People will always use their own money more wisely than someone else's.
Natural market forces are also very good at determining what is in demand and what is not. We saw a correction in 2008 where businesses that were producing products for which there was no longer any demand started to go under. I think this is inclusive of the domestic auto industry.
Now the government is pumping tax dollars into "toxic" industries (industries that are worthless). This is a clear demonstration of market efficiency vs. government inefficiently. I don't understand how anyone can expect the stimulus to have any positive, LONG TERM, results (sure we might see some jobs "saved" at the indirect expense of others in the short term).
As you pointed out, giving the auto industry money to produce fuel efficient cars is not going to pay off unless there is a clear demand for them. They might very well put all of that tax-payer money into R&D on efficient batteries but they won't be so stingent about it as they would if it was their own capital. They'll be fulfilling some governmental obligation and little else. A business either knows how to produce something that is in demand that is the same quality at a lower price than it's competitors or better quality for the same price, or it does not. Government money MIGHT help them figure it out. And if the government money is sufficient in size it MIGHT also help them find a way to mass-produce and market that new product.
The vital component that's missing from the equation is the incentive not to fail. Large companies are comprised of individual business-men understand business and have been playing the game for a very long time. The vast majority of these executives do not give a rat's ass if they are directing GM or some new business venture in a completely unrelated industry. They will take as much as they can possibly get from the government until that time comes when it's more profitable to cut their losses and expend their private capital (which WILL consist of some of that governmental assistance since at the very least a fraction will have gone to their compensation) on a new enterprise that they perceive as being profitable. Government ideas about what the "technologies of the future" are aside.
Deficit refers to a balance sheet in which the total planned expenditures amount to greater than the expected income.
So yeah, if government freezes it's spending projects and there is increased economic activity, and consequently increased tax revenue, then the deficit could shrink.
Milton Friedman argued that the legal framework is already in place to deal with companies polluting the environment. It all boils down to private property. Few people pollute their own land and few people care if someone pollutes his/her own land.
Companies that pollute another person's property are already liable for damage caused to that property. The problem comes into play when dealing with public property and with the atmosphere. What we need is to extend private property laws to be inclusive of the atmosphere above that property. If someone pollutes the air on your property then you can sue him for the damages. There are already laws in place that touch on this to an extent. For example: here in Canada, if I run a business out of my home I can not allow any toxic gases to escape onto my neighbour's property. The only reason big industry isn't punished under these same laws is the practicality associated. We already have mass dumping into the atmosphere and for the government to say that it will enforce these pollution laws will have gross effects on the economy. There's really no other reason the government doesn't begin to more stringently enforce this principle.
The way I see it, the public should start suing companies in class action suits for damages to public property, the same way they do for damages to private property.
"Yes, it's good to spend collective funds on roads, bridges, art, maybe even public fiber,"
If the public is actually demanding such infrastructure from the government then sure. If the public NEEDS a road to be built and is asking it of the government and willing to pay taxes to see it built then fine. However, when the government sets about the build industry for the sake of "creating jobs" then it has to invent projects. The result is infrastructure that people didn't really need. Jobs also weren't "created" they were displaced from other, productive, areas of the economy. If anyone believes that the government is more capable than private enterprise at gauging what the people will find valuable and useful then they have a faith in government that eludes me.
"insurance, and banking."
I'll leave insurance alone because I don't consider myself qualified to speak on it. However, I will say that if government is in the "business" of providing insurance that implies that it is insuring people that the private sector has determined are "un-insurable" or "bad risks". This means that the government is using other people's money to take risks on people that private institutions have decided are not worth risking their own money on. I'll let others decide if they feel that's an endeavour that can pay off, socially or economically.
With regards to banks, same thing. Government gets involved with banks because it either wants to encourage lending to individuals that private institutions have deemed are "bad risks", or it wants to prevent banking collapse by offering them some sort of "bail out" (in the form of lending by the Fed in our current system) in case the banks find themselves insolvent.
The Fed was chartered to be a lender of last resort and we saw how well that worked out in the Great Depression (when they actually contracted the pool of currency rather than lending, and countless banks went under). Today the fed artificially manipulates interest rates by selling bonds. This encourages banks to lend more to each other (and consequently to lend out to entrepreneurs or home owners etc). These are instances where government is encouraging poor lending practices. I don't see how that can help the economy on the whole. People who can't get loans should resort to the traditional means of acquiring capital: saving. Which brings me to another reason that government interventionism into banking can be a bad idea: inflation. When government controls the creation of money it becomes far too tempting to inflate the currency to pay for immediate projects (as an alternative to raising taxes). The result is a debasing of the currency which makes it very hard for people to save. And we end up in a habit of lending / borrowing. Again: up for you to decide if it's a good idea or a bad idea.
I've often felt the same way about monetary fines. When it becomes profitable to the municipality to issue speeding tickets, for example, an incentive is created to issue as many speeding tickets as possible. We've seen this discussed on/. before in the cases of municipalities shortening the length of the yellow light to that below the legal limit in order for the cameras at those lights to "auto-catch" more people running reds.
There is something to be said for the argument "should the public be forced to pay for the crimes of an individual?". I've reflected on that question and have come to the conclusion that "yes, they should". Laws are a set of rules that will always oppress those who do not agree with them. We can, do, and should justify them by various means. However, in order for us to enforce the rules we need to be prepared to pay a certain cost. Whether it's the cost of building prisons, hiring and training police officers and of administering the punishments themselves it must cost society. It the cost of dealing with those people who do not wish to play by our rules. In other words: it is the cost of the game itself.
If the profit is liberty, peace and civility then ultimately the cost is worth it. Trying to make attaining those ends profitable, or at the very least non-costly, is trying to attain something for nothing. It becomes pure oppression for the benefit of others. Crime becomes a net gain rather than a loss. The incentive is created to make as much a crime as possible.
Thus I feel that there should be a supreme law that prevents rule-makers from administering punishments that result in a transfer of wealth to anyone involved in the legislative, judiciary, enforcement and penal processes.
"How does taxing people encourage banks to make bad loans?"
I could have worded that sentence much better, admittedly. It's the process of government securing loans, which it can only do if it has the money to make good on those securities. Although obviously there's lots else the government can do with tax revenue too.
You mentioned the prospect of total bank collapse and the resulting lack of confidence in the dollar. I think this speaks volumes to one of the other sources of our problems, that we've ignored while discussing the specific issue of banking: fiat currency. What I would like to see is the abolition of restrictions on the public using gold and silver for currency. People should start buying hard assets (which is kind of what the banks are doing by purchasing treasuries, of course in the worst case scenario the government goes bankrupt and then the future looks *really* bleak while we sort out the resulting revolution) and if there is a loss of confidence in the dollar then we have something to go back on. There's no reason why gold and the USD can't both exist and compete with one another. Gold would end up winning out since it has, you know, value.
Of course if we abolish the Fed then the risk of bank runs increases (in theory, in practice the Fed has done very little to be the lender of last resort that it was supposed to be). Friedman didn't like going back to gold because it proved to be unstable. However, if you look at the stability of the fiat dollar the comparison becomes laughable. I'm not really sure what the best solution to preventing bank runs and the risk of a resulting recession or depression is. But I do think that in response to your scenario of massive bank failure and a loss of confidence in the dollar: introducing an alternative makes a whole lot of sense.
You mentioned mortgage backed securities and their value. My question is: SHOULD they have any value left ? There are those who believe that the securities created the housing bubble to begin with. And it makes perfect sense because governments securing loans only exists to encourage sub-prime lending in the first place.
If banks are insolvent right now then it is because they made bad loans. And banks who make more bad loans than good SHOULD fail. I don't see how we ever got into this belief that capital is debt rather than savings. Economists throughout history have said that capital comes from savings. In this past century we started financing everything with debt.
My original point was that when a rich person (or any person, class is irrelevant at this point in the debate) puts their money into a savings account the bank uses part of it to make loans. OK, so banks are insolvent. They'll use the money to either pay off their debt or buy treasury bonds instead. If people (and banks) started saving their money and liquidating their debt, and government started cutting spending and liquidating it's debt, then the habits that got us into this mess in the first place will start to be undone. If government stops securing loans and printing money, and people put more into savings (instead of trying to finance all of their living through debt), then banks will be forced to make GOOD LOANS on people with good investment history and viable business plans, rather than lending to people who stand an excellent chance of defaulting.
Taxing everyone so that we can encourage banks that made bad loans to continue doing so and pump everyone's money into industries that the market is rejecting is only going to make things worse.
With regards to the Mises institute web-site, I encourage you to at least read about it and who Ludwig Von Mises was and what contributions he made to economics. I agree with your point about the silly pictures, but their contribution to the field of economics is immense and there is so much to learn from their publications.
"You said that banks invest the money. What happens when there is too much inventory because of extremely low consumption and thus too much investment. How does more investment help?"
I said that banks LEND the money. It's up to the market forces to determine how that money will be used.
To employ your own logic: how does the government know better than the natural market forces what products or services will be in high demand ? How do we know whether the energy of tomorrow is going to be nuclear or solar ? To put into better words: how does the government know what industries are worthwhile investments ?
ESPECIALLY when you consider that the government invests other people's money. How on earth can you expect a government to spend wisely on technologies or industries of the future when it's not risking it's own savings ? When it's proverbial rear-end is not on the line. When it won't be forced to learn a hard lesson and admit it's mistakes and correct them, like every individual entrepreneur is forced to do ?
"And Paris Hilton does not spend as reliably as hungry people or government programs so that argument is worthless too."
I have no idea what you mean by "spend as reliably". My only point was that a rich person's monetary wealth gets put back into the economy which employs people. Whether they spend the money on personal consumption or put it into a savings account. And that people in general are much better at deciding where to spend their money than the government.
"The problem is lack of demand not lack of investment. You create demand by spending not cutting taxes for the rich."
Your first sentence is the only part of your post that I agree with. There is a surplus of supply and no demand. The housing market is the most obvious example. The bubble was a result of government intervention into the housing market in an attempt to encourage people to buy homes because the belief was that owning a home was the foundation for future individual economic prosperity. This created an artificial housing bubble and now we have more homes waiting for an owner than we do prospective owners.
People are also liquidating their debt and saving their money. Further lack of demand. BUT THIS IS ALSO A GOOD THING! It is a market correction. As a result prices will come down to reflect a lack of demand. Products that HAVE NO CURRENT VALUE will be sold off at extremely low prices or disposed of and businesses that OFFER NOTHING OF VALUE will close. This is a contraction of the market but it is short term. Gradually confidence returns. People will have paid off large amounts of debts, will have some savings and will be looking for things to purchase. There will be wage cuts and unemployment and people will have to figure out how to cope. Some will pursue career changes. Others will accept a wage cut somewhere else. But costs of living also come down and if the correction is allowed to take it's course, it will be temporary.
You asked me how more investment would solve the problem. I never said that it will. My only point was that a rich person being rich does not make a poor person poor. That taxing the rich and giving to the poor does not generate greater prosperity for everyone. When there is overall greater prosperity you still have a lower class but the standards of living for that lower class are much, much greater than they are in a sick economy. This is a fact that has been proven time and time again throughout history. Western worlds that adopted a capitalist system had classes but the standards of living for the poorest were exponentially greater when compared with the standards of living for the poor in socialist and communist countries.
You also implied that I said something about tax cuts for the rich. I endorse tax cuts for EVERYONE. Because the market is much better at using money efficiently than government is. History proves this. Think about this: the income tax accounts for roughly 40% of the government's national revenue. If you cut t
Also, if the banks are buying treasury bonds then the government could use that money to pay off it's debts to the fed, which would deflate the pool of money thus causing prices to come down. Heck, they could liquidate any of the national debt with the money from those bonds which would help matters greatly.
You're pointing the finger at the banks, and they definitely do deserve a share of the blame, but so should the government and so should people who chose to take out loans that they couldn't pay back. This isn't a problem with capitalism, it's not a problem with the republicans or the democrats. It's a problem of government printing money, securing loans and giving hand-outs to special interest groups and those group taking whatever they can get and running with it.
Yes, fractional reserve directly contributes to inflation. Because when a bank lends out money the person who gets the loan has money to spend but that money also, technically, belongs to the person who put it in his/her savings account. However, when loans get paid back that new money that was created is destroyed and deflation takes effect and prices go down and you have an overall correction.
The important part here is that the banks need to make wise loans. If the banks get themselves into trouble then they risk a bank run and are forced to borrow from another bank to meet it's obligations. The Federal Reserve was supposed to solve this problem by being a lender of last resort. However, during the great depression they failed massively in their task (Milton Friedman accused the Fed of causing the depression) and since we saw banks collapse in 2008 as well it would appear that the Fed is not living up to one of their intended purposes.
I was opposed to the fractional reserve system for a long time for the inflation reason. However, inflation is not inherently a "bad thing" as long as deflation is allowed to occur. The problem is when you give a central authority the power over the creation of money, and over monetary policy. It becomes too tempting to keep printing more and more. The public doesn't like deflation because they see the short-sighted impact of their wages getting cut (cost of living goes down accordingly as well, which is little comfort psychologically). The last time we saw a government-supported program of deflation was in the 70's. It's largely believed to be the only reason that all confidence has not been lost in the dollar yet.
I'm not really sure what your point is. Each sovereign nation needs to adopt it's own policies, and I agree that economics is a global issue and other nation's policies will have an effect. That effect mostly comes in the form of trade. If your domestic production is flourishing but (somehow) you're the only nation and the rest of the world can't afford your exports then you'll simply have to do without importing anything (since exports pay for imports). Or you'll have to lower your prices. Either way this will have the effect of causing your domestic production to shrink, since you'll have less, overall, capital. But is that relevant ? All this does is to point out the truth that when there is overall greater prosperity everyone benefits. And when there is overall contraction everyone contracts. That doesn't say anything about what kind of policies the US should implement domestically.
I'm not saying that it's fair to the people who will loose. I'm not saying that it's entirely their fault and I'm not even saying that we (the public, not government specifically), should stand back and do nothing.
There is so much blame to go around. It's not fair to blame just the banks or Wall-Street, it's not fair to blame just the Republicans or the Democrats. This is a problem of gradual, systemic tampering with the way in which people trade and do business with one another. Consider that every thing the government does to assist one group must automatically be at the expense of another. In our mixed system of capitalism, welfare, corporatism and general interventionism we see government supported monopolies (via tariffs, licensure and regulations that make entry into industries very difficult), artificially reduced interest rates (through debt financing by the Fed), a deficit that's in the trillions (according to Ron Paul's book "The Revolution: A Manifesto" the US national debt is accruing 1.4 billion dollars per DAY in interest!) and a general tax on the entire public via the government's program of inflation.
So I'm not saying that we should do nothing to help the individuals who are on the loosing end. I'm just saying that governmental assistance is something to be extremely weary of. Because everything that I just listed is a result of "good intentions" on the part of government. Here's a radical theory: maybe if we cut the income tax and cut government spending to accommodate, and the government was honest with the public that the majority of their economic problems are a result of artificial market manipulation, the result of people being able to keep 100% of what they earn will stimulate them to being more charitable.
I encourage everyone to speak with their elders about what times were like when they were younger. The US has only had a fiat currency since 1913. It's only started to expand a world-wide military empire (that costs an estimated 1 trillion dollars per year that comes straight out of the productive areas of the economy) since the 1950's. HMO's and medicaire etc. are also relatively new and today we see virtually no pro-bono doctors or charity-run hospitals anymore. There used to be an abundance of them and no one was turned away because they couldn't afford treatment. Don't take my words for it, read some of Dr. Ron Paul's writing where he talks about what the health care system was like when he was a young practicing obstetrician.
So all I'm asking is for people to really examine ALL of the effects that government spending, in general, has on the entire economy as a whole instead of just looking at the short term effects. Nothing short of revolutionary reform would cut all governmental intervention but people, at the very least, need to be asking these questions and having these debates. Every time the economy goes sour, or there's some other catastrophic event (9/11, hurricanes Katrina and Gustov) people get a revived sense of dependence on government. It's a belief structure that's based around the idea that government, through means of forceful coercion, can take from the most productive areas of society and use those takings to somehow save the unproductive areas (sometimes their goals are successful but we never ask at what cost ? What new industry was indirectly destroyed because a dying industry was saved through governmental assistance and was the result for the better or for the worse ? And how would we know ?).
We should all feel compassionate and do what we can to help those who have found themselves on the loosing end. All I'm saying is that forceful coercion and governmental assistance never accomplishes the goal of economic prosperity. If we've seen prosperity in the past it's been in spite of intervention, not because of it.
On a lighter note, but one that helps illustrate the unintended side-effects of government hand-outs, the Ludwig Von Mises Institute web-site published an article recently titled Bailing Out the Red Light District that is worth a read. If for no other reason than to give you a good laugh.
The solution in that case would be for all parties to liquidate their debt and have C learn from the lesson of making bad loans. Rather than redistributing wealth in inefficient ways and encouraging people to borrow more.
When did we start to look at capital as debt rather than savings ? The problem isn't that we need people to borrow more. We need to change our attitudes, liquidate our debt and starting saving again! Banks made these bad loans because the government (Fannie Mae) was securing the mortgages. That was part of FDR's New Deal. He wanted to encourage people to buy homes so he chartered Fannie Mae as this new thing called a government-sponsored enterprise in order to purchase mortgages from banks in exchange for securities.
That created the scenario that you just described.
Lending and borrowing is fine when the risks are properly calculated. The problem is when the government, in an attempt to think of those who the private sector will not lend to because they're considered bad investments!, secures loans which encourages banks to take risks that they otherwise would not have done. The result was a housing bubble and now there is a correction. However, instead of changing our habits and getting out of this debt mentality we're just getting more of the same. Redistribute capital, print more money and lend more to banks so that they make more bad loans. In computer science we would refer to all of this market manipulation as "a series hacks upon hacks upon hacks".
Funny. After reading your post I could ask you the same thing.
When a wealthy individual puts his/her money into savings they either put it into a savings account in a bank or they invest it. The 3rd option is that they could literally hoard it in a mattress or a safe in their home, which is the only scenario that gives your argument a leg to stand on. But only an extremely small fraction of misers do that.
The money goes into a savings account and the banks keep a small percentage for reserves and lend out the rest. So while a small fraction of the savings does get held by the banks, the majority goes back into the economy. If you consider that in a healthy economy banks will be making wise investments then the reserve is rendered moot because the banks capital grows through good loans which employs more bankers.
Every penny that the rich have goes to creating employment, either directly or indirectly. When Paris Hilton buys a Gucci bag she's indirectly employing the shop keeper who then spends that money to indirectly employ her grocer who then spends it at the gas station and indirectly employs the attendant etc. When the rich put the money into savings they're still indirectly contributing towards employment. And when all is said and done, when the rich decide to withdraw their savings down the road, they will have that much more capital to spend on creating new business ventures or on personal consumption (which, as I illustrated, is still a form of employing). Which is why, traditionally, capital is created by savings, not borrowing! It's this debt lifestyle that not only the public but the government has gotten itself into that has enormously contributed to the current contraction (which is always just a massive and sudden change of behaviour in the way that people handle their savings, and that naturally sorts itself out over time unless it is made worse by encouraging people to put themselves into further debt instead of liquidating their debt and saving).
Government taking from the rich may not necessarily do immediate harm, depending on how they spend it. However, it will never create a net surplus of employment and history has clearly shown us that government is extremely inefficient with money on the whole.
I'm going to run through some very elementary principles of economics. For more information I suggest you read "Economics In One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt.
Cutting taxes only works if government also cuts spending. However, since 1913 (when the Federal Reserve Act was established) the government (or more precisely the Federal Reserve, which is actually an independent corporation which was chartered by the government and not part of the government at all) has been in charge of the creation of money.
Why cut taxes, which will anger the public, when you can spend by just printing more money ?
However, most people realize that while the government can print money there is a catch. The catch is that prices go up. What happens when the Fed says that it's going to "slash interest rates" is that it manipulates the rate at which banks borrow from each other by purchasing bonds from the banks. This gives the banks more money to lend out, and naturally banks encourage borrowing by cutting their interest rates. However, the most important part of the equation is that the Fed creates the money to purchase those bonds out of thin air.
So now there's more money in circulation. The people who do the most borrowing get the money first and get the benefits. Since they have all of this extra money they can bid more for what they need. So the businesses that they contract to raise their prices. Now those businesses have more money and they in turn bid higher and so on until the new money has spread through the economy.
The act of adding to the pool of money is inflation. Rising prices is the symptom.
The effect that this has on the population as a whole, and hardest on the poorest who do the least amount of borrowing and purchasing, is literally the same as raising taxes. More specifically it's literally the same as if the government went into your bank account and took out money. Because it devalues the currency. This is a clear case of big business getting benefits at the expense of everyone else. It's not a case against laissez-faire capitalism, because government-controlled fiat currency is anything but laissez-faire. It's interventionist to the extreme.
These stimulus packages are almost always financed through inflation. There's 3 ways that the government can finance anything: 1) they spend tax dollars 2) they borrow the money from another nation and 3) they print more money (pretty much the same as raising taxes for the reasons I just explained).
Now, since you mentioned that you believe that the stimulus is going to be sufficient (I guess you haven't bothered to ask yourself why the last bailout bills haven't been), consider what I just said about the way that government finances spending. In order to spend anything the government has to take first. Government does not generate wealth. They merely redistribute.
Most people who support the bailouts / stimulus packages feel that it's going to work because it's going to take from the rich who can easily afford to pay more taxes and give to the poor. However, that's a very short-sighted view. Because while class-envy is natural and understandable, every penny that the rich spend on personal consumption is indirectly contributing to employment. When Paris Hilton buys a new Gucci bag she's indirectly employing the shop keeper who sold her the bag. The shop keeper is then indirectly employing the grocer who sells her her groceries and so on. So all of this talk about stimulus is rather absurd. Government can not create jobs. Every government dollar spent is a dollar taken from a productive area of society. In other words: an area that is currently employing people.
I hear some people raising their hands and saying "but people aren't spending right now! The rich are hoarding their money and not employing!". However, unless they're hoarding their money literally in a mattress or safe in their home they're still employing. They keep their money in savings accounts or they invest it. Which both contribute to production
"That's kind of a dumb question. (I might be excused from inferring your agenda from your question, but I'll refrain -- we already have too much of that.) Anything that causes money to be spent stimulates the economy. The issue with the stimulus bill (including this part) is not whether it will stimulate the economy, but whether it will stimulate it enough to justify adding most of a terabuck to the national debt."
Here's a question: If you take money from person A and give it to person B, have you stimulated anything ? Person B will have more to spend, admittedly, but person A will have less. The net effect on the economy is null. Unless you buy into the theory of competition which states that government will never be as efficient as private industry. If you agree with that principle then you can see that not only has the government not stimulated anything, the odds are more likely that they've generated a net loss.
I would never buy meat from a farmer that does that, but in some parts of the world they do truly sick things to the animals (like skinning them alive) because they think it makes the meat taste better.
One extremely popular food that could count as an example is Foie Gras. It's duck liver (though you can get Foie Gras from other animals but unless you specify what animal then duck is usually assumed) that has been artificially enlarged via force feeding the animal. Whether or not gorging is actually uncomfortable for the animal is debatable (I have heard plausible arguments from people claiming that fowl will actually self-gorge before migration, and anecdotes from farmers who claimed the animals actually LIKE it), but it has been banned in some parts of the world because the gorging is seen as animal abuse.
To further this thought, some people might not actually want the SAME dog, but a dog with the same temperment and behavioural tendencies.
But then, I'm not a pet person at all. So I might not "get it". I do know that I would want a dog that can be easily trained not to bark or crap in my house, though.
So if you had one that was a breeze to train why not get it's genetic identical ?
I realize you're being funny, but in the true geek spirit, and being someone who loves to cook and has considered changing careers and becoming a chef, I can not resist the urge to get serious and rip this hypothesis apart.
There are actually a lot of factors, outside of the breed, that influence the taste of meat. The feed being the most important. So we'll assume that you feed it the exact same diet (and that the manufacturer of said feed does not alter it's ingredients). Then hope that the dog never gets sick and requires medication. But then, maybe your original dog got sick and needed medication and that contributed somewhat to it's flavour. Environmental conditions also play a vital role. Did the dog get lots of exercise ? Muscle strength contributes immensely to the texture, tenderness and flavour of the meat. Was the dog ever abused (maybe a previous owner) ? Stress releases all kinds of hormones and chemicals in the body that can affect flavour. Leave the dog alone for a day, get him all worked up and upset, and come back to have a completely different tasting animal.
Farmers who compete on quality and taste (as oppose to cost) have come up with all kinds of theories and practices (some proven, some superstitions, some plausible but untested) that they claim gives their meat a superior taste and texture. For example, some cow farmers actually massage their meat with electric massagers, claiming it produces more tender beef.
Ultimately I must side with the GP. Cloned Animal != Same Animal.
I got off my ass and PAID for a converter box. I'm on a border town in Canada. The Detroit / American broadcast channels come in crystal clear while the Canadian channels are really fuzzy. So I watch US TV but don't get a free box. Anyway the quality is a nightmare. I might actually have to go out and buy a brand new tv with a digital tuner.
Every time there is text on the screen I get an extremely annoying "crackling" sound. It seems to be related to the HD to SD aspect conversion because if I change the aspect ratio the sound changes (it doesn't get any less annoying, it just changes). If I mute the volume on my converter box it doesn't change the sound, so it's not actually related to the audio. The only way to kill the annoying sound is to mute the volume on the TV itself. Or turn the converter box off and watch analog, which is what I'm doing until the switchover. After the switchover I'm not sure what I'll do because I can't justify spending even $100 on a TV right now. It's just not important enough to me.
"In fact, the only 3 things I want on my cellphone, is voice calling, voice mail, and text services.
I know some people who even consider that to be too much."
Amen. I don't have a cellphone but now that I'm learning to drive and the Mrs. and I are talking about getting a 2nd vehicle I'm thinking about getting one just so that I can make calls home to see if there's anything we need grocery-wise while I'm out etc. I wouldn't want voice mail or texting. I'd probably leave the thing off and just turn it on to make calls home. I realize that's a bit of a double standard (expecting to be able to get attention from home instantly but not wanting others to do so of me), but phones bother me. I don't really want to be permanently connected to the world. I'm just not that much of an attention whore. So the rest of the world can have their phones and their connectivity and I will have my peace and quiet.
I find the example of your grandmother and the microwave oven a little funny. Only because I grew up using microwaves and over the last year or two, as I've learned to cook, I've gradually stopped using it. I don't think I've used our microwave at all in the past year.
I admit there's convenience and I don't blame or condemn people for using them. But everything you can do with a microwave you can do better (albeit slower) with traditional methods. The results are soooo much tastier if you put your hot sandwich in the oven, melt your butter in a small sauce pan or defrost your meat slowly in the fridge etc.
I have a serious solution to that problem: learn how to cook. As in, learn how to cook SERIOUSLY GOOD food.
I can spend more on raw ingredients for a single meal than it would cost to take my wife out to a fancy restaurant (not that I do often, just saying that I can), or I can make something amazing for cheaper. And girls dig guys who can cook! Most geeks should like cooking too because there's tons of science involved and most of us like to tinker and make things. Plus when you're done you've got the most amazing meal that, unless you live in New York or LA, can afford to eat at a fine dining restaurant and are lucky enough to get a reservation, you're not going to get eating out.
My wife and I never eat out any more. We're in a mid-sized town and every time we eat out it's always disappointing. Over priced and something I could make way better at home.
I recommend "Zingerman's Guide to Good Eating" as a starting point for anyone looking to get into cooking. It explains how to choose the best ingredients, gives you the history of food's as well, and has some simple recipes too.
"News Flash: A business acted last night in a move that is expected to increase it's revenue. A spokesperson for the business did not comment on whether or not this move is expected to directly, or indirectly increase revenue. She only told us that it is a general policy of the company to act on behalf of the financial interests of it's share holders and employees".
Slashdot Mirror
People will always use their own money more wisely than someone else's.
Natural market forces are also very good at determining what is in demand and what is not. We saw a correction in 2008 where businesses that were producing products for which there was no longer any demand started to go under. I think this is inclusive of the domestic auto industry.
Now the government is pumping tax dollars into "toxic" industries (industries that are worthless). This is a clear demonstration of market efficiency vs. government inefficiently. I don't understand how anyone can expect the stimulus to have any positive, LONG TERM, results (sure we might see some jobs "saved" at the indirect expense of others in the short term).
As you pointed out, giving the auto industry money to produce fuel efficient cars is not going to pay off unless there is a clear demand for them. They might very well put all of that tax-payer money into R&D on efficient batteries but they won't be so stingent about it as they would if it was their own capital. They'll be fulfilling some governmental obligation and little else. A business either knows how to produce something that is in demand that is the same quality at a lower price than it's competitors or better quality for the same price, or it does not. Government money MIGHT help them figure it out. And if the government money is sufficient in size it MIGHT also help them find a way to mass-produce and market that new product.
The vital component that's missing from the equation is the incentive not to fail. Large companies are comprised of individual business-men understand business and have been playing the game for a very long time. The vast majority of these executives do not give a rat's ass if they are directing GM or some new business venture in a completely unrelated industry. They will take as much as they can possibly get from the government until that time comes when it's more profitable to cut their losses and expend their private capital (which WILL consist of some of that governmental assistance since at the very least a fraction will have gone to their compensation) on a new enterprise that they perceive as being profitable. Government ideas about what the "technologies of the future" are aside.
Deficit refers to a balance sheet in which the total planned expenditures amount to greater than the expected income.
So yeah, if government freezes it's spending projects and there is increased economic activity, and consequently increased tax revenue, then the deficit could shrink.
Then again pigs could grow wings and fly.
Milton Friedman argued that the legal framework is already in place to deal with companies polluting the environment. It all boils down to private property. Few people pollute their own land and few people care if someone pollutes his/her own land.
Companies that pollute another person's property are already liable for damage caused to that property. The problem comes into play when dealing with public property and with the atmosphere. What we need is to extend private property laws to be inclusive of the atmosphere above that property. If someone pollutes the air on your property then you can sue him for the damages. There are already laws in place that touch on this to an extent. For example: here in Canada, if I run a business out of my home I can not allow any toxic gases to escape onto my neighbour's property. The only reason big industry isn't punished under these same laws is the practicality associated. We already have mass dumping into the atmosphere and for the government to say that it will enforce these pollution laws will have gross effects on the economy. There's really no other reason the government doesn't begin to more stringently enforce this principle.
The way I see it, the public should start suing companies in class action suits for damages to public property, the same way they do for damages to private property.
I hate to reply to my own post by I have to correct a grave typo:
"Today the fed artificially manipulates interest rates by selling bonds"
That should be "artificially manipulates interest rates by PURCHASING bonds".
"Yes, it's good to spend collective funds on roads, bridges, art, maybe even public fiber,"
If the public is actually demanding such infrastructure from the government then sure. If the public NEEDS a road to be built and is asking it of the government and willing to pay taxes to see it built then fine. However, when the government sets about the build industry for the sake of "creating jobs" then it has to invent projects. The result is infrastructure that people didn't really need. Jobs also weren't "created" they were displaced from other, productive, areas of the economy. If anyone believes that the government is more capable than private enterprise at gauging what the people will find valuable and useful then they have a faith in government that eludes me.
"insurance, and banking."
I'll leave insurance alone because I don't consider myself qualified to speak on it. However, I will say that if government is in the "business" of providing insurance that implies that it is insuring people that the private sector has determined are "un-insurable" or "bad risks". This means that the government is using other people's money to take risks on people that private institutions have decided are not worth risking their own money on. I'll let others decide if they feel that's an endeavour that can pay off, socially or economically.
With regards to banks, same thing. Government gets involved with banks because it either wants to encourage lending to individuals that private institutions have deemed are "bad risks", or it wants to prevent banking collapse by offering them some sort of "bail out" (in the form of lending by the Fed in our current system) in case the banks find themselves insolvent.
The Fed was chartered to be a lender of last resort and we saw how well that worked out in the Great Depression (when they actually contracted the pool of currency rather than lending, and countless banks went under). Today the fed artificially manipulates interest rates by selling bonds. This encourages banks to lend more to each other (and consequently to lend out to entrepreneurs or home owners etc). These are instances where government is encouraging poor lending practices. I don't see how that can help the economy on the whole. People who can't get loans should resort to the traditional means of acquiring capital: saving. Which brings me to another reason that government interventionism into banking can be a bad idea: inflation. When government controls the creation of money it becomes far too tempting to inflate the currency to pay for immediate projects (as an alternative to raising taxes). The result is a debasing of the currency which makes it very hard for people to save. And we end up in a habit of lending / borrowing. Again: up for you to decide if it's a good idea or a bad idea.
I've often felt the same way about monetary fines. When it becomes profitable to the municipality to issue speeding tickets, for example, an incentive is created to issue as many speeding tickets as possible. We've seen this discussed on /. before in the cases of municipalities shortening the length of the yellow light to that below the legal limit in order for the cameras at those lights to "auto-catch" more people running reds.
There is something to be said for the argument "should the public be forced to pay for the crimes of an individual?". I've reflected on that question and have come to the conclusion that "yes, they should". Laws are a set of rules that will always oppress those who do not agree with them. We can, do, and should justify them by various means. However, in order for us to enforce the rules we need to be prepared to pay a certain cost. Whether it's the cost of building prisons, hiring and training police officers and of administering the punishments themselves it must cost society. It the cost of dealing with those people who do not wish to play by our rules. In other words: it is the cost of the game itself.
If the profit is liberty, peace and civility then ultimately the cost is worth it. Trying to make attaining those ends profitable, or at the very least non-costly, is trying to attain something for nothing. It becomes pure oppression for the benefit of others. Crime becomes a net gain rather than a loss. The incentive is created to make as much a crime as possible.
Thus I feel that there should be a supreme law that prevents rule-makers from administering punishments that result in a transfer of wealth to anyone involved in the legislative, judiciary, enforcement and penal processes.
"How does taxing people encourage banks to make bad loans?"
I could have worded that sentence much better, admittedly. It's the process of government securing loans, which it can only do if it has the money to make good on those securities. Although obviously there's lots else the government can do with tax revenue too.
You mentioned the prospect of total bank collapse and the resulting lack of confidence in the dollar. I think this speaks volumes to one of the other sources of our problems, that we've ignored while discussing the specific issue of banking: fiat currency. What I would like to see is the abolition of restrictions on the public using gold and silver for currency. People should start buying hard assets (which is kind of what the banks are doing by purchasing treasuries, of course in the worst case scenario the government goes bankrupt and then the future looks *really* bleak while we sort out the resulting revolution) and if there is a loss of confidence in the dollar then we have something to go back on. There's no reason why gold and the USD can't both exist and compete with one another. Gold would end up winning out since it has, you know, value.
Of course if we abolish the Fed then the risk of bank runs increases (in theory, in practice the Fed has done very little to be the lender of last resort that it was supposed to be). Friedman didn't like going back to gold because it proved to be unstable. However, if you look at the stability of the fiat dollar the comparison becomes laughable. I'm not really sure what the best solution to preventing bank runs and the risk of a resulting recession or depression is. But I do think that in response to your scenario of massive bank failure and a loss of confidence in the dollar: introducing an alternative makes a whole lot of sense.
You mentioned mortgage backed securities and their value. My question is: SHOULD they have any value left ? There are those who believe that the securities created the housing bubble to begin with. And it makes perfect sense because governments securing loans only exists to encourage sub-prime lending in the first place.
If banks are insolvent right now then it is because they made bad loans. And banks who make more bad loans than good SHOULD fail. I don't see how we ever got into this belief that capital is debt rather than savings. Economists throughout history have said that capital comes from savings. In this past century we started financing everything with debt.
My original point was that when a rich person (or any person, class is irrelevant at this point in the debate) puts their money into a savings account the bank uses part of it to make loans. OK, so banks are insolvent. They'll use the money to either pay off their debt or buy treasury bonds instead. If people (and banks) started saving their money and liquidating their debt, and government started cutting spending and liquidating it's debt, then the habits that got us into this mess in the first place will start to be undone. If government stops securing loans and printing money, and people put more into savings (instead of trying to finance all of their living through debt), then banks will be forced to make GOOD LOANS on people with good investment history and viable business plans, rather than lending to people who stand an excellent chance of defaulting.
Taxing everyone so that we can encourage banks that made bad loans to continue doing so and pump everyone's money into industries that the market is rejecting is only going to make things worse.
With regards to the Mises institute web-site, I encourage you to at least read about it and who Ludwig Von Mises was and what contributions he made to economics. I agree with your point about the silly pictures, but their contribution to the field of economics is immense and there is so much to learn from their publications.
"You said that banks invest the money. What happens when there is too much inventory because of extremely low consumption and thus too much investment. How does more investment help?"
I said that banks LEND the money. It's up to the market forces to determine how that money will be used.
To employ your own logic: how does the government know better than the natural market forces what products or services will be in high demand ? How do we know whether the energy of tomorrow is going to be nuclear or solar ? To put into better words: how does the government know what industries are worthwhile investments ?
ESPECIALLY when you consider that the government invests other people's money. How on earth can you expect a government to spend wisely on technologies or industries of the future when it's not risking it's own savings ? When it's proverbial rear-end is not on the line. When it won't be forced to learn a hard lesson and admit it's mistakes and correct them, like every individual entrepreneur is forced to do ?
"And Paris Hilton does not spend as reliably as hungry people or government programs so that argument is worthless too."
I have no idea what you mean by "spend as reliably". My only point was that a rich person's monetary wealth gets put back into the economy which employs people. Whether they spend the money on personal consumption or put it into a savings account. And that people in general are much better at deciding where to spend their money than the government.
"The problem is lack of demand not lack of investment. You create demand by spending not cutting taxes for the rich."
Your first sentence is the only part of your post that I agree with. There is a surplus of supply and no demand. The housing market is the most obvious example. The bubble was a result of government intervention into the housing market in an attempt to encourage people to buy homes because the belief was that owning a home was the foundation for future individual economic prosperity. This created an artificial housing bubble and now we have more homes waiting for an owner than we do prospective owners.
People are also liquidating their debt and saving their money. Further lack of demand. BUT THIS IS ALSO A GOOD THING! It is a market correction. As a result prices will come down to reflect a lack of demand. Products that HAVE NO CURRENT VALUE will be sold off at extremely low prices or disposed of and businesses that OFFER NOTHING OF VALUE will close. This is a contraction of the market but it is short term. Gradually confidence returns. People will have paid off large amounts of debts, will have some savings and will be looking for things to purchase. There will be wage cuts and unemployment and people will have to figure out how to cope. Some will pursue career changes. Others will accept a wage cut somewhere else. But costs of living also come down and if the correction is allowed to take it's course, it will be temporary.
You asked me how more investment would solve the problem. I never said that it will. My only point was that a rich person being rich does not make a poor person poor. That taxing the rich and giving to the poor does not generate greater prosperity for everyone. When there is overall greater prosperity you still have a lower class but the standards of living for that lower class are much, much greater than they are in a sick economy. This is a fact that has been proven time and time again throughout history. Western worlds that adopted a capitalist system had classes but the standards of living for the poorest were exponentially greater when compared with the standards of living for the poor in socialist and communist countries.
You also implied that I said something about tax cuts for the rich. I endorse tax cuts for EVERYONE. Because the market is much better at using money efficiently than government is. History proves this. Think about this: the income tax accounts for roughly 40% of the government's national revenue. If you cut t
That's a good point, if it's true.
Also, if the banks are buying treasury bonds then the government could use that money to pay off it's debts to the fed, which would deflate the pool of money thus causing prices to come down. Heck, they could liquidate any of the national debt with the money from those bonds which would help matters greatly.
You're pointing the finger at the banks, and they definitely do deserve a share of the blame, but so should the government and so should people who chose to take out loans that they couldn't pay back. This isn't a problem with capitalism, it's not a problem with the republicans or the democrats. It's a problem of government printing money, securing loans and giving hand-outs to special interest groups and those group taking whatever they can get and running with it.
Yes, fractional reserve directly contributes to inflation. Because when a bank lends out money the person who gets the loan has money to spend but that money also, technically, belongs to the person who put it in his/her savings account. However, when loans get paid back that new money that was created is destroyed and deflation takes effect and prices go down and you have an overall correction.
The important part here is that the banks need to make wise loans. If the banks get themselves into trouble then they risk a bank run and are forced to borrow from another bank to meet it's obligations. The Federal Reserve was supposed to solve this problem by being a lender of last resort. However, during the great depression they failed massively in their task (Milton Friedman accused the Fed of causing the depression) and since we saw banks collapse in 2008 as well it would appear that the Fed is not living up to one of their intended purposes.
I was opposed to the fractional reserve system for a long time for the inflation reason. However, inflation is not inherently a "bad thing" as long as deflation is allowed to occur. The problem is when you give a central authority the power over the creation of money, and over monetary policy. It becomes too tempting to keep printing more and more. The public doesn't like deflation because they see the short-sighted impact of their wages getting cut (cost of living goes down accordingly as well, which is little comfort psychologically). The last time we saw a government-supported program of deflation was in the 70's. It's largely believed to be the only reason that all confidence has not been lost in the dollar yet.
I'm not really sure what your point is. Each sovereign nation needs to adopt it's own policies, and I agree that economics is a global issue and other nation's policies will have an effect. That effect mostly comes in the form of trade. If your domestic production is flourishing but (somehow) you're the only nation and the rest of the world can't afford your exports then you'll simply have to do without importing anything (since exports pay for imports). Or you'll have to lower your prices. Either way this will have the effect of causing your domestic production to shrink, since you'll have less, overall, capital. But is that relevant ? All this does is to point out the truth that when there is overall greater prosperity everyone benefits. And when there is overall contraction everyone contracts. That doesn't say anything about what kind of policies the US should implement domestically.
I'm not saying that it's fair to the people who will loose. I'm not saying that it's entirely their fault and I'm not even saying that we (the public, not government specifically), should stand back and do nothing.
There is so much blame to go around. It's not fair to blame just the banks or Wall-Street, it's not fair to blame just the Republicans or the Democrats. This is a problem of gradual, systemic tampering with the way in which people trade and do business with one another. Consider that every thing the government does to assist one group must automatically be at the expense of another. In our mixed system of capitalism, welfare, corporatism and general interventionism we see government supported monopolies (via tariffs, licensure and regulations that make entry into industries very difficult), artificially reduced interest rates (through debt financing by the Fed), a deficit that's in the trillions (according to Ron Paul's book "The Revolution: A Manifesto" the US national debt is accruing 1.4 billion dollars per DAY in interest!) and a general tax on the entire public via the government's program of inflation.
So I'm not saying that we should do nothing to help the individuals who are on the loosing end. I'm just saying that governmental assistance is something to be extremely weary of. Because everything that I just listed is a result of "good intentions" on the part of government. Here's a radical theory: maybe if we cut the income tax and cut government spending to accommodate, and the government was honest with the public that the majority of their economic problems are a result of artificial market manipulation, the result of people being able to keep 100% of what they earn will stimulate them to being more charitable.
I encourage everyone to speak with their elders about what times were like when they were younger. The US has only had a fiat currency since 1913. It's only started to expand a world-wide military empire (that costs an estimated 1 trillion dollars per year that comes straight out of the productive areas of the economy) since the 1950's. HMO's and medicaire etc. are also relatively new and today we see virtually no pro-bono doctors or charity-run hospitals anymore. There used to be an abundance of them and no one was turned away because they couldn't afford treatment. Don't take my words for it, read some of Dr. Ron Paul's writing where he talks about what the health care system was like when he was a young practicing obstetrician.
So all I'm asking is for people to really examine ALL of the effects that government spending, in general, has on the entire economy as a whole instead of just looking at the short term effects. Nothing short of revolutionary reform would cut all governmental intervention but people, at the very least, need to be asking these questions and having these debates. Every time the economy goes sour, or there's some other catastrophic event (9/11, hurricanes Katrina and Gustov) people get a revived sense of dependence on government. It's a belief structure that's based around the idea that government, through means of forceful coercion, can take from the most productive areas of society and use those takings to somehow save the unproductive areas (sometimes their goals are successful but we never ask at what cost ? What new industry was indirectly destroyed because a dying industry was saved through governmental assistance and was the result for the better or for the worse ? And how would we know ?).
We should all feel compassionate and do what we can to help those who have found themselves on the loosing end. All I'm saying is that forceful coercion and governmental assistance never accomplishes the goal of economic prosperity. If we've seen prosperity in the past it's been in spite of intervention, not because of it.
On a lighter note, but one that helps illustrate the unintended side-effects of government hand-outs, the Ludwig Von Mises Institute web-site published an article recently titled Bailing Out the Red Light District that is worth a read. If for no other reason than to give you a good laugh.
The solution in that case would be for all parties to liquidate their debt and have C learn from the lesson of making bad loans. Rather than redistributing wealth in inefficient ways and encouraging people to borrow more.
When did we start to look at capital as debt rather than savings ? The problem isn't that we need people to borrow more. We need to change our attitudes, liquidate our debt and starting saving again! Banks made these bad loans because the government (Fannie Mae) was securing the mortgages. That was part of FDR's New Deal. He wanted to encourage people to buy homes so he chartered Fannie Mae as this new thing called a government-sponsored enterprise in order to purchase mortgages from banks in exchange for securities.
That created the scenario that you just described.
Lending and borrowing is fine when the risks are properly calculated. The problem is when the government, in an attempt to think of those who the private sector will not lend to because they're considered bad investments!, secures loans which encourages banks to take risks that they otherwise would not have done. The result was a housing bubble and now there is a correction. However, instead of changing our habits and getting out of this debt mentality we're just getting more of the same. Redistribute capital, print more money and lend more to banks so that they make more bad loans. In computer science we would refer to all of this market manipulation as "a series hacks upon hacks upon hacks".
"I guess economy isn't your strongest subject?"
Funny. After reading your post I could ask you the same thing.
When a wealthy individual puts his/her money into savings they either put it into a savings account in a bank or they invest it. The 3rd option is that they could literally hoard it in a mattress or a safe in their home, which is the only scenario that gives your argument a leg to stand on. But only an extremely small fraction of misers do that.
The money goes into a savings account and the banks keep a small percentage for reserves and lend out the rest. So while a small fraction of the savings does get held by the banks, the majority goes back into the economy. If you consider that in a healthy economy banks will be making wise investments then the reserve is rendered moot because the banks capital grows through good loans which employs more bankers.
Every penny that the rich have goes to creating employment, either directly or indirectly. When Paris Hilton buys a Gucci bag she's indirectly employing the shop keeper who then spends that money to indirectly employ her grocer who then spends it at the gas station and indirectly employs the attendant etc. When the rich put the money into savings they're still indirectly contributing towards employment. And when all is said and done, when the rich decide to withdraw their savings down the road, they will have that much more capital to spend on creating new business ventures or on personal consumption (which, as I illustrated, is still a form of employing). Which is why, traditionally, capital is created by savings, not borrowing! It's this debt lifestyle that not only the public but the government has gotten itself into that has enormously contributed to the current contraction (which is always just a massive and sudden change of behaviour in the way that people handle their savings, and that naturally sorts itself out over time unless it is made worse by encouraging people to put themselves into further debt instead of liquidating their debt and saving).
Government taking from the rich may not necessarily do immediate harm, depending on how they spend it. However, it will never create a net surplus of employment and history has clearly shown us that government is extremely inefficient with money on the whole.
I'm going to run through some very elementary principles of economics. For more information I suggest you read "Economics In One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt.
Cutting taxes only works if government also cuts spending. However, since 1913 (when the Federal Reserve Act was established) the government (or more precisely the Federal Reserve, which is actually an independent corporation which was chartered by the government and not part of the government at all) has been in charge of the creation of money.
Why cut taxes, which will anger the public, when you can spend by just printing more money ?
However, most people realize that while the government can print money there is a catch. The catch is that prices go up. What happens when the Fed says that it's going to "slash interest rates" is that it manipulates the rate at which banks borrow from each other by purchasing bonds from the banks. This gives the banks more money to lend out, and naturally banks encourage borrowing by cutting their interest rates. However, the most important part of the equation is that the Fed creates the money to purchase those bonds out of thin air.
So now there's more money in circulation. The people who do the most borrowing get the money first and get the benefits. Since they have all of this extra money they can bid more for what they need. So the businesses that they contract to raise their prices. Now those businesses have more money and they in turn bid higher and so on until the new money has spread through the economy.
The act of adding to the pool of money is inflation. Rising prices is the symptom.
The effect that this has on the population as a whole, and hardest on the poorest who do the least amount of borrowing and purchasing, is literally the same as raising taxes. More specifically it's literally the same as if the government went into your bank account and took out money. Because it devalues the currency. This is a clear case of big business getting benefits at the expense of everyone else. It's not a case against laissez-faire capitalism, because government-controlled fiat currency is anything but laissez-faire. It's interventionist to the extreme.
These stimulus packages are almost always financed through inflation. There's 3 ways that the government can finance anything: 1) they spend tax dollars 2) they borrow the money from another nation and 3) they print more money (pretty much the same as raising taxes for the reasons I just explained).
Now, since you mentioned that you believe that the stimulus is going to be sufficient (I guess you haven't bothered to ask yourself why the last bailout bills haven't been), consider what I just said about the way that government finances spending. In order to spend anything the government has to take first. Government does not generate wealth. They merely redistribute.
Most people who support the bailouts / stimulus packages feel that it's going to work because it's going to take from the rich who can easily afford to pay more taxes and give to the poor. However, that's a very short-sighted view. Because while class-envy is natural and understandable, every penny that the rich spend on personal consumption is indirectly contributing to employment. When Paris Hilton buys a new Gucci bag she's indirectly employing the shop keeper who sold her the bag. The shop keeper is then indirectly employing the grocer who sells her her groceries and so on. So all of this talk about stimulus is rather absurd. Government can not create jobs. Every government dollar spent is a dollar taken from a productive area of society. In other words: an area that is currently employing people.
I hear some people raising their hands and saying "but people aren't spending right now! The rich are hoarding their money and not employing!". However, unless they're hoarding their money literally in a mattress or safe in their home they're still employing. They keep their money in savings accounts or they invest it. Which both contribute to production
"That's kind of a dumb question. (I might be excused from inferring your agenda from your question, but I'll refrain -- we already have too much of that.) Anything that causes money to be spent stimulates the economy. The issue with the stimulus bill (including this part) is not whether it will stimulate the economy, but whether it will stimulate it enough to justify adding most of a terabuck to the national debt."
Here's a question: If you take money from person A and give it to person B, have you stimulated anything ? Person B will have more to spend, admittedly, but person A will have less. The net effect on the economy is null. Unless you buy into the theory of competition which states that government will never be as efficient as private industry. If you agree with that principle then you can see that not only has the government not stimulated anything, the odds are more likely that they've generated a net loss.
Actually, yes :(
I would never buy meat from a farmer that does that, but in some parts of the world they do truly sick things to the animals (like skinning them alive) because they think it makes the meat taste better.
One extremely popular food that could count as an example is Foie Gras. It's duck liver (though you can get Foie Gras from other animals but unless you specify what animal then duck is usually assumed) that has been artificially enlarged via force feeding the animal. Whether or not gorging is actually uncomfortable for the animal is debatable (I have heard plausible arguments from people claiming that fowl will actually self-gorge before migration, and anecdotes from farmers who claimed the animals actually LIKE it), but it has been banned in some parts of the world because the gorging is seen as animal abuse.
To further this thought, some people might not actually want the SAME dog, but a dog with the same temperment and behavioural tendencies.
But then, I'm not a pet person at all. So I might not "get it". I do know that I would want a dog that can be easily trained not to bark or crap in my house, though.
So if you had one that was a breeze to train why not get it's genetic identical ?
I realize you're being funny, but in the true geek spirit, and being someone who loves to cook and has considered changing careers and becoming a chef, I can not resist the urge to get serious and rip this hypothesis apart.
There are actually a lot of factors, outside of the breed, that influence the taste of meat. The feed being the most important. So we'll assume that you feed it the exact same diet (and that the manufacturer of said feed does not alter it's ingredients). Then hope that the dog never gets sick and requires medication. But then, maybe your original dog got sick and needed medication and that contributed somewhat to it's flavour. Environmental conditions also play a vital role. Did the dog get lots of exercise ? Muscle strength contributes immensely to the texture, tenderness and flavour of the meat. Was the dog ever abused (maybe a previous owner) ? Stress releases all kinds of hormones and chemicals in the body that can affect flavour. Leave the dog alone for a day, get him all worked up and upset, and come back to have a completely different tasting animal.
Farmers who compete on quality and taste (as oppose to cost) have come up with all kinds of theories and practices (some proven, some superstitions, some plausible but untested) that they claim gives their meat a superior taste and texture. For example, some cow farmers actually massage their meat with electric massagers, claiming it produces more tender beef.
Ultimately I must side with the GP. Cloned Animal != Same Animal.
I got off my ass and PAID for a converter box. I'm on a border town in Canada. The Detroit / American broadcast channels come in crystal clear while the Canadian channels are really fuzzy. So I watch US TV but don't get a free box. Anyway the quality is a nightmare. I might actually have to go out and buy a brand new tv with a digital tuner.
Every time there is text on the screen I get an extremely annoying "crackling" sound. It seems to be related to the HD to SD aspect conversion because if I change the aspect ratio the sound changes (it doesn't get any less annoying, it just changes). If I mute the volume on my converter box it doesn't change the sound, so it's not actually related to the audio. The only way to kill the annoying sound is to mute the volume on the TV itself. Or turn the converter box off and watch analog, which is what I'm doing until the switchover. After the switchover I'm not sure what I'll do because I can't justify spending even $100 on a TV right now. It's just not important enough to me.
"In fact, the only 3 things I want on my cellphone, is voice calling, voice mail, and text services.
I know some people who even consider that to be too much."
Amen. I don't have a cellphone but now that I'm learning to drive and the Mrs. and I are talking about getting a 2nd vehicle I'm thinking about getting one just so that I can make calls home to see if there's anything we need grocery-wise while I'm out etc. I wouldn't want voice mail or texting. I'd probably leave the thing off and just turn it on to make calls home. I realize that's a bit of a double standard (expecting to be able to get attention from home instantly but not wanting others to do so of me), but phones bother me. I don't really want to be permanently connected to the world. I'm just not that much of an attention whore. So the rest of the world can have their phones and their connectivity and I will have my peace and quiet.
I find the example of your grandmother and the microwave oven a little funny. Only because I grew up using microwaves and over the last year or two, as I've learned to cook, I've gradually stopped using it. I don't think I've used our microwave at all in the past year.
I admit there's convenience and I don't blame or condemn people for using them. But everything you can do with a microwave you can do better (albeit slower) with traditional methods. The results are soooo much tastier if you put your hot sandwich in the oven, melt your butter in a small sauce pan or defrost your meat slowly in the fridge etc.
I have a serious solution to that problem: learn how to cook. As in, learn how to cook SERIOUSLY GOOD food.
I can spend more on raw ingredients for a single meal than it would cost to take my wife out to a fancy restaurant (not that I do often, just saying that I can), or I can make something amazing for cheaper. And girls dig guys who can cook! Most geeks should like cooking too because there's tons of science involved and most of us like to tinker and make things. Plus when you're done you've got the most amazing meal that, unless you live in New York or LA, can afford to eat at a fine dining restaurant and are lucky enough to get a reservation, you're not going to get eating out.
My wife and I never eat out any more. We're in a mid-sized town and every time we eat out it's always disappointing. Over priced and something I could make way better at home.
I recommend "Zingerman's Guide to Good Eating" as a starting point for anyone looking to get into cooking. It explains how to choose the best ingredients, gives you the history of food's as well, and has some simple recipes too.
"News Flash: A business acted last night in a move that is expected to increase it's revenue. A spokesperson for the business did not comment on whether or not this move is expected to directly, or indirectly increase revenue. She only told us that it is a general policy of the company to act on behalf of the financial interests of it's share holders and employees".
*World Gasps In Shock*