Saying that someone is biased is not an Ad Hominem fallacy.
Of course it is! You cannot invalidate a study by simply declaring a person is biased. Unless you can demonstrate a flaw in the study, the data stands, regardless of the positions of those who created it.
Christ, that's the very definition of an ad hominem fallacy!
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977 has encouraged lenders to give credit to surrounding communities, particularly low and moderate income neighborhoods.
The CRA had virtually nothing to do with subprime. This has been debunked repeatedly, by others as well as myself. If you still can't understand that, there's no hope for you.
The outpooring of federal money into companies such as AIG is anything but a hands-off policy
And this has to do with the economic collapse, which happened before the bailout, how?
On that same note, the money from the $700b bailout...
And this has to do with the economic collapse, which happened before the bailout, how?
Libertarians were harping on Fannie and Freddie back in 2003
Given that Freddie and Fannie were barely exposed to subprime prior to 2k7, I'm not sure what your point is. F&F had little do with the subprime, and it's a conservative fantasy to suggest otherwise.
Sarbanes-Oxley was supposed solve the most pressing problem at the time: accounting fraud. The SEC had its budget doubled, new laws imposed stiff fines and lengthy prison times were threatened. However, legislators were behind the curve and new problems emerged precisely because of our regulating authority's encouragement of unsound banking practices.
Bullshit. It's because they didn't regulate them in the first place. Let me introduce you to the unregulated, multi-trillion-dollar, collapsing CDS market. Or the repeal of the Glass-Steagal.
And then there's the Fed, which, with its low interest rates and steady supply of new credit, encouraged the housing boom.
Yup, can't deny that. OTOH, all that did was create the hunger for high-yield investment vehicles. The government then left the market to invent ways to magically get 30% return on investments based on subprime mortgages. ie, they left the market alone to invest how they saw fit, and they ran us off a cliff.
Or, to put it another way: unregulated financial markets *don't work*, which is what Alan Greenspan, cheerleader of laissez-faire economics, was forced to admit.
Oh like when they got elected in 2006 to end the war and then they didn't?
Let me introduce you to the term "filibuster". Now consider that the democrats would have *never been able to pass* a bill in the Senate that would involve drawing down the war in Iraq. Oh, and the president would have vetoed it in any case.
But let me guess... you still blame the democrats?
No, Greenspan's policies of artificially low interest rates after the dotcom bust and after 9/11 primed the pump like crazy. That was the main cause of the real estate bubble.
Sorry, buddy, but low interest rates didn't force these companies to issue bad, or in some cases, outright fraudulent loans. It didn't force tthem into sky-high leverage ratios. It didn't force them to participate in the unregulated house of cards that is the CDS market. It didn't force them to trust the (IMHO fraudulent) rates from the likes of S&P. *Nothing* forced them to do these things, aside from unchecked greed. They did it of their own accord, and ran the entire financial system off a cliff as a consequence.
Excellent response! While I do disagree with your assessment to some degree (I think your take on Europe is based more on personal and cultural bias rather than fact), your conclusion is, IMHO, spot on.
Both of the major party candidates have the problem that they view the problems of the economy as something that can be fixed by spending money they don't have. The more the government intervenes, the worse for the economy in the long term.
They were wrong. part of the problem is Government intrusion into the market. The market should be allowed to determine what lives and what dies
What the hell do you think Greenspan did? Jesus fucking christ, that was his *entire policy*! And now what does he say? "Oh, sorry, I assumed self-interest would be enough for businesses to protect shareholders, but... I guess not." Translation: people are douchebags, and leaving the market to regulate itself is a recipe for disaster.
Mark my words, this disaster will see the end of popular support for libertarian economic ideals, for at least the next decade. And rightly so, IMHO.
Comprimising our democracy for money? There can be no more heinous crime. For a member of Congress to take such a bribe should be a death penalty offense.
Well, unless it's in the name of lobbying or campaign "donations". Then it's free speech.
Perhaps it's not different at all, but I think it's a bit unfair to blame someone else for "just following orders" instead of getting fired (or in front of a firing squad). Would you live up to your own expectations - if you were in the SAME SITUATION?
Actually... yeah, I would. It's simple: any organization that acts so immorally is not one that I want to work for. God only knows what they'll do to *me* if it'll turn a buck. Meanwhile, I have my self-respect, damnit, and I'm skilled enough, and have a sufficiently untarnished reputation, to know that if I need to find another job because I'm being asked to do something that cuts against my sense of decency, I can do it.
Put simply: a job is just a job. But self-respect isn't something I'm willing to so blithely sacrifice.
Bah, fine, whatever, you're picking at nits. The fact is, the current party is spending like drunken sailors while cutting taxes, and therefore revenue, simultaneously. It doesn't have to be that way. You know it, I know it.
Frankly, I'm not even sure what your point is in posting this... are you saying deficit spending is simply unavoidable? Or are you trying to defend the current administration's policies because you're blinded by partisanship? Or are you really just picking at nits for the hell of it? Because if you are, it's really not that constructive and your time would be better spent elsewhere.
- are you familiar of the concept of false dichotomy? Germany has a dual system that works better than either the US or Canadian.
Great! I'd love to hear about it! Seriously.
Here's a hint: Just because I think Canada's system is better than the US's, doesn't mean I think it's perfect or infallible. Only an idiot is that closed minded.
- Canadian public school system is just as mismanaged, nothing to be proud of here.
Bitch bitch bitch. Again, my point isn't that Canada is perfect. It's that the American system is *really* bad, even though they're blowing hundreds of billions of deficit dollars. They can do better, and we already have, even if we aren't "the best" (according to you).
- nice to know that there are lucky people out there who get good professionals as opposed to useless ones, who can't even diagnose correctly, forget about treatment.
Again, blah blah blah. Bad doctors exist everywhere. You're *seriously* deluded if you think that Canada is any worse off in this regard.
- why suck it up? There is no reason why it should be impossible to get rid of the free riders, this is a political problem of a country that is too liberal for its own good.
No, you can't. It's implicit in any social welfare system. You can reduce the problem, but you end up limiting legitimate access. It's simply life, whether you like it or not. And personally, I'm willing to accept the small fraction of abusers so that those who legitimately need the system have it available.
- in Toronto we don't get more for our money.
Wow, I really don't give a shit. So your province sucks, how's that my problem? Not every province is as bad off as yours is. And I'm willing to bet yours isn't nearly as bad as you claim, you just like to complain because your poor salary is taxed more than you'd like.
Besides which, you're probably *still* better off than your average American. Shortage of competent, affordable doctors? Check. Crumbling infrastructure (like, say, collapsing bridges)? Check. Long waiting lists? Check. Destroyed retirement savings? Check. Sky-high violent crime rates? Check. Outsourced labour? Check.
But they *also* get: inaccessible healthcare for a large fraction of the population, a financial system that's evaporating before their eyes, a retirement system that may be on the verge of bankruptcy, a voting system that's horribly outdated, error prone, and corrupt, a broken political system rife with legalized bribery (aka, "lobbying") and corruption, an education system that's beyond bad relative to the rest of the world... and all while they're *still* paying a fair bit in taxes, and running a truly massive deficit.
And this is my fundamentally point: no, Canada is not perfect. But for our dollar, our system *is*, generally speaking, *better*. Can it be improved? Always. But it could also be so very much worse. And the US *can* do better, even if the libertarians would have us believe otherwise.
- yeah, it only works well as long as you are young and healthy. My wife and I routinely drive to Buffalo, NY from Toronto ON to get prompt medical attention and once every couple of years fly to Germany for stuff that would be prohibitively expensive to do in the US but that is still light years better of what Canadian system has to offer.
Yes. Welcome to the world of triage. Either we triage based on who needs the care more, or who can afford it. Suck it up. Better than a large fraction of your population going completely uncovered.
Oh, and if you believe waiting lists don't exist in the US, just ask someone who's care comes from an average HMO.
But, given you can afford to pay for your own care in the US, I can only assume you're not exactly in the demographic that would be excluded from the healthcare system in the US, so I'm hardly surprised you're complaining. After all, the rich benefit quite nicely in a system that excludes the poor.
- in US, don't they have universal education for primary and high schools just as well?
Did I say they didn't? No. That said, I've heard *many* people here on/. rail against the American public school system, and given how it rates relative to the rest of the world, I'd say it is, to put it mildly, mismanaged.
- and doctors who are useless after these universities.
Uhh... okay. If you say so.
I can say that Canadian universities are *extremely* well regarded in areas of computing science, biotechnology, and nanotech, among others.
- which is abused.
Yes, welcome to the free rider problem. Suck it up. At least my mom was able to get assistance when she needed it, allowing us to, you know, *not* have to live on the street.
But, again, I'm betting you're quite well off, so I don't expect you to understand. After all, if *you* don't use the system, what use is it? After all, the only people that use it are drunks and breeders who abuse the system, right?
- gee, you think it has nothing to do with being overtaxed?
No worse than the US (once you factor in things like employer-paid health care benefits). And yet we get more for our money. Which was the entire point of my post.
Canada pays next to nothing for military because they know the US has their back. That goes a long way for social programs.
Uhh... you *are* aware that, prior to the Bush administration, the US was also running a surplus, while still managing to pay for their military?
Sorry, bud... it's a nice looking excuse, but it's only that. An excuse.
Oh, and in case you're curious, not only does Canada pay less, per capita, in total money for our healthcare program, we actually spend *less government money per capita*. It's true! You can find the numbers on NationMaster if you're curious. So while we may not fund a massive military, we *also* run a more efficient healthcare system than the US.
But this type of thinking, "don't cut my program" is why America is $10T in debt
Uhh... no. America is $10T in debt because:
a) People demand their programs stay, while simultaneously refusing tax hikes to actually pay for them. b) Prosecuting a war the country can't afford, then *cutting taxes* in the meantime. c) Allowing the financial industry to run off a cliff, forcing the government to take action to prevent a complete economic meltdown.
Is pork a problem? Yup. But as Obama has pointed out *many* times, earmarks, where much of this pork comes from, account for a truly *miniscule* sum compared to the broader budget, which is dominated by military expenditures and various entitlement programs. Unfortunately, Americans are, apparently, unwilling to actually *pay* for those military expenditures and entitlement programs, and so you get mind-bogglingly large debt.
Incidentally, on a side note, here in my country, Canada, we have universal healthcare, universal education, university tuition that's actually affordable, old age security benefits, and a welfare system. And we're running a *surplus*. Just a little food for thought.
No, I think it's you who isn't getting it. If the government didn't step in to regulate banks, then any bank could loan X dollars, whether or not they had that money in their coffers. If someone stepped in to question them, they'd say "sorry buddy, books are closed, you'll just have to trust us." They would do this because they could made a mint issuing loans on money they didn't actually have, running under the assumption that, 99% of the time, a bank run wouldn't happen, and so the risk would justify the reward.
The only way to stop this is for government mandated transparency and reserve limits (in your world, the reserve limit is 100%, but it's still a reserve limit). So either the government regulates 100% reserves, or 10% reserves, but it's *still regulating*.
The gist of this is simple: the free market isn't, nor can it ever be. The government will *always* have to regulate in situations where there may be information imbalances due to a lack of transparency. Your problem is simply that they aren't regulated the way you like. Tough.
So your solution to my problem is buy more drives, and more enclosures...
Well... yeah, naturally.:) Chassis and drives are relatively cheap. For the rather modest outlay, you get far better fault tolerance, far greater performance, more flexibility, and you eliminate the spectre of silent errors.
Of course, as always, it's a cost-benefit tradeoff. I guess my point is, because of these truly massive drives, that tradeoff more frequently leads to non-RAID-5 solutions these days. The problem is people have it in their heads that RAID5 is simply *the* storage model to use, without considering all the advantages and disadvantages associated with it... I mean, you, yourself, apparently didn't even understand the different failure modes and rates between RAID-5 and RAID-10, and it's that kind of information that is absolutely key when selecting an appropriate RAID level for a given application.
Libertarianism is not anarchy. The rule of law is not in conflict with a free market, most people would regard it as a prerequisite.
Potayto, potahto... what you call "laws", I call "regulations". Like the "regulation" or "law" which dictates how much money a bank must hold in reserve.
If it weren't for the repeal of Glass-Steagal, how would Bank of America have bought up Merrill Lynch? (Such a thing would have been illegal under the act)
If Glass-Steagall hadn't been repealed, BoA wouldn't have needed to in the first fucking place.
Honestly, this is the dumbest justification I can think of... great talking point, though, for those too stupid to pay attention.
But in terms of causing the crisis in the first place, Glass-Steagal was simply irrelevant.
The repeal enabled commercial lenders such as Citigroup, the largest U.S. bank by assets, to underwrite and trade instruments such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations and establish so-called structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, that bought those securities.
And now Citigroup is on the ropes. But you're right, that's a small thing.::rollseyes::
Meanwhile, virtually every economist and analyst I've read cites the repeal of Glass-Steagall as a a strong contributing factor to the current crisis. Somehow, I think I'll trust them over your uncited quote from god knows what source.
Can you present me some actual examples of regulations that were repealed in the last 20 years, that then went ahead and contributed to this crisis?
Uhh... Glass-Steagall? You know, one that was instituted after the great depression to prevent the kind of rampant speculation that lead to a massive economic bubble not unlike the one that's bursting before our eyes?
Honestly, the fact you can't come up with that one, single regulation, makes me seriously question your education on the topic.
No, the libertarian is correct, without any lending regulations it would be fraud to loan out something that you don't have.
No... without any lending regulations, there would be *no laws* to dictate that fractional reserve lending is fraud (as opposed to now, where they are *regulated* to have minimum reserves). The bank would simply hand out the loan and say "yeah, we're totally good for it", and no one would be there to check their actions because there would be *no regulation to begin with".
Back in the early part of the 20th century, the largest portion of home electrical usage was for lighting. Nowadays it's such a small part this savings has no measurable effect.
Got any numbers to back that up? Because, last I checked, every city street, business office, and residential home was still lit by electricity. I'd be truly startled if lighting didn't make up for at least a "measurable" fraction of total energy consumption, particularly in high-latitude regions.
No, I'm getting it. The problem is you've apparently never considered an external storage chassis. You can get a 6-drive eSATA enclosure for under $300 these days, and combined with the drives in your computer, that's more than sufficient. And as an added bonus, the drives will last longer as they'll probably be better ventilated, and they'll be easily hot-swappable to boot.
'course, you could also just get a chassis that's designed for large, backend storage solutions, rather than trying to retask an old ATX graybox. Honestly, what kind of businessman are you that you aren't willing to shell out a few bucks for real storage integrity?
I can't see how a raid5 byte failure would be any different than raid 10. (tell me?)
Simple. If any two drives in a RAID5 go, you're hosed. With a RAID 10, two drives *in the same mirror* must go, which is drastically less likely. Furthermore, if any one drive in your array goes, you don't experience degraded performance. And when you hot-swap a replacement drive, you won't undergo massive performance degradation as the RAID rebuilds. And finally, unlike RAID5, RAID10 isn't subject to silent error.
Honestly, RAID10 is superior to RAID5 in *ever way*, save for cost, and given the $/GB levels these days, I really so no justification for RAID5.
Slashdot Mirror
This whole mess was created by the Community Reinvestment Act and its associated amendments and follow ons.
No, it wasn't, and this little chestnut is starting to get really fucking old.
The majority of banks participating in subprime were *not regulated by the CRA*. Look it up. This is a fact.
Say it with me now: the CRA had nothing to do with the subprime crisis. Come on, little troll, you can do it.
Saying that someone is biased is not an Ad Hominem fallacy.
Of course it is! You cannot invalidate a study by simply declaring a person is biased. Unless you can demonstrate a flaw in the study, the data stands, regardless of the positions of those who created it.
Christ, that's the very definition of an ad hominem fallacy!
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977 has encouraged lenders to give credit to surrounding communities, particularly low and moderate income neighborhoods.
The CRA had virtually nothing to do with subprime. This has been debunked repeatedly, by others as well as myself. If you still can't understand that, there's no hope for you.
The outpooring of federal money into companies such as AIG is anything but a hands-off policy
And this has to do with the economic collapse, which happened before the bailout, how?
On that same note, the money from the $700b bailout ...
And this has to do with the economic collapse, which happened before the bailout, how?
Libertarians were harping on Fannie and Freddie back in 2003
Given that Freddie and Fannie were barely exposed to subprime prior to 2k7, I'm not sure what your point is. F&F had little do with the subprime, and it's a conservative fantasy to suggest otherwise.
Sarbanes-Oxley was supposed solve the most pressing problem at the time: accounting fraud. The SEC had its budget doubled, new laws imposed stiff fines and lengthy prison times were threatened. However, legislators were behind the curve and new problems emerged precisely because of our regulating authority's encouragement of unsound banking practices.
Bullshit. It's because they didn't regulate them in the first place. Let me introduce you to the unregulated, multi-trillion-dollar, collapsing CDS market. Or the repeal of the Glass-Steagal.
And then there's the Fed, which, with its low interest rates and steady supply of new credit, encouraged the housing boom.
Yup, can't deny that. OTOH, all that did was create the hunger for high-yield investment vehicles. The government then left the market to invent ways to magically get 30% return on investments based on subprime mortgages. ie, they left the market alone to invest how they saw fit, and they ran us off a cliff.
Or, to put it another way: unregulated financial markets *don't work*, which is what Alan Greenspan, cheerleader of laissez-faire economics, was forced to admit.
Oh like when they got elected in 2006 to end the war and then they didn't?
Let me introduce you to the term "filibuster". Now consider that the democrats would have *never been able to pass* a bill in the Senate that would involve drawing down the war in Iraq. Oh, and the president would have vetoed it in any case.
But let me guess... you still blame the democrats?
New York Times and independent comparison do not belong in the same sentence.
I assume you have evidence that the analyses are flawed?
Because, otherwise, this is just an ad hominem and hardly insightful.
Yeah. The problem is we're evil pinko communists, and therefore doomed to stagnation, laziness, and high unemployment rates. Or so Slashdot tells me.
No, Greenspan's policies of artificially low interest rates after the dotcom bust and after 9/11 primed the pump like crazy. That was the main cause of the real estate bubble.
Sorry, buddy, but low interest rates didn't force these companies to issue bad, or in some cases, outright fraudulent loans. It didn't force tthem into sky-high leverage ratios. It didn't force them to participate in the unregulated house of cards that is the CDS market. It didn't force them to trust the (IMHO fraudulent) rates from the likes of S&P. *Nothing* forced them to do these things, aside from unchecked greed. They did it of their own accord, and ran the entire financial system off a cliff as a consequence.
Excellent response! While I do disagree with your assessment to some degree (I think your take on Europe is based more on personal and cultural bias rather than fact), your conclusion is, IMHO, spot on.
Both of the major party candidates have the problem that they view the problems of the economy as something that can be fixed by spending money they don't have. The more the government intervenes, the worse for the economy in the long term.
Talk about begging the question...
They were wrong. part of the problem is Government intrusion into the market. The market should be allowed to determine what lives and what dies
What the hell do you think Greenspan did? Jesus fucking christ, that was his *entire policy*! And now what does he say? "Oh, sorry, I assumed self-interest would be enough for businesses to protect shareholders, but... I guess not." Translation: people are douchebags, and leaving the market to regulate itself is a recipe for disaster.
Mark my words, this disaster will see the end of popular support for libertarian economic ideals, for at least the next decade. And rightly so, IMHO.
Comprimising our democracy for money? There can be no more heinous crime. For a member of Congress to take such a bribe should be a death penalty offense.
Well, unless it's in the name of lobbying or campaign "donations". Then it's free speech.
Perhaps it's not different at all, but I think it's a bit unfair to blame someone else for "just following orders" instead of getting fired (or in front of a firing squad). Would you live up to your own expectations - if you were in the SAME SITUATION?
Actually... yeah, I would. It's simple: any organization that acts so immorally is not one that I want to work for. God only knows what they'll do to *me* if it'll turn a buck. Meanwhile, I have my self-respect, damnit, and I'm skilled enough, and have a sufficiently untarnished reputation, to know that if I need to find another job because I'm being asked to do something that cuts against my sense of decency, I can do it.
Put simply: a job is just a job. But self-respect isn't something I'm willing to so blithely sacrifice.
Bah, fine, whatever, you're picking at nits. The fact is, the current party is spending like drunken sailors while cutting taxes, and therefore revenue, simultaneously. It doesn't have to be that way. You know it, I know it.
Frankly, I'm not even sure what your point is in posting this... are you saying deficit spending is simply unavoidable? Or are you trying to defend the current administration's policies because you're blinded by partisanship? Or are you really just picking at nits for the hell of it? Because if you are, it's really not that constructive and your time would be better spent elsewhere.
- are you familiar of the concept of false dichotomy? Germany has a dual system that works better than either the US or Canadian.
Great! I'd love to hear about it! Seriously.
Here's a hint: Just because I think Canada's system is better than the US's, doesn't mean I think it's perfect or infallible. Only an idiot is that closed minded.
- Canadian public school system is just as mismanaged, nothing to be proud of here.
Bitch bitch bitch. Again, my point isn't that Canada is perfect. It's that the American system is *really* bad, even though they're blowing hundreds of billions of deficit dollars. They can do better, and we already have, even if we aren't "the best" (according to you).
- nice to know that there are lucky people out there who get good professionals as opposed to useless ones, who can't even diagnose correctly, forget about treatment.
Again, blah blah blah. Bad doctors exist everywhere. You're *seriously* deluded if you think that Canada is any worse off in this regard.
- why suck it up? There is no reason why it should be impossible to get rid of the free riders, this is a political problem of a country that is too liberal for its own good.
No, you can't. It's implicit in any social welfare system. You can reduce the problem, but you end up limiting legitimate access. It's simply life, whether you like it or not. And personally, I'm willing to accept the small fraction of abusers so that those who legitimately need the system have it available.
- in Toronto we don't get more for our money.
Wow, I really don't give a shit. So your province sucks, how's that my problem? Not every province is as bad off as yours is. And I'm willing to bet yours isn't nearly as bad as you claim, you just like to complain because your poor salary is taxed more than you'd like.
Besides which, you're probably *still* better off than your average American. Shortage of competent, affordable doctors? Check. Crumbling infrastructure (like, say, collapsing bridges)? Check. Long waiting lists? Check. Destroyed retirement savings? Check. Sky-high violent crime rates? Check. Outsourced labour? Check.
But they *also* get: inaccessible healthcare for a large fraction of the population, a financial system that's evaporating before their eyes, a retirement system that may be on the verge of bankruptcy, a voting system that's horribly outdated, error prone, and corrupt, a broken political system rife with legalized bribery (aka, "lobbying") and corruption, an education system that's beyond bad relative to the rest of the world... and all while they're *still* paying a fair bit in taxes, and running a truly massive deficit.
And this is my fundamentally point: no, Canada is not perfect. But for our dollar, our system *is*, generally speaking, *better*. Can it be improved? Always. But it could also be so very much worse. And the US *can* do better, even if the libertarians would have us believe otherwise.
- yeah, it only works well as long as you are young and healthy. My wife and I routinely drive to Buffalo, NY from Toronto ON to get prompt medical attention and once every couple of years fly to Germany for stuff that would be prohibitively expensive to do in the US but that is still light years better of what Canadian system has to offer.
Yes. Welcome to the world of triage. Either we triage based on who needs the care more, or who can afford it. Suck it up. Better than a large fraction of your population going completely uncovered.
Oh, and if you believe waiting lists don't exist in the US, just ask someone who's care comes from an average HMO.
But, given you can afford to pay for your own care in the US, I can only assume you're not exactly in the demographic that would be excluded from the healthcare system in the US, so I'm hardly surprised you're complaining. After all, the rich benefit quite nicely in a system that excludes the poor.
- in US, don't they have universal education for primary and high schools just as well?
Did I say they didn't? No. That said, I've heard *many* people here on /. rail against the American public school system, and given how it rates relative to the rest of the world, I'd say it is, to put it mildly, mismanaged.
- and doctors who are useless after these universities.
Uhh... okay. If you say so.
I can say that Canadian universities are *extremely* well regarded in areas of computing science, biotechnology, and nanotech, among others.
- which is abused.
Yes, welcome to the free rider problem. Suck it up. At least my mom was able to get assistance when she needed it, allowing us to, you know, *not* have to live on the street.
But, again, I'm betting you're quite well off, so I don't expect you to understand. After all, if *you* don't use the system, what use is it? After all, the only people that use it are drunks and breeders who abuse the system, right?
- gee, you think it has nothing to do with being overtaxed?
No worse than the US (once you factor in things like employer-paid health care benefits). And yet we get more for our money. Which was the entire point of my post.
Canada pays next to nothing for military because they know the US has their back. That goes a long way for social programs.
Uhh... you *are* aware that, prior to the Bush administration, the US was also running a surplus, while still managing to pay for their military?
Sorry, bud... it's a nice looking excuse, but it's only that. An excuse.
Oh, and in case you're curious, not only does Canada pay less, per capita, in total money for our healthcare program, we actually spend *less government money per capita*. It's true! You can find the numbers on NationMaster if you're curious. So while we may not fund a massive military, we *also* run a more efficient healthcare system than the US.
But this type of thinking, "don't cut my program" is why America is $10T in debt
Uhh... no. America is $10T in debt because:
a) People demand their programs stay, while simultaneously refusing tax hikes to actually pay for them.
b) Prosecuting a war the country can't afford, then *cutting taxes* in the meantime.
c) Allowing the financial industry to run off a cliff, forcing the government to take action to prevent a complete economic meltdown.
Is pork a problem? Yup. But as Obama has pointed out *many* times, earmarks, where much of this pork comes from, account for a truly *miniscule* sum compared to the broader budget, which is dominated by military expenditures and various entitlement programs. Unfortunately, Americans are, apparently, unwilling to actually *pay* for those military expenditures and entitlement programs, and so you get mind-bogglingly large debt.
Incidentally, on a side note, here in my country, Canada, we have universal healthcare, universal education, university tuition that's actually affordable, old age security benefits, and a welfare system. And we're running a *surplus*. Just a little food for thought.
No, you aren't getting it.
No, I think it's you who isn't getting it. If the government didn't step in to regulate banks, then any bank could loan X dollars, whether or not they had that money in their coffers. If someone stepped in to question them, they'd say "sorry buddy, books are closed, you'll just have to trust us." They would do this because they could made a mint issuing loans on money they didn't actually have, running under the assumption that, 99% of the time, a bank run wouldn't happen, and so the risk would justify the reward.
The only way to stop this is for government mandated transparency and reserve limits (in your world, the reserve limit is 100%, but it's still a reserve limit). So either the government regulates 100% reserves, or 10% reserves, but it's *still regulating*.
The gist of this is simple: the free market isn't, nor can it ever be. The government will *always* have to regulate in situations where there may be information imbalances due to a lack of transparency. Your problem is simply that they aren't regulated the way you like. Tough.
So your solution to my problem is buy more drives, and more enclosures...
Well... yeah, naturally. :) Chassis and drives are relatively cheap. For the rather modest outlay, you get far better fault tolerance, far greater performance, more flexibility, and you eliminate the spectre of silent errors.
Of course, as always, it's a cost-benefit tradeoff. I guess my point is, because of these truly massive drives, that tradeoff more frequently leads to non-RAID-5 solutions these days. The problem is people have it in their heads that RAID5 is simply *the* storage model to use, without considering all the advantages and disadvantages associated with it... I mean, you, yourself, apparently didn't even understand the different failure modes and rates between RAID-5 and RAID-10, and it's that kind of information that is absolutely key when selecting an appropriate RAID level for a given application.
Libertarianism is not anarchy. The rule of law is not in conflict with a free market, most people would regard it as a prerequisite.
Potayto, potahto... what you call "laws", I call "regulations". Like the "regulation" or "law" which dictates how much money a bank must hold in reserve.
If it weren't for the repeal of Glass-Steagal, how would Bank of America have bought up Merrill Lynch? (Such a thing would have been illegal under the act)
If Glass-Steagall hadn't been repealed, BoA wouldn't have needed to in the first fucking place.
Honestly, this is the dumbest justification I can think of... great talking point, though, for those too stupid to pay attention.
But in terms of causing the crisis in the first place, Glass-Steagal was simply irrelevant.
Bullshit. To quote this document:
And now Citigroup is on the ropes. But you're right, that's a small thing. ::rollseyes::
Meanwhile, virtually every economist and analyst I've read cites the repeal of Glass-Steagall as a a strong contributing factor to the current crisis. Somehow, I think I'll trust them over your uncited quote from god knows what source.
Can you present me some actual examples of regulations that were repealed in the last 20 years, that then went ahead and contributed to this crisis?
Uhh... Glass-Steagall? You know, one that was instituted after the great depression to prevent the kind of rampant speculation that lead to a massive economic bubble not unlike the one that's bursting before our eyes?
Honestly, the fact you can't come up with that one, single regulation, makes me seriously question your education on the topic.
No, the libertarian is correct, without any lending regulations it would be fraud to loan out something that you don't have.
No... without any lending regulations, there would be *no laws* to dictate that fractional reserve lending is fraud (as opposed to now, where they are *regulated* to have minimum reserves). The bank would simply hand out the loan and say "yeah, we're totally good for it", and no one would be there to check their actions because there would be *no regulation to begin with".
How this can escape you, I really don't know...
Back in the early part of the 20th century, the largest portion of home electrical usage was for lighting. Nowadays it's such a small part this savings has no measurable effect.
Got any numbers to back that up? Because, last I checked, every city street, business office, and residential home was still lit by electricity. I'd be truly startled if lighting didn't make up for at least a "measurable" fraction of total energy consumption, particularly in high-latitude regions.
You arn't getting it.
No, I'm getting it. The problem is you've apparently never considered an external storage chassis. You can get a 6-drive eSATA enclosure for under $300 these days, and combined with the drives in your computer, that's more than sufficient. And as an added bonus, the drives will last longer as they'll probably be better ventilated, and they'll be easily hot-swappable to boot.
'course, you could also just get a chassis that's designed for large, backend storage solutions, rather than trying to retask an old ATX graybox. Honestly, what kind of businessman are you that you aren't willing to shell out a few bucks for real storage integrity?
I can't see how a raid5 byte failure would be any different than raid 10. (tell me?)
Simple. If any two drives in a RAID5 go, you're hosed. With a RAID 10, two drives *in the same mirror* must go, which is drastically less likely. Furthermore, if any one drive in your array goes, you don't experience degraded performance. And when you hot-swap a replacement drive, you won't undergo massive performance degradation as the RAID rebuilds. And finally, unlike RAID5, RAID10 isn't subject to silent error.
Honestly, RAID10 is superior to RAID5 in *ever way*, save for cost, and given the $/GB levels these days, I really so no justification for RAID5.