Interesting point because although we are supposidly in hard economic times, more people own their own homes than ever in our history. I think the figure is 80% own homes today. Further, during our recent recession, homeownership increased. That has never happened before.
What does this mean? Americans are better off than they ever have been, and our recent recession was perhaps the best recession we've ever had. Now the economy is moving again, nothing but blue skies and green pastures ahead (hopefully).
Does capitalism (as opposed to socialism or communism) not maxamize freedom and trade? Freedom to work where you want to, to employ who you want to, in whatever you want to do. Trade with anyone while you're at it. As opposed to communism, work only for who you are told to work for, do only what you're told to do, trade only with who you are told to trade with. Socialism artifically changes the markets, so companies are forced to react (not free to react).
Capitalism has no such thing as underpaid (or overpaid).
On the contrary. The market for jobs determines the fair wage for a worker. For example, if you can code in C, the average wage will be $x. If you are more efficient than the average coder, and you are being paid the average wage, it is in some company's interest to pay you more to produce more. This is underpayment in the capitalist market. The same works if you are subquality and overpaid.
Capitalists would do anything to drive wages as low as possible.
Capitalists will do anything to maxamize profits, typically. This may or may not involve driving wages as low as possible (which would be $0, theoretically.)
Things like outsourcing are primarily done for such reasons.
Done for maxamizing profits, as said before. Outsourcing allows profits to increase, and with competition will allow prices to be dropped. Protectionist policies will cause labor costs to be artifically high - which causes prices to be high. This results in a tax on everyone to pay higher prices - due to an inefficient market.
Of course, I don't expect a libertarian-conservative like you to accept my view.
I appreciate your candor. If only all/.ers could do the same.
It is the only tool workers have for forcing fair negotiated wages and other compensation.
How about better jobs from competing companies? If you are valuable, someone will pay you more if you're underpaid. Not showing up for work (especially consistantly) sounds like a plenty good reason to fire someone.
Marriage licenses are governed by some type of LAW in Mass. are they not? Clearly, judges can determine if practices are meeting the requirements of valid legislation. Further, judges can strike down legislation that is unconstitutional (i would argue excluding homosexual marriages violates the equal protection clause - but it appears that was not brought up). Judges cannot simply say "Oh, this law should also mean this" when it in no way does. Unfortunately, I do not know all of the details in the Mass. "gay marriage" case, so I cannot comment on that specifically. And I have not fallen victim to conservative progaghanda. I am just capable of reading the constitution for myself. I also believe in a rule of law, not a rule of only laws that certain people approve of and ignoring others as required for their agenda.
filling in the gaps the legislature shouldn't have had there in the first place
This demonstrates your fundamental disagreement with me. The judges cannot just make up what they feel should be legislated, INCLUDING "gaps" in laws. That option is given solely to the legislature (i.e. only they can pass more legislation, any judicial opinion as to the adequacy of legislation is irrlevant).
If the legislature doesn't like it, they're free to pass more precise laws.
Only to have them rewritten (and adding a section due to a preceived "gap" is a rewrite) by the judiciary? What's the point of a legislature at all?
If they did, they could have amended the constitution to limit what judges can do.
US Constitution, Article I, Section 1: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. That expressly precludes the judiciary from making up legislation. There is no amendment required to limit judicial power, because they are already expressly forbidden from exercising legislative power.
Yes, exactly, and rightly so because many laws passed are unconstitutional.
The judiciary is entitled to strike down inproper laws and interpret proper ones. That does not include making up resolutions that they somehow feel are appropriate. Law making is up to the united states congress, state legislatures, and local governments- NOT judges.
So what does this actually mean? If a judge finds fault in a law, he can make it not exist. If a judge finds a "gap" in a law that he thinks should have been there, he CANNOT just decree it so. This practice is known as "judicial restraint." It's a principle lost on many these days.
We have all but demolished any army that would justify the comanche
Russia, Iran, China, France, Germany?
and we are allies with everyone else.
We were "allies" with Russia during WWI & WWII. Then we were bitter enemies. Then we were real good buddies. Now we're in some weird foster parent relationship with them. We were enemies with Japan, now we're allies. We were allies with France during the revolutionary war, now we're semi-in a position of telling them to go fuck themselves. My point is, alliances don't last forever. Countries don't even last forever. Technology is getting better and cheaper, so it takes constant development to stay ahead.
So the situation is not working in anybody's favour
I question this assertion. Read on.
neither the american worker's who lost the jobs
Who can either reeducate to get a better job, or who can transition into another job (our economy is expanding you know.)
nor the indian techies who gained them
I guess those Indians who are now able to pay their rent aren't gaining anything? As you said "But they choose those jobs, simply because it pays their rent."
I guess the only winner is corporate america.
Nay, the American consumers and Indian laborers gain. We, American consumers, can now purchase products cheaper. Everyone wins off that. And, as was perviously stated, Indians can now pay their rent working at a job of their choosing. So, who loses on this deal?
HOWEVER I've seen precious little followup on sentencing, etc.
I don't think this applies only to computer crimes. I constantly read about all kinds of crazy crimes involving real world and number world (say fraud or idenity theft, etc). Strange thing is, I never hear if the murderer was sentenced (unless he's given the death penalty) or if the fraudster was convicted (even though the media claims he stole $8 Million worth of widgets), etc.
In summary, the media reports the catch and the outlandish - without bothering to follow through with what actually happens. The problem is solved from their end (to paraphrase office space).
The problem with that is to achieve equilibrium, two sides need to meet in the middle and that means decrease in the std of living for the higher income group.
Fortunately, economics is NOT a zero sum game (see: Wealth of Nations, Smith, 1776.)
Unless "you" are an ISP (and probably a major one), then yes you have. DNS is a hierarchical system, and you should be quering against the nearest level to you. Unless you are a major ISP, the root servers aren't the nearest ones - your ISP's DNS servers are. It's like totally p2p man.
Large corporations make billions and are powerful enough to change their environment so that it is favorable to them.
They usually do that by influencing the government to give them stuff. Protections, relaxed regulations, regulations on substitute products, etc. If the federal government wasn't regulating everything, these corporations wouldn't be able to do that.
Pfizer Inc (pharmaceuticals) last year put out a very favorable press release in response to a potentialy damaging study about blood pressure medicines.
People should research products they purchase, especially ones that are life and death. There's no excuse for poor product purchasing in the information age.
They are bought and paid for by industry groups, offered for free to editors, and then are passed off as unbiased opinions.
That's funny, I thought the editorial page was supposed to be filled with opinionated shit. Anyone who thinks an editor or any writer or newscast is unbiased is dillusional.
if work is available they have to take it, otherwise their children go hungry and they lose their home.
Or move, or get a different job. In a capitalist country that is doing well, there are options. In Cuba there are not. No one is forcing anyone to take a job here int he US. So if you're working for someone, it's because you want to. If you don't want to, you should do something else.
If you live in a country where the welfare state provides you with the option of not taking a job because you don't like the company, it's because workers in previous generations fought against capitalists like you to create that welfare state.
I'm glad I don't live in such a welfare state, because that's fucking stupid. If people don't want to work, that's fine with me. Just don't take money from me to pay for them to sit on their asses.
Do you honestly think it's a good idea that political power should be based on wealth?
You obviously don't know what dollar-vote means. Allow me to explain. In the market place, consumers purchase items. They can choose sprockets from company A or company B, or choose to forgo sprockets all together. If a consumer gives his money to a company, he is essentially voting for that company's product. And every time he does that, he is giving his support to that company.
This has nothing to do with political power. It has to do with market place interaction. I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you don't like a company, don't give it money. If you do give it money, and there's no one forcing you to do it (like the IRS forces you to pay taxes) then you are willingly supporting the company.
splain to me why the free market people always think that there should be few or no restrictions on the "market" but they are the first to beg for government controls on the unions?
If you read my post, you should see that I was pointing out the wrongness of the federal government deciding when a group of people can refuse to show up for work. But then again I'm a libertarian, not a democrat.
Is that why most service based or manufacturing based companies take a big hit in stock price when a union decides to strike? Crippeling a company so it can't do buisness is a pretty effective barganing tool. Thank the federal government for restricting its use.
The present day corporations are way too powerful.
But pretty easy to stop. Don't like a company? Don't work for it, and don't buy from it. If enough people see things your way, it will go out of buisness. (And if enough people don't agree with you, it will stay in buisness - such is life in a dollar-vote based system.)
Unions are localized entities that have zero power outside a country's border.
I don't think workes in country A care too much about workers in country B. They just want their own benefits anyway they can.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting point because although we are supposidly in hard economic times, more people own their own homes than ever in our history. I think the figure is 80% own homes today. Further, during our recent recession, homeownership increased. That has never happened before.
What does this mean? Americans are better off than they ever have been, and our recent recession was perhaps the best recession we've ever had. Now the economy is moving again, nothing but blue skies and green pastures ahead (hopefully).
Then, not only do you lose your sweet swiss army knife (and clothes), you also lose all your mobile pr0n :(
Does capitalism (as opposed to socialism or communism) not maxamize freedom and trade? Freedom to work where you want to, to employ who you want to, in whatever you want to do. Trade with anyone while you're at it. As opposed to communism, work only for who you are told to work for, do only what you're told to do, trade only with who you are told to trade with. Socialism artifically changes the markets, so companies are forced to react (not free to react).
Marriage licenses are governed by some type of LAW in Mass. are they not? Clearly, judges can determine if practices are meeting the requirements of valid legislation. Further, judges can strike down legislation that is unconstitutional (i would argue excluding homosexual marriages violates the equal protection clause - but it appears that was not brought up). Judges cannot simply say "Oh, this law should also mean this" when it in no way does. Unfortunately, I do not know all of the details in the Mass. "gay marriage" case, so I cannot comment on that specifically. And I have not fallen victim to conservative progaghanda. I am just capable of reading the constitution for myself. I also believe in a rule of law, not a rule of only laws that certain people approve of and ignoring others as required for their agenda.
So what does this actually mean? If a judge finds fault in a law, he can make it not exist. If a judge finds a "gap" in a law that he thinks should have been there, he CANNOT just decree it so. This practice is known as "judicial restraint." It's a principle lost on many these days.
In summary, the media reports the catch and the outlandish - without bothering to follow through with what actually happens. The problem is solved from their end (to paraphrase office space).
economic cycle
# 2003-12-18 18:52:34 Cybercrime hits capitol hill (articles,usa) (rejected)
This was reported in the December issue of Cryptogram. You can find a Washington Post article here. And the Information Week article here.
This has nothing to do with political power. It has to do with market place interaction. I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you don't like a company, don't give it money. If you do give it money, and there's no one forcing you to do it (like the IRS forces you to pay taxes) then you are willingly supporting the company.