This is the same logic used by conservatives to ban gay marriage on non-religious terms - "Gays can already get married! Gay men can marry any woman they'd like, and lesbians can marry any man that they'd like!"
In other words, you are justifying a discriminatory policy based on physiological differences, when in reality, the issue here is conceptual, and at that level man and woman are equal in the eyes of a corporation as "parents" (one who is legally responsible for a child)
Wooo hahaha! I respect women when i'm on a date I take em to a park or maybe a museum and I only try to kiss them if there ready Woohoo! What what say what what! Help out your Mom and Dad by gettin a job so you can help pay for school supplies A woohoo say oh! Wipe you shoes on the mat when you come in the house Someone just cleaned that floor Woohoo! Say what what! Hahaa!
Gambling didn't burn down your house. Your step-father did. His reasons behind it, if proven, are enough to show that it was arson and not accidental, but not enough to ban gambling even if it was possible. You might say he wouldn't have burned down the house without gambling debts, but I could also say he wouldn't have burned down the house if it wasn't for the existence of the knowledge necessary for humans to create fire, or there would be no money available to entice him to burn down his house if it wasn't for the existence of insurance.
Gambling, firearms, etc., should not be criminalized simply because criminal activity can be associated with them. The burden of legislation should be reversed; in other words, is there a legal reason for something to exist? Then it should be legal. Prosecute murderers, not all firearm owners. Arsonists and fraudsters, not gamblers. Even if he was an addict and his vice was gambling, in the beginning it was his poor choices that put him in that predicament.
There's also Tore Ass Indifference, defined as my significant other's ability to withstand intentional flatulence for the purpose of getting the couch to myself.
Your example is very poor. Greenspan may have started out an Austrian Economics Rand fan, but his policies were those of a run-of-the-mill Keynesian Krugman fan.
You seem to be clouded by what has come SINCE the Beatles, because you cannot analyze the state of music at the time and come to the same conclusion that you did here. Sure, there was some interplay between them and the Beach Boys and Dylan
The simple fact of the matter is that The Beatles and Jimi Hendrix have done more for guitar-based music than anyone ever has, and probably ever will.
You have part, but not all of the situation. Social Security was intended to be a temporary fix to get those unable to work through the Great Depression. Any system where future participants pay for current ones has very low long-term viability. So add a lower number of "future participants" (gens x and y) to the longer life of the elderly, plus a lack of saving during the working years of the boomers, and you have a situation that cannot easily be resolved.
How far do you want to take this? Why should people who have already spent $100 on an OS then be expected to shell out another $500 on software just to edit photos?
The problem with the music industry is cost and profit margin expectation. Unlike professional sports, in music there are "amateurs" that put out a product every bit as good or better than that of the major labels. There will always be a handful of performers that transcend the rest from each generation and become rich, and that won't change, but for everybody else...record your album for $10,000 (or less) instead of $100,000 (or more), stay in cheaper hotels when you tour (or maybe a bus is cheaper, I don't know). Make sure your first contract is good, which might mean you don't get quite the signing bonus or promotional weight you might expect, but carries less risk for financial ruin if you don't make it.
Money and rewarding experiences are still out there for musicians to obtain. But the days of easy money by signing a deal and selling 2 million CD's are over. You're going to have to work harder, operate more efficiently, and be better, with a more innovative business model. In other words, the music industry has caught up with the rest of the business world.
Considering the fact that they once benefitted from a government monopoly, certainly Australia must have some sort of anticompetitive laws in place?
Some sort of smackdown from the government in this area would be warranted. You're right, government mandated monopoly would be better than what you have, but a truly free market where competitors had a fair shake at it would be the best of all.
There's the socialist twist again. Allowing people to fail (or die in the streets, as your hyperbole states) does not equate to me WANTING them to die in the streets. I contribute to charities that ensure this doesn't happen, and would contribute more were the government not taking so much of my pay. I have no doubt that the private charities (such as churches and the United Way) would pick up the slack thanks to concerned citizens like yourself were the government to stop operating charity by coercion tomorrow.
Also, "promoting the general welfare" does not equate to "ensuring the general welfare". You "promote" it, in America, by giving everyone the opportunity to make something of themself. If Social Security is such a great idea and necessary function of our government, then why did it take 150 years to put it into place? Well, here's some choice quotes by our founding fathers:
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, in a letter to James Robertson: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions." James Madison, "Letter to Edmund Pendleton," -James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia,1984).
He wants to go back to the gold standard, and essentially dismantle the federal reserve. Wow. Way to ignore everything we've learned about economics in the last 100 years. A few reasons: the price of gold fluctuates. Mild inflation is healthy for an economy (encourages investment, and is manageable unless you keep your cash in a mattress). Consider how volatile the US economy was before the federal reserve compared to after.
Pray tell, what have we "learned" about economics over the last 100 years that invalidates the gold standard? I would argue, and I think Ron Paul would too, that it doesn't even have to be gold but currency has to be tied to SOMETHING tangible. The stock market crash of '29 and great depression happened with the gold standard, the crash in '87 and the recession in the late 70's happened without it. Today the dollar is at record lows against other currencies. Ron Paul's argument for tying the dollar to the gold standard is that the federal reserve can (and has) effectively printed more money to fund our foreign entanglements, something they could not do if the valuation of the dollar was not under their control. With the current situation in Iraq and the potential of Iran, can you say he's wrong to be concerned about that?
He wants to leave the WTO and the UN, leaving trade to be free, not managed-trade. It's pretty clear that managed trade is better than free trade, that's why we have the SEC in the US to regulate the stock market. A truly free market is just too easy to abuse. On the other hand, it does tend to favor the biggest player, so it's easy to see why a person so obsessed with sovereignty would want to escape from agreements that make things more fair for the little guy.
You're comparing apples to oranges. First off, no it's NOT clear that managed trade is better than free trade, but the SEC has nothing to do with the UN or WTO. The SEC regulates the purchase of American stock, the other organizations you mention involved non-securitized trade between nations. The UN and WTO have not been shown to benefit the world, so why be members is the end result is less freedom, sunk costs, and no benefits?
His answer to everything on foreign policy is 'leave us out of it.' Isolationism just isn't possible anymore in this shrinking world.
That's too simplistic, because he was for attacking Afghanistan post-9/11. No, Ron Paul is simply for only using the military when there is a real danger to America. Iraq was not a danger to America. Iran still isn't. If you want to help topple a foreign regime or help the oppressed, do us all a favor and go over there yourself and leave the rest of us out of it.
He wants to make social security an 'opt out' program. The problem here, is that some of us are going to run into some bad luck, end up old and poor, and someone is going to have to pay for them (we aren't going to let them die in the streets). The way it currently works, everyone pays in, and everyone gets back out. If we get rid of social security, we're going to pay for those old people with an increase in taxes. (And yeah, I'm pretty sure that I can get a better ROI for my money than social security, but it's nice having something to fall back on if I get unlucky in the next S&L debacle). And if you are planning on answering saying "Social security is going bankrupt" you better have a good argument to keep your comment from being directed to/dev/null.
If you don't want them to die in the streets, support them out of your own pocket, don't do it by making illegal for me not to do it. That's the problem with socialism...the intent is always altruistic, but the answer is always "use government coercion to take money to that guy and give it to that other guy". Socialism is the economic version of GWB's foreign policy. That's some good company there, let me tell you.
Social Security IS going bankrupt and is a flawed s
It's not because it can't be done. It's because it's so hard to do over long periods of time, both for luck and emotional reasons.
Luck, because no matter how much data you analyze, the market can still defy logic. Emotion, because it's hard to convince yourself to sell high and buy low (and also knowing when to take a profit or wait for more, or when to wait for your losses to rebound or when to cut a dog).
Don't get me wrong - 99.9% of the population is better off with a cheap S&P 500 fund. But it can be beaten with 1) a small amount of knowledge, 2) a LOT of patience and conviction, and 3) a little luck.
I know you're an AC troll, but I've seen this attitude from many. How can you judge the worth of their stock (or their company) by the share price? What if there were only 1,000 shares outstanding, would they be worth $600 per share then? A company isn't under- or overvalued because of share price, it is because of its overall MARKET CAPITALIZATION, i.e. share price * #shares outstanding.
Google seems to be employing the same technique as Berkshire Hathaway (Warren Buffet), i.e., never split the stock. The benefits of doing this is that your stock price is less subject to the "churn" associated with dime-a-dozen 401(k) "day traders" who don't understand that $600 * 1 == $25 * 24.
I have no opinion either way on the value of Google stock as I haven't looked at the numbers, but it's viewpoints like yours (coming out of ignorance) that cause the boom and bust stories in the market. Find good companies at a good price run by good management (the unstated part of this is that to figure out these points, it needs to be a company in an industry you understand), then buy and hold until those factors change. That's all there is to it. Most investors don't have the patience to implement such a method, which is why you can be told how to make money and it still works. And if you doubt me, ask Benjamin Graham, Warren Buffet, and Peter Lynch how it worked for them.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the same logic used by conservatives to ban gay marriage on non-religious terms - "Gays can already get married! Gay men can marry any woman they'd like, and lesbians can marry any man that they'd like!"
In other words, you are justifying a discriminatory policy based on physiological differences, when in reality, the issue here is conceptual, and at that level man and woman are equal in the eyes of a corporation as "parents" (one who is legally responsible for a child)
Wooo hahaha!
I respect women when i'm on a date
I take em to a park or maybe a museum
and I only try to kiss them if there ready
Woohoo! What what say what what!
Help out your Mom and Dad by gettin a job
so you can help pay for school supplies
A woohoo say oh!
Wipe you shoes on the mat when you come in the house
Someone just cleaned that floor
Woohoo! Say what what! Hahaa!
Wouldn't 10 be the 4th version?
Gambling didn't burn down your house. Your step-father did. His reasons behind it, if proven, are enough to show that it was arson and not accidental, but not enough to ban gambling even if it was possible. You might say he wouldn't have burned down the house without gambling debts, but I could also say he wouldn't have burned down the house if it wasn't for the existence of the knowledge necessary for humans to create fire, or there would be no money available to entice him to burn down his house if it wasn't for the existence of insurance.
Gambling, firearms, etc., should not be criminalized simply because criminal activity can be associated with them. The burden of legislation should be reversed; in other words, is there a legal reason for something to exist? Then it should be legal. Prosecute murderers, not all firearm owners. Arsonists and fraudsters, not gamblers. Even if he was an addict and his vice was gambling, in the beginning it was his poor choices that put him in that predicament.
There's also Tore Ass Indifference, defined as my significant other's ability to withstand intentional flatulence for the purpose of getting the couch to myself.
Your example is very poor. Greenspan may have started out an Austrian Economics Rand fan, but his policies were those of a run-of-the-mill Keynesian Krugman fan.
And guess who Ozzy says Sabbath owes the greatest debt to - The Beatles!
You seem to be clouded by what has come SINCE the Beatles, because you cannot analyze the state of music at the time and come to the same conclusion that you did here. Sure, there was some interplay between them and the Beach Boys and Dylan
The simple fact of the matter is that The Beatles and Jimi Hendrix have done more for guitar-based music than anyone ever has, and probably ever will.
filehippo.com is also a good bet.
There's like 5 left, and you probably wouldn't have to worry too much about their response. But I agree with your point.
You have part, but not all of the situation. Social Security was intended to be a temporary fix to get those unable to work through the Great Depression. Any system where future participants pay for current ones has very low long-term viability. So add a lower number of "future participants" (gens x and y) to the longer life of the elderly, plus a lack of saving during the working years of the boomers, and you have a situation that cannot easily be resolved.
I'm pretty sure that's what the Timothy Zahn (sp?) trilogy of books addresses.
+1, 35 year old reference :D
How far do you want to take this? Why should people who have already spent $100 on an OS then be expected to shell out another $500 on software just to edit photos?
We're talking about Linux, not the Hurd here.
I put on my robe and wizard hat....
The problem with the music industry is cost and profit margin expectation. Unlike professional sports, in music there are "amateurs" that put out a product every bit as good or better than that of the major labels. There will always be a handful of performers that transcend the rest from each generation and become rich, and that won't change, but for everybody else...record your album for $10,000 (or less) instead of $100,000 (or more), stay in cheaper hotels when you tour (or maybe a bus is cheaper, I don't know). Make sure your first contract is good, which might mean you don't get quite the signing bonus or promotional weight you might expect, but carries less risk for financial ruin if you don't make it.
Money and rewarding experiences are still out there for musicians to obtain. But the days of easy money by signing a deal and selling 2 million CD's are over. You're going to have to work harder, operate more efficiently, and be better, with a more innovative business model. In other words, the music industry has caught up with the rest of the business world.
It's like, how much more black could this be? and the answer is none. None more black.
Shouldn't that be "The last man on Erf"?
*ducks*
Considering the fact that they once benefitted from a government monopoly, certainly Australia must have some sort of anticompetitive laws in place?
Some sort of smackdown from the government in this area would be warranted. You're right, government mandated monopoly would be better than what you have, but a truly free market where competitors had a fair shake at it would be the best of all.
You're actually wrong. They're only counting from 12:00am EST to 11:59pm EST.
Also, "promoting the general welfare" does not equate to "ensuring the general welfare". You "promote" it, in America, by giving everyone the opportunity to make something of themself. If Social Security is such a great idea and necessary function of our government, then why did it take 150 years to put it into place? Well, here's some choice quotes by our founding fathers:
Pray tell, what have we "learned" about economics over the last 100 years that invalidates the gold standard? I would argue, and I think Ron Paul would too, that it doesn't even have to be gold but currency has to be tied to SOMETHING tangible. The stock market crash of '29 and great depression happened with the gold standard, the crash in '87 and the recession in the late 70's happened without it. Today the dollar is at record lows against other currencies. Ron Paul's argument for tying the dollar to the gold standard is that the federal reserve can (and has) effectively printed more money to fund our foreign entanglements, something they could not do if the valuation of the dollar was not under their control. With the current situation in Iraq and the potential of Iran, can you say he's wrong to be concerned about that?
You're comparing apples to oranges. First off, no it's NOT clear that managed trade is better than free trade, but the SEC has nothing to do with the UN or WTO. The SEC regulates the purchase of American stock, the other organizations you mention involved non-securitized trade between nations. The UN and WTO have not been shown to benefit the world, so why be members is the end result is less freedom, sunk costs, and no benefits?
That's too simplistic, because he was for attacking Afghanistan post-9/11. No, Ron Paul is simply for only using the military when there is a real danger to America. Iraq was not a danger to America. Iran still isn't. If you want to help topple a foreign regime or help the oppressed, do us all a favor and go over there yourself and leave the rest of us out of it.
If you don't want them to die in the streets, support them out of your own pocket, don't do it by making illegal for me not to do it. That's the problem with socialism...the intent is always altruistic, but the answer is always "use government coercion to take money to that guy and give it to that other guy". Socialism is the economic version of GWB's foreign policy. That's some good company there, let me tell you.
Social Security IS going bankrupt and is a flawed s
It's not because it can't be done. It's because it's so hard to do over long periods of time, both for luck and emotional reasons.
Luck, because no matter how much data you analyze, the market can still defy logic. Emotion, because it's hard to convince yourself to sell high and buy low (and also knowing when to take a profit or wait for more, or when to wait for your losses to rebound or when to cut a dog).
Don't get me wrong - 99.9% of the population is better off with a cheap S&P 500 fund. But it can be beaten with 1) a small amount of knowledge, 2) a LOT of patience and conviction, and 3) a little luck.
I know you're an AC troll, but I've seen this attitude from many. How can you judge the worth of their stock (or their company) by the share price? What if there were only 1,000 shares outstanding, would they be worth $600 per share then? A company isn't under- or overvalued because of share price, it is because of its overall MARKET CAPITALIZATION, i.e. share price * #shares outstanding.
Google seems to be employing the same technique as Berkshire Hathaway (Warren Buffet), i.e., never split the stock. The benefits of doing this is that your stock price is less subject to the "churn" associated with dime-a-dozen 401(k) "day traders" who don't understand that $600 * 1 == $25 * 24.
I have no opinion either way on the value of Google stock as I haven't looked at the numbers, but it's viewpoints like yours (coming out of ignorance) that cause the boom and bust stories in the market. Find good companies at a good price run by good management (the unstated part of this is that to figure out these points, it needs to be a company in an industry you understand), then buy and hold until those factors change. That's all there is to it. Most investors don't have the patience to implement such a method, which is why you can be told how to make money and it still works. And if you doubt me, ask Benjamin Graham, Warren Buffet, and Peter Lynch how it worked for them.