More important (legally), is the question of whether a 15 year old has standing (stake in or harm from a law or action), or if there is a case/controversy and that it can be remedied by some action from the courts and the courts have jurisdiction to do so.
Here, there is no real controversy as the Administration agrees with the plaintiff and wants to do more. Nor is this an issue in which the court can involve itself: The Administration does not have the authority to do any more than it already is (and even that is in question elsewhere), anything more would have to go through Congress and necessarially involve political issues. So, in the end, it's a political question in which no court can or will involve itself.
His case will be tossed rather quickly. Even if he can show harm, is allowed to file suit (only 15 after all), and takes it to a court that can issue a writ of mandamus to the White House, the courts will say, "That's not up to us, take it to Congress or the voters."
Publishing costs money. These outlets have a bottom line to consider, and they're offering a choice between subscriptions and ads.
The only real issue I see is the risk of malicious or compromised ads. An issue that only exists because the responsibility for the content of the ads is unclear, so everyone involved says it isn't them. Fortunately, if the issue is pressed, it will be resolved. This is how it gets pressed.
And for centuries, newspapers have had ads strewn about everywhere. Read down the column and at the end of the story is an ad for braziers. Or find a coupon for washing machines between a stories about an earthquake and a church bake-sale.
Well, was a person. He was orphaned at an early age and died in 1963, that much we know for sure. What we don't know for sure is where he died - reports placed him outside Houston, killed by a drunk driver; in Bern, drowning in the Aare; or a small plane crash somewhere between Australia and New Guinea. His body was either lost at sea, or buried near his hometown of Lodi New Jersey in a grave marked Kyle Stevens, a boy he knew from the orphanage.
There is a body in the grave, but there are no known samples of his DNA (or Kyle's) to test against so the identity of the body is uncertain.
The nature of the work he did during the war is likewise unknown. As is why he, a civilian, arrived in the Ardennes in early December 1944, but whatever he was doing there had Germany worried enough to launch a major offensive for the sole purpose of capturing him alive, now known as "The Battle of the Bulge".
It reminds me of old Heinlein novels from the pre-useful-computer era. Like Starman Jones where FTL calculations had to be solved in someone's head and the solution given to the computer.
If I were behind that car, I'd be leaning on my horn while smoke poured form my ears. 10 mph under the limit? Shoot the car and burn the engineer. Or is that the other way 'round? Whatever, do it.
It demonstrates that scientifically-accepted human ideals are often wrong in spectacular ways.
No, it is a fallacy. Science did not produce that belief.
I accept that science is often wrong, theories are replaced all the time. This is very much the case in economics. However, it is inappropriate for one to decry those theories when one does not understand them, their roots, or the terms with which they are described.
Your entire line of argument has been "other people disagree with you, and they're right."
No, from the start it has been, "Some people agree with you; sometimes many, sometimes few. But you clearly don't know enough about the subject to realize it."
At one time, pi was defined as 22/7. While everyone agreed it was the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, and the value you get when you divide the circumference by the diameter (not half the diameter), we've since refined how to compute pi.
I am so sick of you. Pi has never been defined as 22/7. Engineers have used that as an easy approximation, but never has it been defined that way. You have rather effectively demonstrated my point though - your arrogance has blinded you to your glaring ignorance.
I'm going to try this one last time before I decide interacting with you is futile. The value of a unit of currency, physical or virtual, is a function of the nation's total wealth (usually measured by GDP) and the total amount of that currency. It doesn't matter where it is or if it moves. That has no effect whatsoever on it's purchasing power.
If you want to say there is a tipping point where the removal of too much currency from active circulation causes runaway deflation, then you're right. If you think you're the first one to recognize that, you are very wrong.
If you're so interested in economics, study it. You'll be amazed by how old your ideas are.
Look at it this way - there needs to be an international agreement on the rules, but there won't be until nations start making their own. Somebody has to kick it off.
Eventually there will be a treaty between space capable nations establishing rules for off world resource exploitation. First, those nations need to start setting their own rules so that there is a compelling reason for them to get together and hash out the differences.
Odds are that it will not be done through the UN. The few space capable nations won't want 160+ other nations making the rules for them. And as all of the permanent members of the Security Council are space-capable, any attempt that isn't their idea will be vetoed.
First, my original point was that the questions you're trying to ask are not new. Your (very) few substantive points have either already been made, or are being studied as we speak. You seem to be operating under the mistaken belief that your ideas are brand new. Were you more familiar with the field, it's breadth and depth, and the various schools of thought within you would know this. In fact, you would likely recognize the schools which takes the same approach you do instead of wasting your time thinking they don't exist.
You're also conflating distinct issues and getting lost in ambiguous terms. For example, common markets for goods and services are not concerned with the money supply in-and-of itself in any way; only the value (i.e. purchasing power) of the currency used. Therefore, their interest in the money supply is entirely indirect and the inference you're so rudely making is baseless. Foreign exchange markets, on the other hand, are very and directly concerned with money supplies (as well as interest rates), as currency is the commodity they trade. In other words, it is the supply side of that market.
You can't continue to insist that this or that isn't counted in the money supply when it is formally defined to do so!
Child, in the 1800s, negroes were formally defined to not be human beings. They were farm animals to be put to burden, bought and sold. We had formally accepted that the negro brain was not capable of the full intellect of human consciousness and was thus lesser. This is how they were defined.
You should be ashamed. Not only is that a rhetorical and logical fallacy, it's a fucking insult to humanity and worse, to reason. There is no basis for the comparison whatsoever. The supply of money is a measurable, quantifiable value. It includes that which you claim it does not, which is your mistake, not the field's. The false equivalency you argue only makes you look more the fool.
I provided the definition of the money supply. It would be one thing if you were arguing that it didn't include something it should, or that it does include that which it should not; but instead, you are insisting that it doesn't include that which it explicitly does. Why? It's as if I said, "Pi is the ratio of a circle's circumference to it's radius" and you responded with, "You moron, it's what you get by dividing the circumference by half the diameter! Mathematicians must not know what they're talking about!"
Earth, fire, air, and water are elements, no? How can you say hydrogen, helium, and iron are elements? You clearly don't understand the most basic terminology of chemistry.
Your arrogance is almost as astounding as your ignorance. You know next to nothing, yet presume expertise superior to that of Nobel laureates. How about you actually take a class in economics and develop some semblance of real understanding, instead of remaining a pretentious know-it-all. As it stands, you are clearly far too ignorant to realize just how much you don't know.
What? The definition of the money supply isn't some theory or belief. And it does include what is in your bank account, under your mattress, etc. Nor is it theoretically infinite - banks do "create" money through lending, but they are required to keep a 10% reserve, limiting how much can be created. You deposit $100, they "create" $90 through lending. That $90 gets redeposited, and $81 is lent, then $72.9 and so forth. Sum(initial deposit * 1/.10)
You are correct that the $785,000,000 would not be counted in the money supply, but that is because until it has been put into circulation it is just a vault filled with worthless paper. The Fed won't count it as part of either M1 or M2 until it leaves the vault for delivery to banks.
Half of your arguments are pointless - just canonical economic theory restated and presented as if it were novel. The other half are flat out wrong, apparently because you aren't familiar with the concepts and terms. You can't continue to insist that this or that isn't counted in the money supply when it is formally defined to do so! Nor can you claim familiarity with the subject when you clearly don't understand even the most basic terminology. I don't care how many papers you say you have read as you cannot have understood their content. It's like attacking CS for spending too much time discussing oysters because people are talking about perl.
There are several standard measures of the money supply, including the monetary base, M1, and M2. The monetary base is defined as the sum of currency in circulation and reserve balances (deposits held by banks and other depository institutions in their accounts at the Federal Reserve). M1 is defined as the sum of currency held by the public and transaction deposits at depository institutions (which are financial institutions that obtain their funds mainly through deposits from the public, such as commercial banks, savings and loan associations, savings banks, and credit unions). M2 is defined as M1 plus savings deposits, small-denomination time deposits (those issued in amounts of less than $100,000), and retail money market mutual fund shares.
There is no intent, it is a descriptive, not prescriptive, concept. Nor can the social contract itself be used to enslave - that is a fault in systems built upon it. The contract simply describes and legitimizes the formation of societies.
I'm not saying either of those things. I'm not even saying your approach is wrong. What I am saying is that you are wrong about economics not including the matters you describe. You have some of the details wrong, but it's not like you're being graded.
For example, you divide by the money supply, not income. Income isn't a determinant for the value of currency, that's a function of GDP, money supply, and because currency is traded internationally, interest rates. Mostly. It's complicated, and that complexity is compounded by international interactions. Also, inflation isn't directly about prices, it is again about the money supply - the simple function for the value of money is GDP/Money supply, inflation occurs when the supply of money grows faster than GDP. The resulting increase in prices is due to the decrease in the value of money.
Again, concepts of value are but one part of economics. An instrumental part, yes, but instrumental in the formal sense - value is an instrument for quantifying the variables in the systems with which economics is concerned.
What you spend so much time describing are no more than other facets of economics. Neither novel nor unique; in fact, rather commonplace.
Slashdot Mirror
Here, there is no real controversy as the Administration agrees with the plaintiff and wants to do more. Nor is this an issue in which the court can involve itself: The Administration does not have the authority to do any more than it already is (and even that is in question elsewhere), anything more would have to go through Congress and necessarially involve political issues. So, in the end, it's a political question in which no court can or will involve itself.
His case will be tossed rather quickly. Even if he can show harm, is allowed to file suit (only 15 after all), and takes it to a court that can issue a writ of mandamus to the White House, the courts will say, "That's not up to us, take it to Congress or the voters."
Voice and Data for modern cellphones? Are they transmitted or handled differently, or is the only difference in how they are billed?
Isn't that one of the few regions where Blackberry still has market share?
I think I just found my new favorite way to raise money for charity.
The only real issue I see is the risk of malicious or compromised ads. An issue that only exists because the responsibility for the content of the ads is unclear, so everyone involved says it isn't them. Fortunately, if the issue is pressed, it will be resolved. This is how it gets pressed.
And for centuries, newspapers have had ads strewn about everywhere. Read down the column and at the end of the story is an ad for braziers. Or find a coupon for washing machines between a stories about an earthquake and a church bake-sale.
So, it's the German version of the New York Post?
There is a body in the grave, but there are no known samples of his DNA (or Kyle's) to test against so the identity of the body is uncertain.
The nature of the work he did during the war is likewise unknown. As is why he, a civilian, arrived in the Ardennes in early December 1944, but whatever he was doing there had Germany worried enough to launch a major offensive for the sole purpose of capturing him alive, now known as "The Battle of the Bulge".
Tailstrike (v): Slapping her ass whilst balls deep.
Don't we still have to turn off our iPads on takeoff?
It reminds me of old Heinlein novels from the pre-useful-computer era. Like Starman Jones where FTL calculations had to be solved in someone's head and the solution given to the computer.
You need to jam it down people's throats for it to work. Hiding your propaganda is like putting a billboard at the bottom of a lake.
If I were behind that car, I'd be leaning on my horn while smoke poured form my ears. 10 mph under the limit? Shoot the car and burn the engineer. Or is that the other way 'round? Whatever, do it.
Tell women they'll get a cute pair of boots and they'll go anywhere. [/teasingmygirlfriend]
No, it is a fallacy. Science did not produce that belief.
I accept that science is often wrong, theories are replaced all the time. This is very much the case in economics. However, it is inappropriate for one to decry those theories when one does not understand them, their roots, or the terms with which they are described.
No, from the start it has been, "Some people agree with you; sometimes many, sometimes few. But you clearly don't know enough about the subject to realize it."
I am so sick of you. Pi has never been defined as 22/7. Engineers have used that as an easy approximation, but never has it been defined that way. You have rather effectively demonstrated my point though - your arrogance has blinded you to your glaring ignorance.
I'm going to try this one last time before I decide interacting with you is futile. The value of a unit of currency, physical or virtual, is a function of the nation's total wealth (usually measured by GDP) and the total amount of that currency. It doesn't matter where it is or if it moves. That has no effect whatsoever on it's purchasing power.
If you want to say there is a tipping point where the removal of too much currency from active circulation causes runaway deflation, then you're right. If you think you're the first one to recognize that, you are very wrong.
If you're so interested in economics, study it. You'll be amazed by how old your ideas are.
Look at it this way - there needs to be an international agreement on the rules, but there won't be until nations start making their own. Somebody has to kick it off.
Odds are that it will not be done through the UN. The few space capable nations won't want 160+ other nations making the rules for them. And as all of the permanent members of the Security Council are space-capable, any attempt that isn't their idea will be vetoed.
No, but it sure would be handy for counting 130-220 million votes.
You're also conflating distinct issues and getting lost in ambiguous terms. For example, common markets for goods and services are not concerned with the money supply in-and-of itself in any way; only the value (i.e. purchasing power) of the currency used. Therefore, their interest in the money supply is entirely indirect and the inference you're so rudely making is baseless. Foreign exchange markets, on the other hand, are very and directly concerned with money supplies (as well as interest rates), as currency is the commodity they trade. In other words, it is the supply side of that market.
You should be ashamed. Not only is that a rhetorical and logical fallacy, it's a fucking insult to humanity and worse, to reason. There is no basis for the comparison whatsoever. The supply of money is a measurable, quantifiable value. It includes that which you claim it does not, which is your mistake, not the field's. The false equivalency you argue only makes you look more the fool.
I provided the definition of the money supply. It would be one thing if you were arguing that it didn't include something it should, or that it does include that which it should not; but instead, you are insisting that it doesn't include that which it explicitly does. Why? It's as if I said, "Pi is the ratio of a circle's circumference to it's radius" and you responded with, "You moron, it's what you get by dividing the circumference by half the diameter! Mathematicians must not know what they're talking about!"
Your arrogance is almost as astounding as your ignorance. You know next to nothing, yet presume expertise superior to that of Nobel laureates. How about you actually take a class in economics and develop some semblance of real understanding, instead of remaining a pretentious know-it-all. As it stands, you are clearly far too ignorant to realize just how much you don't know.
Perhaps then you will be worth talking to.
You are correct that the $785,000,000 would not be counted in the money supply, but that is because until it has been put into circulation it is just a vault filled with worthless paper. The Fed won't count it as part of either M1 or M2 until it leaves the vault for delivery to banks.
Half of your arguments are pointless - just canonical economic theory restated and presented as if it were novel. The other half are flat out wrong, apparently because you aren't familiar with the concepts and terms. You can't continue to insist that this or that isn't counted in the money supply when it is formally defined to do so! Nor can you claim familiarity with the subject when you clearly don't understand even the most basic terminology. I don't care how many papers you say you have read as you cannot have understood their content. It's like attacking CS for spending too much time discussing oysters because people are talking about perl.
From the Federal Reserve: http://www.federalreserve.gov/...
It is gambling to bet on a team, but betting on a player isn't? I don't buy it.
There is no intent, it is a descriptive, not prescriptive, concept. Nor can the social contract itself be used to enslave - that is a fault in systems built upon it. The contract simply describes and legitimizes the formation of societies.
For example, you divide by the money supply, not income. Income isn't a determinant for the value of currency, that's a function of GDP, money supply, and because currency is traded internationally, interest rates. Mostly. It's complicated, and that complexity is compounded by international interactions. Also, inflation isn't directly about prices, it is again about the money supply - the simple function for the value of money is GDP/Money supply, inflation occurs when the supply of money grows faster than GDP. The resulting increase in prices is due to the decrease in the value of money.
What you spend so much time describing are no more than other facets of economics. Neither novel nor unique; in fact, rather commonplace.