The banks because they weren't traditional S&Ls were selling the majority of the debt onward to the market where it was safely absorbed by pension funds, hedges, and large investors. By safely absorbed I mean for the bank, the market was fucked over hard. This was the running issue of the last two decade when the chickens came home to roost in 2008.
Bain just needed to show the bank could get a few million for pushing their loans theough to the market while hiding the originators.
My now 7 year old inspiron E1705 had exactly 2 repairs. Both from the faulty Nvidia cards that they were offering back then. Please tell me how Dells require a huge amount of repair...
Last time I saw a Consumer Reports on it Dells rated average.
Apple doesn't split their stock. Apple's market cap is huge and I respect that but you're comparing apples to oranges. If you remove Apple's successful line up of i-items Dell is comparable if not a tad more profitable.
But really, who cares? Alienware still has wonderful equipment and Dell has a huge business game. Even now as Apple sells to the BMW crowd Dell is still dominant in the business world. In the end Apple will sell based on fashion and image, Dell on sheer volume.
Three FELONIES a day? Most people commit two misdemeanors a day, one is a traffic violation the other is jaywalking or littering. Felonies are fairly serious crimes and music downloading is a felony perhaps, the crime is still young in legal terms, we could change./. is just getting stupider every day.
You wear an RFID badge if you work in a high-tech firm. You wear an RFID badge if you work in a high-security building. You wear an RFID badge in numerous situations that employ lawyers, engineers, and various other professionals. Why is this an issue? Oh that's right, it is/. and any of normal monitoring and security is an infringement of their constitutional right to be a belligerent dick.
Side note: Yes, schools can do this. Is it right or wrong? Really depends on how they use it but it is how you use the technology not the technology itself.
I've heard this argument before but I fail to see where the benefit is for the average consumer. Most things I would plug into a PCI-E 1/4/8/16 I wouldn't want lying on my desk. There are roughly three common items people would use, Video cards, Sound cards, and wireless adapters. I fail to see the advantage. If we're discussing removable storage eSATA and USB are fine. Thunderbolt is great for thr future but sans video card housing for laptops there is little use for it as a PCI-E port for the forseeable future.
I thought I was the only one! Same situation, couldn't see the back and instead of using my finger I used the plug and inserted. About 15 minutes of me thinking my mouse was dead was rectified when I pulled it from its wedge and found it in the extra ethernet port. >.
The US government isn't spending 40% of the GDP. The numbers you're quoting our specific acts by individiual policies. There is a general baseline that the article doesn't cover but is neither here nor there at this point.
I'm really bored and don't particuarly care to fight with you over this as I teach a class on this. You're either a liar or an idiot. You live in an alternative reality where you consume libertarian literature that has not been peer-reviewed or accurately adjudicated. In other words: You're full of shit.
In your view abusing, in others it is an extension of the state's power. As well I used the clause as more so a turn of phrase but the supreme court agrees with me, it is a clause. Public welfare is always the job of the state.
For the record I agree giving loans to 38 studios was less than public welfare as their end product was not going to benefit the public in general like a scientific advancement. The employment gains were small for the dollars expended. They would have been better spent on employment initatives.
I think the summation is that Reason being a politically drive ideologue magazine they have a skewed point of view that cannot be trusted to be objective. Especially since they seem to want to take the failure on the state level and apply it broadly to all levels of government.
Once again, I refer back to cronyism. You need to receive a direct benefit from the reward you're giving. The negative tax rate for some large corporations is more a reflection of poor tax codes and 20 years of pro-business legislators at the federal level.
This whole argument smacks of no true scotsman because they cannot accept anything but their ideologically pure point of view.
The definition of cronyism is rewarding your allies or dependents with benefits they did not earn or deserve. Usually crony capitalism is used as a buzzword to attack government since 2009 due to the relationship Barack Obama has with Chicago and the imagined relationship he has/had with the supposed Chicago political machine.
Now in this case we're looking at a government that barring some hidden kickback that directly rewarded a government official as just a bad loan. It cannot be "crony capitalism" without directly rewarding the crony of the giver.
Last I read the multiplier effect on government spending was 7. It is perhaps lower now due to the economic downturn but through the last 50 years of US history it hovered between 5 and 7. So why don't you get your economists out who aren't absolute free marketers who can offer real proof and I'll get mine.
Both of those cases are due to under-regulation. In fact the three biggest banking issues in the US were all due to under-regulation or deregulation. In each case safe investors like S&Ls/consumer banks that work on a simple investment-lending principle were able to use money that was normally reserved for covering shorts in their accounts on a given day to invest directly in the stock market.
By deregulating them we allowed low-risk institutions to become high-risk institutions without telling anyone. In fact if we hadn't deregulated S&Ls in the 1980s under Reagan and then regular banks in the 2000s under Bush we wouldn't have this global meltdown because the average everyday home owner wouldn't have been drowned by the banks trying to save themselves from bad investments they made through their investment arms. In effect we're dealing with Wall Street's problem because the government allowed them access to Main Steet's money without anybody telling main street.
No, that is not a free market at all. That's an extremely well-regulated market. Think of the term "free" as anarchistic in that anything goes barring violence and perhaps that as well. Free markets can't exist because people will go one of two ways, cheat to raise their own profits as an individual or use a trust-like syndicate to protect their interests against consumers. The race to the bottom in prices almost never occurs because the boom-bust cycle eventually plays out to a few huge players who inevitably dominate the market. It happened in trains, steel, the agricultural world, and even consumer electronics.
Regulations when used correctly create a more competitive playing field. There are those who argue the opposite but they base ir on unbending human greed which is a bad argumentative stance as it is a volatile subjective ideal.
Private ownership has zero to do with government investment in this situation. It is the act of direct ownership that those worda apply to. If the government guarantees a loan it isn't involved in the ownership of the business and once again is still acting in a capitalist way. The government can act as a bank or investor if they so desire and still remain capitalist because they weren't taking ownership or using the investment to enhance the life of the workers. It was using the public welfare clause of the modern state, for good or bad is up for debate.
PS: Solyndra got their loans under Pres Bush and a republican house. Stop using that argument because you should know it is false by now. Also Solyndra was a victim of a bad market swing more so due to the economic downturn where 38 studios died due to poor management.
Capitalism is generally viewed as an owner or investor introducing CAPITAL to produce a product or service, generally called a business. The investor can be the government or a private entity. This is a rather perfect example of capitalism. In fact it is still a form of mixed market "free capitalism" most of the modern world commences in. The issue was the business plan wasn't sound. It made no difference where the money came from.
This is an instance of/.'s poor understanding of economics clouding their ability to understand the lesson and trying to make it a case study on government investment.
Eh, most people bought touchpads in the firesale to port android to them./. Is the ultimate hobbyist ideal, but lets get serious android is dominating. WebOS was fun, I loved it on my touchpad but without critical support for apps it is useless.
Great, your a behavioral snob with an overwhelming sense of importance. You aren't the average and that's fine. People do avwrage in this country about a movie a month.
Yeah, you are an oddity. You do not even come close to the average movie goer. 15% is about 1 in 7 which is easily done. Especially if you account for multiple subscriptions in a household. What you're really going for is somewhere around 10% of households which is a completely viable number.
Really? You're a liar. Now sit down and shut up. To put it bluntly your customers use them. You receive the benefit of the existence of it all. This is the problem of discussing economics on slashdot and non-economists as they tend to take the most literal and short-sighted view possible. Not to memtion on slashdot the idiotic ideology spewn. Facebook could have been created in another first world country but wasn't created there. The main owners and founders are in the US and the HQ is here. They should have no problem paying taxes for the benefits they received both before and after the fact. The same should apply to ireland.
Why do people assume anybody means 10% on the whole? It's always been clearly based on revenue generated inside of a country. So if facebook generated 80% of their profits here we could take taxes based on their profits made here.
But that's a really very poor metaphor in that you can still pluck that goose if you put a roof over it to stop it from flying. The ultimate answer is creating an incentive to stop the race to the bottom. Places like the caymans and other tax shelters should simply be ignored for international taxation. The largest corporations can play the shell game but they cannot hide profits all that well.
Slashdot Mirror
The banks because they weren't traditional S&Ls were selling the majority of the debt onward to the market where it was safely absorbed by pension funds, hedges, and large investors. By safely absorbed I mean for the bank, the market was fucked over hard. This was the running issue of the last two decade when the chickens came home to roost in 2008.
Bain just needed to show the bank could get a few million for pushing their loans theough to the market while hiding the originators.
My now 7 year old inspiron E1705 had exactly 2 repairs. Both from the faulty Nvidia cards that they were offering back then. Please tell me how Dells require a huge amount of repair...
Last time I saw a Consumer Reports on it Dells rated average.
Apple doesn't split their stock. Apple's market cap is huge and I respect that but you're comparing apples to oranges. If you remove Apple's successful line up of i-items Dell is comparable if not a tad more profitable.
But really, who cares? Alienware still has wonderful equipment and Dell has a huge business game. Even now as Apple sells to the BMW crowd Dell is still dominant in the business world. In the end Apple will sell based on fashion and image, Dell on sheer volume.
Three FELONIES a day? Most people commit two misdemeanors a day, one is a traffic violation the other is jaywalking or littering. Felonies are fairly serious crimes and music downloading is a felony perhaps, the crime is still young in legal terms, we could change. /. is just getting stupider every day.
You wear an RFID badge if you work in a high-tech firm. You wear an RFID badge if you work in a high-security building. You wear an RFID badge in numerous situations that employ lawyers, engineers, and various other professionals. Why is this an issue? Oh that's right, it is /. and any of normal monitoring and security is an infringement of their constitutional right to be a belligerent dick.
Side note: Yes, schools can do this. Is it right or wrong? Really depends on how they use it but it is how you use the technology not the technology itself.
Time is the constraint on the human condition. We damn well should want mundane tasks to be instanteous.
I've heard this argument before but I fail to see where the benefit is for the average consumer. Most things I would plug into a PCI-E 1/4/8/16 I wouldn't want lying on my desk. There are roughly three common items people would use, Video cards, Sound cards, and wireless adapters. I fail to see the advantage. If we're discussing removable storage eSATA and USB are fine. Thunderbolt is great for thr future but sans video card housing for laptops there is little use for it as a PCI-E port for the forseeable future.
I thought I was the only one! Same situation, couldn't see the back and instead of using my finger I used the plug and inserted. About 15 minutes of me thinking my mouse was dead was rectified when I pulled it from its wedge and found it in the extra ethernet port. >.
The US government isn't spending 40% of the GDP. The numbers you're quoting our specific acts by individiual policies. There is a general baseline that the article doesn't cover but is neither here nor there at this point.
I'm really bored and don't particuarly care to fight with you over this as I teach a class on this. You're either a liar or an idiot. You live in an alternative reality where you consume libertarian literature that has not been peer-reviewed or accurately adjudicated. In other words: You're full of shit.
In your view abusing, in others it is an extension of the state's power. As well I used the clause as more so a turn of phrase but the supreme court agrees with me, it is a clause. Public welfare is always the job of the state.
For the record I agree giving loans to 38 studios was less than public welfare as their end product was not going to benefit the public in general like a scientific advancement. The employment gains were small for the dollars expended. They would have been better spent on employment initatives.
I think the summation is that Reason being a politically drive ideologue magazine they have a skewed point of view that cannot be trusted to be objective. Especially since they seem to want to take the failure on the state level and apply it broadly to all levels of government.
Once again, I refer back to cronyism. You need to receive a direct benefit from the reward you're giving. The negative tax rate for some large corporations is more a reflection of poor tax codes and 20 years of pro-business legislators at the federal level.
This whole argument smacks of no true scotsman because they cannot accept anything but their ideologically pure point of view.
Yeaaaahhhhhh, no.
The definition of cronyism is rewarding your allies or dependents with benefits they did not earn or deserve. Usually crony capitalism is used as a buzzword to attack government since 2009 due to the relationship Barack Obama has with Chicago and the imagined relationship he has/had with the supposed Chicago political machine.
Now in this case we're looking at a government that barring some hidden kickback that directly rewarded a government official as just a bad loan. It cannot be "crony capitalism" without directly rewarding the crony of the giver.
Last I read the multiplier effect on government spending was 7. It is perhaps lower now due to the economic downturn but through the last 50 years of US history it hovered between 5 and 7. So why don't you get your economists out who aren't absolute free marketers who can offer real proof and I'll get mine.
Both of those cases are due to under-regulation. In fact the three biggest banking issues in the US were all due to under-regulation or deregulation. In each case safe investors like S&Ls/consumer banks that work on a simple investment-lending principle were able to use money that was normally reserved for covering shorts in their accounts on a given day to invest directly in the stock market.
By deregulating them we allowed low-risk institutions to become high-risk institutions without telling anyone. In fact if we hadn't deregulated S&Ls in the 1980s under Reagan and then regular banks in the 2000s under Bush we wouldn't have this global meltdown because the average everyday home owner wouldn't have been drowned by the banks trying to save themselves from bad investments they made through their investment arms. In effect we're dealing with Wall Street's problem because the government allowed them access to Main Steet's money without anybody telling main street.
No, that is not a free market at all. That's an extremely well-regulated market. Think of the term "free" as anarchistic in that anything goes barring violence and perhaps that as well. Free markets can't exist because people will go one of two ways, cheat to raise their own profits as an individual or use a trust-like syndicate to protect their interests against consumers. The race to the bottom in prices almost never occurs because the boom-bust cycle eventually plays out to a few huge players who inevitably dominate the market. It happened in trains, steel, the agricultural world, and even consumer electronics.
Regulations when used correctly create a more competitive playing field. There are those who argue the opposite but they base ir on unbending human greed which is a bad argumentative stance as it is a volatile subjective ideal.
Private ownership has zero to do with government investment in this situation. It is the act of direct ownership that those worda apply to. If the government guarantees a loan it isn't involved in the ownership of the business and once again is still acting in a capitalist way. The government can act as a bank or investor if they so desire and still remain capitalist because they weren't taking ownership or using the investment to enhance the life of the workers. It was using the public welfare clause of the modern state, for good or bad is up for debate.
PS: Solyndra got their loans under Pres Bush and a republican house. Stop using that argument because you should know it is false by now. Also Solyndra was a victim of a bad market swing more so due to the economic downturn where 38 studios died due to poor management.
Capitalism is generally viewed as an owner or investor introducing CAPITAL to produce a product or service, generally called a business. The investor can be the government or a private entity. This is a rather perfect example of capitalism. In fact it is still a form of mixed market "free capitalism" most of the modern world commences in. The issue was the business plan wasn't sound. It made no difference where the money came from.
This is an instance of /.'s poor understanding of economics clouding their ability to understand the lesson and trying to make it a case study on government investment.
Eh, most people bought touchpads in the firesale to port android to them. /. Is the ultimate hobbyist ideal, but lets get serious android is dominating. WebOS was fun, I loved it on my touchpad but without critical support for apps it is useless.
Great, your a behavioral snob with an overwhelming sense of importance. You aren't the average and that's fine. People do avwrage in this country about a movie a month.
Yeah, you are an oddity. You do not even come close to the average movie goer. 15% is about 1 in 7 which is easily done. Especially if you account for multiple subscriptions in a household. What you're really going for is somewhere around 10% of households which is a completely viable number.
Really? You're a liar. Now sit down and shut up. To put it bluntly your customers use them. You receive the benefit of the existence of it all. This is the problem of discussing economics on slashdot and non-economists as they tend to take the most literal and short-sighted view possible. Not to memtion on slashdot the idiotic ideology spewn. Facebook could have been created in another first world country but wasn't created there. The main owners and founders are in the US and the HQ is here. They should have no problem paying taxes for the benefits they received both before and after the fact. The same should apply to ireland.
Why do people assume anybody means 10% on the whole? It's always been clearly based on revenue generated inside of a country. So if facebook generated 80% of their profits here we could take taxes based on their profits made here.
But that's a really very poor metaphor in that you can still pluck that goose if you put a roof over it to stop it from flying. The ultimate answer is creating an incentive to stop the race to the bottom. Places like the caymans and other tax shelters should simply be ignored for international taxation. The largest corporations can play the shell game but they cannot hide profits all that well.