribe even more politicians (well bribe each of them more).
No, but they were no more messed up then people now - you know, go work in the fields, take care of the livestock, burn the occasional witch,.. It was the nobility that liked to play RTSs using their serfs. And those guys weren't exactly raised in their parent's bedrooms.
Nah, we'll need to give them a bit more thrust before they become useful. Considering the fighter itself has no life support, the pilot will be dead before he gets to above walking pace if we use the current model.
That was mostly the rich people who lived in big houses with plenty of rooms for privacy. The people the GP described were the guy the rich then killed for fun and profit.
Why compare a fairly basic murder with 'extreme' porn (is that even still porn?)? If we're going for extremes, then I guess a person slowly being flayed for hours, then roasted over an open fire while their children are decapitated in front of them would be the equivalent to 2 girls 1 cup. And I'd pick the 2 girls if I had a choice, thank you very much.
Slashdot Mirror
But in a Ponzi scheme there are no assets. The government has 'invested' all those early SS contributions. So why not sell off a few of those investments to pay back the people who are now expecting some return for their SS payments? I'm sure China would be happy to buy an aircraft carrier or two and there should be plenty of buyers for the drones and stealth fighters.
Sure the Republicans are willing to slash government programs, but only those that benefit the majority. They are completely unwilling to slash things like defense, which is just like a black hole- the more you spend the more it will want to just maintain it's arsenal.
And since the Republicans are unwilling to raise taxes for anyone - even people that are exploiting the loopholes you mentioned, the debt will continue to go up.
Now the Democrats aren't much better on the spending front - cutting a bit of everything, but not enough to balance the budget on it's own. However they do want to raise revenues by not extending some of the tax cuts on the rich, so they may eventually get to the point of having a balanced budget (perhaps even before the heat death of the universe).
Wouldn't going over the cliff solve that problem for the Republicans? The tax increases happen without them voting for them. Then they can start voting for tax decreases with a clear conscience.
Now I agree with you that government spending is out of control, but why do you consider SS and Medicare as stealing? Aren't they more like repayment of a loan? The people who receive them paid into SS their entire working lives. Now they are getting some of that money back. What makes this any different then interest paid by the government?
Also, how would you fund the 50% of the government you want to keep without taxes (since you want to abolish those)? Donations?
But saving that money may stunt the growth of your economy, or even drive it into a recession. Let's say the government stops spending so much on defense. That may cause a few companies to lose their only customer, pushing them into bankruptcy. Those companies had workers, which are now out of a job. The local supermarket now has customers with no cash, so it has to scale down operations, laying off even more people. This chain reaction can cause the economy to shrink by a lot more then the government spending cuts, especially if the cuts are fast - the companies don't have the time to adapt and find new customers.
The end result could be that decreasing spending leads to increased debt (through lower tax revenue).
There was a deal, but it was reached in the senate. Now the house has to approve it. In a way it would actually be better if no deal is reached on the whole package. Since that would mean an automatic tax raise/spending cut, any further laws would all be easier for the Republicans to swallow - no need for them to go against their promises not to raise taxes.
Well your first statement is correct, that nations that are based more on trade and production are the ones that are the richest. But at the same time your caveman neighbor can conquer you if you don't spend money on an army. Sure it won't make him rich for long, but it will also destroy you. So as long as not every nation in the work is 'sane', arms races will kind of necessary for survival.
Wasn't the justification for the US/USSR arms race the desire to have the other guy bankrupt himself through overspending on the military? And it worked. The Soviet Union did spend itself into oblivion. Unfortunately the US didn't notice that and continued to spend vastly too much money on it's military, while starting a few wars to stop it's soldiers from feeling to bored.
Didn't it show that republicans can't even seriously negotiate with other republicans? The democrats at least haven't (as far as I know) rejected proposals from their own side.
Why not let it be up to the parents. Let them make up any value judgements on their own genes. And if they decide their genes are 'defective', they can always adopt.
But how do you define consent when the patient is mentally ill? With many disorders, getting them 'stable' requires quite a few drugs. So what makes that consent any different from drugging up your annoying roommate and asking him if he wants some electroshock therapy. ('Yeah sure, whatever you say giant squirrel.').
But if you think about this it's actually a pretty lousy argument. It makes your conception the most important fact in history. Think how many other IFs you could justify just to make yourself happen. 'If your mother hadn't been raped, you wouldn't have happened. If your father hadn't had one of his balls shot off you wouldn't have happened. If Hitler hadn't existed your parents wouldn't have met. If Nagasaki hadn't been bombed the celebration of the end of the war would have been a day later so you wouldn't have happened,.......' Once you start thinking like that EVERYTHING that happened becomes a good thing, since it resulted in the miracle of YOU. So why not look at it without such selfish thought. If your parents filtered out that gene, they would have had the child without that gene. That's it.
So can we also chop off the hands of convicted thieves and rip out the tongues of white collar offenders? Those guys are also likely to repeat their offenses, so we should make it more difficult for them.
Good idea. And since the fee goes to the company, the traders can't complain as much about the 'tax', since it should increase the value of the stocks.
Yeah, India just has to worry about the rape-murdering savages.
Saying something like that would likely get her beaten and maybe even maimed/killed. It's hard for a woman to assert power in a culture where she is little more then property of her husband. I guess she could kill him while he slept, but unless she managed to coordinate her actions with all the other women in the village/city, that would still get her killed.
So how would you tax corporations giving loans to their owners, then 'forgetting' to demand repayment? Or just charging 0.1% interest for 100 years.
There are plenty of ways to move money from a corporation into private hands, and most of them are not easily taxable. There is also the problem of the location of owners. Suddenly every major stockholder will be a citizen of the cayman islands, paying no taxes (aside from a small bribe to the local government). So corporations will be free to exploit US infrastructure and services, but give back even less then they do now.
That's because the bats can't hide herds of cattle in their larder, while sharing the blood of the starved mouse they found on their way back to the cave.
But the scenario you described only happens when there is an IPO, or when a company subsequently releases shares. If you invest in a company before it's IPO you'd better have a damn good lawyer to make sure your investment isn't diluted to nothing.
And nearly all trades that happen on the stock market are just people trading the lottery tickets they'd bought. The company they are supposedly investing in doesn't see a cent of it.
And what exactly is the difference between unrestrained capitalism and anarchy? Can you have an economic system when the only law that matters is the one you can enforce yourself?
In such a system Prenda wouldn't try to sue you. They'd hire a few mercs and have them kill you and take your stuff.
Well if you're looking for a successor to Ultima, then don't look at FPS games. Try Morrowind or Skyrim. I think they have just about everything Ultima had (well except detailed bread baking and hunger).
And a small government will be any better at collecting taxes from big corporations?
Sure they'll need to collect less money, but don't expect them to lower taxes for individuals. Less funding for the IRS will just lead to even more corporations implementing similar tax avoidance schemes, since the chance of being audited will be near zero.
And since there will be more money left over, our corporate overlords will be able to bribe even more politicians (well bribe each of them more).
No, but they were no more messed up then people now - you know, go work in the fields, take care of the livestock, burn the occasional witch,..
It was the nobility that liked to play RTSs using their serfs. And those guys weren't exactly raised in their parent's bedrooms.
Nah, we'll need to give them a bit more thrust before they become useful. Considering the fighter itself has no life support, the pilot will be dead before he gets to above walking pace if we use the current model.
That was mostly the rich people who lived in big houses with plenty of rooms for privacy. The people the GP described were the guy the rich then killed for fun and profit.
Why compare a fairly basic murder with 'extreme' porn (is that even still porn?)? If we're going for extremes, then I guess a person slowly being flayed for hours, then roasted over an open fire while their children are decapitated in front of them would be the equivalent to 2 girls 1 cup. And I'd pick the 2 girls if I had a choice, thank you very much.