nitty-gritty of what the Energy Department was supposed to be doing
- really? And what was it supposed to be doing?
This department, just like many other departments are political structures that cannot solve any problems, they add a layer of power to the bureaucracy but nothing else. Just like 'education' department and all the rest of them.
Why should there be 'energy department'? Why can't energy be a product / service that free market provides without government interference? Same with education, same with health insurance, health care, pensions, jobs, food, drugs, any type of drugs, banking, money, marriage or sex, commerce, etc.
Why the drive to centralisation of things that really don't benefit from such centralisation? Actually what and who benefits from centralisation at all except for a few politically connected powerful individuals and the politicians themselves? Clearly the people don't gain anything from it, they only get a long term destruction of everything that government touches. So why such a huge push towards centralisation?
About 2/3 of the prints we see have incompatible parts specified. About half are missing at least one important dimension such as length
- oh, please, you and your whining about 'length'. They say it's overrated anyway. Next thing you know, you'll want the rest of the dimensions, width, girth, whateverth.
You are the professional, figure it out. I'd say in most cases 2.5 feet of length should be enough and 640 feet should be enough for everybody.
Sounds like a problem that is similar to designing something by committee and 'sharing responsibility', which really means no responsibility at all.
There is a reason construction needs a foreman, somebody to ensure that things do in fact fit together and that process makes sense, that problems are discovered very soon into the process, so that it doesn't become apparent that the foundation is faulty only after the roof has already been installed.
By the way, this is similar to the problems that I observed almost a decade ago now with so called 'agile' or 'extreme' programming, where there is no real personal responsibility, there is no upfront overall design and approach, everything is ad-hoc and a couple of programmers at every computer are stuck refactoring the same stupid function over and over, while the entire project is sliding into abyss.
Intel has been planning to make its Ireland base one of three global manufacturing sites for its 14nm chips since May last year, and its now been given the okay by Ireland's lead planning agency.
another quote:
Irelandâ(TM)s lead planning agency An Bord PleanÃla has given chip giant Intel the go-ahead it needs to construct a massive US$4bn chip plant that will produce the next generation of 14 nanometer (nm) microprocessors. The two year-project, if it gets the final go-ahead from Intel's board, has the potential to generate 3,500 construction and 800 full-time technology jobs.
In early 2011, Intel revealed plans to begin a substantial new US$500m construction project at is Leixlip campus in Co Kildare, where it already employs around 4,000 people. The new build, a redevelopment of the former Fab 14 operation at Leixlip, is to develop the next-generation facilities to handle future products.
people just take it for granted that some government agency can prevent a business from opening wherever, and this means prevent an individual (and that's how I see companies, there are individuals behind the fictional corporate front, companies are people) from just buying or leasing private property and running a business there.
While it's Ireland in this case, this pretty much happens everywhere - legalised mafia, racket, protection service, corruption and bribery, that's what this is all about. Bilking individuals out of their money because they dare to want to do business on their own private property.
---
but it's even worse than that, there are people that already made comments to this story saying: good, they'll pay 'real taxes'. This is the state of affairs in the minds of the mob today - business? Whatever. Taxes. We want money to be stolen from actual productive people and given to us. That's it, that's the ticket to prosperity. Theft and redistribution.
So you'd be ok with letting South Korea be run over by the North? Because it would happen in a heart beat without our support. Or perhaps Russian/Chinese control of the Middle East or pretty much the rest of the globe?
1. If you want to have world's police you should charge an honest fee rather than use your reserve currency status to steal via inflation (the printing press). If somebody wants your military for protection, why aren't they paying for it?
2. Your imperialistic ideology is transparent here, domination of Middle East, etc. American principles shouldn't be building an empire, peaceful trade is the right way to go. Of-course you are clearly your generation's child, you want to control others via force, be it police or military and you want Chinese to foot the bill.
His party is the one who did that...Obama opposed it.
- yea, Obama 'opposed it' in the same sense that he voted against raising a debt ceiling at some point in his life. It was politically useful to seem like a guy who would do such a thing but once he is in power we know exactly where he stands on these issues, don't we?
Now Ron Paul opposed all of that at all times for real and that is why he paid the political price for it in every elections.
See Liberty'O'Clock'
- AFAIC in your case you don't even have settings that are right at any moment in time at all.
How about specifics? It's hard.
- bullshit. He was very specific about it. Cutting 1 Trillion dollars in the first year by ending the wars, shutting down 5 departments, slashing SS and Medicare payments, all that was clearly defined.
. In the immortal words of Jon Stewart: "I'm sorry, the correct answer was 'Yes'".
- Jon Stewart is no moral authority, he is mostly morally bankrupt and mostly economically retarded. The actual correct answer is:
There shouldn't be ANY government laws that FORCE any private hospital or person to provide ANY product or service to ANY person or entity under ANY circumstances. And of-course government has no role in health care, education, retirement, business regulations, income taxes, money printing, interest rate setting, energy, agriculture, drugs, questions on morality, etc. Federal gov't has a purpose - defend and protect the Constitution, which means create a level playing field for people to live within and have their rights to own and operate private property protected (that's the fundamental right, every other right is only an extension of that fundamental right).
As to a hospital or a person CHOOSING to provide such help, that's up to them and that's exactly what Ron Paul has done over decades in medicine.
Don't worry about it, you are not in fact responding to a sane individual. You see his nick or his basic manner of writing from the first line, just don't read beyond that, it's not worth the time, you won't budge him from his insanity and you'll waste a bunch of time.
I remember a good saying on this topic, it goes something like this: Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes time and annoys the pig.
If you are responsible for your own success, you are taking risk with your savings, your own assets and time are on the line you will do as much as possible to succeed. If you fail it's your ass, when you fail as a manager you are only risking the current employment but if you fail in your own business you risk much more. You are invested in your own business and it's not only money and time, it's your self-esteem as well. Many people try to start businesses, but to have a higher chance of success you also should be good at what you are doing, so it's likely you are also very much emotionally invested, this forces you to push harder.
The important thing to realize though is that most businesses fail and so even if you fail you shouldn't give up, you should do whatever you can to try again.
But risking years of savings and years of life to attempt your own business will give you much more incentive to be creative trying to survive in business than if it's just another job.
You can be the most productive person in the country and not get paid for the services and goods you produce.
- OK, stop and think about that for a moment. Are you productive and efficient or are you wasting scarce resources?
You are wasting scarce resources if you are doing something that you are not getting paid for while being "highly productive". That's because you are providing a subsidy that decreases efficiency. If people are interested in buying your product and/or service from you rather than your competitor, then it means they value your product and service and that happens when you provide good value (combination of quality and lowest possible price). In order for you to achieve and improve quality, you have to make money. You can't improve quality if you don't make money. If you are selling to thousands or millions of people, that's because your product is either valuable or it is subsidized and thus people see a huge discount for no reason that is based on efficiency.
If you want to keep your product being highly desired compared to competitors, you have to invest. You can't expect that you will stay competitive without investments (again, unless you are providing a subsidy).
However if you are providing a subsidy, it's a self-defeating deal for you, you'll eventually lose the business because you are either generating losses or you are not improving quality, and eventually quality improvements also mean price improvements. Miniaturization of electronics for example both improves quality and lowers cost of production due to lower requirements on input costs (especially once the original investment into the fab is paid out).
So my point is you cannot have a sustainable business model that both subsidizes consumers and keeps investments into quality and or lower costs going on. You will run out of money eventually or there will be a competitor who will be better at what you do because he invests more.
However don't forget, the more you invest into a product that more and more people buy, the wealthier you will become. Look at Walmart owners, Sam was just another guy back in the 60s, now they are multi-billionaires by catering to the poorest segments of population in America.
You become wealthy when you deliver more and more of the desirable product at lower and lower price and/or higher quality. In that situation not being paid properly for your work is self-detrimental to the business itself. You have to make profit and 98% of your profit you keep re-invested in your business (that's what all wealthy individuals who run successful companies do, because while their share of the pie may stay about the same, the pie itself is growing because of how tasty it is to the end clients). Your expenses are most likely going to be somewhat fixed to some amount per year so all of the remaining income that you earn is for re-investments.
That's why income taxes are so hugely detrimental to the economy, because taxing income of the wealthy only removes money from their reinvestments, not from their consumption, which stays about the same.
That's also why death tax is so hugely detrimental, because it prevents people from thinking about their business in terms of generations (tens, hundreds of years) but rather keeps them thinking about short term gain that they can realize and move on, trying either to avoid death taxes somehow or (worst case scenario) pay them, which requires liquidation of the assets, which means company. This prevents kids from taking over businesses, this prevents good stewardship of businesses.
You can be super-efficient even as you make an average salary. - it means you are not super-efficient or you are very limited to a very particular task, at which you may be efficient, but you are limited to the capital investments available to you for that task. So you are not getting that new assembly line that would actuall
the guy clearly belongs in USA government, maybe as the Federal reserve Chairman or Treasury Secretary, he is more than qualified to run either of those organizations. Of-course my first choice would be Madoff, but he pissed off too many wealthy individuals to ever get out of jail now.
Many deadlines are not artificial but are imposed by the physical world you live in. Crops are sown and harvested on nature's deadline, you don't do it right you can lose your farming business.
Airlines and all other shipping businesses have deadlines, mining operations have deadlines, retail has deadlines, etc.etc. These are often tied to natural seasons but also to fiscal seasons, to interest payments, to loan terms renegotiations, business deal renegotiations, etc.
To you many things may seem arbitrary because you are looking at it from your limited perspective. Businesses actually have reasons for deadlines, many of those reasons are market oriented, you have to try and bring a product to market first and it does not mean it's just a caprice, it may have to do with business deals that are made across board with others and they have their deadlines, etc. Business agreements are also not made in vacuum, there are limitations on how long a factory can stay open for example if there are no orders coming in if there is no credit available, etc.
The problem may be that there are too many promises made and not enough resources allocated, that's a different story, but often deadlines are more than what you think they are.
Actually listening to this guy talk I had this question brewing in my mind, do most people want permanent jobs? Do you want a permanent job and why?
I know when I was contracting (since 2000 until mid 2009, now I build my own software) I couldn't imagine myself ever wanting to get a 'permanent job' ever again. It would have been a huge step backwards for me, but of-course I was in a circle of other contractors but at work it always looked to me that permanent employees were sort of jealous of the contractors and wanted to switch to contracting positions.
So from that experience, it's sort of surprising to hear at this point that most people would still want 'permanent jobs' in software development or IT in general. What do you say?
Roman empire fell due to expansion of its government policies, destruction of the Republic, which by the way, was quite advanced in terms of property ownership and adherence to contracts once upon the time.
It was the constant expansion of the government due to reduction of the Republic to tyranny of one dictator after another, which eventually caused massive flight of productive investments, since property rights don't mean anything once you have a dictatorship. Of-course money was devalued (actual coin clipping, etc.), wars, bread and circuses social programs.
Like all empires, Roman empire fell because it devoured itself in a consumer frenzy while not producing nearly enough to sustain its levels of consumption.
While I am no fan of FB, this is not a case of FB landing a teen in jail, it's a case of a mouthy teen and his ratty 'friend' (not that I condone drunk driving and hit and run, but let's call things what they are).
And whatever you do, use highly subsidized corn, rice or wheat do do your stuff, so that we taxpayers can add our share to your success, even if we don't like your product.
- you vote for politicians that promise you free stuff, but in reality what you are doing is voting away individual rights, you are voting for politicians who destroy individual rights and go above and beyond the Constitution. There shouldn't be any subsidies to businesses, including agriculture, there shouldn't be any subsidies to individuals, including food stamps (known as SNAP at this point, so it doesn't sound so bad).
But the politicians use your lack of morals and principles to get to power and they use the authorisation you give them to break the law (Constitution) in order to achieve their own goals, which is always the same: use their office to become rich, and to become rich they steal individual liberties sell them to the highest bidders, they break the law, they spit on the Constitution.
So you are creating the forces that distort the market and then you are complaining about some enterprising people who take advantage of these distortions. There shouldn't be any subsidies to corn or wheat, etc., and there shouldn't be any income taxes, minimum wage laws, labour laws, SS or Medicare or any other welfare scheme. There shouldn't be any illegal wars and drones killing people without a trial.
But it all is happening. So some people decide that instead of fighting the windmills they are just going to partake in this wild feast in time of a plague. You gave them the tools, you created the incentives, you provided them with the clear path, don't be so angry now that they take it.
In 1975 did you walk around with gold in your pocket? Or did you walk around with arbitrary tokens that you could exchange for gold?
- banknotes are also just tokens for gold, it doesn't matter that they are tokens, they are supposed to be covered by the banks with gold if you present them. In 1913 gold was 19 USD / ounce (set at the introduction of the Federal reserve, actually a better exchange rate than was given in the free market by the private banks at the time). Of-course the Fed was not allowed to monetise gov't debt (couldn't buy Treasuries), but this was 'fixed' in 1917. The US Fed started monetising the debt but it kept the relative link to gold set by decree, not by market forces.
Actually what should have happened immediately, with every new dollar printed was devaluation of the dollar against gold. You are always confused, you think that there "isn't enough gold" to cover the dollars, that's not true at all. Maybe at gold 1700 per ounce there isn't enough gold, but at gold something much higher (I don't know, let's say 170,000 per ounce) there is enough gold. It's not about physical quantity of gold (which has its own natural inflation rate of about 1.5% annually because of production), it's about relative value of gold towards a currency.
Because right now you can take arbitrary tokens out of your pocket and exchange them for gold. Or platinum. Or titanium. Or food, toys, services.
- nope, you can't have gold and silver money, you'll be deemed a 'terrorist' but you can buy it but then it's not considered to be money by the government decree (not by people, people know gold is money), and so there is a confiscatory tax that is implemented to ensure that you avoid trading in a hard currency. It's called 'capital gains' and its created to prevent you from avoiding inflation hedges, it's created to facilitate government theft of your purchasing power.
When the UK came off the gold standard, it's because they couldn't borrow enough money to buy the gold needed
- no, UK didn't want to admit its levels of inflation and devalue the pound. Actually USA stepped in to buy bad UK debt in 1925 with the Fed monetising UK debt to France and that's what inflated the equity bubble in agriculture that later imploded and it is currently known as the recession of 1929.
Not to mention that the fiat money merely exists, it doesn't belong to bankers any more than it belongs to you or me (specific quantities aside). The government doesn't have to pay the bankers a penny to use it,
- it's by decree, it goes against the free market. Given an actual choice of being able to use gold and silver rather than dollars, people choose gold and silver. By the way in silver the prices for all things are falling (deflation, which is a good thing), while in dollars you see inflation that is currently manifested in the bond market, government credit, and when that one bursts be somewhere else, not in US dollars.
I still don't understand. Why gold? Why not platinum? Why not pieces of slate?
0. It cannot be printed by politicians to buy elections. 1. It's rare, but not too rare. 2. It's easy to test (chemically or with ultrasound for thick bars). 3. It's easily recognizable. 4. It has no major industrial use. 5. It does not change over time, drop it in the ocean, recover it centuries later and it's the same. 6. Easy to work with (easy to split, melt, mint coins, etc.) 7. It's stable, it does not explode, it's not a poison, not radioactive, not a gas, does not corrode, does not decay radioactively. 8. People like it, it looks nice.
OK, show me one year (1) that USA had a balanced budget during Clinton. Where is it? Which year? Sure, they had 'balanced budget act' in 97, but so what? It is irrelevant if you claim you have a balanced budget if your total DEBT is growing all the time. It's NOT a balanced budget if your debt is getting larger every year! Clinton's government with "Greenspan's put" are responsible for the stock market bubble and the beginning of the housing bubble because of artificially low interest rates by the Fed and artificially low lending standards imposed by the HUD.
Clinton and Rubin refinanced American mortgage with short term, adjustable rate paper, that's what allowed the debt to balloon over the next decade by the way. Clinton was part of the disease that hit the US economy since the introduction of IRS and the Fed.
Not going over the 'fiscal cliff' (it really is just a pothole, not a cliff), can mean the end of the US dollar, which from POV of American economy will mean collapse of the American debt market, credit. USA economy is unproductive to afford American levels of spending. Clearly people don't understand that in order to consume they actually have to produce, they think others can produce and themselves, they can live off of the subsidy, the taxes, the borrowing and mainly the inflation that hits the producers because their silly governments end up printing their own currencies and buying up the new US dollars.
Not going over the fiscal cliff right now means a signal to the rating agencies that USA is never going to address its fiscal imbalances, that it will not impose any artificial credit limit upon itself. It means that the real credit limit (debt ceiling) will be eventually imposed by the creditors themselves.
If nobody who makes the things you want wants your money and you don't make anything to trade with, what do you do? The next Sandy just may be irrelevant if you can't buy food and medicine and products you need to survive when it's sunny outside.
Income disparity? How about productivity disparity? Have you ever thought about it from the opposite point of view, that it is not income that is so unequal, it's productivity of some people vs others?
Now, I am not going to waste time arguing about weird incomes of politicians (millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions), weird incomes of bankers who are politically connected, weird incomes of union chairmen, weird incomes of weapons manufacturers.
All of those and some others have to do with government money, it's all about fake market, their products are subsidised with inflation, borrowing, taxes and various regulations that distort normal free market.
However I am going to try and direct your attention to productivity disparity among those, who run their own businesses that are not government connected, those who build things, manufacture things, grow things, mine things, provide us with the goods and services that we, (individuals in the market) are actually interested in buying.
Think about the disparity in productivity there. If a person builds a company, what is he or she really doing? He or she is building a machine that makes him or her extremely productive as a 'driver' of that machine. If that machine is capable of supplying the market with the products and services that tens of thousands, millions, tens of millions and maybe sometimes hundreds of millions (or even all people) want, then what you have is a huge disparity in productivity.
What I am saying is that income disparity is not the issue, it is a scapegoat, it's a way to demonise people. Carnegie had about 300Billion USD by the end of his life, he started with nothing at 13. Rockefeller had 600Billion USD by the end of life, he started with nothing at 16. Today the top wealthiest people have barely 1/10th of that. You think an average person at the time of Carnegie was a millionaire? Income disparity is not the problem.
The problem is productivity disparity. There are too many people who are unproductive, they have nothing to contribute, nothing that they produce, thus they have nothing that they can exchange for the products of those, who are productive.
Apple makes iPhones, people buy iPhones. You think Apple puts a gun to anybody's head to force them to buy an overpriced miniaturised computer/cellphone? They don't. They produce so many of those, that they have huge purchasing power because of their over-production of their product.
They created their wealth by producing so much of their product. It's not dollars really that are the measure of their wealth, it's how many iPhones, iPads, iPods, iMacs and iWhatevers that they have manufactured.
Actually selling those things (distributing them among population at whatever the price that market will bear) is secondary. The only question really is: can they exchange their products for products of other people that make other things, grow and produce food, energy, raw materials, products, services?
Real trade happens between parties that are voluntary exchanging fruits of their labour. Taking something from a producer, manufacturer, distributor and giving back cash that was not a result of the 'buyer' actually trading his own productive output in the free market is not an equitable exchange.
A person that does not produce anything cannot expect others to give him anything. It's immoral to use force, coercion, threat of violence (especially threat of government violence, because it's predicated on the rule of the collective over the individual) to take away (steal) products from somebody and give them to somebody else.
But this is the policy of the people who are talking about (out of all things) 'FAIRNESS' and 'JUSTICE'?!
Fairness and justice? In stealing? Even when it's done with votes, the votes are bought by the politicians with a promise of free lunch, only 'free' because the government promises that somebody else will pay for it. And of-course the majority are not productive enough to afford ev
Where is the money coming from that pays for all that militarism? 47 cents on every dollar that Washington spends comes from borrowing. 40-50Billion USD / month is the trade deficit, and it's been that way for more than 2 decades now.
If the world stops subsidizing the US, will America attack the world? What, in a murder/suicide basically?
I don't know, even the former USSR or China didn't do that, are American politicians suicidal? I don't really think that.
However USA is running a 'protection racket' of some sort, except that USA is not charging a direct fee for it, instead it's printing dollars and the foreign central banks buy them. I suppose you can say that it is how that racket works. In a more sane, say a capitalist economy, it would make more sense for the USA to sell its protection to those, who are willing to pay for it rather than doing it in this underhanded manner.
For the reasons described here (or simply the inflation, taxes, regulations), the USA economy is unproductive.
Because of that, starting from around 1970s the US economy has been bleeding productive wealth, and plenty of it found a relatively safe harbour in places like China and even Mexico.
But what does it mean when an auto-manufacturing factory leaves for Mexico? It means that USA becomes an importer of cars while not producing enough of anything on its own to pay for that import. The reason that USA could do this (still can) is the status of its currency as 'reserve'. But what happens when that stops? Well, USA won't be able to borrow at silly low interest rates and then it can't buy anything.
However even before USA cannot buy anything what the flight of capital means is that there are no factories, no production capacity, fewer and fewer people are working in manufacturing, less and less manufacturing and production is happening, people are transferred to the so called 'service sector' and of-course the government and financial sectors.
There is really no difference between a pre-industrial and a post-industrial economy, both are lacking productive capacity to satisfy the infinite demand of the public towards made goods, food, energy, etc.
What does that mean for education? It means that there is no reason for the private sector to invest and demand more education in engineering and eventually in science. The real reason that USA had all that educational capacity was its manufacturing capacity, not the other way around. First the initial industrialists built the factories and the infrastructure and eventually with technical innovation and efficiencies there was a need to find more effective ways to do the same work with less expense, that's what drives forward the innovation and the need for more education and research.
Research does not come first, production, supply of produced goods is what creates the wealth that jump starts more need for higher levels of education. Once you lose the reason for education, you won't have education. The problem behind this apparent lack of education is actually lack of individual freedoms in USA, which leads to exodus of productive jobs elsewhere.
You won't have need for research if you don't need engineers and you won't have engineers if you don't have factories to employ them. You won't have factories if you don't have capital and you won't have capital if you don't have free private enterprise, free as in 'individual freedoms', not as in 'free beer' of-course.
Capitalism BUILT the civilization as we know it today, without the competitive free market capitalism there is no civilization. There wouldn't be all these billions of people if free market capitalism was impeded in the 19th century USA and other places. Free market capitalism is a consequence of individual freedom, which means individuals are free from government regulations, taxes and inflation to try and improve their own lives, and to do that in a free market (without government) it means they have to find means and ways to satisfy popular demand for various products and distribute them efficiently at low prices.
Capitalism created everything we have, what we see broken today is broken due to collectivism, which prevents capitalism from working, and of-course the propaganda is such, that the exact opposite is in the heads of the populous, that believes that the government is the source of wealth and capitalism is the source of misery.
The reality is that free market competitive capitalism based on individual freedom is the only true engine of economic and thus societal progress that we know that works and collectivism is a thick lead pipe that is shoved the wrong way into the gearbox of efficient capitalism.
Slashdot Mirror
nitty-gritty of what the Energy Department was supposed to be doing
- really? And what was it supposed to be doing?
This department, just like many other departments are political structures that cannot solve any problems, they add a layer of power to the bureaucracy but nothing else. Just like 'education' department and all the rest of them.
Why should there be 'energy department'? Why can't energy be a product / service that free market provides without government interference? Same with education, same with health insurance, health care, pensions, jobs, food, drugs, any type of drugs, banking, money, marriage or sex, commerce, etc.
Why the drive to centralisation of things that really don't benefit from such centralisation? Actually what and who benefits from centralisation at all except for a few politically connected powerful individuals and the politicians themselves? Clearly the people don't gain anything from it, they only get a long term destruction of everything that government touches. So why such a huge push towards centralisation?
About 2/3 of the prints we see have incompatible parts specified. About half are missing at least one important dimension such as length
- oh, please, you and your whining about 'length'. They say it's overrated anyway. Next thing you know, you'll want the rest of the dimensions, width, girth, whateverth.
You are the professional, figure it out. I'd say in most cases 2.5 feet of length should be enough and 640 feet should be enough for everybody.
Sounds like a problem that is similar to designing something by committee and 'sharing responsibility', which really means no responsibility at all.
There is a reason construction needs a foreman, somebody to ensure that things do in fact fit together and that process makes sense, that problems are discovered very soon into the process, so that it doesn't become apparent that the foundation is faulty only after the roof has already been installed.
By the way, this is similar to the problems that I observed almost a decade ago now with so called 'agile' or 'extreme' programming, where there is no real personal responsibility, there is no upfront overall design and approach, everything is ad-hoc and a couple of programmers at every computer are stuck refactoring the same stupid function over and over, while the entire project is sliding into abyss.
So called "independent", statutory, quazi-judicial body that decides on appeals from planning decisions made by local authorities in Ireland. - One thing I know about 'quazi-government' or 'quazi-judicial' regulatory bodies is that you can easily get rid of the 'quazi' prefix there.
quotes:
Intel has been planning to make its Ireland base one of three global manufacturing sites for its 14nm chips since May last year, and its now been given the okay by Ireland's lead planning agency.
another quote:
Irelandâ(TM)s lead planning agency An Bord PleanÃla has given chip giant Intel the go-ahead it needs to construct a massive US$4bn chip plant that will produce the next generation of 14 nanometer (nm) microprocessors. The two year-project, if it gets the final go-ahead from Intel's board, has the potential to generate 3,500 construction and 800 full-time technology jobs.
In early 2011, Intel revealed plans to begin a substantial new US$500m construction project at is Leixlip campus in Co Kildare, where it already employs around 4,000 people. The new build, a redevelopment of the former Fab 14 operation at Leixlip, is to develop the next-generation facilities to handle future products.
people just take it for granted that some government agency can prevent a business from opening wherever, and this means prevent an individual (and that's how I see companies, there are individuals behind the fictional corporate front, companies are people) from just buying or leasing private property and running a business there.
While it's Ireland in this case, this pretty much happens everywhere - legalised mafia, racket, protection service, corruption and bribery, that's what this is all about. Bilking individuals out of their money because they dare to want to do business on their own private property.
---
but it's even worse than that, there are people that already made comments to this story saying: good, they'll pay 'real taxes'. This is the state of affairs in the minds of the mob today - business? Whatever. Taxes. We want money to be stolen from actual productive people and given to us. That's it, that's the ticket to prosperity. Theft and redistribution.
So you'd be ok with letting South Korea be run over by the North? Because it would happen in a heart beat without our support. Or perhaps Russian/Chinese control of the Middle East or pretty much the rest of the globe?
1. If you want to have world's police you should charge an honest fee rather than use your reserve currency status to steal via inflation (the printing press). If somebody wants your military for protection, why aren't they paying for it?
2. Your imperialistic ideology is transparent here, domination of Middle East, etc. American principles shouldn't be building an empire, peaceful trade is the right way to go. Of-course you are clearly your generation's child, you want to control others via force, be it police or military and you want Chinese to foot the bill.
His party is the one who did that...Obama opposed it.
- yea, Obama 'opposed it' in the same sense that he voted against raising a debt ceiling at some point in his life. It was politically useful to seem like a guy who would do such a thing but once he is in power we know exactly where he stands on these issues, don't we?
Now Ron Paul opposed all of that at all times for real and that is why he paid the political price for it in every elections.
See Liberty'O'Clock'
- AFAIC in your case you don't even have settings that are right at any moment in time at all.
How about specifics? It's hard.
- bullshit. He was very specific about it. Cutting 1 Trillion dollars in the first year by ending the wars, shutting down 5 departments, slashing SS and Medicare payments, all that was clearly defined.
. In the immortal words of Jon Stewart: "I'm sorry, the correct answer was 'Yes'".
- Jon Stewart is no moral authority, he is mostly morally bankrupt and mostly economically retarded. The actual correct answer is:
There shouldn't be ANY government laws that FORCE any private hospital or person to provide ANY product or service to ANY person or entity under ANY circumstances. And of-course government has no role in health care, education, retirement, business regulations, income taxes, money printing, interest rate setting, energy, agriculture, drugs, questions on morality, etc. Federal gov't has a purpose - defend and protect the Constitution, which means create a level playing field for people to live within and have their rights to own and operate private property protected (that's the fundamental right, every other right is only an extension of that fundamental right).
As to a hospital or a person CHOOSING to provide such help, that's up to them and that's exactly what Ron Paul has done over decades in medicine.
Don't worry about it, you are not in fact responding to a sane individual. You see his nick or his basic manner of writing from the first line, just don't read beyond that, it's not worth the time, you won't budge him from his insanity and you'll waste a bunch of time.
I remember a good saying on this topic, it goes something like this: Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes time and annoys the pig.
Because it is not VM that is your application, your VM is the machine that runs your application.
If an applet needs a non-default memory size it can be set by the applet developer unless you don't consider him to be "professional".
If you are responsible for your own success, you are taking risk with your savings, your own assets and time are on the line you will do as much as possible to succeed. If you fail it's your ass, when you fail as a manager you are only risking the current employment but if you fail in your own business you risk much more. You are invested in your own business and it's not only money and time, it's your self-esteem as well. Many people try to start businesses, but to have a higher chance of success you also should be good at what you are doing, so it's likely you are also very much emotionally invested, this forces you to push harder.
The important thing to realize though is that most businesses fail and so even if you fail you shouldn't give up, you should do whatever you can to try again.
But risking years of savings and years of life to attempt your own business will give you much more incentive to be creative trying to survive in business than if it's just another job.
(same person, second account)
---
You can be the most productive person in the country and not get paid for the services and goods you produce.
- OK, stop and think about that for a moment. Are you productive and efficient or are you wasting scarce resources?
You are wasting scarce resources if you are doing something that you are not getting paid for while being "highly productive". That's because you are providing a subsidy that decreases efficiency. If people are interested in buying your product and/or service from you rather than your competitor, then it means they value your product and service and that happens when you provide good value (combination of quality and lowest possible price). In order for you to achieve and improve quality, you have to make money. You can't improve quality if you don't make money. If you are selling to thousands or millions of people, that's because your product is either valuable or it is subsidized and thus people see a huge discount for no reason that is based on efficiency.
If you want to keep your product being highly desired compared to competitors, you have to invest. You can't expect that you will stay competitive without investments (again, unless you are providing a subsidy).
However if you are providing a subsidy, it's a self-defeating deal for you, you'll eventually lose the business because you are either generating losses or you are not improving quality, and eventually quality improvements also mean price improvements. Miniaturization of electronics for example both improves quality and lowers cost of production due to lower requirements on input costs (especially once the original investment into the fab is paid out).
So my point is you cannot have a sustainable business model that both subsidizes consumers and keeps investments into quality and or lower costs going on. You will run out of money eventually or there will be a competitor who will be better at what you do because he invests more.
However don't forget, the more you invest into a product that more and more people buy, the wealthier you will become. Look at Walmart owners, Sam was just another guy back in the 60s, now they are multi-billionaires by catering to the poorest segments of population in America.
You become wealthy when you deliver more and more of the desirable product at lower and lower price and/or higher quality. In that situation not being paid properly for your work is self-detrimental to the business itself. You have to make profit and 98% of your profit you keep re-invested in your business (that's what all wealthy individuals who run successful companies do, because while their share of the pie may stay about the same, the pie itself is growing because of how tasty it is to the end clients). Your expenses are most likely going to be somewhat fixed to some amount per year so all of the remaining income that you earn is for re-investments.
That's why income taxes are so hugely detrimental to the economy, because taxing income of the wealthy only removes money from their reinvestments, not from their consumption, which stays about the same.
That's also why death tax is so hugely detrimental, because it prevents people from thinking about their business in terms of generations (tens, hundreds of years) but rather keeps them thinking about short term gain that they can realize and move on, trying either to avoid death taxes somehow or (worst case scenario) pay them, which requires liquidation of the assets, which means company. This prevents kids from taking over businesses, this prevents good stewardship of businesses.
You can be super-efficient even as you make an average salary. - it means you are not super-efficient or you are very limited to a very particular task, at which you may be efficient, but you are limited to the capital investments available to you for that task. So you are not getting that new assembly line that would actuall
the guy clearly belongs in USA government, maybe as the Federal reserve Chairman or Treasury Secretary, he is more than qualified to run either of those organizations. Of-course my first choice would be Madoff, but he pissed off too many wealthy individuals to ever get out of jail now.
Many deadlines are not artificial but are imposed by the physical world you live in. Crops are sown and harvested on nature's deadline, you don't do it right you can lose your farming business.
Airlines and all other shipping businesses have deadlines, mining operations have deadlines, retail has deadlines, etc.etc. These are often tied to natural seasons but also to fiscal seasons, to interest payments, to loan terms renegotiations, business deal renegotiations, etc.
To you many things may seem arbitrary because you are looking at it from your limited perspective. Businesses actually have reasons for deadlines, many of those reasons are market oriented, you have to try and bring a product to market first and it does not mean it's just a caprice, it may have to do with business deals that are made across board with others and they have their deadlines, etc. Business agreements are also not made in vacuum, there are limitations on how long a factory can stay open for example if there are no orders coming in if there is no credit available, etc.
The problem may be that there are too many promises made and not enough resources allocated, that's a different story, but often deadlines are more than what you think they are.
Actually listening to this guy talk I had this question brewing in my mind, do most people want permanent jobs? Do you want a permanent job and why?
I know when I was contracting (since 2000 until mid 2009, now I build my own software) I couldn't imagine myself ever wanting to get a 'permanent job' ever again. It would have been a huge step backwards for me, but of-course I was in a circle of other contractors but at work it always looked to me that permanent employees were sort of jealous of the contractors and wanted to switch to contracting positions.
So from that experience, it's sort of surprising to hear at this point that most people would still want 'permanent jobs' in software development or IT in general. What do you say?
Roman empire fell due to expansion of its government policies, destruction of the Republic, which by the way, was quite advanced in terms of property ownership and adherence to contracts once upon the time.
It was the constant expansion of the government due to reduction of the Republic to tyranny of one dictator after another, which eventually caused massive flight of productive investments, since property rights don't mean anything once you have a dictatorship. Of-course money was devalued (actual coin clipping, etc.), wars, bread and circuses social programs.
Like all empires, Roman empire fell because it devoured itself in a consumer frenzy while not producing nearly enough to sustain its levels of consumption.
Those rules, if they are unwritten then there is a reason for it. You should learn this rule that I will write right now (so it's a written one):
The first rule of the unwritten rules of deleting code is: you do not write the unwritten rules!
While I am no fan of FB, this is not a case of FB landing a teen in jail, it's a case of a mouthy teen and his ratty 'friend' (not that I condone drunk driving and hit and run, but let's call things what they are).
And whatever you do, use highly subsidized corn, rice or wheat do do your stuff, so that we taxpayers can add our share to your success, even if we don't like your product.
- you vote for politicians that promise you free stuff, but in reality what you are doing is voting away individual rights, you are voting for politicians who destroy individual rights and go above and beyond the Constitution. There shouldn't be any subsidies to businesses, including agriculture, there shouldn't be any subsidies to individuals, including food stamps (known as SNAP at this point, so it doesn't sound so bad).
But the politicians use your lack of morals and principles to get to power and they use the authorisation you give them to break the law (Constitution) in order to achieve their own goals, which is always the same: use their office to become rich, and to become rich they steal individual liberties sell them to the highest bidders, they break the law, they spit on the Constitution.
So you are creating the forces that distort the market and then you are complaining about some enterprising people who take advantage of these distortions. There shouldn't be any subsidies to corn or wheat, etc., and there shouldn't be any income taxes, minimum wage laws, labour laws, SS or Medicare or any other welfare scheme. There shouldn't be any illegal wars and drones killing people without a trial.
But it all is happening. So some people decide that instead of fighting the windmills they are just going to partake in this wild feast in time of a plague. You gave them the tools, you created the incentives, you provided them with the clear path, don't be so angry now that they take it.
Gold standard? What the fuck's that all about?
- it's about financial discipline.
In 1975 did you walk around with gold in your pocket? Or did you walk around with arbitrary tokens that you could exchange for gold?
- banknotes are also just tokens for gold, it doesn't matter that they are tokens, they are supposed to be covered by the banks with gold if you present them. In 1913 gold was 19 USD / ounce (set at the introduction of the Federal reserve, actually a better exchange rate than was given in the free market by the private banks at the time). Of-course the Fed was not allowed to monetise gov't debt (couldn't buy Treasuries), but this was 'fixed' in 1917. The US Fed started monetising the debt but it kept the relative link to gold set by decree, not by market forces.
Actually what should have happened immediately, with every new dollar printed was devaluation of the dollar against gold. You are always confused, you think that there "isn't enough gold" to cover the dollars, that's not true at all. Maybe at gold 1700 per ounce there isn't enough gold, but at gold something much higher (I don't know, let's say 170,000 per ounce) there is enough gold. It's not about physical quantity of gold (which has its own natural inflation rate of about 1.5% annually because of production), it's about relative value of gold towards a currency.
Because right now you can take arbitrary tokens out of your pocket and exchange them for gold. Or platinum. Or titanium. Or food, toys, services.
- nope, you can't have gold and silver money, you'll be deemed a 'terrorist' but you can buy it but then it's not considered to be money by the government decree (not by people, people know gold is money), and so there is a confiscatory tax that is implemented to ensure that you avoid trading in a hard currency. It's called 'capital gains' and its created to prevent you from avoiding inflation hedges, it's created to facilitate government theft of your purchasing power.
When the UK came off the gold standard, it's because they couldn't borrow enough money to buy the gold needed
- no, UK didn't want to admit its levels of inflation and devalue the pound. Actually USA stepped in to buy bad UK debt in 1925 with the Fed monetising UK debt to France and that's what inflated the equity bubble in agriculture that later imploded and it is currently known as the recession of 1929.
Not to mention that the fiat money merely exists, it doesn't belong to bankers any more than it belongs to you or me (specific quantities aside). The government doesn't have to pay the bankers a penny to use it,
- it's by decree, it goes against the free market. Given an actual choice of being able to use gold and silver rather than dollars, people choose gold and silver. By the way in silver the prices for all things are falling (deflation, which is a good thing), while in dollars you see inflation that is currently manifested in the bond market, government credit, and when that one bursts be somewhere else, not in US dollars.
I still don't understand. Why gold? Why not platinum? Why not pieces of slate?
- that's an easy one.
0. It cannot be printed by politicians to buy elections.
1. It's rare, but not too rare.
2. It's easy to test (chemically or with ultrasound for thick bars).
3. It's easily recognizable.
4. It has no major industrial use.
5. It does not change over time, drop it in the ocean, recover it centuries later and it's the same.
6. Easy to work with (easy to split, melt, mint coins, etc.)
7. It's stable, it does not explode, it's not a poison, not radioactive, not a gas, does not corrode, does not decay radioactively.
8. People like it, it looks nice.
(
Clinton never had a single surplus year, every single year he was in office the year ended with more debt than it started.
He came to office in January 1993 and left in January 2001.
Ok, lets do this (just billions, nothing else):
1993: $4,351
1994: $4,643
1995: $4,920
1996: $5,181
1997: $5,369
1998: $5,478
1999: $5,605
2000: $5,628
2001: $5,769
OK, show me one year (1) that USA had a balanced budget during Clinton. Where is it? Which year? Sure, they had 'balanced budget act' in 97, but so what? It is irrelevant if you claim you have a balanced budget if your total DEBT is growing all the time. It's NOT a balanced budget if your debt is getting larger every year! Clinton's government with "Greenspan's put" are responsible for the stock market bubble and the beginning of the housing bubble because of artificially low interest rates by the Fed and artificially low lending standards imposed by the HUD.
Clinton and Rubin refinanced American mortgage with short term, adjustable rate paper, that's what allowed the debt to balloon over the next decade by the way. Clinton was part of the disease that hit the US economy since the introduction of IRS and the Fed.
Not going over the 'fiscal cliff' (it really is just a pothole, not a cliff), can mean the end of the US dollar, which from POV of American economy will mean collapse of the American debt market, credit. USA economy is unproductive to afford American levels of spending. Clearly people don't understand that in order to consume they actually have to produce, they think others can produce and themselves, they can live off of the subsidy, the taxes, the borrowing and mainly the inflation that hits the producers because their silly governments end up printing their own currencies and buying up the new US dollars.
Not going over the fiscal cliff right now means a signal to the rating agencies that USA is never going to address its fiscal imbalances, that it will not impose any artificial credit limit upon itself. It means that the real credit limit (debt ceiling) will be eventually imposed by the creditors themselves.
If nobody who makes the things you want wants your money and you don't make anything to trade with, what do you do? The next Sandy just may be irrelevant if you can't buy food and medicine and products you need to survive when it's sunny outside.
Income disparity? How about productivity disparity? Have you ever thought about it from the opposite point of view, that it is not income that is so unequal, it's productivity of some people vs others?
Now, I am not going to waste time arguing about weird incomes of politicians (millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions), weird incomes of bankers who are politically connected, weird incomes of union chairmen, weird incomes of weapons manufacturers.
All of those and some others have to do with government money, it's all about fake market, their products are subsidised with inflation, borrowing, taxes and various regulations that distort normal free market.
However I am going to try and direct your attention to productivity disparity among those, who run their own businesses that are not government connected, those who build things, manufacture things, grow things, mine things, provide us with the goods and services that we, (individuals in the market) are actually interested in buying.
Think about the disparity in productivity there. If a person builds a company, what is he or she really doing? He or she is building a machine that makes him or her extremely productive as a 'driver' of that machine. If that machine is capable of supplying the market with the products and services that tens of thousands, millions, tens of millions and maybe sometimes hundreds of millions (or even all people) want, then what you have is a huge disparity in productivity.
What I am saying is that income disparity is not the issue, it is a scapegoat, it's a way to demonise people. Carnegie had about 300Billion USD by the end of his life, he started with nothing at 13. Rockefeller had 600Billion USD by the end of life, he started with nothing at 16. Today the top wealthiest people have barely 1/10th of that. You think an average person at the time of Carnegie was a millionaire? Income disparity is not the problem.
The problem is productivity disparity. There are too many people who are unproductive, they have nothing to contribute, nothing that they produce, thus they have nothing that they can exchange for the products of those, who are productive.
Apple makes iPhones, people buy iPhones. You think Apple puts a gun to anybody's head to force them to buy an overpriced miniaturised computer/cellphone? They don't. They produce so many of those, that they have huge purchasing power because of their over-production of their product.
They created their wealth by producing so much of their product. It's not dollars really that are the measure of their wealth, it's how many iPhones, iPads, iPods, iMacs and iWhatevers that they have manufactured.
Actually selling those things (distributing them among population at whatever the price that market will bear) is secondary. The only question really is: can they exchange their products for products of other people that make other things, grow and produce food, energy, raw materials, products, services?
Real trade happens between parties that are voluntary exchanging fruits of their labour. Taking something from a producer, manufacturer, distributor and giving back cash that was not a result of the 'buyer' actually trading his own productive output in the free market is not an equitable exchange.
A person that does not produce anything cannot expect others to give him anything. It's immoral to use force, coercion, threat of violence (especially threat of government violence, because it's predicated on the rule of the collective over the individual) to take away (steal) products from somebody and give them to somebody else.
But this is the policy of the people who are talking about (out of all things) 'FAIRNESS' and 'JUSTICE'?!
Fairness and justice? In stealing? Even when it's done with votes, the votes are bought by the politicians with a promise of free lunch, only 'free' because the government promises that somebody else will pay for it. And of-course the majority are not productive enough to afford ev
Where is the money coming from that pays for all that militarism? 47 cents on every dollar that Washington spends comes from borrowing. 40-50Billion USD / month is the trade deficit, and it's been that way for more than 2 decades now.
If the world stops subsidizing the US, will America attack the world? What, in a murder/suicide basically?
I don't know, even the former USSR or China didn't do that, are American politicians suicidal? I don't really think that.
However USA is running a 'protection racket' of some sort, except that USA is not charging a direct fee for it, instead it's printing dollars and the foreign central banks buy them. I suppose you can say that it is how that racket works. In a more sane, say a capitalist economy, it would make more sense for the USA to sell its protection to those, who are willing to pay for it rather than doing it in this underhanded manner.
For the reasons described here (or simply the inflation, taxes, regulations), the USA economy is unproductive.
Because of that, starting from around 1970s the US economy has been bleeding productive wealth, and plenty of it found a relatively safe harbour in places like China and even Mexico.
But what does it mean when an auto-manufacturing factory leaves for Mexico? It means that USA becomes an importer of cars while not producing enough of anything on its own to pay for that import. The reason that USA could do this (still can) is the status of its currency as 'reserve'. But what happens when that stops? Well, USA won't be able to borrow at silly low interest rates and then it can't buy anything.
However even before USA cannot buy anything what the flight of capital means is that there are no factories, no production capacity, fewer and fewer people are working in manufacturing, less and less manufacturing and production is happening, people are transferred to the so called 'service sector' and of-course the government and financial sectors.
There is really no difference between a pre-industrial and a post-industrial economy, both are lacking productive capacity to satisfy the infinite demand of the public towards made goods, food, energy, etc.
What does that mean for education? It means that there is no reason for the private sector to invest and demand more education in engineering and eventually in science. The real reason that USA had all that educational capacity was its manufacturing capacity, not the other way around. First the initial industrialists built the factories and the infrastructure and eventually with technical innovation and efficiencies there was a need to find more effective ways to do the same work with less expense, that's what drives forward the innovation and the need for more education and research.
Research does not come first, production, supply of produced goods is what creates the wealth that jump starts more need for higher levels of education. Once you lose the reason for education, you won't have education. The problem behind this apparent lack of education is actually lack of individual freedoms in USA, which leads to exodus of productive jobs elsewhere.
You won't have need for research if you don't need engineers and you won't have engineers if you don't have factories to employ them. You won't have factories if you don't have capital and you won't have capital if you don't have free private enterprise, free as in 'individual freedoms', not as in 'free beer' of-course.
you will know "why".
- not really. But you'll be able to appreciate many of the reasons that stand in your way of knowing 'why'.
Capitalism BUILT the civilization as we know it today, without the competitive free market capitalism there is no civilization. There wouldn't be all these billions of people if free market capitalism was impeded in the 19th century USA and other places. Free market capitalism is a consequence of individual freedom, which means individuals are free from government regulations, taxes and inflation to try and improve their own lives, and to do that in a free market (without government) it means they have to find means and ways to satisfy popular demand for various products and distribute them efficiently at low prices.
Capitalism created everything we have, what we see broken today is broken due to collectivism, which prevents capitalism from working, and of-course the propaganda is such, that the exact opposite is in the heads of the populous, that believes that the government is the source of wealth and capitalism is the source of misery.
The reality is that free market competitive capitalism based on individual freedom is the only true engine of economic and thus societal progress that we know that works and collectivism is a thick lead pipe that is shoved the wrong way into the gearbox of efficient capitalism.