In the 50s, the 'rich' were plowing their capital into expansion. Postwar, we were virtually the only working economy in the world. Today, we may be in precisely the opposite situation.
So taking capital for government operation is a good idea now?..
You have economics and history exactly backwards. If the rich plow capital back into the business it is not income and does not get taxed. This is what happened when rates were high in the 50s and 60s. When rates are low the capital is often pulled out for other things, that turn out to be unproductive for the nation. Higher taxes is actually encouraging productive investment of capital.
I'm more worried that this taxes people on their way to becoming rich.
Anyone bringing in more than a million dollars every year is already rich, and the taxes being discussed are simply the same net tax rates that the middle class already pays on incomes less than 10% as large. Aren't you concerned about the middle class earning a decent living, send their kids to college, and be able to retire?
Tax wealth not income...
I'd be fine with that. The concentration of assets to the top of the pyramid is even greater than the concentration of income. This would shift the burden of taxes far more heavily on to the rich.
Meanwhile the anti-evolutionary creationists will forever emphasize that there are spaces between the data points.
Well, who can blame them? You're correct that we can't expect a perfectly smooth fossil record, but when there is such a large sampling surrounding the data points, with nothing in between, it would be kind of suspect to a mathematician.
Not to a real mathematician, who understands statistical inference, no.
People are even questioning whether the conventional view that Archaeopteryx is a bird is correct, rather than a side-branch close to the divergence between birds and dinosaurs, which if accepted would mean you could have a flying dinosaur that isn't technically regarded as a "bird". That would be weird.
You mean like the pteradoctyl?
Actually, surprisingly enough, no. Not like a pteradactyl. Modern cladistics completely exclude the pterosaurs from any part of the sub-tree (Dinosauromorpha) that can be called "dinosaurs" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archosauria). They split off from dinosaurs in the clade
Avemetatarsalia at about the same level as birds do.
A business model based on growing on private investment rather than revenue, vastly over-inflated self estimate of worth, and years of accounting sleights of hand were easily rooted out.
Sight unseen, I'd suspect - OK, to be honest, hope - that Facebook is in a similar situation. They may have to go through a few firms before they find out willing to take them to market with a multi billion dollar cap and a straight face.
By George, I think you've got it!
Until they go public, all of the information about the company's operations are secret and people buying into Facebook as investors are having to rely on the word of Goldman Sachs that what they are getting is worth what they are paying.
Think about it.
Goldman Sachs.
Has that company ever crafted a deal where it did not cut itself a sweetheart inside arrangement? Self-dealing is the company's DNA. It seems to always make a lot of money, a lot of money, no matter how badly its clients fare in a deal.
Fortunately for G S and Facebook there is a lot of money out there hoping for a monster return, and willing to be gulled.
Plagiarist don't link to the original article in their copy. Frankly, I don't see the problem.
In 1979 Dr. E A K Alsabti submitted a paper to the Japanese Journal of Medical Science and Biology that he had coped from a paper that had been published that same year by someone else in the European Journal of Cancer. This was discovered when someone looking up the paper's references found that one of them was the paper that had been plagiarized!
You have a point, but nontrivial sentences repeat rarely. It's not hard to come up with a sentence that major search engines won't find anywhere....
Ah, but Turnitin prides itself on having clever algorithms that look for clever re-wordings and other reformulations intended to defeat attempts at matching. It is not just (or even primarily these days) looking for identical sequences. It is trying to engage in an arms race with adaptable plagarizers. Against that back drop the chances that a series of sentence expressing similar thoughts on a given topic will be judged "too similar" will go up astronomically.
Plagiarist don't link to the original article in their copy. Frankly, I don't see the problem.
In 1979 Dr. E A K Alsabti published an article in the Japanese Journal of Medical Science and Biology which had been copied from a paper published that same year in the European Journal of Cancer. This was discovered when someone interested in the article looked up the references and found that one of the references was the paper that had been plagiarized.
How are the results of this test less important than broken computer climate simulations or a tree-ring specialist?
The debate isn't over.
Do remind us all which camp is in denial."
Good to see that there are some who are not Cowards.
One lab test is one contribution to a vast literature by thousands of scientist the world over on global warming. That the literature and that community of scientist now overwhelming supports the existence of global warming, and that humans contribute substantially to it, is not debunked by one single lab test of questionable real world significance.
The debates on its existence, and whether humans contribute is over* -- the debates are now over defining more precisely the magnitudes, and details of how it all plays out.
*In the same way that the debate over evolution (i.e. its existence) is over. There are many, many debates about evolution, but none about its reality. But, as with AGW, there are many who pretend that evolution is still in question.
It is remarkable how many AGW deniers are posting here as Anonymous Coward today. I guess creating new sock puppet identities to shill for Big Oil and the anti-science right-wing is too obvious here, where their assigned number is a dead give-away.
You must mean the former women gymnastics team members. I am fairly sure that none of the current team members (should be renamed the "girl's gymnastics team") can procreate.
ADD and Asperger's are nothing but labels which medicalize one of two things:
- Either the justification of rotten childhood behavior resulting from being spoiled rotten with no discipline, or
- An excuse for parents, who are too busy reliving their own youth through mid-life crises to actually do some damn parenting, to keep their kids in overmedicated stupors.
Talk about worthless, brain-dead, theories -- you just contributed two more!
I like the idea, but I think that trade agreements don't allow us to overtax imports.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Two points.
First, China is currently generating exports through a number of exploitative and unfair practices: e.g. cutting costs by permitting environmental devastation, using its current monopoly supply of rare-earths as a weapon by embargoing competitors, and artificially manipulating the value of Yuan (an deliberate act of economic warfare). Now ideological rigid free marketers might dismiss the predatory environmental practices of Chinese industry, but the manipulation of the Yuan is the antithesis of any sort of free market - it is a hostile act by a foreign government. If you don't get mad about one, you should the other (I get mad about both). Since China is engaging in unfair practices to the detriment of the U.S. we do not have fair trade and measures to redress this fact are in order.
Second, the agreements are just that agreements. The U.S. can withdraw from them at any time. They were instituted with the assumption that they were in the U.S. interest, and that all partners would "play fair". Since neither of these conditions obtain, we should withdraw or insist on revision.
We shouldn't REQUIRE a GD debt increase to begin with. If our idiot 'leaders' would learn to spend less than they take in, we wouldn't NEED a debt ceiling at all.
Ideology indeed! We were beginning to pay off the debt in 2000 when a sharp tax cut, much larger than the then-existing surplus, plunged us into red ink as far as the eye can see. Restoring the tax rates to the levels of recent history then the economy was doing well (say the first term Reagan tax rates) would make a dramatic cut in the deficit projections.
But no, for some reason* it has become a law of nature** on the right that tax rates can only ever be revised downward.
*Some combination of ideological rigidity and the interests of the very wealthy.
**Unlike, say evolution, which has the defect of having empirical, but ideologically unacceptable, evidence.
Did you miss the fact that the bubble implosion took place two years before the tax cuts went into effect, and that the economy had recovered from its effects by 3Q 2001?
Look at the economic data I posted links to - no GDP drop period. Tax revenue fell because rates were cut.
What is sad, not funny, is you ignore facts and reality and pull false excuses out of your nether regions instead.
The Bush tax cuts were to stimulate the economy after 9/11 (they failed to do so)
And yet, Federal tax revenues increased by 30% from 2000 to 2007 (and then began dropping in 2008 as the Housing Bubble burst).
And this in spite of the recession immediately post-9/11, which saw tax revenues drop 10% over a two year period.
Insightful? Really? When the poster literally makes up a non-existent recession to explain the drop in tax revenues when the rates were cut?
Look at the data folks: www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls (or if you prefer a graphic representation - http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2010/2/26/saupload_gdp2000_2010.jpg ). There was no post "9-11 recession"; in fact there is not a single quarter after the Bush tax cuts went into effect when the GDP did not increase, until the crash of 2008.
In real terms (inflation adjusted) there was no "30% increase". U.S. tax revenues fell sharply (18%) with the Bush tax cuts going in to effect, and recovered their former level only in 2006 (see second column, 2005 constant dollars: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist01z3.xls). But the country had grown in population by 6% over the interim so this was still down from previous levels. It never recovered to the previous level on a per capita or GDP fraction basis 9http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2010/08/tax-revenue-as-a-fraction-of-gdp/).
I agree. Corelle is really nice and practical - a superior material in almost every respect. Also melamine table ware - very popular in the 50s and 60s is very nice and durable. I have pieces from the set my family used in the early 1960s, in daily use for 50 years, and expanded the set by buying original pieces on eBay recently.
It's from 1973, not the sixties, but John Brunner's Shockwave Rider is an impressive depiction of the information age.
Worms, phishing, spoofing, identity theft, the power of information and its manipulation...
OK, he missed the personnal computer (it's mainframes all the way up) and multimedia.
The Internet data size is hilarious...
Brunner even added reality TV, communautarism and an few other staples of today's society.
I find something I missed each time I read it again.
With Stand on Zanaibar (1968), The Jagged Orbit (1969), and Shockwave Rider (1973) John Brunner was really cooking at the envisioning the future. Each has remarkable insights into how things developed.
Try: John Brunner's The Jagged Orbit from 1969, world-wide networking pervading all aspects of life. it also features a corporate cartel controlling America. It is too bad the future turned out to be a dystopian novel.
Slashdot Mirror
In the 50s, the 'rich' were plowing their capital into expansion. Postwar, we were virtually the only working economy in the world. Today, we may be in precisely the opposite situation.
So taking capital for government operation is a good idea now?..
You have economics and history exactly backwards. If the rich plow capital back into the business it is not income and does not get taxed. This is what happened when rates were high in the 50s and 60s. When rates are low the capital is often pulled out for other things, that turn out to be unproductive for the nation. Higher taxes is actually encouraging productive investment of capital.
I'm more worried that this taxes people on their way to becoming rich.
Anyone bringing in more than a million dollars every year is already rich, and the taxes being discussed are simply the same net tax rates that the middle class already pays on incomes less than 10% as large. Aren't you concerned about the middle class earning a decent living, send their kids to college, and be able to retire?
Tax wealth not income...
I'd be fine with that. The concentration of assets to the top of the pyramid is even greater than the concentration of income. This would shift the burden of taxes far more heavily on to the rich.
Meanwhile the anti-evolutionary creationists will forever emphasize that there are spaces between the data points. Well, who can blame them? You're correct that we can't expect a perfectly smooth fossil record, but when there is such a large sampling surrounding the data points, with nothing in between, it would be kind of suspect to a mathematician.
Not to a real mathematician, who understands statistical inference, no.
People are even questioning whether the conventional view that Archaeopteryx is a bird is correct, rather than a side-branch close to the divergence between birds and dinosaurs, which if accepted would mean you could have a flying dinosaur that isn't technically regarded as a "bird". That would be weird.
You mean like the pteradoctyl?
Actually, surprisingly enough, no. Not like a pteradactyl. Modern cladistics completely exclude the pterosaurs from any part of the sub-tree (Dinosauromorpha) that can be called "dinosaurs" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archosauria). They split off from dinosaurs in the clade Avemetatarsalia at about the same level as birds do.
WADR, they said the same about killing the SSC, that it would set particle physics back $yada decades. LHC appears to have made that argument moot.
20 years later!
And with 1/3 the collision energy. The LHC is not a complete replacement for the original SSC - it is simply the best in the world today.
A business model based on growing on private investment rather than revenue, vastly over-inflated self estimate of worth, and years of accounting sleights of hand were easily rooted out.
Sight unseen, I'd suspect - OK, to be honest, hope - that Facebook is in a similar situation. They may have to go through a few firms before they find out willing to take them to market with a multi billion dollar cap and a straight face.
By George, I think you've got it!
Until they go public, all of the information about the company's operations are secret and people buying into Facebook as investors are having to rely on the word of Goldman Sachs that what they are getting is worth what they are paying.
Think about it.
Goldman Sachs.
Has that company ever crafted a deal where it did not cut itself a sweetheart inside arrangement? Self-dealing is the company's DNA. It seems to always make a lot of money, a lot of money, no matter how badly its clients fare in a deal.
Fortunately for G S and Facebook there is a lot of money out there hoping for a monster return, and willing to be gulled.
Sorry - accidental double post (not sure what happened while editing).
Plagiarist don't link to the original article in their copy. Frankly, I don't see the problem.
In 1979 Dr. E A K Alsabti submitted a paper to the Japanese Journal of Medical Science and Biology that he had coped from a paper that had been published that same year by someone else in the European Journal of Cancer. This was discovered when someone looking up the paper's references found that one of them was the paper that had been plagiarized!
You have a point, but nontrivial sentences repeat rarely. It's not hard to come up with a sentence that major search engines won't find anywhere....
Ah, but Turnitin prides itself on having clever algorithms that look for clever re-wordings and other reformulations intended to defeat attempts at matching. It is not just (or even primarily these days) looking for identical sequences. It is trying to engage in an arms race with adaptable plagarizers. Against that back drop the chances that a series of sentence expressing similar thoughts on a given topic will be judged "too similar" will go up astronomically.
Plagiarist don't link to the original article in their copy. Frankly, I don't see the problem.
In 1979 Dr. E A K Alsabti published an article in the Japanese Journal of Medical Science and Biology which had been copied from a paper published that same year in the European Journal of Cancer. This was discovered when someone interested in the article looked up the references and found that one of the references was the paper that had been plagiarized.
How many times have you seen liberals shouting about some disaster and demanding the adoption of free-market policies to solve it?
The successful use of cap and trade for eliminating acid rain (allowing the free market to decide how to allocate resources) comes to mind.
This is also the preferred approach being advocated for dealing with CO2 emissions.
Are conservatives showing their faith in markets by jumping on board?
shut up traitor, or Dick Cheney'll shoot you in the face! And then make you apologize for being shot!
I'll take this opportunutiy to boost an ACs comment which would otherwise be buried by the Kool-Aid drinkers:
"http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/08/25/did-cloud-just-rain-on-the-global-warming-parade/
How are the results of this test less important than broken computer climate simulations or a tree-ring specialist? The debate isn't over. Do remind us all which camp is in denial."
Good to see that there are some who are not Cowards.
One lab test is one contribution to a vast literature by thousands of scientist the world over on global warming. That the literature and that community of scientist now overwhelming supports the existence of global warming, and that humans contribute substantially to it, is not debunked by one single lab test of questionable real world significance.
The debates on its existence, and whether humans contribute is over* -- the debates are now over defining more precisely the magnitudes, and details of how it all plays out.
*In the same way that the debate over evolution (i.e. its existence) is over. There are many, many debates about evolution, but none about its reality. But, as with AGW, there are many who pretend that evolution is still in question.
It is remarkable how many AGW deniers are posting here as Anonymous Coward today. I guess creating new sock puppet identities to shill for Big Oil and the anti-science right-wing is too obvious here, where their assigned number is a dead give-away.
So where's the women gymnastics team?
You must mean the former women gymnastics team members. I am fairly sure that none of the current team members (should be renamed the "girl's gymnastics team") can procreate.
ADD and Asperger's are nothing but labels which medicalize one of two things:
- Either the justification of rotten childhood behavior resulting from being spoiled rotten with no discipline, or
- An excuse for parents, who are too busy reliving their own youth through mid-life crises to actually do some damn parenting, to keep their kids in overmedicated stupors.
Talk about worthless, brain-dead, theories -- you just contributed two more!
Yes - you need something like this http://www.luxurylaunches.com/transport/worlds_largest_super_yacht_costs_420_million_sets_new_record.php to get rolling! A $420 million floating 13,000 ton luxury resort with a population of 94 (24 guests and 70 hired help).
No, they didn't change any rules. It wasn't possible then either.
Two points.
First, China is currently generating exports through a number of exploitative and unfair practices: e.g. cutting costs by permitting environmental devastation, using its current monopoly supply of rare-earths as a weapon by embargoing competitors, and artificially manipulating the value of Yuan (an deliberate act of economic warfare). Now ideological rigid free marketers might dismiss the predatory environmental practices of Chinese industry, but the manipulation of the Yuan is the antithesis of any sort of free market - it is a hostile act by a foreign government. If you don't get mad about one, you should the other (I get mad about both). Since China is engaging in unfair practices to the detriment of the U.S. we do not have fair trade and measures to redress this fact are in order.
Second, the agreements are just that agreements. The U.S. can withdraw from them at any time. They were instituted with the assumption that they were in the U.S. interest, and that all partners would "play fair". Since neither of these conditions obtain, we should withdraw or insist on revision.
We shouldn't REQUIRE a GD debt increase to begin with. If our idiot 'leaders' would learn to spend less than they take in, we wouldn't NEED a debt ceiling at all.
Ideology indeed! We were beginning to pay off the debt in 2000 when a sharp tax cut, much larger than the then-existing surplus, plunged us into red ink as far as the eye can see. Restoring the tax rates to the levels of recent history then the economy was doing well (say the first term Reagan tax rates) would make a dramatic cut in the deficit projections.
But no, for some reason* it has become a law of nature** on the right that tax rates can only ever be revised downward.
*Some combination of ideological rigidity and the interests of the very wealthy.
**Unlike, say evolution, which has the defect of having empirical, but ideologically unacceptable, evidence.
Did you miss the fact that the bubble implosion took place two years before the tax cuts went into effect, and that the economy had recovered from its effects by 3Q 2001? Look at the economic data I posted links to - no GDP drop period. Tax revenue fell because rates were cut. What is sad, not funny, is you ignore facts and reality and pull false excuses out of your nether regions instead.
And yet, Federal tax revenues increased by 30% from 2000 to 2007 (and then began dropping in 2008 as the Housing Bubble burst).
And this in spite of the recession immediately post-9/11, which saw tax revenues drop 10% over a two year period.
Insightful? Really? When the poster literally makes up a non-existent recession to explain the drop in tax revenues when the rates were cut?
Look at the data folks: www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls (or if you prefer a graphic representation - http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2010/2/26/saupload_gdp2000_2010.jpg ). There was no post "9-11 recession"; in fact there is not a single quarter after the Bush tax cuts went into effect when the GDP did not increase, until the crash of 2008.
In real terms (inflation adjusted) there was no "30% increase". U.S. tax revenues fell sharply (18%) with the Bush tax cuts going in to effect, and recovered their former level only in 2006 (see second column, 2005 constant dollars: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist01z3.xls). But the country had grown in population by 6% over the interim so this was still down from previous levels. It never recovered to the previous level on a per capita or GDP fraction basis 9http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2010/08/tax-revenue-as-a-fraction-of-gdp/).
I agree. Corelle is really nice and practical - a superior material in almost every respect. Also melamine table ware - very popular in the 50s and 60s is very nice and durable. I have pieces from the set my family used in the early 1960s, in daily use for 50 years, and expanded the set by buying original pieces on eBay recently.
It's from 1973, not the sixties, but John Brunner's Shockwave Rider is an impressive depiction of the information age. Worms, phishing, spoofing, identity theft, the power of information and its manipulation... OK, he missed the personnal computer (it's mainframes all the way up) and multimedia. The Internet data size is hilarious...
Brunner even added reality TV, communautarism and an few other staples of today's society. I find something I missed each time I read it again.
With Stand on Zanaibar (1968), The Jagged Orbit (1969), and Shockwave Rider (1973) John Brunner was really cooking at the envisioning the future. Each has remarkable insights into how things developed.
Try: John Brunner's The Jagged Orbit from 1969, world-wide networking pervading all aspects of life. it also features a corporate cartel controlling America. It is too bad the future turned out to be a dystopian novel.