"If you think US Industry and US Government are not connected when the corporations basically buy the elections for their favorit politicians than I have a bridge to sell you. US National Security is defined as whatever is good for US business. "
It is a completely different thing. Politicians are sold on the free market as well in the US and they battle each other, whatever is helping one company or industry is hurting another. The form of business and government interaction that is of concern in the US is of concern mostly on a domestic basis. Internationally it really is just occasional support on major economic issues and that is no secret. In China a government official can take over the board room.
"From the purely economic perspective, China has the most to lose if they allow any private companies to get involved in spying."
Chinese major private companies ARE public companies. The US state exchanging spies with other countries is of little relevance the companies here largely make or break on their own with the exception of some security concerns.
"It is a lot simpler -- the Chinese companies are generally more innovative, competitive, flexible and adaptable and therefore China is a lot more pro free-market than the US today."
ROFL In the sense they sell non-functional fake hardware, produce additional runs of products ordered by US companies, and everything they sell on Alibaba was invented in the US (okay, there is some European in there as well). The handful of Chinese products anyone has ever heard of are just attempts to replicate and make their own version. Technically that is different IP and legal but it still isn't original thought.
What do states spying on states have to do with states spying for businesses? States spying on each other is fair game and it has been no secret the US spies on everyone and everyone spies on the US since at least the 80's. The only surprising thing with the leaks is how successful they are at it but what they don't generally do is bring government sized and capabilities to promote private interests (except maybe in a rare instance where it a security interest). China is a different beast with the state and business tightly coupled.
No but they do execute children in their own nation with machine guns and tanks. Hell per their story that Tibet is part of their country they burn their own civilians alive.
I don't know, devalue their currency to steal our jobs and manufacturing, use that advantage to steal our manufacturing technology, hack our infrastructure/businesses, international business, steal our ICBM technology, industrial and tech IP, and siphon our wealth. Of and hire a sockpuppet using the nick "ShanghaiBill"
The US government and US businesses are separate entities, that is a very big difference. The companies spying don't have the resources of the state at their disposal or the inclination to sell what they find to the state (not that China has anything to steal) and tapping the phone of the German chancellor isn't exactly a shocker. Germany has had some fairly nasty Chancellor's in the past.
Yes, those loopholes were put in intentionally. The people take advantage of them can afford to pay for them. It is hell of a lot cheaper to buy a politician than for someone like Buffet to actually pay on his billions in gains. But there is little to no capital gains there anyway, capital gains only kicks in on the tiny amount of stock he actually sells.
As for your other points, they are true and make no mistake it is no accident these things hit normal people in some way as well so that it would sting to remove them. But you can always add exceptions to avoid that. For instance in Texas there is a gross receipts tax on business and no personal income tax, you are exempt from the tax if your business has less than a million in gross receipts. Just limit real estate to your primary residence of at least five years with a requirement to state in the new home for at least five years. For the stock, retirement accounts remain tax free under existing terms and for the rest a million dollars of stock appreciation seems just fine. Also on transfers of stock to third parties, including charities, the giver must pay tax on the income as well as the seller on the gift (in the case of gifts to charity only the giver would pay). At that point you only even potentially impact the.1%.
Giving to charity is not an alternative to tax but that debate aside the loophole isn't giving to charity, the loophole is that you don't pay tax on stock unless you sell it and they give the stock to charity, not money that would count as income.
For normal people that wouldn't really be a loophole, $100 in stock is like a $100 more or less, the charity just sells it. But you don't pay tax on stock until you sell it. The argument is that you have to sell it eventually and you'll pay tax then but if you give it to a charity, aka a non-profit no taxes are paid on that money. Additionally, when you are a billionaire you never pay tax on the money you don't need. As I indicated Buffet made billions, he should pay taxes on billions, instead he paid tax only on the 20 million he cashed out. At that rate he will never pay the tax on the money he made that year let alone all the money he has made. It's a beautiful scam, you see he made billions, he only reported 20 million but on paper he reduced his "taxable income" even further to single digits and then paid on that allowing him to claim an effective tax rate on par with the lower middle class. His actual tax rate came nowhere near 1%.
How many top 5% working class 139k/yr workers does it take to add up to the billions he dodged tax on? Worse that he can then reinvest and take the future proceeds on? His gains on just the taxes he dodged have definitely dwarfed every penny he paid in taxes since and likely will for some time to come and they compound.
Blockchain also isn't the only thing brilliant in the Bitcoin implementation. It isn't really an individual technology but the masterful way in which they were combined and the economic concepts applied that makes it so impressive. Frankly it scaled beyond what anyone could dream of with a beta protocol.
Hopefully when all the hype dies down and the crazy market swings that come with uninterested speculators Bitcoin continues.
"The blockchain technology might be brilliant. Bitcoin very definitely is not. "
Bitcoin very much is brilliant and not just the blockchain technology, blockchain alone isn't all that fantastic. Bitcoin also leverages many existing technologies in a new and unique way. Yes, ultimately bitcoin has turned out to have a choke point at a certain scale and that needs resolved but the scheme is brilliant.
"Bitcoin is an interesting but ultimately flawed experiment which might also be a pyramid scheme either intentionally or unintentionally."
Bitcoin is not and never was a pyramid scheme regardless of any flaws it might contain at least not beyond what any business is a pyramid scheme. Early investors in anything always benefit but that doesn't make it a pyramid. Bitcoin recirculates, pyramid debunked, it is that simple. People who profited excessively profited in spite of people who couldn't understand that concept because they assumed a high risk investment and carried that risk over time. Some people profited on market volatility as well but that don't even remotely relate to a pyramid.
Other banks will be more than happy to fill the void of the ones that crash. We shouldn't keep avoiding turmoil like the plague, we should be letting it happen and learning how to cope. You end up with a more flexible system that can take it in stride that way. What we have is a fragile house of cards with too many central points of failure.
"A company like a lawn service might not really even notice a power outage of just a few hours."
Yes but the typical brownout or thunderstorm isn't the issue, the issue is natural disaster. Think weeks without power and you can't drink the water because it is contaminated with sewage even before the cities pumps stop and the tap goes off.
"A year later, some place hit the account with an ACH debit, and then the bank placed the co-worker on the Chex Systems blacklist. Even though the account was closed, that $25 for some yearly thing became $250 with all the fees the bank assessed. No word was sent to the co-worker by mail. He found out about it when his savings account was closed by the current bank.
The current US system has no protection for anyone but businesses. It is like the early 1900s, all over again, with hucksters and snake oil sellers everywhere, no laws to protect consumers, and step out of line, and the Pinkertons will end you. Only difference is that we have a recession-proof economy that only goes up and a stock market which is crashproof, so most people really don't care about this stuff."
This however is a valid issue and very real. It has nothing to do with the left, neither D's nor R's want to fix these issues they are just two flavors of spin on policies that get worse over time. Warren may have sold out or might have just played the game so she could get traction, we'll see and Sanders has been fighting this crap for decades with a solid track record. All the rest are the enemy or unproven.
Honestly, you could go a more social route to fixing issues here or you could go with a more free market spin. Either done properly could lead to a stable and prosperous system. Nobody wants to do that though, half measures will kill us. Look at Obamacare it is a half-assed measure that skyrocketed health costs to the point where people making six figures can't even afford care and the only 'help' it has provided is to break the simple check doctors have of 'do you have insurance' to see if someone can pay the bill. Either take control so you can force economy of cost through the entire healthcare chain or deregulate it properly with even handed and cheap to implement and follow minimal policy but a half assed compromise policy won't work.
Slashdot Mirror
"What is the US justification for those sanctions?"
Beside the point? The sanctions exist.
"If you think US Industry and US Government are not connected when the corporations basically buy the elections for their favorit politicians than I have a bridge to sell you. US National Security is defined as whatever is good for US business. "
It is a completely different thing. Politicians are sold on the free market as well in the US and they battle each other, whatever is helping one company or industry is hurting another. The form of business and government interaction that is of concern in the US is of concern mostly on a domestic basis. Internationally it really is just occasional support on major economic issues and that is no secret. In China a government official can take over the board room.
"From the purely economic perspective, China has the most to lose if they allow any private companies to get involved in spying."
Chinese major private companies ARE public companies. The US state exchanging spies with other countries is of little relevance the companies here largely make or break on their own with the exception of some security concerns.
It isn't like they do much. They make censored state versions of a few things and they adapt some software to run on their cheap knock off devices.
"It is a lot simpler -- the Chinese companies are generally more innovative, competitive, flexible and adaptable and therefore China is a lot more pro free-market than the US today."
ROFL In the sense they sell non-functional fake hardware, produce additional runs of products ordered by US companies, and everything they sell on Alibaba was invented in the US (okay, there is some European in there as well). The handful of Chinese products anyone has ever heard of are just attempts to replicate and make their own version. Technically that is different IP and legal but it still isn't original thought.
"Show me a big US company that has no China subsidiary."
Show me something US Intelligence would be doing with Chinese business that isn't defensive. Their entire industry and IP base came from the US.
What do states spying on states have to do with states spying for businesses? States spying on each other is fair game and it has been no secret the US spies on everyone and everyone spies on the US since at least the 80's. The only surprising thing with the leaks is how successful they are at it but what they don't generally do is bring government sized and capabilities to promote private interests (except maybe in a rare instance where it a security interest). China is a different beast with the state and business tightly coupled.
"When the British are willing to publicly turn their nose at their 'ally' in a big way like this, you know it is bad."
Especially since more than enough support has been released publicly to refute those claims.
Enough evidence has already been publicly released to damn them. I don't know why the Brits are turning traitor.
No but they do execute children in their own nation with machine guns and tanks. Hell per their story that Tibet is part of their country they burn their own civilians alive.
Mod informative
IP laws are an international thing supported by international treaties, treaties China has repeatedly promised to enforce.
I don't know, devalue their currency to steal our jobs and manufacturing, use that advantage to steal our manufacturing technology, hack our infrastructure/businesses, international business, steal our ICBM technology, industrial and tech IP, and siphon our wealth. Of and hire a sockpuppet using the nick "ShanghaiBill"
Which would also be in violation of international law.
Because China isn't punishing but rather encouraging them due to the tight ties between the state and business in China.
The US government and US businesses are separate entities, that is a very big difference. The companies spying don't have the resources of the state at their disposal or the inclination to sell what they find to the state (not that China has anything to steal) and tapping the phone of the German chancellor isn't exactly a shocker. Germany has had some fairly nasty Chancellor's in the past.
Yes, those loopholes were put in intentionally. The people take advantage of them can afford to pay for them. It is hell of a lot cheaper to buy a politician than for someone like Buffet to actually pay on his billions in gains. But there is little to no capital gains there anyway, capital gains only kicks in on the tiny amount of stock he actually sells.
As for your other points, they are true and make no mistake it is no accident these things hit normal people in some way as well so that it would sting to remove them. But you can always add exceptions to avoid that. For instance in Texas there is a gross receipts tax on business and no personal income tax, you are exempt from the tax if your business has less than a million in gross receipts. Just limit real estate to your primary residence of at least five years with a requirement to state in the new home for at least five years. For the stock, retirement accounts remain tax free under existing terms and for the rest a million dollars of stock appreciation seems just fine. Also on transfers of stock to third parties, including charities, the giver must pay tax on the income as well as the seller on the gift (in the case of gifts to charity only the giver would pay). At that point you only even potentially impact the .1%.
Giving to charity is not an alternative to tax but that debate aside the loophole isn't giving to charity, the loophole is that you don't pay tax on stock unless you sell it and they give the stock to charity, not money that would count as income.
For normal people that wouldn't really be a loophole, $100 in stock is like a $100 more or less, the charity just sells it. But you don't pay tax on stock until you sell it. The argument is that you have to sell it eventually and you'll pay tax then but if you give it to a charity, aka a non-profit no taxes are paid on that money. Additionally, when you are a billionaire you never pay tax on the money you don't need. As I indicated Buffet made billions, he should pay taxes on billions, instead he paid tax only on the 20 million he cashed out. At that rate he will never pay the tax on the money he made that year let alone all the money he has made. It's a beautiful scam, you see he made billions, he only reported 20 million but on paper he reduced his "taxable income" even further to single digits and then paid on that allowing him to claim an effective tax rate on par with the lower middle class. His actual tax rate came nowhere near 1%.
How many top 5% working class 139k/yr workers does it take to add up to the billions he dodged tax on? Worse that he can then reinvest and take the future proceeds on? His gains on just the taxes he dodged have definitely dwarfed every penny he paid in taxes since and likely will for some time to come and they compound.
"Musk is an very rich idiot who made his fortune running a payment processor, I think he know more about money than you and I."
Really because that just sounds like he'd be more biased toward digital payment processing than you or I.
Blockchain also isn't the only thing brilliant in the Bitcoin implementation. It isn't really an individual technology but the masterful way in which they were combined and the economic concepts applied that makes it so impressive. Frankly it scaled beyond what anyone could dream of with a beta protocol.
Hopefully when all the hype dies down and the crazy market swings that come with uninterested speculators Bitcoin continues.
"The blockchain technology might be brilliant. Bitcoin very definitely is not. "
Bitcoin very much is brilliant and not just the blockchain technology, blockchain alone isn't all that fantastic. Bitcoin also leverages many existing technologies in a new and unique way. Yes, ultimately bitcoin has turned out to have a choke point at a certain scale and that needs resolved but the scheme is brilliant.
"Bitcoin is an interesting but ultimately flawed experiment which might also be a pyramid scheme either intentionally or unintentionally."
Bitcoin is not and never was a pyramid scheme regardless of any flaws it might contain at least not beyond what any business is a pyramid scheme. Early investors in anything always benefit but that doesn't make it a pyramid. Bitcoin recirculates, pyramid debunked, it is that simple. People who profited excessively profited in spite of people who couldn't understand that concept because they assumed a high risk investment and carried that risk over time. Some people profited on market volatility as well but that don't even remotely relate to a pyramid.
Paypal not aside he is the founder of the largest digital payment system (some would argue currency) on earth.
Other banks will be more than happy to fill the void of the ones that crash. We shouldn't keep avoiding turmoil like the plague, we should be letting it happen and learning how to cope. You end up with a more flexible system that can take it in stride that way. What we have is a fragile house of cards with too many central points of failure.
"A company like a lawn service might not really even notice a power outage of just a few hours."
Yes but the typical brownout or thunderstorm isn't the issue, the issue is natural disaster. Think weeks without power and you can't drink the water because it is contaminated with sewage even before the cities pumps stop and the tap goes off.
"A year later, some place hit the account with an ACH debit, and then the bank placed the co-worker on the Chex Systems blacklist. Even though the account was closed, that $25 for some yearly thing became $250 with all the fees the bank assessed. No word was sent to the co-worker by mail. He found out about it when his savings account was closed by the current bank.
The current US system has no protection for anyone but businesses. It is like the early 1900s, all over again, with hucksters and snake oil sellers everywhere, no laws to protect consumers, and step out of line, and the Pinkertons will end you. Only difference is that we have a recession-proof economy that only goes up and a stock market which is crashproof, so most people really don't care about this stuff."
This however is a valid issue and very real. It has nothing to do with the left, neither D's nor R's want to fix these issues they are just two flavors of spin on policies that get worse over time. Warren may have sold out or might have just played the game so she could get traction, we'll see and Sanders has been fighting this crap for decades with a solid track record. All the rest are the enemy or unproven.
Honestly, you could go a more social route to fixing issues here or you could go with a more free market spin. Either done properly could lead to a stable and prosperous system. Nobody wants to do that though, half measures will kill us. Look at Obamacare it is a half-assed measure that skyrocketed health costs to the point where people making six figures can't even afford care and the only 'help' it has provided is to break the simple check doctors have of 'do you have insurance' to see if someone can pay the bill. Either take control so you can force economy of cost through the entire healthcare chain or deregulate it properly with even handed and cheap to implement and follow minimal policy but a half assed compromise policy won't work.