Except that the person in the corner office incurred risk, something people outside of the corner office did not do. People who incur risk are often handsomely rewarded for it by the market, as they should be. If the people who don't work in the corner office, as you have described, want to work for themselves, they too are free to incur risk although most choose not to.
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R) on Tuesday rejected a White House offer to let senators read a federal court nominee's memo authorizing a drone strike on a U.S. citizen, calling anything short of a full public release "inadequate."
Paul is threatening to block the federal appeals court nomination of David Barron, who wrote a Justice Department memo justifying a drone strike against alleged al Qaeda commander Anwar al-Awlaki, until that memo is released. Last month the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the government to release the document.
"A federal court has ordered the public release of a redacted legal memo authored by Barron and I believe that anything short of that is inadequate," Paul said in a statement released Tuesday. "I will continue to oppose this nomination until the document is released."
Barron's nomination has been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It's not clear whether Paul will be able to stop Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) from bringing Barron's nomination to a full Senate floor vote.
President Barack Obama's administration had offered earlier Tuesday to let senators read the memo before they vote on Barron's nomination. But that offer has mollified neither Paul nor the American Civil Liberties Union, which wants senators to be able to review any and all of the memos Barron may have written justifying the targeted killing program -- not just the memo the 2nd Circuit publicly ordered to be released. (Part of the 2nd Circuit's order was kept under seal, so it may have ordered the release of additional Barron memos.)
Barron served as the acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel from 2009 to 2010. The office's legal memos, underlying the targeted killing program, have been the subject of several contentious legal battles over whether they will be publicly released.
Jefferson was NOT a Federalist, he was an Anti-Federalist! And Jefferson actually consulted with the other branches of government before he proceeded with the Louisiana Purchase.
Ron Paul and Rand Paul would've prevented it. Also Senator Mike Lee, and Representatives Justin Amash and Thomas Massie. Maybe Rep Dennis Kucinich too, but I'm not completely sure about his civil liberties record.
Firefighting can be profitable. There are many security services that are profitable. There are many private land use areas (think parks) that are profitable. Plowing the streets is profitable (I have a friend who makes good money doing it), teaching is profitable, toll roads are profitable.
The value of the dollar has lost close to 98% since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 and took us off the gold standard. That's not exactly "stable" and it punishes people who save their money plus it hurts the poor because price inflation increases faster than their wages do making their buying power less and less.
And the reason governments took their currencies off of the precious metal standards was so that they could inflate (tax) their citizens. People get up in arms when a new tax is raised, however when their currency is devalued by the wholesale printing of money by their government, they are not as quick to understand the reasoning behind it. Governments have inflated and devalued their currencies forever, even the Roman Empire did it by reducing the amount of precious metals in their coins.
Search for "Austrian Economics" if you want to understand more about this subject.
Federal Reserve Notes (dollars) aren't real money either in case you haven't noticed. The difference between BTC and USD? One is centrally controlled by the government, the other is peer-to-peer.
Rent-seeking is just the opposite of free market capitalism. And the only reason these corporations have a monopoly / cartel, is because the government grants them one. This is called corporatism, or maybe even fascism.
If the government didn't intervene in the marketplace these monopolies / cartels wouldn't exist, or if they did, it would be short lived.
No, CBS's existence is based upon a government-granted monopoly via the FCC. They are not about to anger the feds, it would be bad for business, since the federal government has the ability to take them OUT of business if they should so choose to do so.
This is why government shouldn't be allowed to set up cartels or monopolies.
The corporations are strong armed into doing this sort of thing on behalf of the government. If they dont comply or try to fight it, then they are found in violation of some law or regulation, saddled with court cases and punitive fines, or maybe even completely taken out of business. In some cases the government will get their competitor to do it. In the case of the telcos, their entire existence is at the whim of the government, so it's unlikely they would ever fight.
The government is the bully here. They really are the mafia.
I posted this story on Congressman Thomas Massie's Facebook page, and he brought it up in the Congressional hearing with the EPA today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N88Grg2iV4
Egypt tried this, and it only made things worse for the government because people left their computers and actually went outside to join the protest instead of watching it on the Net.
When I was in undergrad, working at Blockbuster was my part-time job. It was quite fun actually, but anyway, management can remove fines if they want, it's real easy to do.
It would have to have an expiration date on it because artists are with different labels, publishers, management, etc.
Also labels make essentially nothing on concerts. But you're right overall, the way to make money in the music industry is through live shows.
It's simple economics.
As supply approaches infinity, cost approaches zero. Therefore recorded music is essentially worthless, from a pure economics standpoint. The industry, through the government's copyright law, has tried to maintain an artificial monopoly on supply, however technology has made that law / business model obsolete.
At a concert though, there is true scarcity, because in most cases only a finite amount of people can fit inside the venue. Not to mention an artist is usually only in any particular city once or twice a year at best. Since scarcity exists, then price doesn't have to be zero.
Yes, I am an audio engineer who designs and implements large scale concert sound systems.
yeah, last time I checked the NSA's reach was worldwide. And US courts have upheld the 3rd party doctrine where any information a 3rd party has about you (phone records for instance), is not subject to the same Constitutional protection as your personal effects are.
I did that too until my registrar www.DirectNIC.com started getting blacklisted.... all of the sudden I wasn't receiving e-mails because of it since the relay at the registrar level wasn't able to forward e-mails to my ISP client grrr
Slashdot Mirror
you're gonna hate this!
If I agreed to a contract, then show me where I signed?
Government's don't create money (wealth), they create currency. Money (wealth) is created through commerce.
This is where stock options come in to play...
Except that the person in the corner office incurred risk, something people outside of the corner office did not do. People who incur risk are often handsomely rewarded for it by the market, as they should be. If the people who don't work in the corner office, as you have described, want to work for themselves, they too are free to incur risk although most choose not to.
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R) on Tuesday rejected a White House offer to let senators read a federal court nominee's memo authorizing a drone strike on a U.S. citizen, calling anything short of a full public release "inadequate."
Paul is threatening to block the federal appeals court nomination of David Barron, who wrote a Justice Department memo justifying a drone strike against alleged al Qaeda commander Anwar al-Awlaki, until that memo is released. Last month the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the government to release the document.
"A federal court has ordered the public release of a redacted legal memo authored by Barron and I believe that anything short of that is inadequate," Paul said in a statement released Tuesday. "I will continue to oppose this nomination until the document is released."
Barron's nomination has been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It's not clear whether Paul will be able to stop Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) from bringing Barron's nomination to a full Senate floor vote.
President Barack Obama's administration had offered earlier Tuesday to let senators read the memo before they vote on Barron's nomination. But that offer has mollified neither Paul nor the American Civil Liberties Union, which wants senators to be able to review any and all of the memos Barron may have written justifying the targeted killing program -- not just the memo the 2nd Circuit publicly ordered to be released. (Part of the 2nd Circuit's order was kept under seal, so it may have ordered the release of additional Barron memos.)
Barron served as the acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel from 2009 to 2010. The office's legal memos, underlying the targeted killing program, have been the subject of several contentious legal battles over whether they will be publicly released.
SOURCE: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Jefferson was NOT a Federalist, he was an Anti-Federalist! And Jefferson actually consulted with the other branches of government before he proceeded with the Louisiana Purchase.
Ron Paul and Rand Paul would've prevented it. Also Senator Mike Lee, and Representatives Justin Amash and Thomas Massie. Maybe Rep Dennis Kucinich too, but I'm not completely sure about his civil liberties record.
Firefighting can be profitable. There are many security services that are profitable. There are many private land use areas (think parks) that are profitable. Plowing the streets is profitable (I have a friend who makes good money doing it), teaching is profitable, toll roads are profitable.
Not sure what world you're living in.
No, federal law only trumps state law IF the federal law is actually valid (in line with the Constitution).
This is what happens when the government is in charge of protection.
The government is kind of like the mafia... when they come knocking, you're gonna work for them "or else"
The value of the dollar has lost close to 98% since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 and took us off the gold standard. That's not exactly "stable" and it punishes people who save their money plus it hurts the poor because price inflation increases faster than their wages do making their buying power less and less.
And the reason governments took their currencies off of the precious metal standards was so that they could inflate (tax) their citizens. People get up in arms when a new tax is raised, however when their currency is devalued by the wholesale printing of money by their government, they are not as quick to understand the reasoning behind it. Governments have inflated and devalued their currencies forever, even the Roman Empire did it by reducing the amount of precious metals in their coins.
Search for "Austrian Economics" if you want to understand more about this subject.
Federal Reserve Notes (dollars) aren't real money either in case you haven't noticed. The difference between BTC and USD? One is centrally controlled by the government, the other is peer-to-peer.
Rent-seeking is just the opposite of free market capitalism. And the only reason these corporations have a monopoly / cartel, is because the government grants them one. This is called corporatism, or maybe even fascism.
If the government didn't intervene in the marketplace these monopolies / cartels wouldn't exist, or if they did, it would be short lived.
Study Austrian economics sometime: http://www.mises.org/
No, CBS's existence is based upon a government-granted monopoly via the FCC. They are not about to anger the feds, it would be bad for business, since the federal government has the ability to take them OUT of business if they should so choose to do so.
This is why government shouldn't be allowed to set up cartels or monopolies.
The corporations are strong armed into doing this sort of thing on behalf of the government. If they dont comply or try to fight it, then they are found in violation of some law or regulation, saddled with court cases and punitive fines, or maybe even completely taken out of business. In some cases the government will get their competitor to do it. In the case of the telcos, their entire existence is at the whim of the government, so it's unlikely they would ever fight.
The government is the bully here. They really are the mafia.
Have you never heard of the Underwriters Laboratory?
I posted this story on Congressman Thomas Massie's Facebook page, and he brought it up in the Congressional hearing with the EPA today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N88Grg2iV4
FYI - Rep Thomas Massie is also a MIT grad ;-)
Egypt tried this, and it only made things worse for the government because people left their computers and actually went outside to join the protest instead of watching it on the Net.
They lied to you.
When I was in undergrad, working at Blockbuster was my part-time job. It was quite fun actually, but anyway, management can remove fines if they want, it's real easy to do.
It would have to have an expiration date on it because artists are with different labels, publishers, management, etc.
Also labels make essentially nothing on concerts. But you're right overall, the way to make money in the music industry is through live shows.
It's simple economics.
As supply approaches infinity, cost approaches zero. Therefore recorded music is essentially worthless, from a pure economics standpoint. The industry, through the government's copyright law, has tried to maintain an artificial monopoly on supply, however technology has made that law / business model obsolete.
At a concert though, there is true scarcity, because in most cases only a finite amount of people can fit inside the venue. Not to mention an artist is usually only in any particular city once or twice a year at best. Since scarcity exists, then price doesn't have to be zero.
Yes, I am an audio engineer who designs and implements large scale concert sound systems.
yeah, last time I checked the NSA's reach was worldwide. And US courts have upheld the 3rd party doctrine where any information a 3rd party has about you (phone records for instance), is not subject to the same Constitutional protection as your personal effects are.
I did that too until my registrar www.DirectNIC.com started getting blacklisted.... all of the sudden I wasn't receiving e-mails because of it since the relay at the registrar level wasn't able to forward e-mails to my ISP client grrr
And with who's money would the government pay for it?